Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

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

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

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations

2019 Champion of Champions

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a professional snooker non-ranking tournament from November. The contesting players all won tournaments from the year prior to the tournament. The event featured a record number of century breaks during the best-of-19-frames final and ended with a 10-9 win for Robertson, who had mathematically lost the final two frames earlier. It was one of my most favourite finals, an absolutely high class event. It also featured the champions of the senior and ladies world championships for the first time ever. Both 57 year old Jimmy White a frame away from beating the world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan, and Reanne Evans a frame away from defeating 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy.

The article has been through the GA process, and I hope to be able to fix any issues that might occur during the FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a key for this below the table (should have done so earlier). The one for John denotes that John had won another event, but Maguire had not, but it's the only doubles event on the list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
In that case Ronnie O'Sullivan and others should be marked. The formatting is inconstant --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. The items in grey are ones that were originally qualification events, but as the person who had won them had already won a tournament; it no longer acted as one. If there had been 16 different winners earlier in the season, some events would no longer be a part of this list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I know it's an issue, but it's pretty much standard as a red hand flag for snooker items. See official website, snooker.org etc. I've never seen it be an issue or controversial, but I'm certainly no expert. If there was a historic issue, it would be something that showed up when searching for Northern Ireland Open and Dennis Taylor, but I didn't find a single different search on a (admittedly short) search. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

(Note that I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.)

  • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978 strikes me as rather odd.
I've gone into more detail in the prose. It was played in 1978, then in 1980 and annually since 2013. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant the prose was odd and choppy, I didn't even realize the mathematics was off until you mentioned it. :P – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As a non-invitational event, it carried no world-ranking points is not brought up in the body, nor is it cited.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in the lead, between Ronnie O'Sullivan ... Judd Trump in the final. contains a lot of names and is a bit choppy. How about merging the Robertson v. Trump sentences into a single sentence?
I've merged these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This article could stand to have more images in it.
I've added a second image. I'm not sure if there is much scope for much more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi John M Wolfson - thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what else I can find soon. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi John M Wolfson do you have anything more for me? Thanks for looking at this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps remove the "Tournament" from the headings on the format and summary, but other than that I have no other qualms and thus feel that I can support this. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

Looks like a comprehensive and suitably written account of the event.

  • Is there any reason to not populate defending_champion in the infobox? (Doesn't appear in the articles for earlier championships either.)
  • Some info from Snooker Scene (December 2019 that might be worth adding):
There were 784,000 viewers for the final on ITV4[1]
O'Sullivan had an average shot time of only 13 seconds in his match against Higgins.(Same source, page 19.)
(Re: Evans' comments about the disparity between prize money for men and for women) - the £12,500 that (twelve times womens's champion) Evans won at this event was more than double her previous highest event winnings.(Same source, page 16.)
  • I'm not sure if there is a convention, but in the Prize Fund section, should it be Semi-finalists (plural) rather than semi-finalist etc.?

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Benny!

  • Sure. Defending champion is a term used for defending champion before the event finishes. The moment they are eliminated from the tournament they are no longer a defending champion. Consensus is that after the event, this should not be populated at all (even if it were to be won by the previous winner).
  • Added. Any more details? I don't have a copy of snooker scene, so who authored the passage?
  • Not sure how I would organically say that. Does the text use anything to compare this too that I could use?
  • I've added this to her mention in the prose.
  • I changed this in line with prior FAs. This should be Semi-final etc. This is the position that the player reached, not the placements for prize money. There are more than one quarter-finalists for example, but the prize is for reaching the quarter-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications.
  • For the viewing figure (author Clive Everton), the article adds that it was the second-highest figure for a non-terrestrial channel, behind Liverpool v Man City on Sky, but not for what period - maybe for that day?
  • Phil Yates is the author of the other Snooker Scene sections, but they don't really have separate titles.
  • For shot time, World Snooker publishes data at http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/TourPlayers/Index/14128 for context if you want to use that. (O'Sullivan is quickest with an overall average of 16.65 seconds; Ebdon slowest with a 30.66 second average.) Cheers, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
BennyOnTheLoose - I've done a little work. I still don't think there is enough weight for the AST to get more than a general mention. Hopefully this is all you have for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
BennyOnTheLoose Yes, that's it from me. Thanks for the responses. Best, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Robertson triumphs in Champion of Champions". Snooker Scene. Halesowen: Snooker Scene Ltd. December 2019. p. 16.
Could I get a "support" to help the eventual closer? You also pinged yourself as an FYI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Rodney Baggins

I've done a bit of copyediting on the article and here are my FA review comments for your attention:

Lead
  • Might it be better to put the prize fund sentence at the bottom of the lead, at end of 2nd para?
    • Done.
  • "having required foul shots from his opponent in the 18th frame." - not sure what you're getting at here! Was this an important turning point where Robertson almost lost the match? Is there a better way of saying this? Also, there is no mention of this in the description of the final in the Knockout stages section below, which only mentions foul shots required by Trump in the 17th frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that should have said Robertson required foul shots (reworded in prose) in frame 18, or we would have lost the match. It was a crucial part of the match, as without foul shots, Trump would have won 10-8. I have reworded this to make this more sensible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Tournament format
  • "first held in 1978,[1] and annually since 2013" > "first held in 1978,[1] and held annually since 2013" (or use the word "contested" to avoid repetition of "held"?)
    • exactly the reason I didn't use a qualifier. I'm not sure this is an improvement Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The 2019 Champion of Champions featured 16 winners of events from the previous 12 months on the World Snooker Tour" - isn't that the case every year and therefore applies to the tournament as a whole, not just the 2019 edition? If so, then it should really be used as a general statement in present tense, i.e. "The tournament features 16 professional snooker players who have won various events over the previous 12 months..."
    • The early events did not contain 16 players. (The first one had 4) This is why it's written this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure about sentence order at end of 1st para - maybe the date/venue sentence should be higher up?
  • "The event was broadcast on ITV4, and organised by Matchroom Sport." - organising the event comes before broadcasting it chronologically speaking, so I'd prefer "The event was organised by Matchroom Sport and was broadcast on ITV4."
  • "with the semi-finals and final played on 9 and 10 November." - this is important, I think you have the dates wrong - should be "with the semi-finals played on 8 and 9 November and the final on 10 November."?
  • "with those in the opening round being best-of-7-frames" - strictly hyphens shouldn't be used here as the construct is not being used as a predicative compound modifier, but I'm not going to argue the toss over this. Also "group finals and semi-finals best-of-11-frames" shouldn't really have hyphens, but "played as a best-of-19-frames match" is ok because here it's used as a predicative compound modifier!
    • I have no doubt that you are correct. I'm not 100% on exactly how this should work. I'll see if I can go through the article on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 final 10–9, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the event" - do we really need to mention Wilson and the final score? Why not just say "As the defending champion from the 2018 event, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the 2019 Champion of Champions."
    • We mention the previous years result in the lede (as we always do), so we also need to do so (and cite) in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Qualification
  • Shouldn't the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 snooker seasons be in the new format?
    • I have done this. Realistically, nothing particularly changed with this, but it's good practice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "would take a place in the Champion of Champions" - do they get offered a place that they have to formally accept? If so, this should be "would be offered a place in the Champion of Champions"
    • If the 2020 Masters is anything to go by; players on the tour are given a place, unless they withdraw. I've never heard that they have to respond to the summons. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified because he won the 2018 C of C?
    • It already says that. I don't think it's important enough to mention twice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In table, "2019 World Championship Runner-up" isn't a tournament, it's just indicating the runner-up of the 2019 World Championship, so the entry should really be "2019 World Championship (runner-up)"
    • I agree. I hadn't realised we had labelled it as a tourny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The last 2 columns look very odd because they are auto centre aligned and nothing lines up. Would it not be clearer if the cells were reinstated and the players placed next to their respective events as appropriate? Or maybe just use valign=top so the info isn't floating around aimlessly?
    • I have used this as valign. I'll look into the table idea. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason the first 16 events are not in chronological order? Is it to do with their importance and the way the qualifiers end up being seeded or grouped? Worth mentioning the relevance of the event order?
    • That's exactly it. "In the event of any of these players meeting multiple qualification criteria, the winners of subsequent tournaments on the list (in the order shown below) would take a place in the Champion of Champions". So, if the first 16 tournaments had different winners, then the winners of the ones in the list below that did not qualify and so on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggest using a thick line underneath the 16th event to show the cut-off point?
    • That did exist. But there was no cutoff (they had to add events in the end due to there being less than 16 different winners). If there was another tournament who's winner didn't qualify, I'd add a cutoff. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Tournament summary
  • Would it be worth including a simple table at the top of this section showing the four groups so it's clear what we're talking about, rather than expecting the reader to go down to the main draw tree to see the groupings there?
    • The "groups" were more for scheduling. It wasn't played in a round robin series, just that the quarter-final match was played out of sequence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Need to state that each of the four groups competed on its own separate day and the group finals were included on the same day as the group first-round matches - so basically each group was done and dusted on one single day. Or this info could be added to the Tournament format section above?
Main draw
  • "Numbers in brackets show the four seeded players" - this is the only mention of seeds in the whole article. Should we not bring it up in the Tournament summary section? You have not explained how seeds 1 to 4 are decided.
    • this is the only thing I could find on this. Not sure if it's the world rankings that chose the top 4 seeds, or what. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the first column, the group headings should be above each pair of matches in the tree, not inbetween them.
    • This is something built into the template itself. I have no idea how we would go about moving this. I think this is how traditional brackets would be defined. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I anticipate some slight confusion over Group semi-finals/finals vs. main semi-finals/final - would it be better to head the first two columns "Last 16 (group first round)" and "Quarter-finals (group finals)"?
References
  • The Champion of Champions Snooker refs. (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 13, etc.) are dated in the citations but these dates don't show up in the displayed articles, just in the source code, so should we bother to cite the date if it can't be seen?
I don't see an issue here. It's in the metadata for the item, which is as equivilent to a publishing date that isn't on a book or newspaper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 22. don't need World Snooker at end of title
  • 24. work (or newspaper) = Sporting Life again
  • 25. don't need Champion of Champions Snooker at end of title
  • 31/34. where did you get that author from!? don't need snooker.org at end of title
    • The author is from metadata. I can remove if you wish. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 37. What is the point of this ref? It just says "No matches registered". Do we need to pull up an archive?
Indeed, fixed it with the list of results, which was the correct ref.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, I'll go through your comments and feed back shortly – there are still a few things I'm not sure about. I'm very embarressed to say that before this I hadn't even heard of the Champion of Champions tournament, so thank you for introducing me to it. Maybe it's a good thing that I came to this article with no prior knowledge of the event! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Outstanding comments...
  • You said the players are "given" a place, but as it's an "invitational" event this would imply that the players are invited, i.e. "offered" a place!? Just a question of semantics but I thought I'd mention it again just to make sure.
  • The last two columns of the Qualification table are better now they are top aligned, but unless you are using a small enough display font, the names and dates don't line up horizontally due to text wrapping. So I still think a "cellular" approach would ultimately be the best solution!
    • I've gone ahead an deleted this. I couldn't find a single source that actually commented on these dates, so despite being a bit obvious, it's OR. Without this, I don't think additional work needs doing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand why the first 16 events in the table are not in chronological order. For example, 2019 World Snooker Championship is 4th entry down even though its final was on 6 May 2019, so if the list were chronological it would come 11th in the list, after the 2019 China Open whose final was 7 April 2019. Then it's all chronological again until you get down to 2018 Northern Ireland Open. So I'm wondering: is it because the three Triple Crown events are considered the "most important" events and need to come near the top (after the C of C defending champion)? I thought maybe the top four determined the 4 seeds but that's apparently not the case. Still can't fathom that one...
    • I'm not 100% sure. It's simply how it's written at the official website. That's the official list of qualification. It was split into 6 sections as per [championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/players/].

It's 1) Triple Crown + Previous years winner 2) Bigger tournaments 3) Home nations series 4) Some smaller ranking events (and world runner-up) 5) World Cup 6) Additonal.

There was this article about the 2017 event that went into slightly more detail, but I don't think the same exists for this season. I hope I've made this more clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm still wondering how seeds 1 to 4 are decided and I think it's a fairly important question. Can you look into it?
    • I found [coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/manbetx-champion-champions-draw-made-17180437 this], which seems to explain it. I'll add. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
And a few more issues remaining in References...
  • 3. Not sure why your script changed ESPN from publisher= to work=
  • 15. missing date=21 October 2019
  • 16. I think you missed this: final version of article has title "Champion of Champions day one results and report: Neil Robertson wins Group 4 after beating Shaun Murphy"
  • 18. No url link included and it's exactly the same citation as ref.37
  • 32/35/38. I wouldn't bother to include an author for these refs - Hermund Årdalen is included in the source code for refs 5 & 7 as well but we're not citing his name for those two refs, so we need to be consistent one way or the other. As the snooker.org sources are just a record of matches/results, I don't see any reason to specify an "author", he's probably just the guy that compiled the data (as opposed to being someone who wrote an article for example) and his name doesn't show up on the webpage anyway.
  • 38. Why does it say this ref. is in Norwegian? It looks English to me, although it does give a translate box when you first open it for some reason. Ref.35 also says it's in Norwegian (even though it isn't) but this one doesn't display a translate box - how curious!

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    • I never know how this works. I suspect it's stored in Norway, thus the metadata Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lee, I'm happy to support this article now. Just a couple of things to point out:

  • Qualification section states that there were 28 tournaments, but that is not the case. There are actually 26 tournaments on the list, with two spots available at the World Cup (two winners) and two at the World Championship (two finalists) giving a total of 28 spots. Check this in the ref. [1]
  • There's no online link to the articles in refs 21 & 29. Is that just because the Snooker Scene magazine has no online presence?

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ghostbusters II

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1989 film Ghostbusters II. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

My comments

(DISCLAIMER:I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.) Unfortunately, I do not believe I can do anything but oppose this nomination at this time. It appears you had a bit of a spat with Laser brain the first time this was at FAC about incorporation of sources regarding the themes of the film; while I wasn't one to comment on the sources as I didn't see any from a cursory GSearch and would have procrastinated a deeper search, I looked further in that FAC and saw that Josh Milburn provided you with sources to that effect, which you appeared to rebuff and have not added. Given that those appear to be high-quality sources, I must oppose and suggest withdrawal of this FAC to work on their incorporation. (I messed that up incredibly, see below.) On an unrelated note, there should be NBSPs between such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: I'm glad you agree with Laser brain and I that scholarly sources need to be incorporated, but I do note that of the four sources I identified in the previous FAC, three are now cited several times in the article, as is a scholarly book identified by Aoba47. (One of the four sources I identified isn't cited; perhaps Darkwarriorblake couldn't get hold of it, or perhaps the contents weren't useful.) Am I misunderstanding your reason for opposition? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I went through every source given and included every one that had any relevant information. There's a giant section called "Thematic analysis" now in the article. If a source wasn't used it was mainly because Ghostbusters II was literally only mentioned in regards to the main topic of discussion and otherwise not analysed. I'd suggest reading it before opposing it. Thanks for your review. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is extremely embarrassing. I had looked through the sources in the source code and it appears that the one I selected for checking is the one that didn't appear. Consider my oppose suspended for a further look and accept my apologies for any offense you might have taken from the above.John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here's my real review (I still intend to take WikiCup points):

  • As said above, there should be NBSPs for such figures as "$215.4 million", etc.
  • on the Manhattan borough's Second Avenue I believe "on Second Avenue" is sufficient given that we already know that filming was in NYC. If there's doubt to the borough just say "on Manhattan's Second Avenue".
  • "Los Angeles, California" should just be "Los Angeles" per the MoS
  • 100,000 gallons of slime should include a conversion to metric; ditto to any other units that don't currently have one.
  • I agree with TheJoebro64 in not using "contemporary" to mean "present-day"; in art it usually means the opposite, "at the time", and indeed "contemporaneous" is used in the article to that effect. Use "retrospective", "present-day", "modern", or other words as needed. Better yet, consider rewording them to be more temporally specific per MOS:CURRENT, but I don't think that's needed. Any material likely to become dated should, however, be marked with {{As of}} templates.
  • I have to disagree with TheJoebro64 on not including the "many variations" of the script. Even if it is common knowledge that movie scripts change a lot in their lifetimes (which it might not be), the radical changes of the script detailed in the section warrants special note of it.
  • A lot of the images have empty alt texts; this needs to be fixed for accessibility purposes.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Done all of these as far as I can tell. I left the Manhattan part in (as in Manhattan's Second Avenue) because for some people, myself included, I can confuse Manhattan with another name for New York City, like the Big Apple. Might just be I'm bad at geography though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks okay to me now. Support. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Imma skip the plot, since I've never seen the Ghostbusters movies (beyond the first ten minutes of this one), but I'll try to do a thorough prose review. I might be slow over the weekend because I'm busy but I'll make time. JOEBRO64 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Whole lotta comments
  • "As with the first film, Aykroyd and Ramis collaborated on the script, which went through many variations." The fact that it went through many variations should be obvious even if it's not stated. It's common knowledge that film scripts go through many drafts.
  • "... large sections of the film were scrapped after poorly received test screenings." I could be incorrect, but should there be a hyphen in "poorly received"? Again, if you don't agree just ignore this, but I think a hyphen could be added since the "-ly" adverb is part of a larger compound adjective.
  • "... family-friendly. The performances of ..." There's nothing in particular wrong here, but I think these two sentences could benefit from a better transition. Maybe something across the lines of "... family-friendly, although the performances of..."
  • "... making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." Link to 1989_in_film#Highest-grossing_films?
  • "Although some contemporary retrospective audiences appreciated the film..." I know you're talking about contemporary as in the present here, but I think "retrospective" is better because it's more clear that you're referring to modern-day audiences.

More soon. JOEBRO64 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Done all except the first. I understand what you're saying but there are script variations and then effectively a completely different film. Some films don't have much script turmoil at all but there are significant differences between what was originally proposed versus what we got. Also watch both films soon Joe, jeez. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. Just busy—will get to more soon (and this is a promise). JOEBRO64 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability inevitable even though that the film had been developed as a stand-alone project." Just some copyediting that could help
  • "Columbia had experienced a long series of box-office failures since Ghostbusters,[ref] and Ghostbusters II was seen as the best way of reversing their fortunes."
  • "... with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release." "Summer" should be replaced per MOS:SEASONS

More later today JOEBRO64 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast..." I'm a huge fan of the Oxford comma, but it's fine if you aren't.
  • "He chose to avoid making movies films until he returned for Scrooged." Just for some formality.
  • "... was restricted because of the visit of leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union." I just think this flows nicer
  • "Freezing temperatures combined with the liquid slime made the actors very uncomfortable." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
  • "Filming officially concluded on March 7, 1989." I don't think anyone will assume it was unofficial.
  • Link to test screening at the beginning of the post-production section
  • Perhaps link to Independence Day (United States) at "Ghostbusters II had been scheduled for release on the July 4th holiday weekend..."? I know it isn't just celebrated in the US (my parents went to Ireland for their honeymoon and they say that for some inexplicable reason they celebrate it there) but some readers who aren't familiar with America may not recognize its significance.
  • "The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely." Missing conjunction?

JOEBRO64 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. I like that Mark Twain quote. I put "July 4th Independence Day holiday weekend", I don't know if that's too unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who had had a recent..."
  • "Food coloring was added; the colors included green (to match Slimer) and blue." I think this would just read better with parentheses.
  • "The film required approximately 100,000 US gallons (380,000 litres)..." I'm just bolding because I'm pretty sure this article is written in American English (aka a real man's English), but "litres" is British English.
  • "Dane revised the designs of the proton pack weapons, the ghost trap;, and also revised the Ectomobile, which became the Ectomobile 1A."
  • "... makes it the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1989..." Same as I said before in the lede
  • "Ghostbusters II received generally negative reviews on release." "Upon release" or "on release" is redundant 99% of the time
  • "He noted that MacNicol and Moranis were the highlights of the film..." Incorrect use of "note". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the film was good" is not.
  • "He also noted that Murray's normally comedic indifference seemed to be lacking commitment." Again with "note".
  • "... genuine human warmth, which he Thomas felt did not work." Clarification
  • "... and the addition of an infant to add novelty..." The two "add"s in such close proximity is a bit distracting, I think you can just chop off the second without losing any meaning
  • "... of the original, and singled out MacNicol's performance."
  • "The reviewer noted that Murray is central to the film because of his ad-libbed dialog." Another "note"

Almost there. Should be done by the weekend. JOEBRO64 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hard to find other words than "said". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Just finished reading and there wasn't really anything significant that stood out to me. Consider this my declaration of support. Now I just need to go watch the movies. JOEBRO64 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian

Support. I did an extensive review of the prose in the last FAC and worked closely with Darkwarriorblake over several weeks to make improvements, so this is not a drive-by support. I am glad to see this back again and that a good compromise appears to have been reached on the disagreements in round one. I am satisfied that my concerns were addressed in the previous FAC, and I am happy to support. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Indrian. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Sluys

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this through GAN in July 2018, ACR in July 2019, have worked on it since and think that it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

  • DeVries — what is the evidence that the website has permission to post the pdf? Most pdfs on sites other than the author's or publisher's are copyvio.
None. I wasn't aware of any policy or guideline that put an onus on the editor to ensure that an external webpage they link to holds the copyright or a permission for the contents.
Please see WP:ELNEVER
Well, well. Always something new to learn on Wikipedia. Thank you. De Re Militari are pretty reliable, but I can find no definitive proof that they have formal permission, other than a catch-all "We thank the authors and publishers for their permission in republishing this material" so I have removed the link.
  • Checked some refs from DeVries.
    • Where on page 223 does it state that there are "numerous" contemporary accounts? I can see that she says there are accounts from all three involved countries, but I'm not sure that supports "numerous".
Fair point, I was probably trying to simplify the referencing. He mentions 2 foreign sources on page 225; 12 English sources on pages 225-228; 6 Low Country sources on pages 229-230; 5 French sources on page 231; and the three iterations of Froissart on page 233. There are more, but this seemed sufficient to establish numerous. (And this is without going to other (secondary) sources which mention contemporary sources DeVries doesn't.) Citing "pp. 225-231, 233" seemed unhelpful, but, as I said, I see your point. Should I amend the cite?
Yes, I think that would be better. buidhe 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Done.
    • Other checks had no issues. buidhe 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, that is an impressive and swift service. Two good if slightly tricky points. See my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: both of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pass. Sources look reliable and most are recent. There is a considerable number of sources cited and it doesn't seem that the nominator missed anything major that could be added to the article. buidhe 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

An excellent article, vivid as ever from Gog, and evidently comprehensive and balanced. A few very minor points on the prose:

  • Opposing navies
  • You might give the Channel its full name and link it here – first mention in main text
Done.
  • "Genoa and Monaco" – better to move the later links to these two places up to these first mentions.

Done

  • Earlier activities
  • Link Portsmouth?
Done.
  • "Edward was able … Edward wished" – perhaps "he" the second time?
Done.
  • Sources
  • "accounts of the battle … after the battle" – perhaps "afterwards" the second time?
Done.
  • "English; French; or Flemish" – the semicolons look a bit odd here. Commas would suffice, I think, and look more natural.
Done.
  • "they lack detail; so much so" – the semicolon is definitely wrong here, I think. It deprives "so much so" of a main verb to relate to. A comma or dash is wanted instead.
I disagree that it is wrong (would a full stop be incorrect?) but have replaced it with a comma.
  • Prelude
  • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation" – as consternation was not a cargo I'd move it forward: "On 10 June the Council received with consternation news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th."
That made me smile - "Right then guv'nor, where you want this 5 tuns of consternation. In with the panic and alarm?" Done.
  • Aftermath
  • "Philip ordered that Barbavera be arrested for desertion". Not clear if the order was carried out.
Explanatory footnote added.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Tim, and thank you as always for your tireless picking up of my flaws and infelicities. All of your points addressed above, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is balanced, clear, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently comprehensive, and a really good read. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. I look forward to further articles in the series. Tim riley talk 15:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Marking my spot here, I'm usually too late in the game. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "A modern model of a galley" Seems like a very specific galley with those crosses? Maybe an image more relevant or more general can be found?
Done. Actually found an image of a 14th-century Genoese galley.
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the two ship image can state their relevance and context in the captions?
I am not entirely sure what you are after here. Do you mean add to the galley cation something like 'The ex-corsair Pietro Barbavera commanded six similar vessels during the battle'?
Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Done.
Good spot. Done. And in three other FAs where I also missed it
  • "Edward III" Probably good to note when this painting is from, as it might otherwise be thought to be contemporaneous?
Good point. Done.
  • "use in the Channel" Spell out and link at first mention outside intro?
Done.
  • "who were normally also drawn from Genoa, Monaco" You link these places at second rather than first mention.
Done.
  • "When the mutinous sailors arrived back in Genoa they led an uprising which overthrew the ruling patricians" Interesting, anything to link?
Sadly not, it doesn't even get a line in History of Genoa.
  • "and his Chronicles contain information" Perhaps give a year for this work?
Ha. Published in installments over half a century. Collected at, at least, three different times for republishing. These three iterations commonly baldly contradict each other. I could add "contemporary"? (He was employed in Edward's court as something like an official historian from 1361-1369.)
Contemporary could work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Done.
  • This very old Commons upload (2006) could need an info template, looks very confusing now:[2]
I noticed that, and if I had had the faintest idea of how to tidy it I would have done. I've had a go, what do you think?
Looks better, I think this link should be added to the source field:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks.
Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for going through this. I have, I think, addressed all of your points above, one of them with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, answered some, and last points are below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Several English noblewomen were killed when their ship was either boarded or sunk." Why were they on these ships?
Ha. I have just addressed that for Harrias. I wrote: They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
Could warrant a footnote? I think it would be a shame to remove valid info. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk. Footnote added. See what you think.
  • "with their longbows" links to English longbow while "A London longbowman reported" links to Longbow. Is the second, less specific link needed?
Double ha. While editing for Harrias I spotted that myself and corrected it.
  • "their Flemish allies" You mention them twice before this, but only link them down here.
The first mention of "Flemings" is linked to Flemish people; "Flemish allies is linked to [[County of Flanders#The crisis of the 14th century (1278–1384). I am certainly open to changing either or both.
  • "the River Orwell" Only linked in intro.
It looks linked in the main article to me.
  • "and defeat them in detail" Link and state outside intro too?
"The English were able to manoeuvre against the French and defeat them in detail" is the summary of the first three paragraphs of the "Battle" section.
  • "The battle gave the English fleet naval supremacy in the English Channel" Only stated in intro.
Very true. Now corrected.
Thanks FunkMonk for picking up on my sloppiness. That has definitely improved things. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Heh, seems like some of my last points were sloppy themselves. I've added one answer, and when that's addressed I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me, and nice imagery! FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

SC

  • Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Harrias

  • The infobox states that the French had 213 ships, lost 190 and had 166 captured. That doesn't add up.
I'm rubbish at maths. Clarified.
  • "..with most of the French ships being captured.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
OK.
  • Wikilink for amidships please.
I can link to Glossary of nautical terms, but not to [[amidships. Or if I can I don't know how.
Glossary of nautical terms#amidships should work. (Per the blurb at Template:Term#Linking to the term, the glossary term in the link has to be lower-case.) Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Done.
  • "..made them superior to the oared vessels.." What oared vessels? I assume this is referring to the galleys, but at this point in the article, at least, we haven't been told that galleys are oared.
Good point. Oars introduced at first mention of galleys.
  • Consider adding {{See also|English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339}} for the Earlier activities section.
Scratches head. I thought that I had done. Thanks.
  • Redlink the Christopher and Cog Edward, which sound like they are notable ships.
Done.
  • "..by the Breton knight Hugues Quiéret, the Admiral of France and.." Comma needed after "France".
Done.
  • "..with his main force in north eastern France.." Earlier, you hyphenated "south-western". Be consistent.
Hyphenated.
  • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation." The structure of this sentence makes the "with consternation" a bit odd stuck on the end. Can it be rephrased to flow better?
Done, although I don't recall doing it.
  • "As they blocked the roadstead a further 10 ships reinforced them, bringing the total French strength to 213 ships." Earlier we were told the fleet was a "collection of 200 ships", and that "Contemporary French documents record the fleet's size as 202 vessels". The sums don't add up here.
Philip ordered the collection of 200; he got 203 - lucky chap. So not inconsistent.
The source says it increased to 213; I back-calculated and got 10! Maths - meh! Well picked up. Corrected.
  • "The men in charge of the shipping arrangements were personally abused by the King." This just begs the question: Why? (I guess because they were struggling to muster enough ships?)
The source say "Edward, in a vile temper ... Edward personally confronted the mariners of Great Yarmouth, who had so far provided less than half the ships which they had found for his service in 1338." So your guess is pretty strongly implied, but the source seems to go out of its way not to link the two facts, and it seemed to me to be OR to do so. I am certainly open to persuasion.
Hold on, reading the source, it expands to say that he "accused them of settling their advice in advance with the Archbishop". So, "were personally abused by the King, as he suspected them of conspiring with Stratford to obstruct him." Or some such? Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I have expanded on what I think the source is saying Edward said in the article along similar lines, see what you think.
  • Wikilink Yarmouth.
Done.
  • Does the Sumption ref support the fact that Yarmouth was "the largest port in England"? I can't see it in the 1999 paperback which I can view on Google Books. Similarly, "To general amazement" doesn't seem to be supported by the 1999 version, but I appreciate both might be in the 1990 original.
Apologies, I was reading what I expected to read. The "largest port in England" source is Sumption page 176. Now added.
"To general amazement" is a paraphrase of "truly remarkable".
My issue with this is that I read "To general amazement" to mean that those at the time found it amazing. Whereas "The result of all this activity was truly remarkable" sound to me to be Sumption's (ie, a modern) opinion. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
How about if I replace "To general amazement" with 'In a feat which the modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes as "truly remarkable"?
Yeah, something along those lines would work for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "..size of the fleet. 66 ships which sailed.." Don't start a sentence with a figure. (MOS:NUMNOTES).
Tweaked.
  • Wikilink reconnoitre.
Done.
  • "..organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary.." Three parallel lines, perpendicular to the inlet, or isn't there detail to confirm this?
Absolutely not. (And if there were I wouldn't believe it. Per our discussion on "shambolic".)
Was this a common tactic at the time? Can we draw parallels to other battles which have plans? At the moment we have no idea whether the intention was for the three lines to be parallel, if it was in essence one long line in which they were just joined in three parts, two in a chevron narrowing to the third, one at the front flanked by the other two in support, so on and so forth. If the answer is that we just don't have a clue, so be it. But if there is any inkling we have or can provide, it would be useful. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah. I understand. I think. The plan was for three parallel lines, with a handful of larger ships slightly advanced, across the narrowest part of the estuary. I had thought that clear from "the French fleet organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin". Clearly you don't think so. I don't imagine that the reality ever came close to the plan, and by the time the English attacked it was a shambles. ("After nearly a day linked by chains and ropes, and with wind and rain working against them, the French ships had been driven to the east of their starting positions and become entangled with each other.") I have changed the wording to "When the English were sighted the French manoeuvred to bar Edward's way to the port of Sluys. Their fleet organised itself in three lines, one behind the other, each stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin."
Thanks. That was what I assumed they were planning, but without it stated explicitly, I wasn't sure. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "..while supporting troops poured in arrows or bolts." I'm not sure that "poured" works here.
No? A contemporary described it as "an iron shower", a participant as "like hail". Rewritten to be more objective - I think that the message still gets across: the English were firing over 10,000 arrows per minute.
Honestly, "..while over 10,000 arrows and bolts per minute were fired in by supporting troops." Sounds more impressive, and less metaphoric, to me. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
My main issue here is that this usage doesn't meet any of the dictionary definitions of "pour", which related to liquids or precipitation. Therefore, the usage must be metaphorical, which isn't encyclopaedic language. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I'm interested on your thoughts on this. Harrias talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no problems with metaphors as being encyclopedic. To me the point is whether they are comprehensible. Goodness knows there is enough non-metaphoric language on Wikipedia which isn't. If they are readily understandable and ease the passage of the clunky facts they surround, then they are, IMO, a net positive. As you, as a reviewer, object, I have changed it; but I feel that the article is the worse for it, by which I mean that it does a less good job of conveying to a reader what happened. (And is less true to the contemporary sources.)
Re Dictionary definitions. Wiktionary, second usage: "To send forth as in a stream or a flood; to emit; to let escape freely or wholly." It gives an illustrative quote from Shakespeare: "How London doth pour out her citizens." Obviously citizens aren't "related to liquids or precipitation" ... Or the seventh usage: "To move in a throng, as a crowd." Or from my Britannic Oxford Dictionary: one definition "to discharge copiously, or in rapid succession"; an example quoted: "Troops poured towards the Rhine, Macauley". Or, according to other dictionaries one can pour out money, or one's hopes; or "pour it on"; or "complaints poured in", or "donations poured in"; or "Election results are beginning to pour in". I have not yet found a dictionary, paper or on line, which restricts pour to liquids. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I'm a reviewer, yes, but that doesn't make me right: if you think that it makes it worse, then don't do it! At worst, I would abstain from voting, as one issue like this is never going to make me oppose the article. In this case, I can accept your argument. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it, but having discussed it, I would support the promotion with the original wording. Harrias talk 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that I phrased myself too curtly. I know that I get too close to "my" articles and my wording, and sometimes it is difficult to let go. Even when the issue is inconsequential. And getting stubborn over trivia deters reviewers from visiting my future nominations, even if I "win" the argument. I shall put "pour" back in, even though I finally found a dictionary which restricts its use to liquids - Cambridge on line. And thanks for maintaining a Wikipedian point of view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I shall leave it as is. As a lesson to myself not to be pig headed. And it reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
For future reference, I use the Cambridge online dictionary... Anyway, I think this is pretty much there, but I want to have another pass all the way through before I'm sure! Harrias talk 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "..and the Genoese managed to board and capture two English ships." This threw me off. Although we are told in the Opposing navies section that "The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.", we are later told that "The new regime was disinclined to enter into new contracts with the French. When several ship captains were persuaded to, they were bribed by English agents to renege." So... the assumption I had was that the Genoese weren't supporting the French in this battle.
Good point. Changed to "Barbavera had refused to tie his highly manoeuvrable galleys in with the French ships and the they managed to board and capture two English ships."
  • "Several English noblewomen were killed.." Was it common for noblewomen to go into battle at the time? This statement begs more questions than it answers.
They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
Hi Harrias. Funkmonk has picked up the same point above and I have added an explanatory footnote. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that works for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "..and the water was reported to be thick with blood and corpses." Reported by who?
    • This is still outstanding. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Provide a wikilinks for Norman and Picard. (The Norman one will need to go in the Earlier activities section.
Done.
  • Our article has almshouse as one word, and a couple of dictionaries seem to suggest that is the prevailing form.
Done.
  • Is there a more accessible word or phrase we can use rather than "interdicted", or at least a wikilink we can provide?
Linked.
  • "..revoked some privileges of some of the ports.." I'm not sure if this is awkward repetition, or clever repetition to show how toothless his efforts were. On my first read, it seemed awkward, but now I quite like it.
Unlike some of the tosh I bung out, that phrase was thoughtfully crafted. I'm pleased to hear that it worked.

That's my lot at the moment! (Oh, I'm doing the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review, yar-de-yar-da.) Harrias talk 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well earned and hard earned points they will be. Many thanks for your usual painstaking review. The article is the better for it. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Replied to a couple. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: And responded in turn. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg caption needs editing for grammar
  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg is incorrectly claimed as own work
  • File:Modell_der_Bremer_Kogge_von_1380.jpg is own photo, but what is the status of the model itself? Is this a museum piece?
  • File:Edward_III_noble.jpg: coins are not typically considered 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by L293D

Not much to be said here, but:

  • particularly when they were fitted with the castles from which missiles could be fired - "missiles" seems a bit odd here, could it be replaced by a synonym?
I am not sure why, but I have gone for more specific. Does that work for you?
My concern was with the use of the word "missile"; while it is technically appropriate, I feel the second dictionary definition, "a weapon that is self-propelled, carrying explosives", is the one most people think about. I would suggest replacing with "projectile".
  • Wagner 2006 - suggest making consistent with other citations by putting the page numbers in the reference.
Er, they are already there. "pp. 286–287".
I think the point L293D is making is that in citation #55, a similar example, it uses "Hannay 1911, p. 246.", whereas citation #55 is just "Wagner 2006." Both are fine, but they are not consistent with each other. Harrias talk 16:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Understood. Thank you. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. L293D ( • ) 14:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi L293D. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your two points addressed. Anything else?

1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a Yugoslav formation that fought briefly during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. It has previously undergone a Milhist A-Class review, so hopefully the rough edges have been knocked off it. It forms part of a Good Topic that will become Featured if this nomination is successful. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Have to say, even at full size I had a hard time spotting the red 10 in File:Yugo_History_map_of_invasion_7th_Army.jpg given the overlapping text. Any chance it could be edited to make it more obvious? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the caption to include that it is around Zagreb, which should help the reader. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment
  • What makes Leo Niehorster a reliable source? It looks like a self-published website. buidhe 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Niehorster has a PhD in history, and has reliably published several books on orders of battle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

  • "a horsed cavalry formation" As opposed to an unhorsed cavalry formation? Perhaps a touch of redundancy there? It also has "cavalry" twice in six words. Yes, I understand that there are and have been "cavalry" formations with few or no horses, but I think that many readers will stumble over this without further explanation.
  • Well, concurrently there were motorised, mechanised and/or armoured cavalry formations in other armies, so horsed cavalry is needed here IMHO. Have trimmed some instances of cavalry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ho, hum. OK.
  • "combat and supporting units" Optional: "supporting" reads oddly to me. 'support'?
  • "were then disarmed by armed Croat" I don't have a better suggestion, but that is mildly jarring.
  • "Infantry divisions had a wartime strength of 26,000–27,000 men,[4] as compared to contemporary British infantry divisions of half that strength." I'm not sure why this is in the background of a cavalry division.
  • "Peacetime organisation" Was the peacetime organisation 2 brigades and 4 regiments; or 2 brigades consisting of 4 regiments. The article currently reads as the former so if that was the case, fine.
Well, yeah. I assumed so. But that hypothetical average reader out there ...
  • Is the actual strength of the peacetime formation known?
In which case I am a bit twitchy about you giving "6,000–7,000 officers and men" in the lead, when this was only its paper strength for a few days and it was never achieved.
I assume you mean in the infobox, deleted from there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I do. I did. Thanks.
  • "the 1st Cavalry Division forming the bulk of the reserve for the 1st Army Group"; two sentences later "The 1st Cavalry Division was to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve".
  • "The Yugoslav defence plan saw both armies" The previous sentence mentions two armies, but I suspect that these aren't the "both armies" you are referring to. Maybe 'the 1st Army Group' instead?
  • "to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve around Zagreb"; in the same paragraph "he reserve for the 1st Army Group would be located in and around Zagreb".
  • "detailing the plan of attack and command structure" → 'detailing the plan of attack and the command structure'.
  • You don't say when the formation came into existence.
Any reason why that couldn't be stated? Possibly in pretty much those words?
Well, it is an assumption, so I wouldn't have a source to cite for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have access to Jarman, Robert L., ed. (1997a). Yugoslavia Political Diaries 1918–1965, volume 1? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I have scans of parts of it from my work on the Royal Yugoslav Navy, they hold it at one of the uni libraries in town. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It may be worth having a look at page 527. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted, I do have a scan of that page. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Gog. See what you think of my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking good. Well up to your usual standards.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points for the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, PM, I hope you are well. I have had a look at this at GAN and ACR. I see that it has improved further since then. I have following suggestions/observations/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest adding the 1921 establishment date to the lead
  • With regards to the pin map, I wonder if potentially some other reference point could/should be added? For instance, the loc of Zagreb if that isn't the one already depicted; and or some other major city to provide a little more context?
  • The 1st Cavalry Division was to deployed --> "The 1st Cavalry Division was be to deployed"? or "The 1st Cavalry Division was to deploy"?
  • Armed fifth column Ustase groups and German troops disarmed the division and its attached units before they could establish any coherent defence along the Sava: did the division offer any resistance to this? If there was resistance, do we know if the division suffered any casualties?
  • after the surrender, is there any information on what happened to the division's troops? I assume they were taken prisoner, or maybe returned to civilian life under the occupation?
  • was the formation a regular, part-time or mixed formation prior to mobilisation? I get the impression that it was largely hollow prior to mobilisation, but I might be wrong? If it was a part-time or mixed formation, what sort of ongoing training commitments were required during peacetime?
  • logistics units: do we know what type (supply, transport, medical/veterinary etc) and how many?
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
  • "London, England" --> :London, United Kingdom"?
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [4].


Cyclone Taylor

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This was at FAC a few months ago, but owing to some prose issues was archived. After some delay I've fixed it up, and had a second person go over it (credit to @Giants2008:). So now I'm here again, and will be ready to address any issues. I'll also ping the other reviewers from the first FAC: @Nikkimaria, Kosack, Canada Hky, and SandyGeorgia:. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Kaiser, I am traveling, but have a brief moment for a quick look. The first section I went to has grammatical and prose issues:
  • Frank Patrick would later use his close connection with Sir Richard McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, to get Taylor's position transferred west, and helped Taylor get promoted to senior immigration inspector.
Tense changes in the middle of the sentence; this was the same sort of problem I saw earlier.
This is really problematic:
  • Taylor spent considerable time on the ship as it sat in the Vancouver harbour: with the passengers unable to disembark or given additional supplies, Taylor took on the role of supervising everyone until it left back for India on July 23, the passengers refused entry into Canada.
Though ... though ... and an overly long convoluted sentence:
  • Though reluctant to go overseas, he wanted to help out and was willing to do whatever was necessary, though shortly after his enlistment it was announced that immigration officials were deemed a vital job and exempt from service, so Taylor was discharged from the military and spent the war working in Vancouver.
It looks like a better copyedit may be needed. That is only a quick glance at one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here. I'll go through it once more in the next few and try to clean up the wording again. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments – As stated above, I cleaned up some things in the article, although I don't offer a warranty that I got everything. There are a few items I noticed in the process that are worthy of consideration:

  • Hockey career: I'm presuming there was no issue at the time with a "strictly amateur" player being given spending money by his team, as the early part of this section implies?
  • His height and the comment about him being of average size at the time appear in both the Ottawa Senators and Legacy sections. Since Sandy wanted it earlier in the article, perhaps it should be taken out of Legacy so we don't have redundant content?
  • Marriage and family: This is a long shot, but is anything about Joan Taylor's figure skating career worth expanding on? That's potentially interesting if the sources offer any details. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Leaning oppose on sourcing: I did some spot checks on "Early Life" and found several issues. (I used Cyclone Taylor: A Hockey Legend by Whitehead which is available to view at the Internet Archive "library") I suspect many of these are minor, or simple errors, but one or two seem to me to misrepresent the source slightly. Additionally, I found each of these issues in just the first two paragraphs. Even if they are minor issues, it concerns me greatly to find so many in such a short section. I stopped after the second paragraph. I'm inclined to oppose this outright, and would require considerable reassurance that the remainder of the article does not contain similar issues before even thinking about looking at prose. I'm open to reconsidering if someone can explain how the source supports the claims - part of the problem may be my hockey ignorance. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "The exact date of Taylor's birth is uncertain, though most sources give it as June 23, 1884.": We cite this to Whitehead 1977, which gives the date of birth as 24 June 1884, and does not support the uncertainty of the date. We should probably be using the Zweig article (which I can't view).
  • "Mary stayed at home and raised the children": I'm struggling to find that in the source. I'm also wondering should we be mentioning his father's drinking?
  • "Taylor was named Frederick Wellington after a local veterinarian, who was a friend of Archie; Taylor's biographer Eric Whitehead states that on the day of Taylor's birth the two men were fishing, so Archie decided to name his son after the elder Frederick.": This is a slightly awkward sentence, especially "after the elder Frederick". But looking at the source, the information is not simply from the biographer, it is a direct quotation from Taylor who is quoting the veterinarian. Also, it is a little more complicated than we state here, but probably too detailed to go into. What if we cut this back to "Taylor was named Frederick Wellington after a friend of Archie" and move the story of the fishing trip to a brief note?
  • "The Taylor family lived a modest lifestyle in Listowel": This seems a little more than what the source says, when Taylor simply says that his family were poor. It might be a touch pedantic, but unless I've missed it, he doesn't describe their lifestyle.
  • "Though he had first skated at the age of five on ponds near Tara, it was in Listowel that Taylor learned to play hockey.": The reference given does not support where he learned to play hockey: the reference to Tara checks out on page 12, but the information that he learned hockey in Listowel is on page 14. Also, "it was in Listowel" sounds a little too much like a dramatic documentary Voiceover. Why not something simpler like "Having learned to skate in Tara, Taylor first played hockey in Listowel"?
  • "Taylor was one of the most skilled on his team": Where are we getting this? The source says "Nor could his bigger, older teammates have kept with him stride for stride had he wanted them to." Even if we argue that this means he was the most skill, it only refers to his first game for the team.
  • "This greatly enhanced Taylor's name across the province, and several teams were interested in having him join them.": Where are we getting this from? I can't find it in the source on the pages given.
  • Incidentally, it would be good if possible to use some sources other than Whitehead for his early life. I also note that nearly half of the references are to Whitehead 1977, and when Whitehead 1980 is included, by my reckoning 60 out of 136 references are to the same writer. This is not necessarily an issue, but I wonder if we could use a few other sources as well? For example, are there any other general sources that could be utilised? Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord notes

As well as noting the concerns above, I see there hasn't been any activity by the nominator for ten days, and this suggests there won't be any for a while, so I'm putting this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2020 [5].


St Scholastica Day riot

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica.

This article has been re-written from a rather slim version to a more complete version we have now. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Support from Gog the Mild

I gave this a fairly thorough going over at PR. Let's see what else I can quibble over.

Two weeks ago I was in Oxford drawing the attention of some of today's students to this article. They were impressed. Apparently even the roughest of drinking disputes no longer lives up to, or down to, this standard: the benchmark for tavern brawls.

  • "An annual penance was imposed on the town: each year, on St Scholastica's Day, the mayor, bailiffs and sixty townspeople were to attend a mass at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin for those killed; the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed" This reads as if the penny a student fine was repeated annually, have I got that correct?
  • "In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents" Does that include students and faculty?
    • The sources don't make it clear, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "many townspeople died or left" Possibly 'many townspeople and students died or left'?
    • Can we hold fire on this change until we see what others say? The problem is the remainder of the sentence "and a quarter of the scholars died": we know the proportion of students, so I think that info should stay in. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise tho. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure. My point is that the current text suggests that many townsfolk either left or died (or survived), while the student seem only to have died (or survived). One might have thought that more students than townsfolk would have left (Isaac Newton style). I realise that you are constrained by your sources. (In passing, as a non-actionable comment, 25% is a low death rate. I assume because the students tended to be young, fit and well fed.)
  • "a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth most wealthy in England" Given the footnote, does that mean that Oxford was the ninth most wealthy town? Ie excluding cities, however many there were.
    • The source talks of "chief towns" and the list is headed by London, Bristol and York. I've clarified that Ox was the "ninth most wealthy settlement". - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In around 1297 a citizen and a student were killed; the townsfolk responsible for killing the scholar were excommunicated and the town was fined £200 in damages." That really begs the question of what happened to the student[s]?
    • Nothing. I've now added that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In 1314 a riot between the two main factions of the university—the Northernmen and the Southernmen—39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter" Grammar. ('In a 1314 ... ?)
  • Not an actionable comment, but I do like the idea of students drinking wine from quart pots.
    • Quite right too - I take wine from a pewter tankard myself. I'm reminded of a former lecturer of mine who drank his port in a silver pint pot. He wore bow ties too - 'nuff said. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The bailiffs seem to have been the chief trouble-makers; is any reason for their antagonism known?
    • Not from the sources, unfortunately. I presume because they were annoyed at the behaviour of the students over a long period, but the sources don't really clarify it enough. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " The bells of both the town and university churches were rung to rally the respective supporters and students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction." Suggest a sentence break at "and".
    • I went for a semi-colon on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "any student who was found in his rented rooms or who was hiding" I think you mean 'or hiding place'. I assume that not every student who was hiding was killed.
    • Indeed! Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " proclaiming in the king's name that "that no man should" - "that "that".
  • "The command from the king to the townsfolk had no effect." What command? None has been mentioned.
    • Changed to "proclamation" (the one from the previous para). - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The number of students killed in the riots is a matter of disagreement among the sources: Wood thinks it was 40; others put the number of students killed at 63." - "The number of students killed ... the number of students killed".
  • "In the early fifteenth century a series of poems ... was written; ...they could have been written between 1356 and 1357"?
    • Well, that's just nonsense! Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

NB, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup. - Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I've done a quick sweep of the straightforward ones and I'll work through the others shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Gog. All these now covered, I hope, in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Splendid stuff. I look forward to it breaking the servers when it is TFA. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

Marking my spot. CassiantoTalk 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Background
  • "as a university it began growing rapidly from 1167" → "as a university it grew rapidly from 1167"
  • "was the ninth most wealthy in England" seems a bit awkward when compared to "was the ninth wealthiest"
  • "many townspeople died or left, and a quarter of the scholars died" -- Died/died
  • "The town began to recover soon afterwards" → "The town recovered soon afterwards"
    • I think this one is best left as "began to recover": as far as I can tell, the recovery wasn't "soon after", but the start of it was. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In around 1297 a citizen and a student were killed; the townsfolk responsible for killing the scholar were excommunicated and the town was fined £200 in damages" -- was the citizen killed by another? You mention only the scholar, but at the start of the sentence you give the impression that both were killed at the same time and perhaps by the same perpetrator(s).
    • Yep - reworked this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Dispute

Looks fine

Resolution
  • "After the rioting ended both the university hierarchy and the town burghers surrendered themselves and the rights of their respective entities to the king." -- and the/and the
    • Let me think on this. It's a minor repetition that doesn't worry me too much, and I can't think of a better way without mangling the prose a little. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, on second thoughts, it doesn't much bother me either. Leave as is. CassiantoTalk 20:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Aftermath

Looks fine

That's all from me, an interesting little article. CassiantoTalk 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks Cass, Much appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from SN's corner of the proles' bar

Is this another of those FACs that ends up with a cast bigger than Ben Hur ;)
Will be looking in tomorrow, to make sure you've got the Battle of Hastings in somewhere (as essential background, you know). ——SN54129 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we call LBH "the scholar" rather than "the historian"? IIRC his specialism by training and profession was Eng Lit (Univ of Denver?). ——SN54129 10:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Re. the sourcing, I tend to agree that a source that old is not the best we should use, but it is clearly not WP:PRIMARY. However, usage of "old" sources is not black/white, and comes with pros and cons. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. He noted that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that some may even have been researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century sources…is to be deprecated". About 1837 seems to be the cut-off point, although off the top of my head I have no idea why such a bizarrely precise date.
    All things being equal, I support on sourcing, which was my main concern at the peer review, and everything since then has been an improvement. ——SN54129 14:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

Like Gog, I gave this article a good going-over at PR, and thought it in very good fettle then. Little to add now – a few trivial points. Apologies if I missed them at PR.

  • Background
    • "most wealthy" – wealthiest?
      • Already changed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "1333–1334" – a riot that lasted across two years is quite a riot. 1333 and 1334 seems more likely on the face of it, but the present wording is of course fine if that's what the source says.
  • The source has "1333–4". I presume New Year revels, but who knows! - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dispute
  • "reoccurrence" – the OED allows this word, but I think the more usual "recurrence" might be preferable – more familiar and slightly shorter.
  • Resolution
  • Consistency of ulc: "entities to the king … the King restored"
  • I've capitalised on all - as it refers to a specific individual I think this is right, but I'm sure some MoS wallah will say I've got it all wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "When each new mayor or sheriff was sworn in, they had to swear" – unless, which seems unlikely – there were female mayors or sheriffs between 1355 and 1825 there is no excuse for this linguistically awkward plural pronoun with singular nouns. This should be "he had to".
  • Aftermath
  • "a lack of cathedral in the town" – looks a bit odd without an indefinite article before "cathedral".

That's my lot. Over to you. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. Tim riley talk 09:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim; all now sorted, I hope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I'm happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged to you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image

Image review

  • Map caption needs editing for grammar
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg: as per the tag, the image description should include details of the steps you've taken to attempt to ascertain authorship. Same with File:Ending_the_St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg
    • Well that took some doing: now found out it was Howard Davie (1868-1943), which means they came out of copyright in 2013, if I've read the official guidance properly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Map_of_11th_century_Oxford.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Still got a couple of these ones to do. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • All now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Catto should include volume
  • Cobban 1992: link is to a different edition. Same with Cobban 2002, Harding 1993, Horan
  • Be consistent in how volumes are formatted
  • Darby is an edited collection and should be cited as such
  • Be consistent in if/when portions of citations are wikilinked
  • Maxwell Lyte is missing location
  • For all of the Websites entries, |website= should be changed to |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria: these all sorted now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Sounds like my alma mater The following are purely suggestions that you are free to ignore if you don't agree or they are too time consuming to be worth the effort Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The students became quarrelsome with the taverner— why not just quarrelled with?
  • had arisen several times previously—over what period? presumably that which is stated shortly after, but not explicit
  • Let me have a look at this. It's probably longer than this, but we've not covered the whole gamut of town and gown conflict in the article, just some high (or low) lights. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • remainder sought religious sanctuary—any idea where?
  • Not in the source, unfortunatley. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • assay—perhaps a link?
  • The assay page is a scientific one, rather than anything useful for this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The map could do with increased contrast if that's reasonably feasible for you, not a big deal though
  • I've tweaked it a bit: does that make a difference? - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Jim, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and nit-picks from Graham

....and I thought I misbehaved when I was an undergraduate. I was a saint compared to this lot. I have three silly nitpicks, which you can ignore if you want.

  • "local residents" do we need "local"? I think it's obvious that they live nearby.
  • "their own Chancellor" I think perhaps "own" is redundant.
  • Perhaps a comma after "third day"?
  • I haven't gone with the comma on similar constructions in the article, except when there is a sub-clause afterwards. I'm happy to see if others pick up on the point if you are? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for an engaging read. Articles such as these enrich Wikipedia greatly. Graham Beards (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Graham, I am endebted to you, as always, for your thoughts. I've gone with two of the three suggestions and demurred on the third: I hope the explanation for that is clear. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerns of Fowler&fowler

The article is well written. I like the organization of the sections. I like the ready availability of the sources online. The latter, however, might be related to the issue that concerns me. They are readily available because they are very old, so old that they have become public domain.

The riot is an event of the mid-14th century, first chronicled 300 years later, with less than certain reliability (see here, p232 and here) by Brian Twyne and Anthony Wood (here), the latter's English account apparently borrowing much from the former's Latin. Today, 300 years later still, the riot garners a paragraph or two in histories of the University of Oxford (here, or of the English universities in the middle ages (here). It is a pivotal event no doubt but recorded in history books not so much for the bloody violence as the changes it effected in local law and governance. The core section is Dispute, constituting 40% of the article. It has 49 citations, 25 of which are to books, chronicles, or records, older than 120 years. 13 are to the chronicles of Anthony Wood (died 1695) whose manuscript was edited and published by John Gutch in 1792 (here). Another 13 are to Lawrence Hall's attempt at writing a bestseller on John Wyclif in the 1980s. (See humorous but devastating first paragraph of a scholarly review.)

Concerns:

  • 1. There are altogether too many primary sources. Can you reduce this dependence?
  • 2. There is
    • a) WP:SYNTHESIS. Sample: "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of [[Merton College, Oxford|Merton College]], whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone.{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=57}}{{sfn|Cheetham|1971|p=74}} (Hall, 57) = Fortunately Merton College was one of the few collegiate halls in the town of Oxford built entirely of stone, and its stone walls offered protection that some of the other halls lacked. (Cheetham, 74) = Only Merton College, whose clerks had a reputation for quiet behaviour, was left undistrubed.
    • b) WP:OR and SYNTHESIS: Sample: "They were served wine by John de Croydon, who was the tavern's [[vintner]]{{sfn|Jeaffreson|1871|p=227}} or possibly the [[Landlord#Licensed victualler|landlord]],{{sfn|Green|1859|p=41}} although the historian Louis Brewer Hall and the [[antiquarian]] [[Anthony Wood (antiquary)|Anthony Wood]], among others, describe him as a friend of John de Bereford, who was the tavern's owner and the [[mayor of Oxford]].{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=55}}{{sfn|Wood|1792|p=457}}{{sfn|Catto|1984|p=160}}
  • 3. Please fix these. There are similar sentences in the article, their warrants or evidence patched together, sentences that you will find nowhere else in any account of the riot. Please go through the article and fix those as well. I don't have any other concerns. As I've already remarked, the prose flows smoothly. The sourcing and synthesis and OR issues, however, can be dealbreakers. It is better to leave out than to mix and match. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No thanks. There is no OR (all information is from reliable sources) or SYNTHESIS (information is clearly identified as to source). There are no primary sources (excepting the very small number of newspapers used) and if you want the older sources removed we’d end up with a gutted shell of an article that doesn’t inform people of diddly squat. As this article stands it is entirely within the structures of the MoS and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler: I would be interested to know what primary sources you are referring to. As you have recently discovered, it is insufficient to make vague handwaves towards the possibility of an issue; rather, you must demonstrate an issue exists.
    In other news, a one-way interaction ban would be most unfortunate. Cheers, ——SN54129 20:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with SN54129. I am, to my considerable regret, beginning to have the feeling that Fowler&fowler has for some reason got it in for SchroCat and is raising frivolous and unhelpful objections that nobody else has the least sympathy with. I have myself had valuable input from Fowler&fowler, but it's starting to seem like Jekyll and Hyde – constructive in the review of my recent FAC but determinedly obstructive here, as at another of SchroCat's FACs. Tim riley talk 20:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@SchroCat, Serial Number 54129, and Tim riley: The primary motivation of my review was SandyGeorgia's off-repeated regret that FACs are not being reviewed with the care and rigor they deserve (see here). Furthermore, per Ealdgyth's cautions I cannot respond to imputations of motivation whether in the form of a threat of an interaction ban (which presumes I bear malice or ill-will toward anyone) or comparison with the protagonist of RL Stevenson's less than first-rate work. (Had it been Kidnapped, Tim riley, and had you cast me as David Balfour's evil-hearted Uncle, I would have responded with delight. :)) The primary sources I am referring to are Wood (1792) (written in the 1670s or 80s and the manuscript edited and published in 1792; Wood died in 1695) Jeaffreson (1871), and Green (1859). The article has one core section, "Dispute." Half the citations in that section are to these sources and half of them are to Wood. Old sources, be they 19th century or 17th (published in the 18th) are primary sources, their narration of events is not reliable, their assignment of emphasis or weight is dated, their employed methodologies are dated. I've already given you two links above of modern sources that say the same, using "if the old chronicles can be trusted," or similar expressions. A history article in any encyclopedia, cannot use old sources, especially not 17th-century chronicles written 300 years after an event, except occasionally in a direct quote which complements something in a modern secondary source. As far as I'm aware this is a non-negotiable axiom of encyclopedia writing. Fear of reducing an article to a hollow shell does not allow us to negotiate with that principle. But in keeping with Ealdgyth's other caution in the same note, I will await others' weighing in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think "old=primary", you are mistaken. I am sure the other reviewers will also note that by implication you do not think they have conducted their reviews with care and rigor. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to learn that Fowler&fowler's delusion that old sources are ipso facto primary sources is not due to obstructionism, but it remains a delusion. See the definition of primary sources on the "No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".
I would like to remind Fowler&fowler that his sympathetic and helpful review of Randall Davidson in its way to FA did not object to my extensive use of the biography by George Bell, although Bell was Davidson's chaplain and secretary and later Dean of Davidson's cathedral, and "a participant or observer" in or of many of the events covered in the biography. None of the sources used in the present article are of this kind. (Indeed, Sarastro comments below that we are not told who the primary sources are that the published accounts draw on.) The generalisation "old = primary" is so clearly contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies that it cannot go unchallenged. As to the more common notion that old = not as good as new sources, I smile when I see this, as new sources invariably draw on the old, either to recycle or dispute them, but that is a different argument, and the source review for this article makes no complaint that 18th- and 19th- century sources have been used. (I am glad about this, as it would be a pity to rule e.g. Gibbon, Hume, Acton et al unacceptable sources as Fowler&fowler would evidently have us do.)
As to standards, I'm not clear what SandyGeorgia's "oft-repeated" views have to do with the matter. We have not seen SandyGeorgia reviewing here or, as far as I recall, at any other FACs I've been involved with as reviewer or nominator. Tim riley talk 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 :) Old sources about an even earlier period are not primary sources because they are simply old but because their main value is a primary one for their historical period, as evidence of interpreting history during their period, of writing history, and so forth. (For that same reason, we would not be using Macaulay today other than sparingly, and directly quoting from him, when writing a history of England in a tertiary source.) It is difficult to assess their reliability, as it is difficult to identify the "primary" sources on which they are based. They are also difficult to evaluate for DUE as contemporaneous reviews of literature do not exist. (Old tertiary sources are a little better for use on Wikipedia, in my view, but these did not really exist in the modern sense before the late-19th century.) Tim riley, I made it clear several times in my review of Randall Davidson I was reviewing only for syntax, usage, and coherence of text. Yes, absolutely, we would not be using Gibbon today, for example, for the early Popes, nor indeed Mandell Creighton for the later ones—on Wikipedia that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
See Sarastro's comment below: your concept of a primary source differs from that of others. There is not an issue with the sources we have here, nor in their use of them., all of which fall within the requirements of the MoS in general and the FA criteria in particular. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

I haven't read the whole of this article, but I did notice the comments of F&F above. Regarding the claims of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, I'd require rather better examples than the two provided (It would be a little easier to read if F&F didn't include such long quotes with the formatting mark-up and explained concisely instead). But what drew my attention was the claims of using primary sources. F&F appears to have misunderstood what primary sources are: in this article, they would be sources from 1355 or around that time. The oldest source here is from 1792, and even if that author died in 1695, I think it is highly unlikely that he was writing from his memories of having witnessed these events!

However, that doesn't invalidate the concern of using older source material, which is one I've often raised myself. My inclination is that we are OK here though. Older sources are fine if they are being used for indisputable facts that cannot have changed in the intervening period. A quick glance suggests that this is the case here. All analysis that I have seen is sourced to modern historians. Therefore I believe we are fine on this issue: older sources for facts, modern analysis. Obviously, it is best to use modern sources throughout but for articles like this I am conscious that this is not always possible.

But (getting slowly to the point...) this does raise a couple of valid issues. With the qualification that I haven't read this closely, and I might have missed the things I'm about to mention, do we discuss the actual primary sources here? It would be good to know how we know about the riot. Who told us about it? Are those original sources reliable (from the viewpoint of the historian, not WP)? For example, I'm thinking of something like the Green children of Woolpit which has a sources section as part of the article. And I'm also wondering if there is something to be said about the historiography too. It may be useful to know why Wood, Green and company were writing about this when they did, if there is anything that discusses this. Sarastro (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro, thanks for your comments. I haven't seen anything that discusses the points in your final paragraph, but let me go back over the sources and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro, I have the following that can be added to identify the primary sources. I'm looking into one or two other things that may or may not be enough to add, but these are the key historiographical points:
Cobban identifies two sources of primary documentation, Oxford City Documents, Financial and Judicial, 1258–1665, edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian Rev Herbert Salter in 1920.[1] The historian Jeremy Catto adds Collectanea, edited by Montagu Burrows of the Oxford Historical Society in 1896.[2]
Sources

  1. ^ Cobban 2002, pp. 193.
  2. ^ Catto 1984, p. 167.
I'm not entirely sure of the best place to add this - probably the Aftermath section, I would think, unless you have any better ideas.
The historiography itself isn't covered. From my OR I can see that the older works (pre, say, 1930) covered the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot (i.e. they state it happened and may mention it was over bad drink), but are more detailed in looking at the impact. That's why the Dispute section has more from the older sources, while the other sections are from the more modern sources – they reflect the availability of the best sources of information available for the particular sections they deal with. Unfortunately I can't find a review of the literature that cover this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sarastro1 I agree with some of the things you have said. (See my post above.) We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these. Wood does identify some sources (see here) but only for names and direct quotes. For the rest, whatever "sources" Wood has used, we are not sure that he has not recorded them so faithfully or unquestioningly as to make his document a primary source (in the usual sense). If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former. I can't recall this very minute, but I read somewhere that Wood had borrowed liberally (and perhaps literally?) from Twyne's Latin version. All in all, the Dispute section is very troublesome for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, just to make it easier for all of us, and so this doesn't all go back to the state of Humphreys review, can you just pop an "oppose" onto your section and the rest of us can carry on regardless. The co-ords can judge your comments accordingly. This will be much less of a waste of time for all concerned. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sarastro1, And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line? He has the names of the killed and wounded. All Irish, he "conceives." That is not much of an more or less a simple interpretation for that time and milieu. Can we mention the names, but not their description as Irish, or can we quote him on that too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Finally, Sarastro1, you asked for clarification about my synthesis example Here is (a): "Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." It has been cited to Hall who mentions the stone walls but not quietness, and to Cheetham who mentions the quiet behaviour but not the stone walls. In my quick scan, this seems to be happening in several places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to actually read WP:SYNTH. The opening line states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my emphasis). As is rather obvious, we reach or imply no conclusion here. Just because two pieces of information come from two separate sources, it does not mean there is synthesis.
As I have said, I would prefer if you just opposed and left it there. You may think that you are doing someone else's bidding by such reviews, but it is down to the current FAC co-ordinators to judge your comments and your approach, no-one else. This approach certainly did not work last time you tried it, and I suspect it won't work this time, if you are basing it on novel interpretations of SYNTH and PRIMARY that are not aupported by the policies themselves. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The statement, "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." is an inference or conclusion made from the sources. It is not made by either of the two sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Untrue. I am, however, happy to let others, particularly the current FAC co-ordinators judge the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the point: Somewhere above the wall of text that has appeared, SchroCat replied to me. In terms of where to put about the sources, I'd say after the aftermath, in its own section if we can squeeze out enough information. The more specific we can be about who said what in those sources, the better it would be. If there is nothing on historiography, there is nothing on historiography, and we can't include anything unfortunately. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Fowler&fowler: With the greatest respect, this constant back and forth is not helping anyone and it is certainly not establishing if this article meets WP:WIAFA. If you believe it does not meet them, it would help if you simply said so, explain briefly on what grounds, and leave the rest to the coordinators.

You said to me "We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these" but I do not understand what that has got to do with anything. My question to SchroCat was about the actual literal primary sources that everyone else has used to discuss these events, as I believe we should discuss them in the article. Nor do I understand what you mean by "And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line?" as your example is a non-sequitur. And I still do not agree with you about synthesis, but I'd be hugely appreciative if you did not explain to me here why you are right and I am wrong.

And although I don't want to reply to your every point: "If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former." Once more, I cannot see how your second argument follows from your first. But to take your first argument... that may be something worth raising at WT:FAC. I disagree, I have never seen that argued elsewhere, and I'd need some convincing. It may be worth asking the opinion of others. If you wish to take this further, can we please discuss it away from this FAC? My talk page is nice and quiet. I repeat, please don't argue every point here as it just clutters the page and is not relevant to whether this article meets WIAFA; I am happy to argue elsewhere. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I'm inclined to say we should move most of this back and forth to the talk page where it is out of the way (and I include my above ramblings in that). Sarastro (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sarastro. I'll do some more digging, but the meat of what I have found so far is above (Both the sources used there, Cobban and Catto, both have footnotes that say something along the lines "For documentation on the riots see: ..." and then the sources I've mentioned (See Footnote 32 as an example). I suspect some of the original sourcing is from documentation held in the Bodlian, but I'll see what I can put together from what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's slightly irritating that they don't make it nice and explicit. I'm used to early medieval writing where they spell out what the sources say, who wrote them and various other mind-numbing details. This merely confirms my prejudices against the later medieval period. You wouldn't have this trouble with Beowulf! They even talk about the scorch marks on the paper when they're talking about Beowulf! Sarastro (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's because they are skating over the riot itself - kind of an academic way of saying 'well, if you really want to know the gruesome details, you can get them yourselves from here, but I'm not going to demean myself by telling you!' I have a little more to do, but it's all rather thin on the ground at the moment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A bit of moving one comment from elsewhere, plus what I've quoted above gives us a rudimentary section St Scholastica Day riot#Historiography. I'll see what else I can add to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note from a source reviewer (and historian) (who is NOT wearing her coord hat)

The definition of primary source in history can actually deviate a bit from that as defined above by Tim (No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".) In the medieval and classical periods of history (as with some other areas), a primary source can indeed be something that is further in date from the actual event. Medievalists consider something like Bede and classicists consider something like Plutarch, to be primary sources, even though they are often writing about periods long before their time. There are some works from the early 1500 and 1600s that should be considered primary for the medieval period, not secondary even though hundreds of years separate them.

Also - older works need to be used with care - EVEN for plain facts. While there are some exceptions, most Victorian historians do not approach history with the same rigor that more modern historians do. And this also applies to their ability to sift fact from fiction in their sources. Many a Victorian historian took forged documents at face value and built their narratives on something that has later proven to be contentious or downright wrong. (The classic example here is Gundrada de Warenne - where uncritical acceptance of forged documents means that prior to the late 1800s, most folks accepted that she was either the daughter of William the Conqueror or of William's wife Matilda. We know now that this is incorrect - but it STILL pops up all over the place ... and if you aren't familiar with the sources and the historiography - it's very easy to uncritically take a history from the 1840s, say, and repeat a disproven fact.) I strongly strongly strongly suggest that we should not rely on 19th-century sources, even for filling in details, because it is important to dig into WHY more modern historians aren't repeating the information - has it be proven wrong? Or embelished? Or is it some other reason?

Likewise, it's a bad idea to use newspaper articles to source a history article on wikipedia - frankly, the ability of newspaper writers to get history wrong is boundless. The fact that wiki policy allows us to use 100-300 year old sources or newspaper articles doesn't mean we should. We're trying to write the most accurate and up to date articles we can - which should be built on modern scholarship. If the fact that you can only flesh out an event by resorting to those sorts of sources, then things are not good.

I'll also point out that F&F pointed out that one at least of the book sources has at least one very bad review in a schoarly journal - THAT needs to be investigated also - is that one review an outlier? Or do most scholarly reviews pan the work - if that latter, then we again, should not be using a work for a historical subject that is considered bad scholarship by historians. Wycliff is a VERY well-studied subject in history - surely there is a better biography of him to use?

My point here is that ... again... we cannot just uncritically say "policy allows us to do this" and think it's fine. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as that ... and we're doing a disservice to our readers if we just do the minimum without actually trying to understand that the best practices would be to avoid usage of some sources even if policy on wikipedia seems to allow them. We're supposed to be writing the best we can... and that doesn't always mean including everything guidelines and policy might allow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is more of an essay than a note and belongs on the Talk Page not here. While being a useful commentary, it is most unfair on the nominator to use his FACs as test cases.Graham Beards (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll let the other coords decide whether it belongs here or on the talk page. But, I don't think it's at all unfair to rebutt some arguments made above from a different perspective. If I was going to use this FAC as a test case, I'd have opposed, which you'll note I haven't done. And I don't intend to. I do, however, think that folks are too busy quoting the letter of policy to look at the bigger picture of trying to make the best article possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are not a coordinator for this FAC; you have recused. I still maintain that is not the venue. Graham Beards (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
One poor review does not preclude the use of the source. "Reviewed Work: The Perilous Vision of John Wyclif, (Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1983) by Louis Brewer Hall"; Review by: Lawrence S. Snell. Teaching History (JSTOR 43256137) is less negative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Teaching History is a journal for sixth-form teaching (see here). The JSTOR review you cite ends with, "especially recommended for sixth-form libraries." A more relevant review, in addition to the critical one I have cited earlier, is in Theology Today (subscription only; see here), which says, "This is a well-told, popular-level account of the life and times of a maverick theologian ... Hall, an expert in medieval English poetry and drama, has grappled with the difficulties in Wyclif biography and has chosen to harmonize his sketchy and discrepant sources in a way that seems somewhat more straightforward and circumstantial than the hard data actually quite allow. ... Professor Hall is an ardent admirer, and presents Wyclif as a hero—stopping short, however, of a probing analysis of the philosophical and theological issues ... This, then, is not a book for experts. ... Neither is it a book for nitpickers: the agglomerate noun for sheep is not “band” (pp. 17, 18, 165); “Oxfordians” is not what Oxonians call themselves (pp. 31, 51); Bury St. Edmunds is not “north” of London, but northeast (p. 181); “the slaughter of the innocents” was not in Nazareth (p. 204); Cambridge was not a “major city” (p. 237)." The main point is that the writing style of the book, the dwelling on silly anecdotes (such as the young Oxford girls disappearing upstairs to console the pub's clients and so forth) does not bespeak overall reliability. It has to be used judiciously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: I am, as you know, always happy to make improvements to articles based on constructive suggestions that are related to the relevant guidelines and policies, but I am at a loss here. There are comments above that are unclear and contrary to accepted policies and practices.
As nominator and primary editor of this article, I’m at a loss as to how to progress and to which comments or sentiments I should address. If you could clarify which (if any) comments need addressing, I’ll consider them. Thanks, if you are able to assist. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My suggestion remains that old sources—including 19th-century sources, much less 17th-century manuscripts (Wood) published in the 18th—not be used in the article except occasionally. Also, as I have pointed out, Hall is melodramatic, to be used judiciously, not for example for the first use of "havoc," in English. There are some issues of synthesis. See also Sarastro1's talk page. You are better off following the modern sources, expanding the Background and Aftermath and reducing the Dispute. Your article will become a good piece of work. I certainly will be happy to support it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Dear Ian Rose and Laser brain The nominator collapsed the comments section and withdrew the nomination two days ago, as stated by him above; in which case, the nomination should be archived. He cannot then leave us, the reviewers, in the dark, and, while not letting us comment further, also suggest that there is no oppose and that it is for the non-recused coordinators to "close" this, as if to suggest that he has not withdrawn the nomination. I have serious concerns about the ill-use of very old sources in the article; one, in particular, is from the 17th century. Please clarify if the article has been withdrawn from FAC or not. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Please withdraw this. For the second THIRD time in a row at FAC my enjoyment levels are too low and my stress levels too high because of a second rate reviewer who does not understand how to conduct a review and appears to have some petty and stupid grudge for Christ knows what reason. It may be some time before I bother with FAs again, if at all. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As this is still awaiting closure I'll add a brief note for the record. There are six supports to this article and no opposes, yet I am still requesting withdrawal.

Sourcing: The older works (pre, say, 1930) cover the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot, but are more detailed in looking at the impact. For each part of the article the most recent and reliable sources dominate where possible. It should be noted that at no point do any of the modern sources contradict the older ones on the points that are used in this article. Despite the implication from a recent posting at the FAC talk page from someone who has no clue about my approach to article development, the majority of the sourcing was done during visits to the British Library.

Reviewer conduct: Sadly this article deserved a lot better than a troll bludgeoning comments across several sections and bringing a toxic battlefield attitude to this review. I note that the pattern continues elsewhere. This was the third review on the trot when this aggressive pushing of personal preference causes a disturbance; they were asked by Ealdgyth at the last review not to do this and by Sarastro (on their talk page) in relation to this one, all to no avail. You are able to judge on all three reviews where the problem lies: interactions with all other reviewers, over comments positive and negative, show the good faith in which those contributions were made by both parties. Only in one area did they break down.

I still request this to be withdrawn, and I will still be declining to participate in all aspects of FA-land for the foreseeable future. To clarify: this is not a threat to say 'pass this or I won't write FAs anymore': I really do not care about the FA process. All enjoyment has been sucked out of this increasingly politicised process with the second-rate interventions of a very small number of people intent on moulding FA into something it is not and was never meant to be.

Ian and Andy, as you are the only non-recused co-ords here, it will have to be you that closes this. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Albany Charter half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the commemoratives from 1936. No great scandal here, it doesn't look like anyone at the time made much money out of it; still, there's an interesting backstory. Enjoy.--15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wehwalt (talk)

Support Comments by Usernamenunique

Infobox

  • 30.61 mm / 2.15 mm (0.08 in) — Inconsistent abbreviation
  • Gertrude Lathrop — In the body, you give her middle initial. Also, is it worth a red link in the infobox as well for consistency's sake?
I have no idea on whether there is any MOS on this, but unless there is, I'd prefer to avoid the infobox redlink. Initialed. I will probably write a stub on her at some point just to avoid the redlinks in this and the New Rochelle article.
  • Any reason for the small images? Also, I suspect you may get some push-back in the image review over the licensing.
It's what we have. And this has come up in about 10 FACs and I explain, based on an opinion I got at MCQ on this, that Bobby131313 uploading the images, as an experienced editor, carried an intent to release according to the Four Freedoms even if not explicitly stated. They've been used on the main page I believe, without objection.
Have you asked Heritage Auctions if they might license one of their images? They have quite a few listed (both sold and active), with high-resolution photographs. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
At one time, Godot13 had obtained permission from Heritage to use their images, registered with OTRS. My understanding was that only he was allowed to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
He may have formed some sort of permanent arrangement with them, but that shouldn't be an obstacle for someone else to reach out. (This is beyond the scope of FAC, by the way—it's just a suggestion.)
I've made an inquiry with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • The Albany Charter half dollar, also known as the Albany-Dongan half dollar — Is it ever just referred to as the Albany half dollar?
  • Lathrop's designs have generally been praised. — Perhaps more appropriate in the above paragraph, where you're talking about her designs.
Both taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

  • Is there more information on what led to this coin in particular? As it stands, there's hardly anything.
Not really, the sources don't devote themselves to that topic. There is probably a backstory of who got the idea but it isn't in the sources.--Wehwalt (talk)
Often there are congressional hearings that specifically address the one coin or other material like the book in New Rochelle that over time gets into secondary sources. I haven't seen any here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a bit more info here; it suggests that the coins were for the event, although granted, the article is from a year after plans for the coin were designed. It also mentions that one could obtain a certificate for the coin at the event, which might be worth adding to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm not going to use it. The most useful thing it says is that they planned to issue certificates for coins at the Dongan celebration. I don't want to say that without evidence the certificate actually were issued, which at a brief search, I don't see anything on. The info on the beaver being early money is interesting but they don't say there's a connection between that and why there's one on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor — So the group didn't even exist at the time of the proposed coin?
Not in that form, anyway. All three were civic people. The chair was a banker; I've seen several times banks hold new commemorative coins as part of their cash reserves so the designated group did not have to advance all the money up front. But I couldn't say for sure.

Legislation

  • a commemorative half dollar in honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of Albany — So that was the (ostensible) purpose of the coin. Perhaps it belongs in "Background"?
The footnote explains that Congress erred here. They meant of the Dongan Charter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Preparation

  • The part about Lawrie is confusing. Why did she bring the letter? What "designs in his letter" are being referred to? What (if anything) did Lathrop accomplish at the offices of the CFA, if she then immediately decamped to the Philadelphia Mint due to Lawrie's concerns (which seems to have already known about, as they appear to have been included in the letter)?
All the sources are not complete on this, Lawrie was a New Yorker and she probably saw him in NYC. She would have seen Sinnock in Philadelphia and O'Reilly in Washington. Lawrie was the sculptor-member of the commission, and coins are sculptures, so he would have been consulted for a preliminary opinion. Having received it, and not fully satisfied, she went to Washington by way of Philadelphia, gathering support as she went. She also went to Washington on the New Rochelle coin. Lathrop knew people (she knew FDR) and she politicked for her designs.
That makes more sense now. If there's a way to add that—that Lawrie was politicking for her design—without resorting to synthesis great, otherwise no big deal.
  • splendid coin — Whose words?
Sinnock. I'll make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Design

  • The word "Liberty" on this coin — The other two uses of "Liberty" are in all caps.
It's in a quotation mark and while I understand there are some who say that you should bring the article's style inside the quotation marks, I prefer not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "has always been considered pleasing by numismatists". — If you're using logical quotation, than I believe most of the other quotations should have the punctuation following the end quotation mark as well.
I"m not sure what you mean. My understanding was that quotes that contain a complete sentence from the text should have the punctuation (the period, usually) inside the quotation mark, otherwise not. Do I vary from that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
That's generally my understanding as well. The one variance I see is in the last sentence of this section: "that the coin ... positive precision.". Is that a complete sentence, you're just altering "That" to "that" without a "[t]"? If so, is the omission of brackets intentional?

Minting, distribution and collecting

  • The committee wrote to O'Reilly in February 1937, wanting to know the procedure for returning unsold coins, and in 1943 ... it returned 7,342 pieces for redemption and melting — Just to be clear, they asked for instructions for returning the coins within months of purchasing them, but then waited six years to do so?
Yes. They continued on sale to the public and they tried to shift the lot to Kosoff.
  • What were the proceeds used for?
Sorry for the delay, I was looking through sources. I've added a sentence on the law requiring that they be used to defray the costs of the anniversary celebrations.--fWehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • in 1954 it became known that the State Bank of Albany had some 2,000 Albany half dollars — This might fit better after the sentence ending with and reached $4 by 1950.
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A photograph of the brochure and/or boxes might be a nice touch to the article. Any that you could get a license for? I see some of the boxes were auctioned some years ago.
Good idea. Front cover of the holder is two dimensional and so can be easily used, and I"ve added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  • #7 reads "Page 6257–6258." Does {{USCongRec}} have a way of displaying "Pages" instead of "Page"? Also pinging Dcmacnut, who created the template.
Not that I am aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  • Duffield, Frank (uncredited) — How do you know Duffield is the contributor, if uncredited?
He was the editor and these were pieces that were written by the editor. His name of course appears as editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency (March 11, 1936). — Should have a paywalled logo for consistency
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


Interesting read, Wehwalt. It would be nice to have more background about the coin—why it was proposed, what the money was intended/used for, etc.—but otherwise in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed the points individually including that the money was to go to defray the anniversary expenses. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. More background would still be nice, but if there's nothing in the sources, then there's nothing to add. Minor responses above, though nothing to subtract from my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

Hello. I will get to the review proper in a day or two, but I noticed your description of the beaver gnawing at the maple branch on the obverse. To my mind, he seems to be holding it more fully in his mouth than he would in gnawing, and the branch, a leaf-bearing one with three leaves, is too thin for gnawing anyway, even for a hardwood. In the Albany seal, however, he is gnawing at the stump of the tree he has brought down. Do the sources describe it as gnawing? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I borrowed the word exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The problem areas are in italics. No judgment is implied. You don't need to reply. If you do and disagree, I will not contest.

Lead
  • In 1936, ... coins for issuance, including some of mostly local significance. (primarily?)
  • These included the Albany piece, wanted by city officials to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1686 grant of its municipal charter by Thomas Dongan, governor of colonial New York. (it is applied to city officials; wanted: authorized?)
  • The authorizing bill passed through Congress without opposition; though amendments added additional protections for coin collectors. ( "additional?" assumes some knowledge of the existing protections on the part of a reader)
  • ... the Philadelphia Mint coined 25,013 Albany half dollars (13 were examples for the Assay Commission and thus not for circulation—the subject of the following sentences)
  • and a hoard of over 2,000 was sold by a local bank in 1954 (at what price? Do the sources say?)
  • The Albany half dollar catalogs in the low hundreds of dollars, but the original packaging may sell for more. (Nice)

I have edited a version of the lead, addressing these issues, and then self-reverted. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Background, Legislation, Preparation, Design, Minting

You can find the review at User:Fowler&fowler/FAC review of Albany Charter half dollar

You have some nice sentences. I've offered a few ideas for revision, which you can also view in the article. You may take them or leave them.

You have used some old sources, bordering on the primary, which is OK for an interpretationally stable field such as numismatics but would be problematic in a political history article. But their general use in FACs is something that should be clarified by the powers-that-be.

(Off-topic 1) I still maintain that the beaver is not gnawing. He is holding the branch in its mouth scuttling his busy way to his lodge (in contrast to the plowman homeward plodding his weary way). I have some support at the NGC site, which says, "with a maple branch in its mouth." From Lathrop's description, it seems that the branch was added independently, see my review, as an artistic device. Why did they use gnawing? Is it because it is a cuter word, more conducive to selling? I don't know.

(Off-topic 2) I collect coins after a fashion. This article has made me more aware of all the little things that go into their making.

For all sorts of reasons, on-topic and off, I'm happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm working through your suggestions--thank you for the review and support--but I've been researching the beaver. Lathrop does not use the word "gnawing" in her description of the designs, but she doesn't focus on what the beaver is doing with the branch. However, there are two distinct sources from 1938 that use it. There is some Revolutionary War numismatic material (medals and banknotes) that use a beaver gnawing a tree as a symbol of perseverance and industry, especially in the struggle for independence, but that doesn't prove much. The beaver's forepaw is on the branch, which would seem to me to argue against the branch being moved. Vermeule's is a pretty authoritative treatment and he goes for the gnawing. I don't see how I get out of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. Yes, absolutely. "Gnawing" is majority usage in the sources, and your hands are tied. Yes, he does have his paw on the branch, so he's not going anywhere. (I threw that in as a silly flourish to contrast the busy beaver with the tired plowmen in Gray's elegy, disregarding the logical contradiction.) And he is definitely gnawing on the stump in the Albany City seal. But when beavers gnaw on wood, or when humans such as I gnaw at corn on the cob, they do so with their front teeth, and what they gnaw at is only partially in their mouths. The animated scene on the obverse seemed to belie that notion. On the other hand, dogs do gnaw at bones and do so with their molars. When I wrote that, I was looking out on the woods that fringe our house, the oak, maple, pine, and fir. The leaves on the maples are gone, but the oaks do have stragglers. The leaf-bearing branches seemed too thin to require gnawing in the manner of a dog, nothing like bones, or so my thinking went. But then I'm no a zoologist, and Lathrop does have the artistic license to present reality in her unique style. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • outside the US, it may not be realised that Albany is the state capital, perhaps mention in lead?
  • "catalog" isn’t a synonym for "sell" here (even when spelt properly!)
  • but the original packaging may sell for more missing "in", or does it really mean that?
  • were remaining Dutch property claims either Dutch property claims remained or were outstanding Dutch property claims
I've addressed these. I avoided "sell" because a catalog isn't a price list, it's an opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. No complaints of beavers gnawing or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Suport. Just a few nit-picks. Do we need hyphens here "three member committee" (three-member) and here " 250th anniversary celebrations" ( 250th-anniversary celebrations)? And I always prefer "several" to "a number of". Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support. I hyphenated the first, removed the "250th" from the second and changed the third as you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Close to supporting. A few comments (actually all minor points except the second one):

  • Background: "and thus entitled to fees": I wasn't sure this phrase was important to the short background, but if I've missed its significance, no worries.
I felt it was important to say because it shows why the position was worth having, "secretary" of an area doesn't necessarily convey that.
  • "The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor, consisting of not fewer than three people." / "a committee of at least three people appointed by Albany's mayor be empowered to order the coins from the Mint": Seems repetitive, especially in such close proximity to each other. Can one of the instances be cut?
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "three member committee" / "250th anniversary celebrations": Agree with Graham Beards above that these would better hyphenated, especially the first of these.
Did that. Cut the 250th.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Design: In the third paragraph of this section, both Bullowa and Vermeule both talk about the symbolism in the coin; you could consider linking their similar points by putting their statements beside each other and—if you don't think it's forcing things—by using a linking word like "similarly" or "likewise" or another word if it works better. Bowers' "pleasing" design and Vermeule's "considerable appeal" could possibly also be joined, maybe by moving this part of the quotation to after the symbolism part (i.e., breaking up the longer quotation into two) and putting Bowers at the end after Vermeule. Anyways, these are just ideas and minor suggestions. No worries if you'd prefer to keep things as is.
I reversed the order of Bowers and Bullowa. I think the views are distinct enough not to warrant a "similarly".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done or responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the changes. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I see the discussion on images at the top but looks the licensing still needs a formal review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems like all licences and copyright tags check out. Images are also suitably placed. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Pleased to pick up the Source review, which I think is still needed? I'll complete this weekend. I'm afraid an Image review is above my paygrade. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I gathered from the above that Usernameunique had looked but no harm in more eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've put in a request for an image review at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ian, I don't think it'll be much trouble! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ISBN number consistency
  • I know all ISBNs lead to Rome, howsoever cited, but I think there's a preference for consistency in the style. At present we've got
four in the style XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X (the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th);
one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXX-XX-X (the 1st);
one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXXX-X-X (the 3rd);
one in the style XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X (the 7th).
For consistency, I'd probably adopt the most prevalent, that is the 3 digit-1 digit-3 digit-5 digit-1 digit (XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X) style. Another editor did once try to explain the hyphenation system to me, International Standard Book Number#Registrant element, but I must confess to not fully understanding it.
  • Richard S. Yeoman - any reason why his initials only are given, unlike all the other authors (except Q. David Bowers)? He's Richard S. in his article. I see you use initials in the main text, so just ignore if he's known as R.S. in the numismatic world.
  • Publication locations for magazines - this may also be above my paygrade so ignore if it is, but is there a reason which the Numismatist and the US Government Printing Office don't have locations? They appear to be Federalsburg, MD. and Washington, D.C., respectively. But it could be that MoS says not to use them.
  • Bullowa, David M. - uber-picky but should the publication location be New York, NY, as per Swiatek and Breen?
  • Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have clicked through to all the accessible on-line sources and they all check out.
  • Minting, distribution and collecting - not a Source review comment, but the double, proximate use of "today" in the final para. jars slightly with me; "Both the booklet and the envelope it came in are highly collectible today. Even scarcer today are boxes..." Is the second necessary?

That's my picky lot. Looks set fair for a well-deserved bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2020 [6].


Dryomyza anilis

Nominator(s): AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the fly Dryomyza anilis, with a significant portion of the page focusing on mating behavior. I underwent a rigorous round of edits to improve the page to GA status, and believe that it is a realistic candidate for FA status. I am absolutely open to hearing any and all feedback to improve the page. I also believe I have successfully incorporated edits from my first FA nomination for this page (I incorrectly nominated the page for FA before going through the GA process). AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi, just to be clear, there's no requirement to go through GAN before FAC, but getting as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, whether through GAN, Peer Review, or just asking people, is certainly useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments of Fowler&fowler

Hello AnuBalasubramanian: I can help you with the lead, which seems short for the article's size. I will get around to that in a day or two, but I couldn't help noticing the language, which seems a tad too technical. Would you consider wiki-linking some of the unfamiliar words so that someone like me, a rank beginner, can take a stab at summarizing the text into the descriptive prose appropriate for the lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Just looking at the reference list...

  • BugGuide probably isn't reliable, as far as FAC goes. It's hosted by a university, but here's the disclaimer: "Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world."
  • Same for NatureSpot. It looks like a great little local conservation charity, but it's not at the level of the sort of sources we'd be looking for here - unless you think I'm wrong about that?
  • "Otronen, null"?
  • Your Hocking reference is incomplete.
  • I couldn't see anything supporting the claim "As the fly matures, its cephalopharyngeal skeleton also modifies with time to maximize the fly's ability to take in nutrients." on the "Diptera – an overview" source, but I didn't look that closely. The reason I was looking is that the page is just providing extracts from Elsevier books/journals related to the Diptera. Perhaps it would be better to cite the books/articles/chapters/whatever in question directly?
  • Are your date formats consistent?
  • Are you consistent in your use of capitals? You seem to change between title case and sentence case for article titles. Also check your italics in article titles. And the way you refer to authors (Milburn, J. vs. Milburn, Josh - etc.). Things just look a little untidy right now - fine for GAC, but something that needs sorted for FAC.
  • Is this worth citing?

Sorry - I know these comments are frightfully dull, but this is the sort of thing that needs to be gotten right at FAC. I have to oppose until these things are sorted, but I'd be happy to withdraw my oppose and take a look at the rest of the article once the sourcing issues are resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC) For the record, I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Consider adding alt text.
  • There is no need to add a caption to the infobox image, as that just results in "Dryomyza anilis" appearing both above and below the image.
  • "File:Dryomyza (=Neuroctena) anilis - male (22900404455).jpg": "dog poo" in the description is not very encyclopedic; and may not travel well for non-BritEng speakers.
  • I there a reason why "File:Dryomyza anilis 05.JPG" is set smaller than the other images. I note that it uses px to size; this is depreciated, could you use upright?
  • Caption "Face of Dryomyza anilis, depicting the fly's large red eyes". Being picky about your choice of words, the picture depicts the face, as you say; possibly '; note the large red eyes' or similar?
  • Caption "Wing markings of Dryomyza anilis. Similar.
  • The "source" does not link to the image; replace it with the link against "Description".

The above notwithstanding, impressive work on the images for a first FAC.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

  • Just kinda jumping around, "D. anilis serve as saprophages in the ecosystem" a saprophage is immobile. Did you mean "detritivore" or more simply "scavenger"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why do you use a painting of salmon instead of a picture of an actual salmon?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "D. anilis has recently been placed back in the genus Dryomyza, of which it is the type species" if it's the type species how is it placed back? You didn't give enough context in the lead to say this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't italicize family names, only genus and species names   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note (2)

Hi, it's been well over a week since the first comments and no response from the nominator, plus I think the sourcing concerns Josh raises are probably best sorted outside the pressures of FAC, so I'm going to archive this. Aside from the suggestions above, I'd again recommend, per Brian and Laser brain at the previous FAC, considering a mentor for a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

James A. Ryder

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who was president of three universities four times. He was a major figure in Jesuit academia in the United States, helping start up two of the universities. Another in my series of Jesuit academic leaders. Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

Please note I will be claiming this review in WikiCup. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I will do a full review soon. In the meantime...

  • You haven't used O'Neill & Williams 2003. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Fixed. There was a good tidbit in there that I added to the article. Ergo Sum 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "and became a good friend..." would be better as a new sentence
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "later becoming Pope Pius IX" → "who later became Pope Pius IX"
    • Rephrased slightly so as to avoid two "became"s. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "part of 1828 in Orvieto" would be better as "part of 1828 teaching in Orvieto" --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • probably a good idea not to say "1830" twice
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "which eventually resulted" is strange. His appointment was not the cause. His inaction was the cause.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "HIs"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:HONORIFIC, please do not use honorifics like "Fr."--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "council fathers who gathered" would be easier reading
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Georgetown and Society of Jesus are linked twice. So is Thomas F. Mulledy but I can see at least that is useful.
    • Removed the redundant links. Ergo Sum 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "republicanism"; I think you should something from p. 35 or p. 24 of Kuzniewski 2014, to explain that, by saying "American in attitude", Roothaan was referring to republicanism
    • Isn't that already what the sentence says? His American attitude was support of republicanism. Ergo Sum 00:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Ergo Sum: Yes, but Kuzniewski p. 33 does not mention "republicanism". I was asking that you add either p. 35, or p. 24, to cover republicanism. I maybe over-thinking it though so feel free to ignore. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, that's a good point. I've added a citation to p. 35. Ergo Sum 04:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #24 should be inside the parenthesis
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the supposedly/purportedly inappropriate relationship with a woman needs to be mentioned somehow along with his visit to Rome in 1945 because of it
    • Both of those things are mentioned in the first sentence of the College of the Holy Cross section. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "in the streets of Washington"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Such anti-Catholic aggression" would be beneficial--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Added. Ergo Sum 00:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you have any other comments working their way through the pipeline? Ergo Sum 03:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I need another few days to finish up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "struck" has several meanings; I got stuck reading that sentence. May I suggest "signed" or "completed" or "agreed to" or "approved"
    • "Strike a deal" is a fairly common phrase. I don't know if it will cause that much confusion. Ergo Sum 14:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Presidents of the College of the Holy Cross
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am fairly certain there is no apostrophe in "Willing's Alley". What a coincidence? I just started the article Elizabeth Willing Powel a few days ago. (See this possibly usable source to expand on how he "assisted in the founding of Saint Joseph's College" and the proper spelling of Willings Alley)
    • I've seen some older source that include the apostrophe, but near all modern ones omit it. Therefore, I've removed the apostrophe. Ergo Sum 14:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've also incorporated that reference. I didn't find anything about Ryder's contribution to Saint Joseph's, but there was a useful line about his preaching while president of Georgetown. Ergo Sum 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is it for me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

I am also going to do a simultaneous source review:

  • "professorship in philosophy and theology at Georgetown"; Curran 1993, p. 109, says "to teach theology and sacred scripture"; is this the same thing as "philosophy"? Is there another source that says philosophy? Because p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907 only mentions "theology".
    • The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 109 of Curran explains that at Georgetown, he taught philosophy and theology. The teaching of sacred scripture refers to when he was in Spoleto. Ergo Sum 00:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "named the prefect of studies" is on p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907, not on p. 88
    • The ref I actually meant to cite to was Easby-Smith p. 89. Fixed it. Ergo Sum 00:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "minister and admonitor" is on p. 19 of Kuzniewski 2014--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Eccleston admiration of Ryder's preaching bleeds into p. 34 of Kuzniewski 2014. You might as well move the ref to the end of the sentence.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you only reference Croce 2017 on p. 14–15, it would be helpful to add #page=14 to the URL like this--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure. Done. Ergo Sum 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You also need p. 79 of Easby-Smith 1907 for "Twice during his presidency were stones thrown... "--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 34 does not appear to function. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • That seems to be a problem with the website the template links to. Since it is a fairly large website, I imagine this is a temporary problem that should be resolved rather soon. Ergo Sum 03:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I decided to remove that ref altogether, since it really wasn't helpful. Ergo Sum 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:James_A._Ryder_biretta.jpg: what steps have you taken to verify this was unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I have done a reverse Google search for the image, to see other places it has been used. I've tried to look for a publication date for the webpage; the only hits I get are through Carbon Dating the Web, which estimates the date of its creation in 2018. I have looked in all of the relevant books that I know of, and find no instance of the image. This would be consistent with many of the archival images published online by the Georgetown Archives, which did not start publishing old images until the late 2000s. Ergo Sum 23:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Unfortunately not much attention in over two weeks here -- I'll list in the Urgents but if we don't see more activity in the next week I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I might have a look if you hold for a few days. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil

Leaning support. My quibbles;

  • He oversaw the establishment of the Georgetown College Observatory in 1842, which was undertaken by James Curle. State the role Curle undertook; it was surely not the re-establishment of the observatory.
    • Clarified the relationship of Carley to the establishment of the observatory. Ergo Sum 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the citations seem misplaced, eg "In September 1843,[40]"....to be factious that just cites that there was a September 1843
    • I've moved that ref to the end of the sentence. It was just placed there because the other citation for that sentence didn't give the month/year of that event. Ergo Sum 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A rebellion broke out among the students in 1850. Can you state clearer here why.
    • The rest of that paragraph explains how/why it started. I've rephrased slightly to make that clearer. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • held a meeting one day - Sounds 17th century phrasing
    • Not quite sure what you mean. "Held a meeting" is pretty common language. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      • its the one day phrasing I'm quibbling over. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • causing chaos in the dormitory is hopelessly vague and not a little old fashoned
    • The source doesn't get any more specific, so I've just removed it. Ergo Sum 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentences like Having clashed with Thomas Mulledy during the latter's election as procurator of the Jesuits' Maryland province,[49] Ryder wrote that Ignatius Brocard's decision not to send Mulledy back to the College of the Holy Cross was a welcome one, as Mulledy was greatly disliked at the college.[50] are very hard to parse, as tensions between players are hinted at but not really, fully explained, taking from reader satisfaction. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right; that was a poorly written sentence. I've broken it up and streamlined the phrasing. Ergo Sum 00:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rather than say Ryder's oratorical skills brought him to California in 1852, would it be better to clarify that is oratorial skills say him promoted to a position in California in 1852 Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Do you foresee any other comments on the horizon? Ergo Sum 03:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from The Rambling Guy

So as noted, I did the GA review for this, and applied my usual GA+ criteria which hopefully took it to a level easily beyond GA but perhaps not quite FA. So with that disclosure (and that this may form part of my WikiCup entry), here are my thoughts:

  • Second para of lead might use another "Ryder" instead of five consecutive pronouns.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "He began his novitiate..." sentence seems quite long, could consider a split after you describe Kenney?
    • Split up. Ergo Sum 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "from Alexandria, Virginia on" comma after Virginia per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "He also spent..." -> "Ryder also..." as the previous "he" was the pope.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "up aprofessorship in" is this a neologism?!
    • Should have been a space in the middle. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "of which he became its first " this reads just a little odd, I don't think you need "its" (because you already have "of which") so just "the first".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "17, 1830, this was the " it was, rather than this was?
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • " at the College" I'm never entirely clear on capitalisation MOS but shouldn't this just be college?
    • I think either can be sustained here. I've made it lowercase. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ryder's relationship with Washington's politicians was strong. He had a particularly good relationship with" quick repeat of "relationship with" which could use some mixing up.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "and Jan Roothaan cited" don't normally need to repeat first names under unambiguous circumstances. Several instances of this...
    • Removed a few instances of the first name. Ergo Sum 20:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Our article doesn't once hyphenate antebellum.
    • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "He oversaw the ..." -> "Ryder oversaw..."
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "He voiced support" which "he"?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Upon his return," Ryder's?
    • Yes. Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "upon" used three times in two sentences, could use a mix again.
    • Changed it up. Ergo Sum 20:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "in accordance with the orders of the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858, Charles Stonestreet, " -> "in accordance with the orders of Charles Stonestreet, the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858,"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Philadelphia,[59] following a brief illness.[3] " I would just put those refs together at the end, pure aesthetics...
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 29 needs a pp.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's about all I see this time round. Mostly just overt pedantry, but perhaps some of it useful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
As ever, a pleasure. Great work, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Drake Would Love Me

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a song by American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014). Its lyrics are about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake. "Drake Would Love" was never released as a single and did not appear on any music charts, but its odd title and concept still attracted attention from media outlets. It received generally positive reviews from critics, although some criticized Michelle's decision to dedicate a song to Drake.

For this project, I was inspired by AJona1992's FAC for the Selena song "Missing My Baby" to work on an article about an album track. I do not have a lot of experience with bringing song articles to the FA level, so I would greatly appreciate any feedback as always for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Moisejp

Oppose for now, hope to change to support later.

Hi Aoba, I hope you’re well. I would say this article is not quite ready for FA yet, but I hope you may likely be able to fix the issues within the period of this FAC. Below I’m just highlighting quickly what for me would be some of the biggest issues. Once you resolve these I may have some other smaller points.

  • In the second paragraph of the Critical reception section, there are four criticisms, but there is only one of them (the “just plain weird” one) that is very clear to me what the context is. The other ones feel like they need more background. Also the last one wiki-links to “sucking-teeth” but it mentions the context as being for the West Indies, while the writer of the review seems to be New York-based. It’s not clear that the wiki-link is relevant.
  • I believe the "sucking-teeth" slang has expanded beyond the West Indies as it something that I have heard the expression in the US, but I understand your point. I have expanded on this paragraph to include further information from the sources, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of the section there are some worthwhile-sounding points made by various writers, but it’d be nice if they could be tied together to try to link some similarities or related points among the different comments.
  • I have revised the paragraph to link some of the similar points made by critics. The commonalities that I found are that critics were (in this case pleasantly) surprised by how the song sounded in comparison to the title and enjoyed Michelle's humor. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Not just in that paragraph, but also in the Composition and lyrics section—and I’ve mentioned this in a couple of previous reviews of articles you’ve nominated, and I hope I don’t sound like a broken record—I feel there are too many brief unrelated points reviewers say, listed one after another, without any overarching narrative to them. For me it’d be great if some of these could be fleshed out, to appear more substantial, and similar themes or trends among the things they say could be highlighted so there is a more solid story for the reader. Your first version of When You Get a Little Lonely suffered from that, but then you came back with more points of substance and a more solid narrative, and it was really a lot better.
  • That is a fair point so no worries. I went for the following approach with this section. The first paragraph would focus on the music itself (i.e. genre, instrumentation, etc.), the second on the lyrics, and the third on how the song fits with the rest of the album. I renamed the section to "Music and lyrics" to hopefully make the separation of the first two paragraphs clearer. I have revised all of the paragraphs so hopefully it does not sound like just a bunch of information randomly smashed together, but let me know if further work is necessary. I would argue that the overall narrative of this article (and the publications about this particular song) focuses on the bizarre nature of a singer writing fan fiction about Drake. It is certainly a strange moment in music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overall I feel there are too many quotations in the article. More paraphrasing would be better.
  • Understandable, any particular section or paragraph stand out with this? Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t understand what the comparison to Dr. Seuss is supposed to mean. It could use more context if it’s available in the source.
  • I have attempted to revise this part. I think the source is making this comparison based on how the song lists Drake's qualities through a similar rhyming style to a Seuss book (i.e. same/games). This is the full quote from the source about it for further clarification: (In “Drake Would Love Me,” which reads like a romantic R&B song written by Dr. Seuss, Michelle enumerates Drake’s finest qualities: he would show her off at the Grammys; he would treat her like “his grand prize”; he wouldn’t lie; he wouldn’t make her cry; he wouldn’t “play no games”; he would “always be the same.”) Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s all for now. While the article is not quite at there yet, with a little oiling here and there I think the gap is not so insurmountable and I wish you good luck improving it. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments! I will go through the article sometime tomorrow to try my best to address your points if that is okay with you. I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that I have seen the comments. Thank you for being upfront with your oppose. Apologies again for being quite bad at taking criticism in the past, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. I will let you know on here when I have revised the article, and I am looking forward to working with you further on this. This one is a little outside of my comfort zone so it will be nice to work through the article slowly tomorrow as I do agree with your points above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe that I have addressed everything so I will refrain from editing the article further until I get further feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Aoba. RL is a bit busy right now, but I hope to get back to looking back at the article in the next few days or so. I'm looking forward to seeing the changes you made. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No worries. Take as much time as you need as there is no rush. Hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

  • Suggest to move what the song is about to near the start of the first paragraph.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was written by Michelle, Bianca Atterberry, and Stephen Mosty and its producers Ronald "Flippa" Colson and Oak Felder." I suggest to replace one of the instances of "and" with "as well as". Three in one sentence feels like two much (even two is pushing it).
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would drop "Musically" from the start of the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "discussed its placement on Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?" As is, seems too vague to be meaningful.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Production and release:

  • The middle two paragraphs don't seem like production, and maybe fall more under theme/writing/inspiration. You could consider expanding the title of this section to encompass something like this.
  • I have revised the section title to "Background and release", but I am open to any suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is about the song about Drake. I'd argue that what's in the second and third paragraphs should be more prominent (i.e., come before) the first paragraph. Or maybe merge the content about the songwriters into what is now the second paragraph, then put the stuff about production, vocals, mixing, and mastering near the end, just before the paragraph about its release.
  • That is a good point. I have restructured this section, but I will look through it again later today to make sure it is cohesive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "favor" (near the end of the second paragraph): could I suggest "respond to" or "like", or something else?
  • Replaced with "respond to". Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?". Where it is now, it feels too off-handed an introduction to the album that the song would be released on.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Jon Caramanica highlighted it as an example of clickbait". The NYT article says "'Drake Would Love Me' is great clickbait soul, a song in which she aligns herself with hip-hop’s great emoter." I read the sentence in the "Drake Would Love Me" article, and the sentence in the NYT article, and how clickbait is described in the wiki-link, and I don't have confidence that the three are aligned. The NYT article only has the one elusive sentence about this, so it's hard to know exactly what nuance of "clickbait" the author may be hinting at.
  • I have removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Music and lyrics:

  • "calming melody": Could this be paraphrased?
  • I am not sure it has or should be paraphrased. There are a relatively low amount of quotations in this section in particular, and I do not see the value of paraphrasing this part. But, that is just my personal opinion, and I am open to ideas about this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In this case, I didn't mention this one due to the frequency of quotations in its proximity. Rather, it's because there are quotations that add spice and life to an article and others that stick out for their blandness. This could just be my opinion too, but I think by putting quotation marks around words it highlights them in a way as "important text". And when a bland phrase is highlighted as "important text" the reader may wonder "Did this need to be underlined as important text even when it's such an everyday little phrase with no special or deep meaning. Could it maybe have been paraphrased?" But again, that could just be my opinion, and it's okay if you disagree. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation. For some reason, my brain just died and I could not think of a way to paraphrase this part without sounding dumb. I have revised it to remove the quote completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The song contains references to Drake's music,[17] including: "Drake wouldn't leave me, he would keep me, never break his promises / I'd be the best he ever had, he'd be on his best behavior." " Does this mean similar phrases appear in one or more of Drake's songs (that's what the references to his music are)? If so, maybe this should be explained more explicitly and the referenced song should be mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception:

  • Amorosi's review seems to make the point that the song was unexpectedly not funny, then a little bit later there is the statement that "Michelle's humor was also the subject of praise" with some examples given, with no acknowledgement made that this may differ from Amorosi's interpretation. I think it would be nice if those bits were linked to each other better.
  • Good point. I have revised this part to help with the flow of the overall paraagraph. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Brown remarked that the lyrics adhere to how Drake presents himself as the ideal man rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women." Can you give more background about what his realistic attitude towards women might be? Are there indications that he might sometimes have a bad attitude? I actually know very little about Drake myself, but I did read once he was criticized for his attitudes in "Hotline Bling". Are there other examples? I don't know, I just think the current wording of "rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women" kind of suggests there may be more to say about it.
  • I have attempted to address this, but I would greatly appreciate any further feedback on this point. The Jezebel source portrays Drake as someone who has relationships with many, many women as opposed to the more romantic ideal in the song. Some media outlets have criticized Drake's music as sexist (although there are also critics who say the opposite), and there has been discussion about his relationship with underage girls (with his friendship with Millie Bobby Brown being a more recent point of discussion). I was hesitant about adding the second part to the article as I was uncertain if it would go against any of the WP:BLP policies. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians,[28] The Washington Post's Chris Richards still felt it was "mildly radioactive" to release a track explicitly about a crush on another singer." In the first part of this sentence, it's kind of good that you're trying to add some background. But it feels misleading as it is now. It sounds like Richards is making this "Although..." point when I believe all he said was the second part of the sentence. I wonder if there's a good way to shuffle the sentence up a bit so that the first part doesn't sound misleading but can still be kept as useful background. Moisejp (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to revise this part, but I am more than happy to hear further suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits to the lead. It is nice to see a different approach as I think a lot of the leads for song articles can be quite cookie-cutter in terms of structure. I think your edits have improved it, and I would be more than happy to hear any further suggestions on how to improve it more. Aoba47 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "she explained that Drake attracted a female fanbase because he releases more love songs than other men and was more respectful to women in his music": "explained" doesn't seem like the best word to me, but before I can suggest a better word, it would help if Michelle's stance was clearer. Was she a fan of Drake herself, i.e., does she include herself in the female fans who admired his love songs and his respect for women in music? Or is she more detached, and is observing these women and putting herself in their shoes like an actress would? Are their indications in the sources that could clarify this distinction and possibly flesh out this aspect and add to our understanding of Michelle's motivations for writing this song? As it is, this sentence (for me, anyway) falls flat as it doesn't go deep enough to be meaningful or helpful in our understanding of why she said this. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • According to the sources, Michelle and Drake are friends and she respects him as a person. I went back to watch the Breakfast Club interview directly, and she explicitly says the song was inspired by conversations that women had in the recording studio. The interview can be watched here, and the part about this song starts around 1:55. It seems more like she is putting herself into the fans' shoes and recorded the song because she knew it would appeal to a particular demographic of people. I think it would be best to cite the interview directly and add this part to the article. I went to the official YouTube account for the Breakfast Club and I had trouble finding this interview there, although I could just cite the interview directly. I hope that clarifies things further. Thank you again for taking the time to do this review as you have helped to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to incorporate the information from the interview into the article. It is a little rough though admittedly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "She has also written songs about Kim Kardashian for her fourth studio album Kimberly: The People I Used to Know (2017) and Jay-Z and Ciara for her fifth studio album All Monsters Are Human (2020)." Maybe consider putting this in a footnote. It feels out of place in the current flow of facts in this section.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "In a 2018 article for Rolling Stone, Elias Light described Felder as one of the most influential R&B producers partially for writing and producing "breakout hits" for artists like Michelle, Nicki Minaj, and Alessia Cara." The relevance of this feels questionable to me. I would strongly consider removing it.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "critics described it as either a ballad or a slow jam". I don't think "either...or" really works here. One critic called it a ballad and another called it a slow jam? Maybe there's another way you can find to express that?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "A Music Times contributor wrote that the track fits with the "often emotional themes" in his music." This is another place I'd recommend paraphrasing—again, not because there are necessarily too many other quotations in the vicinity, but rather because it's such an everyday phrase that sticks out as not needing to be quoted directly.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Renowned for Sound's Meggie Morris and The Quietus' Alex Macpherson noted...": Here "noted" may not be good as it suggests an objective truth, while this sentence is about an interpretation or opinion.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Especially in this Music and lyrics section (and to a lesser degree throughout the article as a whole) there is an overabundance of sentences using simple S-V-O sentence structure. It would be great if there could be more variation in sentence structure, for example by starting more sentences by subordinate clauses.
  • I have tried to revise this, but let me know if more work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, in retrospect, even with the change you made, I would argue that "Music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians" doesn't work at all; it feels like a stretch to connect it to what Chris Richards wrote. I would recommend cutting this bit. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No worries. It is good to try things and realize when they are not working. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I'll try to have another read-through in the next couple of days or so. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you, and take as much time as you need. Hope you are having a good start to your week :) Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The article has definitely improved. I'm removing my oppose for now, but there are still a number of points I feel could be tighter:

  • The first paragraph of Background and release flows quite a bit better than before—nice work on it. But one issue still: "Along with this inspiration, she also based the track on how Drake's fans fantasize that he would fall in love with them." Right before this we get a somewhat specific account of her hearing conversation in the studio, so this next sentence falls a bit flat. It's not clear where she may have come up with these ideas—maybe also from hearing it in the studio, maybe somewhere else. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look at the sources, but if it happens this information isn't available, maybe just the sentence can be rewritten a bit. Perhaps in this case substitute something else for "based the track on", which I think adds to the reader's expectation of something more specific.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the same paragraph, two sentences in a row with "appeal". Can you change one for variety?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "Although a majority of Michelle's music is autobiographical, she clarified in a 2014 interview with The Breakfast Club that she only had a platonic relationship with Drake." Yeah, I might not have time to delve into the sources, but is one half of this from ref 8 and the other half from ref 9? As it is now, it's kind of unclear whether she may have said both parts in the Breakfast Club interview. It would be reassuring for the reader to know whether it was Michelle who said the first part, and possibly whether she said it in that interview or elsewhere. Or, at the very least, if one part is from 8 and the other is from 9, maybe you could put one of the refs in the middle of the sentence and the other at the end.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Throughout the track, Michelle sings about attending the Grammy Awards with him and being hated by his groupies." From this it sounds like them being at the Grammies and fending off groupies is a major part of the song. Is this the case? If not, maybe reword "Throughout the track".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't immediately think of anything better, but I'm not sure the structure "When Michelle lists... Feeney compared" works. Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "In USA Today, Martín Caballero praised it as an "anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad", and liked it despite the focus on Drake": Not clear from this why Caballero would find it problematic that the song was about Drake.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Critical reception, first paragraph: Two sentences in close proximity with "writing for...". Maybe you can change the first one. It may not be an impossible wording, but "writing for, enjoyed" still seems a little awkward ("writing for" means he's at his computer, then suddenly "enjoyed" is not clear what the flow of ideas is).
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You asked before whether "and for his relationships with underage women" may be counter to BLP. I don't know the answer. If there's another example of bad behavior/attitudes towards women that you can find, it could be an idea to substitute it in. But if you can't find anything else, I don't know what to suggest. The point is stronger with two examples rather than just the one about misogyny. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Drake's communications with younger women is definitely the thing getting the most attention (more so than the misogynistic lyrics) so it should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "and considered it a reason for her popularity": What is "it" here? I'm not sure that it's clear. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Reviewers were surprised by the song due to their reservations about its unconventional subject matter": This sentence is a little bit confusing and when I try to deconstruct it I'm not sure all the pieces fit together (but they may, and it may just be me). If you can think of a clearer (possibly simpler) way to say this, it would be helpful to me at least. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised. I am uncertain if this sentence really works. I was trying to tie together these two ideas. The USA Today critic was surprised that the song "works" because of its odd title/subject, while The Philadelphia Inquirer critic expected something funny/cocky rather than serious. I had tried to tie them together because they both came to the song with different expectations, but had a positive response to the song. However, an expectation for a song to be bad and another for a song to be funny or quite different so maybe it would be best to remove the sentence altogether? Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments. I have attempted to address everything, but let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

There are probably a few places that this could do with a little tightening. I've had a quick look, and found a few things but nothing major. I'm no expert on "reception" sections, but reading the above comments, I think the nominator has cleaned up that section quite nicely and it seems to flow reasonably well now. Here are a few thoughts from me. It reads nicely enough overall, and has been well put together so far. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think we are overusing "Michelle" (if you do a Ctrl-F, the page lights up like a Christmas tree), and a little rephrasing and increased use of pronouns would make this a little less repetitive. (This is always one to watch out for, and I'm guilty of it myself, every time, without fail!)
  • Revised, but let me know if more instances of "Michelle" could be replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks better now. I removed one more of them. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In a few places, we lose our encyclopaedic tone, mainly because of the sources. A little rewriting should solve this easily enough. For example, "A writer for The Fader cited "Drake Would Love Me" as the number-one time R&B music was "just plain weird" in 2014" reads very awkwardly (Is there any reason we are not naming the writer?). It could be reworded simply as "In The Fader, X described it as "just plain weird" which avoids the current online media obsession with lists of "times that...". Another example of tone issues would be "Jon Caramanica believed Michelle was smart to release a song" ("smart" is too informal) but it may be worth looking for others.
  • Understandable. I added the "smart" sentence pretty recently so it was not as edited as other parts of the article. I have removed that part altogether because it does not seem necessary as I have already used the critic in a previous section to reference the song as click-bait. I have revised The Fader part according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "AllMusic's Andy Kellman wrote that Michelle "emphasizes certain syllables like surgical knife twists" with her vocals.": I have no idea what this means, so could we perhaps give an example of what Kellman means? If he doesn't give any examples, I'd be inclined to cut this as meaningless.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The opening lines are: "I would be the apple of his eye and he would treat me like his grand prize ... trophy" and the chorus is "Drake would love me, he would kiss me, he would touch me like I need."": What is the significance of this? Without commentary, we are just quoting the opening lines for the fun of it. Also, as the last thing we mention is Bynes' tweet, it may be read as quoting that.
  • I could understand removing the opening lines as that is rather arbitrary, but since the chorus is the an important part of the song, should it be included in the article to help a reader better understand the song? If not, I would be fine removing it, but I thought I should ask first. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've no real opinion either way. If we can add some commentary from somewhere, that would be ideal; I can't see much point in adding lines unless we can show they're important, but it's not a huge deal either way and isn't really related to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the chorus sentence. I have a feeling it was actually more detrimental to the article because it pulled focus and made the section in particular seem more like a random collection of facts than anything with cohesion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Critics had varying opinions on how "Drake Would Love Me" fit with the rest of Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?.": A little awkward (especially with the doubled punctuation at the end of the sentence, but that may be unavoidable without making it a little contrived). Also, from what we quote here, their opinions didn't really vary that much. And I think the rephrasing done after the above comments has introduced one little glitch: we introduce Alex Macpherson's idea that the final three songs are linked, go to Morris' comments, then return to Macpherson linking the final three songs. Possibly this could be reworked a little?
  • Thank you for catching that. I have recently edited this paragraph and left a duplicate sentence on Macpherson. I have revised the paragraph and took out the topic sentence as I am not sure it is really necessary. Let me know if further revision is necessary. For album/song titles with punctuation, like Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?, should a period be used if it appears at the end of a sentence? I was never quite sure of that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You're asking the wrong person! MoS isn't my thing at all. It looks strange, but that doesn't make it wrong. My preference would be to reword it to avoid the problem, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't make for a horrible sentence! Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am just glad that I am not the only one that has these questions/problems lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Some reviewers were surprised by the song due to its title": A little awkward (better as "The song surprised some reviewers...") but maybe we need to explain what it was that surprised them. "Some critics, however, disliked the song's focus on Drake" also reads a little awkwardly too; maybe a further polish of the prose might be needed?
  • Revised both parts. I believe critics were surprised because they assumed the song would be more of a joke based on its title, but they found it to be far more serious than their initial expectations. Let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding "The song surprised some reviewers who expected it to be more comical than serious", maybe "Reviewers were surprised by the serious theme of the song, expecting it to be comical"? (Or even "jovial"?) I liked the reference to the title in the previous version, but I notice that only the Star Tribune ref supports this. Could you find another review that makes explicit the expectations raised by the title, and put back "owing to its title"? Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I also prefer the "due to its title". I have checked the reviews again and I unfortunately could not find an explicit reference to the title. I had used this sentence (Don't ask us how or why, but Drake serves as the inspiration for this anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad, and it works) from the USA Today source to support the title wording in the previous version, but that is a stretch. I am also starting to feel uncertain about the "comedic" part (and that was my comment so I take responsibility for that recommendation) since the USA Today source was more surprised the song worked because they though it would be a failure. Upon further reflection, it seems like the USA Today and Star Tribune sources were more surprised by how much they enjoyed the song despite their initial expectations of the song. Do you have a suggestion for a better sentence for this? Apologies for the long message here. Just trying to look through this part thoroughly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The order of "Production and release" could perhaps be improved. We really should discuss her playing the song to Drake before we describe its release, and maybe move the initial reaction to the title of the song to before we talk about its release too?
  • That is a good point. I was somewhat uncertain on how to best structure this section. I believe that I have revised it per your suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very short article. I think I know the answer (a resounding "NO!") but are there any more details about how she wrote the song? She wrote it "with Bianca Atterberry, Ronald "Flippa" Colson, Oak Felder, and Stephen Mostyn" but we say nothing about their role. Can we expand on what they did? I'm guessing that, at least, the lyrics were exclusively Michelle's but it would be nice to know a little more about how it was all put together. I suspect nothing is out there, but we should at least look. As it stands, I would find it hard to support an article which is so sparse; however, I certainly would NOT oppose on such grounds, so don't worry.
  • It is a fair concern, and I would not take it personally if an editor did oppose on those grounds. I imagine that is one of the mains reasons getting a non-single song to the FA level is difficult. After doing another search, I could not find any additional sources. K. Michelle is more of a lesser-known artist so she does not get the same coverage as major artists. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest. If we could find a bit more background, I think this would be a marvellous little article. I've got no idea where such things might be found as modern music isn't really my thing... but have any print magazines covered her? No features on her? Even if we just said a little more about her, that might help too. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was just doing a little digging, and it looks like Bianca Atterberry has worked on a few things with her before. I'm also wondering if she is notable enough for her own article? She is on a few "profile" sites, and is mentioned in a few news articles. But not anything that helps this article yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the recommendations. I will look into print publications, and I will also look around web results around the album's release with some creative search terms. A feature or a portion of an article could have touched on this song without using the exact title so it is worthwhile to search further. It was a good idea to look into Atterberry. I will look further into the songwriters and producers and see if there are any interesting points about their collaborations with Michelle specifically. I agree that if more information could be added here that it would really tie the article together. Thank you for taking the time to help! Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added the following Rolling Stone feature on Felder. The article talks about how Felder became an influential R&B producer and mentions he has produced "breakout hits" for artists, including K. Michelle. In the following interview with K. Michelle, the interviewer mentions how she has often written songs about other artists. However, since the site does not seem particularly reliable enough for a featured article, I have cited the albums directly, although I do quite like this line, "inspired musically by different entertainers and their public stories". Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • One area that we might perhaps expand... I think we could say a little more about Drake. Who is he? Why are people obsessed with him? Maybe flag up how unusual it is for one musician to write about another (we merely mention this as a reviewer comment). Has anyone looked at this? It would be nice background for this song, and give it a little more context than the usual stuff we get in all song articles. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. The article as a whole and the song itself focuses on Drake's popularity with women so it would be beneficial to add background here. I am always uncertain on when to add background information so that was my fault. I will also look into coverage on songs dedicated to or about other singers. I think this instance is unusual since this is a love song dedicated to a singer, although neither party was ever in a romantic relationship or had a romantic attraction to each other. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I found a few sources about Drake's female fanbase and incorporated them into the article, although I will revisit that portion later to iron out the prose further. I will still search for background information about musicians writing about other musicians. I added in what I found and revised that particular paragraph to hopefully help with the overall flow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No fault anywhere, and certainly no rush. Take you time, it's worth doing this right. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it is always best to take one's time with this. I will of course keep you updated on my progress. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe that I found updated the article with enough background material on Drake, and I have added the best that I could find on songs about singers. I would like to clarify that The Washington Post source mentions how fans often have crushes on singers, but he believed it was "mildly radioactive" for a singer to have a crush on another performer. I have hopefully updated that paragraph so it reads clearer and more like a cohesive narrative. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC

@Sarastro1: Apologies for the ping, but I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your points above and complete the resarch (at least for now) on the requested point in case you missed. I am in no rush since this FAC is still relatively new so I do not mean this ping to be rushing you. Just wanted to use it as an update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

Going to start a review on this at some point soon. I do intend to claim Wikipedia:WikiCup points for this review. Toa Nidhiki05 00:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Prose
Per WP:MOS#YEAR, punctuation should follow the date (December 2, 2014) in the lead.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph, specifically “which critics described as a slow jam and a ballad” being split off by a period and “which”. It kind of reads like the critics are describing the R&B song. Maybe using a semicolon (ie. ; critics described it as a slow jam and a ballad) would work better.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
In “Michelle based the song on his female fans” would change “his” to “Drake’s”, given “his” is used later in the sentence. I would also ditch the comma here.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The order seems wrong in “attributed his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics" as the reason women respond to his music”. Perhaps it should read “attributed the reason women respond to his music to his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics."“?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Same issue with the first sentence of “Music and Lyrics” as in the lead.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
”including "Best I Ever Had", "Worst Behavior", and "Make Me Proud"” is split off with a comma before it but not after. It might be worth considering parenthesis here instead.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the help so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    I’ve looked at the citations as well here and they seem to be in order in terms of consistent formatting and content. Tentative support for prose and formatting. Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Paparazzzi

Wait for my review soon. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Lead and infobox
  • "...American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014), and is about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake." I would add that line in bold right after "the song was based on Michelle's perception of how Drake's female fans responded to him." in the second paragraph, for it to be more cohesive.
  • That is understandable. I move it before that sentence since it has the descriptive phrase for Drake and I think it may be better to introduce the song's main narrative before going into the inspiration, but I am open to putting it later in that paragraph if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Has Michelle performed this song live?
  • I could not find any information on a live performance. I double-checked the set lists for her tours for and after this album. It is a shame because I would genuinely want to hear her perform this live. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Steven Ace is not mentioned on the lead
  • Thank you for catching that. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? track listing really needed on the infobox?
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Background
  • Is the information in citation A really relevant? it does not have anything to do with the song
  • I have removed. I added it because I have found a recent interview where the interviewer mentions how Michelle has often written songs based on other artists, and I thought it may be useful for adding background to this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe a picture of Michelle herself would be more useful than one of Oak. She is the performer of the track, after all
  • Changed. It is not the best picture in the world, but I do agree it is best to have a picture of the main artist in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Critical reception
  • ""Drake Would Love Me" received generally positive reviews from music critics." With no sources supporting it received mostly positive reviews, this falls into WP:SYNTH
  • I am not sure if it counts as WP:SYNTH since the rest of the paragraph includes citations with positive reviews. I have removed the "generally" part as I could see that going into WP:OR as "generally" could be interpreted in many ways, but I would imagine the sentence without it should be fine. That is just my perspective though, and I am open to further discussion on how to best handle this part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
References

@Aoba47: More to come later. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments. I appreciate you for taking the time to look through the article. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I support this nomination. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for the edit to remove the notes part. I cannot believe that I forgot to do that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

INTERFET logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything to nag about except WP:NBSP work needed. Good luck here, Hawkeye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

Overall: Well-written and well-researched article, no major red flags in terms of quality, neutrality and copyright, and it is well-referenced. As I read the article from top to bottom, here's what I found can be improved:

  • "was a highly complex, and ultimately successful, endeavour": I wonder if we should skip including this conclusion in the first sentence and let the facts below stand for themselves.
    Sure. Why not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Eleven nations contributed transport aircraft to the ..., but over 90 per cent of the cargo and most of the passengers travelled by sea …" If the sea is the primary means of transport shouldn't that be mentioned ahead of the airlift?
    Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "transported by a naval task force that included the high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay and landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which brought supplies from Australia by sea. Crucial support came from the replenishment oiler HMAS Success and tankers HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur." What is the difference between the roles of the first 2 ships and the last 3 ships, that they needed to be listed separately?
    The first two were moving troops and cargo, the latter providing logistical support. With the exception of the UK, English-speaking people have to travel long distances to get anywhere much, so at-sea refuelling and logistic support are essential; but many other navies lack this capability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The logistical support units spent the next two months catching up and eliminating backlogs: which months were these? The start date of the mission wasn't mentioned at this point.
    Changed to "October and November"
  • I think the leads are missing these info: when the mission starts and ends (in months if not dates), as well as a brief background of East Timor's status (did it already gain independence, or is in transition?) as well as why INTERFET was deployed.
    Added: "INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999"
  • The island was formally divided between the Netherlands and Portugal in 1637: 1661 is the year mentioned by the reference?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • the first Portuguese governor of East Timor was appointed in 1702: The ref says 1701
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Any idea who were on the island or ruled it before the Europeans came? I'd suggest 1-2 sentences for the sake of completeness because paragraph 1 of background seems to focus on the colonial history, and begins with the Portuguese establishing a settlement which seems very European-centric for a non-European island.
    The East Timorese of course; my main concern was not with colonialism, but explaining how the island came to be divided in two. Added a couple of sentences: "The island of Timor has been populated for up to 40,000 years, populated by successive waves of immigrants from southern India, Malaysia and Melanesia. It was ruled by small kingdoms that traded spices, slaves and sandalwood with their neighbours."
  • "the preferential allocation of resources to combat capabilities and the acceptance of risk in logistics functions brought the Army to the precipice of operational failure.": name the source of this quote inline
    Any reason why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    • In my view, this quote is an opinion, and WP:WIKIVOICE recommends that opinions are not stated in Wikipedia's voice (already done, by using quotation marks) and attributed to the source making the opinion. HaEr48 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        Very well. The point is that liked the quote, which neatly sums up the consensus among historians; but the author of the quote is less of an authority than the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Planning and organization: I understand that because Australia is the coalition leader it merits more coverage, but can we please find something about the other nations, especially those that sent large contingents ? I think this is important for the comprehensiveness criteria because other nations account for about half the troops.
  • Added a paragraph on New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, if Australia was actually responsible for all logistics in the mission, we should add more info about how it came to be that way, e.g. was there any coordination or discussion among the other nations that decided it this way? I think it's important both for comprehensiveness and to provide context to readers on why the rest of the article is so Australian-centric. Right now, Australia's almost exclusive role is presented as a given without much context.
  • The codename Operation Stabilise was given to operations in and around East Timor, while Operation Warden included its logistic support activities in Australia: The second part is a little ambiguous, does Warden include or exclude operations in East Timor? If it is excluded, maybe the preceding sentence should be reworded because it gives the impression that Warden is entire intervention.
    Added "also" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • However, due to its isolation, Darwin had better facilities than other cities of similar size: suggest explaining the causal relation between isolation and better facilities, it is not very obvious for the general reader like me.
    "Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size" ?
    • Sounds good. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The outsourcing of "non-core" logistical functions in the ADF had created critical shortages of many essential trades ranging from cooks to port terminal handlers: Isn't the point of outsourcing to expand the workforce? why does it cause shortage?
    No, the purpise is to contract the workforce. Added: "as many of these jobs were no longer performed by military personnel" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In "planning" Wilkinson was appointed Logistic Component Commander on 26 August, but in "organization" the date is 30 August - any reason for the different dates?
    It is not uncommon for a commander to be designated
  • Stapleton was "dual-hatted" as both NCC (Commander, Task Group 645.1), answerable to both Cosgrove (Commander, Task Force 645) as COMFLOT (Commander, Task Group 627.1), and to COMAST's Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral John Lord (Commander, Task Force 627): Are there to many "both"s in this sentence? Could it be reworded to clarify?
    Got rid of one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Spell out the full form of COMFLOT when first mentioned.
    Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Barrie announced: The operation will be Operation Stabilise…: is there any date of this announcement?
    19 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "An important concern was the Japanese encephalitis vaccine regime": is it because the disease is endemic in East Timor, because there was an outbreak at the time, or…?
    Added that the disease is endemic to East Timor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Deployment: suggest reordering "Sealift" before "Airlift", because sealift seems to have had bigger contribution.
    Yes, but the airlift comes first chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Deployment: Did other non-Australian troops (especially outside Commonwealth countries) also deploy via Darwin/Australia? Could we add some explanation?
    The Canadians, New Zealanders and Kenyans are mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, purchased in 1994: Suggest removing "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The heliport was found abandoned: "The heliport" hasn't been mentioned before. Is it in Comoro, in the UNAMET compound, or somewhere else?
    It's in Dili. I supplied a map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Christianson went to the control tower and explained, through an interpreter since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia,: "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian name of the language, which seems weird in an English sentence. Suggest using the English word "Indonesian". Compare "he did not speak Español" (seems weird) vs "he did not speak Spanish"
    • Alternatively we can also get rid of "since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia" because it is implied from the use of translator
      Australians always refer to it that way. It's not obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No. 381 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF assumed responsibility for the operation of the airport at Dili, while No. 382 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF operated Cakung Airport at Baucau: Did they take over all operations at the airports, or just INTERFET-related?
  • All operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • " It was augmented by three French Air Force C-130Hs…" Suggest splitting the sentence because it is too long.
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Curious, is "C-130H" short for C-130 Hercules, or is it a variant of the aircraft? It seems both C-130H and C-130 are used in the text
    It is the model of the C-130. Everyone was flying the H model except the British, who had the K model See Lockheed C-130 Hercules#Further developments for all the technical details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "In order to effect Cosgrove's operational concept of flooding East Timor with as many combat troops as possible, Evans deployed ..." Suggest adding the roles of Cosgrove and Evans in INTERFET, here or before, as context to this statement.
    They are detailed earlier. In case someone is unsure which Evans is referred to, the text says "his brigade" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • as had occurred in the Vietnam War in 1966: Just to clarify: did this occur to Australia in 1966 or to the US-led coalition overall?
    We're talking about Australian forces here. Added a bit.
  • ADF cargo was tracked using three computer systems, the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS), Lotus Notes Interim Demand System (LNIDS), and the Cargo Visibility System (CVS): Given it mentions Lotus Notes as the developer of LNIDS, also mention those of SDSS and CVS for completeness?
    No, all were developed by DoD. The LNIDS is just an applicationuses Lotus notes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Each soldier had to carry a day's supply: is this Australian regulation applying to Australian soldiers or a general rule of thumb for everyone? Suggest clarifying because not all troops are Australian.
    No, everyone. At this point though, the foreign contingent consisted of the Gurkhas, SBS and NZ SAS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • the ADF had no ship-to-shore refuelling capability: Is there a good link for " ship-to-shore refuelling capability", to help understanding what that usually requires?
    No, unfortunately Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • With limited stocks of ammunition on hand, the 1,500 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade confronted some 15,000 TNI troops, who presumably had plenty of ammunition:
    • Not sure if confronted is the best word here, given that the mission was Indonesian-sanctioned? How about something like "In comparison, TNI had 15,000 troops in the area who presumably had plenty of ammunition"?
      Hmmm. Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Is the 3rd brigade singled out because they were the first one to be deployed?
      Yes. All INTERFET troops were assigned or attached the 3rd Brigade for operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The first phase of this was Operation Lavarack, in which 2 RAR moved by air and armoured personnel carriers of B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, by sea, to occupy Balibo, which was secured on 5 October
    • Can this be reworded to be easier to parse? Did 2 RAR move by air and APC, or did 2 RAR move by air and the APCs moved by sea (if the latter, why were only the APCs moved and not the squadrons themselves)?
      That wasn't what I meant; I just meant that B Squadron moved by sea with its APCs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • " He was assisted by students from the...": Is "he" Cavanaugh or Wilkinson?
    Wilkinson. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The main body arrived in Dili on 3 December, but the ship carrying its heavy plant and equipment did not reach Brisbane until 27 November: 27 November is still before 3 December, so why is it a "but"?
    Because Brisbane is not Dili. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "There was no vaccine" and "Nor was there any treatment other than rest": are these for both diseases or just dengue?
    Dengue. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "One Malaysian UN observer died from malaria.": suggest moving it before "A particular concern with dengue…" because (1) the death seems more significant than the nine soldiers getting treated (but alive) (2) the Malaysian sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the rest of the paragraph it is in.
    Added a bridge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "A prophylactic regime was instituted whereby personnel were given a daily dose of 100 milligrams (1.5 gr) of doxycycline commencing two days before departure from Australia and continuing for two weeks after returning": Who instituted it? INTERFET or Australian military? Is it for all INTERFET troops, or just Australian ones?
    Australians, although it is true of New Zealanders as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • three weeks after return from Australia: How about Australian soldiers, when did they get this primaquine?
    From the RMO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • told a CMOC meeting : what's a CMOC?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Postal: Interesting info, any info for mails from/to other countries further than Australia?
    No, but I'd be surprised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • took advantage of free mail delivery: Is it free due to the military mission, or due to Christmas? does the free delivery apply to soldiers from all over the world or just Australian?
    Just to Australians, but for the whole time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Indonesia recognised East Timor as an independent nation on 19 October, and TNI forces withdrew on 31 October, leaving INTERFET in charge: I think this is better placed as background than "end of mission" as it was closer to the beginning? Also, while reading the article body I kept wondering about when the status of East Timor change or if INTERFET interacted with TNI at all. This part provides the important clarification and I think is better to be mentioned in the beginning.
    You can see that the two overlapped by a considerable amount. This article being on logistics, the fighting is not described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • End of mission: Could we have more info on when the troops started leaving and how? I am assuming there should be logistical aspects related to returning troops and their supplies
    Yes, but the scope of the article is INTERFET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't the scope include the return of INTERFET troops, then? HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      Well, the article says that 10 FSB handed over to 9 FSB, and that INTERFET handed over to UNTAET. The treatment of diseases picked up in Timor is mentioned. The washing of vehicles and equipment is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Or did the troops not return at this point because they also made up UNTAET's forces? If yes, it could be mentioned also
  • 2 and 3 RAR returned to Australia leaving 5/7 RAR behind with UNTAET.
  • End of mission: Suggest switching the order of the sentences starting with "On 20 February 2000" and "Australian logistical support". The former sentence is a bit surprising without context (why would you switch units with just 3 days left?), but the latter sentence provides that context and is better to be first, IMO.
    It will be out of chronological order then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While the troops had good reason to be critical of a lack of spare parts, medical supplies and amenities, they still received logistical support on a scale that many other armies could only dream about: The last part reads quite hyperbolic, suggest either rewording or using quotation mark if it's a verbatim quote
    Switched to a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Cosgrove had the resources he needed to carry out his mission: "INTERFET had the resources he needed to carry out its mission" to avoid focusing on just one person?
I'm talking about command and generalship here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retrospect: Can we add perspective from other nations about the support they received in East Timor?
    Added some more about New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Picture: HMAS Tobruk: is the ship the left one or the right one?
  • The one on the right. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Picture: "HMCS Protecteur in 2014": is the ship the one in front or back?
    Foreground. It is being towed by the tugboat USNS Sioux, Embarassing for the ship, but it's a nice image of it.
  • Some sources need more complete info for example author, date, and more precise description of publisher: footnotes 14, 20, 29, 33, 42, 43, 53, 61, 110
    @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this too. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    {{cite web}} requires, url, access-date, title and publisher only. These have been supplied. No other details are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have also edited lightly when I am confident about the needed improvement, feel free to modify any if it's not appropriate.
  • Disclaimer: I am competing in WikiCup and planning to claim points from this review.
    Well deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope I don't bore you with too much feedback, and hope they are useful. Good job and thank you for your work. HaEr48 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I should see if I can get Zawed to check the New Zealand section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I've taken a gander and made a few edits to correct some typos. There was one sentence (being on 28 days readiness) that I wasn't sure of, so please check my edit there is correct. I have the Crawford & Harper ref, will doublecheck it later today/tomorrow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the excellent responses. I have some follow up comments which I marked in blue above to make them easy to find. Please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the article is in great shape and I do not have further suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "brought troops and supplies from Australia by sea" You do not need "by sea" as you have said it on the line above and named ships.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur" I would specify New Zealand and Canadian. NZ is obvious but I had to check what C referred to.
    I don't think the redundancy would be appropriate in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You show the statistics in the 2nd paragraph in different ways. 90% and most for sea, and exact quantities for air. I suggest giving the exact numbers by sea in brackets if the information is available.
    I regret that the exact figure is not available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You have logistics or logistical six times in the final paragraph of the lead. Would it be correct to replace "vehicles and logistical support" with "vehicles and other supplies" and "inadequate logistics" with "inadequate supplies"?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not think the early history of Timor is relevant in such a specialist article, although that is personal opinion.
    I agree, but see the comments above from other reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Your explanation of the situation before independence is very unclear. If I understand correctly, before WW2 West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies and East Timor was a Portuguese colony. The whole island was occupied by Japan during the war and handed back to the colonial powers after the war. West Timor became part of Indonesia in 1949, but the east stayed Portuguese until 1974. A civil war then broke out between the pro-independence Fretilin and the UDT, which opposed independence except during a short period of cooperation with Fretilin. This should be spelled out if correct.
    Sounds like you understood correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Indonesia should be wikilinked, but should it be at the first mention of the country, which is as "Indonesian" or the first mention of "Indonesia"?.
    We don't wiki-link present-day countries like Australia and Indonesia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Oecussi enclave". The article on Oecussi describes it as an exclave. I have never heard of this word before, but it is correct and enclave wrong according to Enclave and exclave.
    Except for the sea border, it is entirely surrounded by Indonesia, hence is a semi-enclave. It is also a semi-exclave. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ""teeth-to-tail" ratio". Is there an article you can link to?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "the very same cuts in logistic capability rendered this impossible" I am not clear what you are saying here. I assume you are referring to the "administrative cuts", but I would take this to mean in desk personnel rather than logistical capabilities (which presumably means mainly transport and storage facilities and stocks).
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "which based in Sydney" "which was based in Sydney"?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "developing plans for Operation Spitfire, the evacuation of foreign nationals and selected East Timorese". I think it would be clearer to start the paragraph with something like "The first task, which was to evacuate foreign nationals and selected East Timorese, was designated as Operation Spitfire."
    I don't see how that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I realise that Australia and NZ took the lead roles, but it seems unbalanced to give an extremely (excessively?) detailed account of their preparations, down to who attended which meeting, and not a word of the logistical preparations of the other 21 countries which took part.
    The article also covers the United States and Canada. These four countries accounted for nearly all the in-theatre logistics. I have accounts from third world countries, but only Kenya contributed to the logistical effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "and joined the TNI personnel there". The very high use of initials makes the article difficult to follow for non-experts. It would, for example, make it easier for readers if you wrote here "and joined the Indonesian army personnel there".
    TNI is the Indonesian armed forces, the Indonesian equivalent of the ADF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Singaporean RSS Intrepid, and the Danish civilian ship Arktis Atlantic". No change needed, but is the first ship redlinked and not the second on the principle that every naval ship deserves its own article but not every civilian one?
    That and the fact that it is already red-linked in other articles. Two of its sister ships have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SMS Roon

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5, are you still planning to stop by? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Did it, sorry for the delay.
  • SMS Roon was the lead ship of her class of armored cruisers No SMS note?
    • Added
  • had a top speed of 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph) Unlink the common units here.
    • Done
  • in several operations against Russian forces Pipe Russians to the Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • 2,000 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp) and speed by .5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) This isn't an American-related article so add a nought in the knots.
    • Done
  • She carried up to 1,570 t (1,550 long tons; 1,730 short tons) of coal Other sentences don't use short tons.
    • Removed
  • Roon spent the following years participating in various --> "She spent the following years participating in various"
    • Done
  • Link knots in the infobox same for nmi.
    • Done
  • "SMS Roon in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, c. 1910" Needs a circa template.
    • Added
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit numbers in the ISBNs?
    • Done

@Parsecboy: Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice work, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

  • in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
    • Done
  • were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
    • Fixed
  • full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
    • Good catch
  • Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
  • perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - anything else you'd like to see addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Nope, thanks for the ping. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey

  • The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
    • Good catch
  • Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
    • It is, in the first para of the design section
  • In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
    • Good point
  • Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
    • Works for me
  • Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
    • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
  • "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
    • Fixed
  • "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
    • Fixed

That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the plan
    • Done
  • File:Roon_linedrawing.png is tagged as lacking author and description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

I reviewed this article during its A-class review, and by and large I have little to add.

  • Use {{lang}} templates for foreign-language terms please.
    • Done
  • "..with the belt armor being 10 cm.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
    • Reworded
  • In the lead it says that "There, she formed part of the reconnaissance screen during the raid on Yarmouth in November.." and in the body of the article, this is described as "The ships then escorted the main body of the High Seas Fleet during the raid on Yarmouth on 2–3 November." It's not immediately apparent to me if those two descriptions are exactly synonymous. Assuming that they are, I vastly prefer the plain phrasing used in the body; consider adopting similar in the lead, as "reconnaissance screen" is not accessible to a layperson.
    • Works for me
  • "Roon was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Kaiser.." If I've learnt anything from these articles, that means she was replacing a ship called Kaiser, right? Can that be mentioned explicitly?
    • Done
  • "Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year.." It would be worth providing context of why Prince Heinrich's opinion mattered. (A quick look suggests he was commander of the High Seas Fleet?)
    • Good idea
  • "..the armored cruiser Blücher, which had been transferred to I Scouting Group, and on 25 August.." It's not that important either way, but I'm not sure the explanation of why Blücher needed replacing is necessary in this article.
    • I think we could safely lose that.
  • I wonder if so much detail is necessary in the Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby paragraph. Including all the specific times seems to me to give the impression that it is very important information, and I felt like I had to pay very close attention. The stylistic difference to the rest of the article makes it stand out, and I'm not sure the content warrants it. Harrias talk 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point - I've trimmed the times. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Nice work; I don't have any further concerns with this article. (Disclaimer; I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review.) Harrias talk 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [7].


The Goldfinch (painting)

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Following my first book FAC, I now present my first foray into the world of art, a short piece about an iconic bird painting that inspired an award-winning book and a rather poor film. I am greatly indebted to Aa77zz for help with sourcing and detailed comments before I came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

  • Generally looks good. Some comments:
  • "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a 1654 painting by Dutch artist Carel Fabritius" - I don't like years as adjectives, or false titles, and the article doesn't I think mention the important fact that it is signed. Plus you miss the main link. Suggest: "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius, signed and dated 1654." Or something.
  • Done, mislead by the chapter in Lederer head Flemish Baroque in which this was placed, but you're obviously right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The painting is unusual for the Flemish Baroque period.." - but this isn't a Flemish Baroque work. It's Dutch Golden Age painting, though the same is more or less true for that. There's another of these later.
  • "the bird's nickname puttertje" - or "common name"?
  • "The goldfinch is a popular topic for painters" - painters don't really have "topics". "The goldfinch frequently appears in paintings" or something?
  • "Nearly 500 Renaissance religious paintings..." - again a link to plain Renaissance is unlikely to help readers.
  • "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" pretty ancient, so better give dates - 1876 - 1954.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, in Middenbeemster..." - odd. Fabritius is a normal surname, which happens to be the usual way he is referred to (just like Rembrandt). This implies it was a nickname, like El Greco say. "Initially he worked as a carpenter (Latin: fabritius)" may be true, though I think the word is rather more vague than that, but is essentially a coincidence afaik.
  • See also the quick bio by Walter Liedtke (link below) on page 247. It is a bit confusing though. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Fabritius died young," - well very young, just 2ish years into his independent career, at 32.
  • "According to his contemporary Arnold Houbraken..." - no, born 1660. "His first biographer" maybe.
  • I was assuming Houbraken was his first biographer (he usually is with DGA painters), but seeing how short Houbraken's life is, and hearing about the earlier coverage by Bleyswijck in the Binstock book (lk below), it might be best to soften this. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892" - better explain that Hôtel Drouot is and was exclusively an auction house (or wierd monopolistic consortium of them). We don't link Paris (nor New York later).
  • "The painting is currently in the permanent collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague" - it isn't going anywhere. WP:VAMOS deprecates currently, & "permanent" is also not needed, after 125 years. The lead gets it right.
  • "survives a terrorist bombing at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in which his mother dies. He takes the Fabritius painting with him as he escapes the building" - presumably in the novel it was on loan for an exhibition. Better say so.
  • I think you are right to have a gallery - personally I use "<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px"> , then the normal </gallery> to close. I'd add a nice pic of the real bird somewhere. On my set-up Elgort is all beside the notes. Personally I'd have him and Thore-Berger in a gallery at the bottom with some of the other pics. The Mignon might be better as a cropped detail - possibly others.

Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Johnbod Thanks for the great review. I'll add a real bird. The Mignon, unlike the Bosch isn't really hi-res enough. Can you leave the possibility of a second gallery with me for a while? I need to think about that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Round 2
  • Ok, I've been away for a while, & the article has grown considerably, so there is more to say.
  • Firstly, I think the increased number of sections have odd names and the wrong sequence. I would suggest re-arranging as follows:
    • Lead
    • Description (now "Physical characteristics")
    • Goldfinch (or "the Bird") - now "Subject"
    • Style
    • Artist (now "Background") - ok this & "Style" could be either way round.
    • Provenance (now "Ownership")
    • Cultural references and exhibitions (now "In popular culture")

- FunkMonk said below "In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, ..." but in my experience this is neither usual, nor usually the best approach. The subject of the article is the painting, and the description of that should normally follow the lead - here there are two intervening sections.

  • I've done this, settled for Goldfinch instead of subject, please change if you don't like that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The pic "... Abraham Mignon (circa 1668) shows the water-drawing behaviour of the bird." & the Dou are in the next gallery after that is described. Mind you, if the description section follows the lead, I think the first gallery strip can perhaps be removed, with the 2 pics of artist and bird in their natural places in the text.
  • The caption for "The Nativity (1470–1475) by Piero della Francesca" needs to locate the bird, which took me a while to find.
  • It turns out I hadn't found the right bird at all! We badly need a better pic of this great work. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Fabritius' student, Mattias Spoors, and church deacon Simon Decker also died as a result of the explosion" - reads slightly oddly. What was the deacon doing? Was he the subject of a portrait? If so, better say.
  • I've removed the speculation as to why they were there since we don't know. If you're still not happy, they can go altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • " in the second quarter of the fourteenth century while the Black Death pandemic gripped Europe" BD arrived in Sicily in 1347, and eg in England arrived in 1348, with the peak until 1351, and a second major wave in the 1360s... "in the middle" might be more accurate.
  • "The Goldfinch was lost for more than two centuries before the previously unknown painting first came to light in 1859" - "The Goldfinch was lost and unknown for more than two centuries before it first came to light in 1859" better?
  • "The Frick exhibition was part of a world tour of selected Golden Age paintings from the Mauritshuis closure during a two-year..." needs something, if only a possessive. Also dates needed - 2013-2014 at the Frick.
  • Tweaked and added Frick dates. I don't know if you were suggesting dating all the exhibitions, but if so, I think that would just be unnecessary clutter, so I'm not prepared to do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support All points fixed, & article looking very good. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, many thanks for your review and support, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Theramin

Some random comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nice article, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that should be mined. For example, this book from the Met and National Gallery's Vermeer exhibition in 2001 mentions some interesting points, including:

  • (as you have already mentioned Pliny) the neat reversal of the grapes of Zeuxis (so realistic, it deceived a bird) to this painting of a bird (so realistic, it could fool a person passing by)
  • the Dutch common name of distelvink or putter (or putterje using a Dutch diminutive suffix, so do we have a Dutch speaker to confirm the usage?
  • how the painting may have been displayed, supporting the thesis that it was nailed up by a window
  • that's already there reffed to Stone-Ferrier in "physical characteristics" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the bold strokes with bright colours above and the feathery strokes with dull colours below, adding to the impression of volume and texture
  • are those rings metal, or smooth wood?
  • where is the bucket?
  • the book was before the restoration, we know that not only is there obviously no bucket now, but there never was, seems a bit of a red (gold?) herring to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there other catalogues, journal articles, etc, that should be consulted?

I've found all I can, although I obv missed this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And can we pin down the provenance?

  • This is the print collector Chevalier Joseph Guillaume Jean Camberlyn (1783-1861).
  • And this is the art dealer Étienne-François Haro (1827-1897, who retired c.1885).

So who was "E. Martinet"?

  • this contemporaneous record, clearly says "M." (i.e. Monsieur) "E. Martinet", and it appears to be an estate sale.
Great find. This is the 1896 sale. The catalogue includes a picture so there is no doubt. The painting is Lot 16 on page 9 here. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly the notes to the side of the lot say it was sold to Kleinberger, the art dealer. I assume he sold it on to the Mauritshuis, but I doubt it was for the same price he paid for it at the auction (there's a 5% commission from the auction house to add to the 6200 francs to start with). Yomanganitalk 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Maritshuis page confirms the sale at the auction and the purchase by the Mauritshuis are separate transactions, so that bit of the "Ownership" section will need rewording. Yomanganitalk 10:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be separate transaction - Bredius became director of the Mauritshuis in 1889. Brown p.126 has "bought by Bredius for the Mauritshuis (for his account of the sale see Bredius 1939, pp.11-12)". - Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right, Kleinburger seems to have been a proxy or agent for Bredius. I've copied Bredius's account to the talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And here is the catalogue of the 1892 sale after the death of Thoré-Burger (la collection de feu Thoré-Burger) again with a picture. It is lot 10 on page 13 here (agrees with Brown 1981 p.126) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it was the printer Émile Martinet (1838-1895), of Rue Mignon. His daughter Maxime married Jules Haro, the son of Étienne-François Haro. See this and this.

That's almost certainly correct. The auction was an estate sale. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Theramin, thanks for comments, I'm out all day today, but I'll deal with these as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the provenance, I already had the chevalier ref, now I've also expanded on Haro and Kleinberger. Martinet is more of a problem. Neither of the links is RS, and although this is, it doesn't appear to confirm his family relationship with Haro or his job. I don't doubt the facts, but I can't find a proper source to enable it to be added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is still a nice article, and getting better by the day. Thank you for giving me an excuse to dig into the sources. What a genius Fabritius was. Such a pity he was exploded. I guess my main point is that there is more out there. I see some of the points that have been mentioned in the last couple of days were already in Brown's catalogue raisonné. There are more sources in JSTOR, and I suspect there must be more in Dutch. Do we have anyone local who can help? And I've not read it, but is there anything of worth in Davis's Fabritius and the Goldfinch? More specifically, I had hoped that you might see "other sources … For example … including" and go a bit further than ticking off the list of bullets, but if you'd prefer to have a laundry list of further points to tick off (and apologies, but this is all rather undigested stream-of-consciousness):

  • I have the Davis book, and it's been really useful for background, and telling me what I need to verify, but it's written as a popular history with few footnotes and plenty of speculation, so I don't think it's suitable as direct source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You might want to say a bit more about Fabritius as a link between Rembrandt and Vermeer - for example the Rembrandt-y looseness of the brushwork, and sgraffito use of the end of his brush to create black line through the thickly painted yellow wing - but also the transition in tones away from Rembrandt-esque darkness (which you mention) to Vermeer-esque light (which could be said more explicitly: Vermeer was certainly influenced by Fabritius, and while it is not universally accepted, there is speculation that Vermeer could have been a student of Fabritius).
  • The pleasant online presentation at the Mauritshuis compares the blank walls behind the Fabritius's goldfinch and Vermeer's Milkmaid, which only became clear after discoloured varnish was cleaned off in 2003, and links back to what Bürger said in his 1859 catalogue of the Arenburg collection, about "mur blême", "fonds clairs et pâles" and "lumineuse couleur".[8]
  • Is there more to say about the restoration? Do the technical sources mention X-ray and infrared analysis?
  • You could draw on the suggestion that this painting might have been part of a multi-part trompe-l'oeil installation, perhaps with a separate painting of a ledge and bucket, or even a 3D ledge and bucket below. Fabritius is known to have made images for a perspective box. e.g. his View of Delft. The removal of the border suggests could have been placed on a wall without a frame. The Gerrit Dou painting of the lady shows how a goldfinch could be kept beside a window.
Added text and the Delft painting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On the provenance, and Martinet/Haro, perhaps someone in France can help to locate some hardcopy sources, although you don't get more hardcopy than the Haro monument in the Père Lachaise.
  • The provenance is pretty well established, I can't see why we need more on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is another more finished self-portrait at the National Gallery, which also has an article: Young Man in a Fur Cap (1654). That said, I quite like the loose, sketchy nature of the earlier one (1645) you have chosen.
  • Yes, I looked at other images, but I liked this one too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you can bear adding links to articles in other languages, you might want to use Uno sparviero [it]. (That was earlier, surely, not later? 1510s versus 1654. Perhaps better to say a Renaissance example.)
    I thought that too, but when I re-read it I saw it meant later than the grapes. Then again, if we both misunderstood it probably needs rewording. Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is fairly usual for the image captions of artworks to include artist, title, date, and where the work is held.
  • I've included all of that except the location which I don't think is relevant and just makes long captions even longer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, Fabritius was still alive when he was dug out from the ruins of his house some hours after the gunpowder explosion in Delft, he was taken to a hospital, but died a short time afterwards. All of the others in the house were dead when they were found. So "died with him" is not quite right.
  • After centuries in private collections ("lost" seems a bit strong, as no one as looking for it) the chardonneret was included in the 1866 Exposition retrospective: tableaux anciens empruntés aux galleries particulières (now there is a topic deserving of an article, as much as the First Impressionist Exhibition) at the Palais des Champ-Élysées which was organised by Édouard Odier [fr] and … Étienne-François Haro.[9] Well, blow me down.

That is probably more than enough from me. Please don't be discouraged - there is a great article there, I just think it needs a bit more. Theramin (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Theramin, I think I've responded to all your points so far, please let me know if I've missed something Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you've got most of it. There is probably more that could be added on how this panel might physically have worked as a tromp l'oeil, and also linking the Italian article on it:Uno sparviero (unless someone writes a short stub for you... and the Piero della Francesca deserves an article too: one magpie or two?) and in the main I like to add locations for artworks, but you apparently don't, so I'm not going to stand in your way.

Two further points, and then I think my nitpicking be exhausted. I think its first public exhibition in Paris in 1866 is quite important, and it is mentioned in the Mauritshuis presentation. And you might want to see the back and forth on my talk page about Émile Martinet, and some of his works (that were later sold in the same estate sale in 1896) being exhibited in 1874, which I think makes it clear this is the same "E. Martinet". Sadly not the chardonneret though, but nice to give the man his name after all these years. Theramin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • added the exhibition and a bit more about Martinet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've done a stubby article on A Sparrowhawk, and I guess I should be supporting, although as I hope is clear, I've been concentrating on content, rather than language and format. Two further thoughts, though.

  • I've added the 2005 pic to physical characteristics and fixed the image licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • And then, you mention the "blockbuster" Frick exhibition in 2013-14 with 200,000 attending, but you might want to mention that paintings were out on loan in 2012-14 while the Mauritshuis was renovated,[10] and that there were queues around the corner at the Frick, in the autumn/winter weather, with 13,000 joining as members (quadrupling the number) to jump the queue, and more importantly the goldfinch overshadowing Girl with a Pearl Earring which was expected to be the popular draw (as it had been elsewhere during the two-year world tour, including a million (!) visitors at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, and then at Kobe City Art Museum, but also at the de Young in San Francisco,[11] and the High in Atlanta,[12] and then it seems the Palazzo Fava in Bologna[13][14]). e.g.[15][16] There is a list of earlier exhibitions in the Liedtke catalogue: looks like it goes out roughly every 20 years, 40s 60s, 80s. (Do we know where it was kept during the World Wars?)

This might all be too much - and no doubt the content is driven by the sources - but should we be mentioning 200,000 people at the Frick but not a million visitors the year before in Tokyo? Theramin (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Theramin, I obviously don't want this to become a list of everywhere it's ever been, and we already have Paris, but the two-year tour is clearly a major event and is linked to Tartt's book so I've added a bit on that, and mentioned the million in Tokyo to make it a bit more global. I've also taken the opportunity to add a featured picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would be churlish not to support now but Face-surprise.svg there seems to be a discrepancy between the date given for the (presuambly) pre-restoration yellowish goldfinch image (2005) and the date of the restoration (2003). I wondered if the restoration started in 2003 and finished later, but I think the image must be earlier than its 2005 upload date, as it is attributed to "The Yorck Project (2002)" and I suspect it predates that. Theramin (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Yorck Project images were mostly scans from books that were already so old (in 2005) that the photos were out of copyright. The quality & colour of many is just terrible. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't expecting it to be removed, just the date clarified. I challenge you to find another (better) pre-restoration image of the painting. Anyway, I like the restructuring of the article, and I've made and linked a stubby little article for Piero della Francesca's The Nativity. For what it is worth, I think I am ready to support now. Well done. Theramin (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I've no objection to the "yellow" pic being in (in fact I've just now seen it for the first time I think, as it was added after my first run-through). The colour values are probably poor though. Taking any picture with a Yorck & recent image will make it look like there's been a big restoration! Up to you. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Theramin, thanks very much for the review and support and the Nativity stub. In view of the comments from you and Johnbod I'll restore the image for the time being. Johnbod, do you think I should add a footnote to the caption to say that the painting may not have been quite as yellow as depicted? I'll see if I can track down a more reliable pre-restoration image, although I'm not sure how easy that will be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't put it back - although it is almost certainly pre-restoration, there's not a lot to distinguish it from a post-restoration image that has a yellow filter added and, as Johnbod says, the Yorck images are all over the place colour and qualitywise. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. The main image is now a FP. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yomangani:, yes, I saw the FP, thanks for that. I don't think the image is a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep it in for now, unless or until we can find a better pre-restoration image, because we do know from the sources that the old varnish had yellowed enough to have to be removed, so it's just a matter of whether this is the correct shade. Given the vagaries of colour reproduction by cameras, book printings and laptop/tablet screens, we are unlikely to get perfect reproduction of colours—and that applies to all the images here although probably to a lesser extent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said, up to you. Holding up any photo in a book, catalogue or postcard in front of the original painting is usually a disconcerting experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • At first glance, I'm not too fond of all the white space in the last part of the article. Is Ansel Elgorth really that important to the story that he warrants creating that huge white space under the Théophile Thoré-Bürger image?
  • Funkmonk it was actually a {{-}} inserted by another editor causing the white space, the pic alone wouldn't do that. I've removed both though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks better, it was also an issue whether we even needed to see his photo here, seemed like undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph under In popular culture ends without citation. I assume it is is because it is just a summary of the book, but would still be god to cite that.
Hmm, yes, in articles about the books, films, etc. themselves, but this is rather tangential (this article is not about the book), so seems a bit out of place. Anyway, I won't press the issue, I'm not entirely up to snuff when it comes to media summaries here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If the sources state so, mention the colour of the wall under descrition? It is a pretty dominant aspect of the painting. Now you only mention it under Physical characteristics.
  • In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, such as in The Dawn of Love (painting) and The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí). Now, this article starts somewhat abruptly, if we ignore the intro, without presenting the artist. You mention aspects of his life earlier in the article, so I went to read his biography section before I read the rest of the article for context. Could be good to get that out of the way.
  • The captions of the paintings in the galleries could state dates for context. Perhaps also the portraits.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622" Why not full name at link here?
  • "Fabritius died very young" Why not just give his age?
  • "The bird itself was created with broad brush strokes, with only minor later corrections to its outline, while details, including the chain, are added with more precision." Why change in tense?
  • "painted by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1504" Since you present him in the earlier paragraph, perhaps only last name is needed here?
  • You use curly brackets instead of parenthesis by some dates, any reason for that?
  • Again, I won't press the issue, but I'm not sure what the following has to do with the subject of this article (the painting, not the movie): "The film was poorly received, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes giving an approval rating of 24%, and an average score of 4.5/10,[34] and Metacritic showing a weighted average score of 40 out of 100.[35]". Seems like undue weight.
  • "it was lost for more than two centuries" Only clearly stated in the intro.
  • Support - looks good to me now, in line with other painting articles I've reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Not sure the gallery in Subject makes a lot of sense - we've got a portrait of the artist, plus a modern-day photo of the bird, plus a set of other paintings that include the bird
  • I tend to agree, but all the images were requested by reviewers, are relevant and can't easily go elsewhere. I might play around with splitting into a couple of galleries
  • File:Abraham_Mignon_-_Fruit_Still-Life_with_Squirrel_and_Goldfinch_-_WGA15666.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolutioncrop.jpg, File:Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Madonna_del_Cardellino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, File:FabritiusViewOfDelft.jpg
  • File:Théophile_Thoré_by_Nadar.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Seems to my inexpert eye to meet the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. A few quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • I might lose the editorial "just" in "died aged just 32";
  • the OED doesn't hyphenate "overpaint"
  • the citation for Jowell's article (ref 24) has three sets of quotation marks where one would expect an even number of them.
  • I could do without the false titles for "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" (and is his nationality relevant here anyway?) and "Former actress Apolline Lacroix".
  • "5,500 francs" – it would be nice to have some indication of what this represented in euros or some such, though I know it can be very hard to give accurate equivalents, and I don't press the point.

A pleasure to read and to review. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Tim, many thanks for review and support, all fixed except the currency. I tried on that but couldn't get a sensible answer. I might try again later, but these conversions, as you imply, are often challenged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

SC

  • Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A nice article on a picture I was unaware of before, but it is rather capitvating, for all its simplicity.

Description
  • "American art historian", "French art critic" (and later "English art historian"): are the nationalities important? (Particularly odd when we get to the stateless "art historian Wilhelm Martin", and various others without nationality!
Goldfinch
  • "2000 years": I think MOS:NUMERAL suggests to add a comma to four-figure numbers
Cultural references
  • I think some of this drifts a little too far away from the painting and you may want to consider trimming some of the ephemera (the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, the growth in members at the Frick collection, Girl With a Pearl Earring (should be lower case "w" too, btw)) are all points to consider, but if you decide to keep them, I won't demur. The whole para about the film and its Rancid Tomatoes rating should definitely be expunged – there are too many issues with RT as a metric at the best of times, but it really jars here and is a long way from the article's topic.
  • This is a bit trickier, since most of the stuff about the exhibitions was sourced by previous reviewers who asked for it to be added, so I can't really revert that, and is does show the upsurge in its fame with the release of the book. Although the book won several unmentioned awards, the Pulitzer is prestigious enough to be worth stating imho. However, I had misgivings myself about the commentary on the film, so cut to just the single sentence of basic info about the film, which has to be there, I think, since, as the film of the book, it's clearly relevant to an article about the painting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's fine: it looks much tighter now than it did, so some of the other bits I mentioned look OK now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. All good from me. Nice article and a pleasure to read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Most interesting. and well done I confess I wasn't aware of the book and so forth.

  • "A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and it could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water." I might cut the "it" before "could be taught".
  • The reference to the explosion in the lede seems a bit Easter-eggy to me. Since many readers get no further than the lede, I might expand enough so that the reader understands that this was something not merely personal to the artist, but a larger disaster. Also I'd mention the estimated death toll at some point.
  • added that destroyed much of the city and the death estimate
  • The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of "Style" could benefit from a split in my view.
  • "Following her death in 1643, he moved back to Middenbeemster until the early 1650s, then moving to Delft, where he joined the Guild of Saint Luke in 1652.[15]" I'm not sure "moving" is proper. I would simply omit the word. I'm not completely happy about the "moved back" "until the early 1650s".
  • I can't see beyond the paywall; does The Telegraph say the timing was a coincidence? It strikes me there are few coincidences in marketing.
  • What cynicism! (: The Telegraph does indeed say that, so it is at least a possibility, although I share your doubts
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Wehwalt, many thanks for the review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • For consistency, we need a publishing location for the Bürger book (ref 6).
  • For the older books, which don't have ISBNs, could we add OCLC numbers or similar to help locate them?
This isn't I think usual or necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
No, it isn't essential, that's why it's a question. Some editors do it; I've been asked to consider it at FAC before. It's helpful for anyone looking for the books and probably good practice, but I've no problem if the nominator prefers not to do it. Sarastro (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've not done this in any of my previous 70-odd FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 5 cites Petria Noble in a work edited by Epco Runia. Presumably Noble wrote a chapter or section? If so, we should probably name this.
  • Sources appear reliable and high quality. No comment on whether it is a representative survey but there are no obvious concerns.
  • Spotchecks not done. Sarastro (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sarastro1, I've had second thoughts about the Noble ref. I don't have direct access to the text, and I'm not totally sure that the reference is correct. I've therefore removed that sentence , which isn't critical, until I can confirm the citation, which is likely to take sometime. I've had no response from the Rijksmuseum, so best not to wait Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sarastro1 I've now been able to verify the text and reference, I'd just missed "Carel", so now restored and corrected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wales national football team home stadium

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Quick comment – Move south and pre-war success: In "made it the last Wales International held at a rugby ground until 1989", why is "International" capitalized? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a typo, thanks for spotting that. Kosack (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible
  • I've removed around a quarter of the uses and replaced them with alternatives. Let me know if there are anymore that seem particularly repetitive that I may have missed. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating - Done
  • one English newspaper—no harm to name it here
  • Unfourtantley, the source itself only refers to an English newspaper rather than the specific title. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating
  • I've replaced crowd control with gate control to hopefully reflect the situation clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too? - Done
  • dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"? - Done

@Jimfbleak: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No other queries, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • Just doing a random sampling of online sources.
    Ref 5--Used accurately, no close paraphrasing
    Ref 8 (also checked #7 as both are paired)--Information present, used appropriately. Happy with these.
    Ref 33--Mentions the stand being destroyed by fire but I can't see any reference to thieves with explosives; where did this part come from?
    Added a source for that. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 45--Source doesn't mention that the attendance record stood for 40 years, but does state that it was a record for the venue. I would assume the length of the record may be mentioned in the previous ref (44) but this is an offline print source which I can't check. If it is, consider appending an inline citation after the "40 years" claim.
    Added an inline cite. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 67--On its first use, it's used appropriately, but it might be worth noting why the Taylor Report lead to a decrease in capacity (converting standing to all seated) as this information is in the source to be used. Second use is appropriate too.
    Added the conversion to seating info. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 83--Not sure of this one. The article specifically mentions success in the 2016 Euros which the source doesn't specify ("In the intervening seven years, fans have packed the smaller Cardiff City Stadium to create a fervent atmosphere, which has been an important factor in recent Welsh success", but that doesn't attribute anything to any one tournament). This may need either reworded or an additional source used to back up the specific claim.
    Added a source that mentions the atmosphere as a positive during the qualifying campaign. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 85--Seems fine. Perhaps a degree of reading between the lines for the claim of Cardiff's capacity being an issue but it does mention increased crowd size definitively and the claim of future matches for large crowds is there in black and white.
  • Seems like there are a few issues which could be looked at here; I can take another look at this once these have been addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Grapple X: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    The additions seem fine; AGF on the new print source as always. I'll check another few at random shortly just to make sure nothing else has slipped through the cracks. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Round two:
    The current ref 83 (Grauniad article) points to a "page not found" error. It might be possible to relocate it on their site or try an archival link.
    Fixed url. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 9--fine
    Ref 71--fine
    Ref 68--Source doesn't mention the claim that "the side suffered its first defeat at the site of the National Stadium since its original incarnation in 1910".
    Added further cite. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ref 6--Source doesn't mention Hampden Park nor when it hosted any international matches; only that the Racecourse is the record-holder.
    This was actually from the previous ref but a copy editor suggested splitting the refs to separate sentences. I've moved them back together now so this covers the info. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Having taken two passes at the sources here, it unfortunately seems to me that although this article is well-researched and put together, it isn't necessarily reflective of its sources--I'm sure a lot of this information is true but it's been fairly common to see information attributed to sources which make no mention of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think it's a little unfair to suggest that given the points I've addressed in the second pass. A handful of positioning fixes has fixed the majority of your points, that doesn't suggest the sources are not reflected correctly. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandate for Palestine

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I will comment here as I go along. Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told Georges Clemenceau" link and mention Paris Peace Conference as well as its date (in the narrative before and after we are still in 1915), introduce the British Prime Minister and his French counterpart as such, and link them. Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "and autonomous Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz" the links here are a bit WP:EASTEREGGy. Perhaps amend the first to include the entirety of "autonomous Transjordan", or better yet, "an autonomous Emirate of Transjordan", and somehow introduce the Sharifian Solution in the main text, since using it to pipe "Hashemite" doesn't make much sense.
Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • as a general note, given the unusually high reliance on quotes, which provide much of the article's content, I strongly recommend adding links to the footnotes. For example, the "Jerusalem Riot of April 1920" should be linked to 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Constantine 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
  • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
  • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I've gone through the article again, and I like the changes. Apart from the two Turkey-related suggestions above, my main outstanding issue is the beginning of the 'Background' section, where I do strongly recommend an introductory section about Palestine in 1914 and the various players regarding it. Also, on the section titles 'Commitment to...' it should be clarified who made this commitment: the POV adopted here is that of the British government, so it should be mentioned (i.e., "British commitment to...") and it should be explained beforehand (in the intro section) exactly why we are dealing with the British perspective first and foremost. As someone somewhat familiar with the subject, I understand the rationale, but we cannot assume such knowledge for the average reader. I would also recommend adding an explanation of the colors to the legends of your maps, the {{Legend}} template should be useful here. Constantine 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
I have scaled up a number of the images
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
  • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
Removed as suggested.
  • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[17]
Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you – this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

  • Lead looks good. In the last paragrah, "Britain announced their intention" should be "Britain announced its intention." Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

  • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Assignment to Britain Palestine

  • "This proposed that three sons of Sharif Hussein – who had since become King of the Hejaz, and his sons emirs (princes)"-I'm having difficulty determinig what this means. Please rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • T.E. Lawrence's name is mentioned in the third paragraph here. Is this the first time that it appeared? If so, it should be linked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Palestine being within the area of Arab independence." I'm confused. In that case, there would be no Palestine, correct? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What kinds of advantages, economic or otherwise, did Britain receive by administering the mandate? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Transjordan

  • "indicating their political ideas about its future.." What does this mean? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would Transjordan be added to Palestine? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Drafting

  • "The February 1919 Zionist Proposal to the Peace Conference was not discussed at the time, since the Allies' discussions were focused elsewhere." I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to say where. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm a little bit confused now. I see a draft made in December 1919 is mentioned but I can't find anywhere what the provisions were. It's also unclear to me why there had to be so many drafts. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The inclusion of Article 25 was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922." This comes off poorly to me unless we first explain what Article 25 was. I feel that we should explain the circumstances that led to the article, say what was in the article, and then say when it was approved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"

  • How was the Palestinian Arab Congress formed? What if any political authority did it have? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What executive committee? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What was the "4th" Palestinian Arab Congress? And shouldn't it be written as Fourth rather than 4th? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would Conservative members of Parliament provide encouragement to the Arabs? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Display name 99: thanks very much for your comments here, particularly the thoroughness of your assessment. I was waiting for you to finish working your way through before addressing them. The article has had a thorough GOCE copy edit, and the GA review was very detailed by multiple users. Your comments are very constructive and I will work through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
Changed to "on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship." Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
"ff" replaced by 82-83 as suggested. I have kept the same reference twice in those two sentences, on the basis that each separate clause represents an important point. We are being crystal clear that both clauses within the sentence are explicitly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
Specified as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
Added Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “The delegation made…”
Amended as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
  • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
  • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
  • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
Fixed and suggested, and replaced East with eastern. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.
  • Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:
    • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
    • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
    • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
    • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma)
The rule I have applied is to use a comma after an introductory dependent clause. I didn't have it in the 1915-16 sentence only because that sentence has quite a lot of breaks already. I have added it back, but am now thinking the sentence should be restructured. I'd be grateful if you have any ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from T8612

  • Why did you make such long footnotes? and two series of notes? I feel that the readability of the article is really impacted by this formatting (think about those reading it on mobile!). I would much prefer seeing the content of these notes in the text body; the article is not that long for such a complex topic (55k characters), and some sections are quite small ("Turkey", "Legality" have only one paragraph). Imo there is no need to add such long verbatim quotes from primary and especially secondary sources. The former can be interesting when really significant (but not that many), not the latter (unless from a very influential academic or book). All the info in the notes starting by "Biger wrote" etc. should be synthesised and added in the text body. I don't think it is FA standard right now, although you have made a great job at collecting all the material. Now you just have to make it more encyclopedic. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @T8612: thank you for reviewing the article. You raise an important topic. I last discussed it in detail with the late great Brian Boulton in this thread from the first FAC review of the Balfour Declaration article. I explained the following, which is equally applicable to this article: "The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing." The rest of the thread goes on to provide more detail.
It has proven to work; both Balfour Declaration and this article went from edit warring battlegrounds to completely stable articles after the addition of these detailed footnotes.
Are there any footnotes in particular which stand out to you? Whilst I feel strongly about the overall concept, I am open to cutting them down further wherever possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand, and I remember having read the Balfour declaration article and being similarly bothered. Would it be possible to transcribe important speeches and newspapers articles on Wikisource? This way they would be easily accessible without making the article overwhelming with quotes/notes everywhere. On edit wars, I thought every article on Palestine had an extensive protection. Isn't it enough?

I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):

British public and government opinion became increasingly opposed to state support for Zionism. Even Sykes had begun to change his views after a last trip to Palestine in late 1918, as he considered the situation could become dangerous.[ref to Leslie's book] Following a visit to Palestine in February 1922, the Conservative media mogul Viscount Northcliffe—who notably owned the Times and The Daily Mail—launched a campaign in the press against Zionism, fearing that it would upset Muslims in India. On 15 February, he published from Cairo a statement suggesting Palestine risked becoming a second Ireland.[Defries ref] Concerned by his fading support in Parliament, Churchill telegraphed Samuel—who had begun his role as High Commissioner for Palestine 18 months earlier—asking for cuts in his expenditure, so he hoped he could dodge the critics on the cost of supporting Zionism for the British taxpayer.[ref to Huneidi] This policy initially failed as the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25 after the June 1922 issuance of the Churchill White Paper, following a motion proposed by Lord Islington.[refs to Huneidi and Hansard] The Lords' vote was only symbolic though, since it was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Commons thanks to skilful political manoeuvring from Chruchill. He avoided showing his support to Zionism, focusing instead on imperial and strategic considerations, especially the need for Britain to remain in the area to control the Suez Canal.[refs to Hansard and Mathew].

There is more info and less notes. The role of Northcliffe is important, but with your current formatting, you put the info in a quote that leads to a note; that's not ideal and easy to follow. T8612 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @T8612: thank you for this. I like many of the copy edits in there. To your specific questions: (1) for the speeches and newspaper articles to go on Wikisource, I would need the full piece – unfortunately more often than not I just have the specific excerpts that are quoted by scholars of this topic. Where I do have the complete source material I have frequently added it to Wikisource, or sometimes as a pdf to Wikicommons; I will have a look through to see if I can add more. (2) On edit wars, this is not about IPs, but about avoiding edit wars between experienced editors who feel very strongly about this topic area and are willing to fight over the slightest nuance without double checking the underlying sources. For example, statements in your draft such as Sykes changed his mind "as he considered the situation could become dangerous" and Northcliffe launched his campaign because he "fear[ed] that it would upset Muslims in India" would attract amendments by editors who feel that the summary was not a full reflection. (3) Footnotes are also useful to provide additional detail which would otherwise distort the flow of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Defile

Nominator(s): Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

A great article. I have a few comments:

  • when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
    • Good point, done
  • suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
    • Good point, done
  • might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
    • That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
  • is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
    • Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
  • is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
    • No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
  • link counterattack
    • Done
  • did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
    • No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
  • suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
    • Good point, done
  • should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
    • Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
  • suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
    • Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
  • Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
    • I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Link terms and names in image captions.
    • Done.
  • Suluk is duplinked.
    • Done.
  • "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
    • Done.
  • I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
    • Done and linked to wiktionary.
  • It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
    • Capitalized is for the battle, changed to the full name now to avoid confusion.
  • You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
    • This is a bit complicated. Indeed, Umayyads, Arabs, and Muslims are used interchangeably, although they are obviously not entirely coterminous. However, this reflects the practice in the sources and is also a way to keep reminding the readers that the Umayyads were an Arab Muslim regime, and that a retreat/advance of the Umayyads also represented a retreat/advance of Islam. The army certainly did contain allied contingents and native converts, but in most cases they are not mentioned except when they had some role to play. For the events described here, allied rulers are completely absent from the sources for the Umayyad army, whether because most native rulers had switched over, or because they were not part of the campaign (Junayd left for Samarkand with the army of the Khurasani Arabs) or because they are ignored. The native converts or mawali are seldom differentiated from the bulk of the Khurasani Arab settlers, chiefly because they were a) subordinate and b) affiliated with the Arab tribes. Also see the note regarding the army's composition.
  • You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
    • Good point, added a footnote as I couldn't find a good way to segue into a diatribe on that subject in the main body.
  • "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
    • Good point, done.
  • "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
    • Indeed, done.
  • "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • Very good point, fixed.
  • It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
    • Good point, done.
  • It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.
    • Good point, done.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns, please have a look. Constantine 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - changes look great, not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • "File:Caliphate 740-en.svg" The description is interesting, and I don't doubt the map's accuracy - but it needs to be based on a verifiable RS.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Phewww, this is problematic. As stated, it derives from Califate 750.jpg, which comes from a RS, namely William Shepherd's atlas. I've also added the two modern atlases I've used, but be advised, this is not lifted directly from any of them. It is a first draft attempt at making a somewhat accurate overview map, and it will change over time, as modifications are made (wiht sources). Right now, it is merely a correction of the more egregious erros of the old Shepherd map (which is reproduced even in modern atlases), but with some corrections (for example, the area around Kabul is shown as not controlled by the Muslims in the Brill atlas, but the Routledge atlas shows it as conquered. The problem is mainly that the early Islamic period is covered in a couple of overview maps in most works, and detail gets lost quickly there.Constantine 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem. So long as it is tied back to RSs, which it now is. Some interesting divergences from my trusty Muir's, mostly, I suspect, explicable by the factors you outline.
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

  • MOS:BQ states "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." Eg "after the Day of the Defile, many Khurasani tribal surnames never again appear as part of the army in Khurasan, leading one to suppose they had been annihilated or their men had given up fighting. Some Khurasani troops remain, of course, but their divisions are now paralleled by Syrian ones. Thus it appears, particularly from Tabari's emphasis, that the Day of the Defile was practically a turning point in the war with the Turks, at least as far as the Khurasanis were concerned [...]."
  • Cite 41: "p." → 'pp.'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Second Silesian War

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Emicho´s Avenger

I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talkcontribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the FA criteria don't carry weight when it comes to determining consensus for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

  • Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
  • Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

"New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

  • The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.
The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?
Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?
This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.
Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?
I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?
Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?
Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.
Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".
I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?
"...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?
When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that that would be helpful to a reader.
I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?
Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?
Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.
I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.
That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?
I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.
I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That works well.

What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Source Review--Support-- Auntieruth55

  • This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (U

Article Review --- Support---Auntieruth

A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. :)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.
Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way. :) auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

  • "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.
Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Older nominations

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [18].


John Leak

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

  • Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
  • I don't think so, while still explaining the basis of his notability. It is a standard formulation for FAs on Australian VC recipients which I've used half-a-dozen times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since it's consistent with other articles, I'm fine with the wording as is. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
  • No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
  • Not sure what else to do here, but added a short preamble and changed it up a bit and split the para, see what you think. The second period was 96 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
  • No, but given later events, perhaps the court martial realised he was struggling as a result of his experiences, or they didn't want to delay his return to the frontline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
  • Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
  • A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?
  • added "and legacy" to the section header. The last two are directly related, as they both refer to his memorial. All three relate to memorialisation of Leak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Victoria Cross image has two alts
  • File:John_Leak_P02939.jpg: suggest using PD-US instead of the URAA tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?
  • "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."
  • I think I've addressed this. Providing a brief description in the chronology then the full citation at the time the award was made is the approach I've used in all the other VCs I've done. I think this is the best way to approach it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?
  • "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?
  • "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?
  • added "that he was affected by "combat-related trauma" and linked to combat stress reaction. Added "relentless" to "shell-fire" to better explain what the issue was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...
  • Fair enough. Changed to "At some point he and his wife separated, it is unknown what happened to her." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."
  • "remembering lost mates": Again, I wonder if "mates" is too informal? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, PM, thanks for your efforts with this one. I reviewed this at ACR and think it is has improved since then. I have only one suggestion:

  • In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said...: suggest clarifying that he said this while delivering the ode at an Anzac Day service AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, AR. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: this one is looking good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • sorry a couple of other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • perhaps mention that he enlisted in Rockhampton as that explains the links with that town later in life, per: [19]?
    • perhaps mention ill health in later life related to being gassed ("bronchitis and emphysema") per: [20]
    • I wonder if citations # 35 and 36 are consistent in their format; for instance compare citation # 34
  • otherwise, coverage looks sufficient to me based on what appears in reliable sources; all information appears to be referenced; citations appear to be consistent in their format; the article has appropriate images (if another one was available, though, it would be nice to have one in the later life section);
All done, AR. Except for an image for the last section. If the weather comes good tomorrow I might nip over to Stirling and take a pic of his grave. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries, hope you have a good weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Just to note that, while I'd generally prefer a little more commentary on a FAC, there's been no activity for two weeks so things are clearly stable, and at least one reviewer is not from the MilHist clan (which commented at the article's A-Class nom) so we have some breadth to the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Donald Forrester Brown

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest linking draper
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • is there potentially a link for Totara?
  • Done, as a red link. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link trench warfare?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link company, battalion and division?
  • Done - I linked the second mention of battalion, not the first which was part of a unit name. I thought it could be potentially confusing otherwise. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link commission
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link second lieutenant
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
  • Have added a bit and expanded from another source, the one I relied on initially didn't shed much light on this. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • external links work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs and source review

  • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
  • Have recited his name in full in the early life section, which is supported by the cite at end of that sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • At least 1 link to First World War, in either the body or lead, would be nice
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
  • Have added. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
  • I've tried a variation so I didn't have to move cites around. How does it work for you? Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
  • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
  • No, not the intention. The issue here is that officialdom wasn't moving very fast to recognise his gallantry and it may have been different if he was still alive. I suspect that it was easier to take a go slow approach for a dead hero than a living one. I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Zawed: "... recognise Brown's gallantry wand it was not until the officers ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs thanks. I have fixed and dished out a self-administered face slap. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have checked every online source cited and AGF on offline sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have responded to your points above and with changes to the article. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and source review completed – A short but heroic life is well documented in this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Brown's company lost 123 men from its initial complement of 180 during the opening day of the battle." Is it known how many were wounded and how many killed?
  • No, there is no breakdown of casualties within the company in the sources. I did find one for the battalion's casualties for the opening 24 hours but that probably won't be that helpful here. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a contradiction between your account of his death, which says by a sniper during the action, and that in the VC citation, which says later while sniping at the retreating enemy.
  • I hadn't noticed that but don't quite see it as a contradiction, more a matter of detail about what he was doing at the time. I have expanded the article a little bit on this point. Funnily enough it was an older source that had the detail, not a more recent one. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest running the page analysis tool at [21], which generally finds some archived copies of citations.
  • Done, it archived seven citations. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not see the point of an external link to a cropped copy of the lead image.
  • Neither do I! I'm surprised I didn't get my brain into gear and remove that one when looking at the external links. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles, thanks for looking at this, I was getting nervous the article might not get any more reviewers. I have responded to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [22].


Segnosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation
Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.
Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.
  • There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?
  • Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.
Yes, forgot this one; yes, since the skull, beak, and neck are unknown, it is a bit misleading to say that they were. Much of it is inference from logic or related animals. But I have now reduced it in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

History of discovery

  • Soviet-Mongolian — en dash?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?
Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Two additional specimens — Are they also held by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences?
Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?
Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers. — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.
They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it, that makes sense now.
  • Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?
None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation
Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandible and lower dentition

  • at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?
Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

  • Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.
Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?
It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.
Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Classification

  • First sentence should be split up.
Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.
Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • be most basal clade — What does this mean?
Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.
Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

  • Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.
Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • precocial, capabale of locomotion from birth — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?
Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[23][24], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[25] and one Polish[26] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.
I wonder whether they would even know, if the eggs are from Mongolia, they were possibly illegally exported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet and feeding

  • they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?
In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • facultative herbivory — facultatively?
If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • symphyseal — Link to Symphysis?
Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  • See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.
I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)
Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?
Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?
Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.
Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.
I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 38 — Identifier?
None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.
I went with that, thanks.FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?
Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.
  • 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".
Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 52 — Pages 1–16, no?
Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, I tried to fix the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Note to coordinator

Just a note that I would have no problem if the review of references above is treated as the source review. The sources are clearly of appropriate quality, and I've gone through each of the references to ensure that they are correctly and consistently formatted. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?
Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."
Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Dunkleosteus77

I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not very fond of double image clutter. I think the current distribution works fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "that lived during the Late Cretaceous in the region of Asia that is now known as Mongolia" Why didn't you just say "from Mongolia" or "discovered in Mongolia"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "whereas most theropod groups were carnivorous" you should probably say "most other theropod groups"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus was a large-bodied therizinosaur" Just to verify, Segnosaurus was big compared to other therizinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
At up to 7 metres long, it was pretty big, though larger ones of course existed (up to 10 metres long). But then again, some taxa were only two metres long, so it would be in the larger category. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm pretty sure I linked that article at some point, perhaps removed during copy-edit. Now at replaced its teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It also says "teeth with a low replacement rate" in Paleobiology which seems notable in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the rate has anything to do with physical description, has more to do with physiology/biology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Such split carinae are known from..." this should be split into 2 sentences or you can use a semicolon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because it would lead readers to think it is just structurally the same as our shoulder girdles; dinosaurs had their scapulae and coracoids fused together. So though it is technically a shoulder girdle, precision is needed to note the important difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a link and explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs he tentatively classified as theropods" makes it sound like theropods was the new family of dinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Reorganised as:" In 1979, Perle noted the Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs, which he named Segnosauridae, with Segnosaurus as type genus and sole member. He tentatively classified Segnosauridae as theropods, traditionally thought of as the "meat-eating" dinosaurs, pointing to similarities in the mandible and its front teeth." FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems important to note in the lead that Segnosaurus is the most complete therizinosaur known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was when it was found (but that doesn't say much, as it was the only one recognised at the time), but it was surpassed by Alxasaurus in 1993 (as mentioned in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...via a late-Early Cretaceous landbridge" is there a time interval attached to that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Now added some info for both mentioned land-bridges. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...were adapted for relatively slow progression. Segnosaurus and its relatives were not adapted for rapid locomotion" these are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a composite prosauropod-like segnosaur skeleton" any reason it's in lower case and not italicized?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is a composite of various segnosaurs/therizinosaurs, not Segnosaurus itself. Now added "(a composite of various genera)" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought Segnosauria is obsolete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Not in 1984, it is a compsite of what a "segnosaur" was thought to be at the time. I thought it would be misleading to say therizinosaur retroactively, but since it is outside the classification section, I have added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The endocranium is the inner surface of the brain cavity. The braincase is the bony encasement of the brain cavity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Subterraneously constructed nests are also indicative of a lack of parental care during the incubation period" but how? Animals can bury their eggs and guard over them (like crocodiles)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Removed, the paper doens't really even make it clear that the nest in question was subterraneous, so I was always a bit unsure about the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...but found it mysterious it should then have a horny beak" but why? Turtles have a horny beak   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Turtles don't have teeth, though, I guess it is the combination that seems odd, but the source doesn't specify. The combination of beaks and teeth are otherwise only known in dinosaurs thought to be herbivorous (or omnivorous), which is mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Some extinct birds had teeth, like Ichthyornis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hesperornis too, among many others, both thought to have been piscivorous funnily enough, which would doubtlessly be known to David Norman. Hard to say what he was thinking, but I assume that he was thinking of the context of dinosaurs alone, where only herbivorous/omnivorous ones werre thought to have had beaks (before birds were universally thought of as dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Good you asked, I overlooked a bit of his argument, which doesn't seem particularly sensible either, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'm understand still, "suggested that therizinosaurs could have been tied to nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems, though perhaps indirectly, by feeding on wasps which had themselves fed on carrion of aquatic vertebrates" seems like a big stretch. Why did he suggest it was tied to aquatic ecosystems in the first place? Why wasps? I'm sure there's lot of things that eat dead aquatic animals. It just seems so random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit baffling; review articles just state he suggested they fed on wasps, but it is actually a much more specific argument, and I actually explain it more in detail than other review articles. I'll quote him in full, then you can say whether you think I should go into more detail: "Considering the frequently occurring carnivory of wasps, their ability (at least in some forms) to process even relatively large carrion of vertebrates (particularly fishes) by means of their large mandibles and also feed their larvae on carrion, and considering the frequent mass deaths of fishes, amphibians, and other aquatic vertebrates in the zone of interbasin channels (regarding the mechanism responsible for their death see Ro_ek and Nessov [1993] and Part 3 of this volume), one could assume that the segnosaurs from the Coniacian of Dzharakuduk, like many other terrestrial vertebrates at that time, could have become part of food chains tied to the nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems. Segnosaurs, however, could have done this indirectly, obtaining part of the energyflow through wasps and wasp-like Hymenoptera, whereas large pterosaurs (Pl. I, fig. 18) collected food from the surface of open areas of basins. Therefore, Rozhdestvensky (1970, 1976) may at least be partially correct in his assumption that segnosaurs possessing huge claws fed on social insects." FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"(Whoever said this) suggested that, since wasps and their larvae have been known to scavenge off large vertebrate carcasses—namely fish—and there were frequent mass deaths among aquatic vertebrates in Coniacian of Dzharakuduk/wherever, it is possible that wasps or wasp-like insects were in abundance, and were consequently eaten by local segnosaurs and other contemporaneous terrestrial vertebrates."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to come up with something when I get home, the thing is he is also trying to make a general point about therizinosaur diet, since he draws parallels with earlier suggestions of them eating insects. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a bit more details, with emphasis on what I think is the take home message. It isn't really important to therizinosaurs what exact food these wasps were eating or why. And we shouldn't be giving too much undue weight to Nessov's sometimes odd views. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Lautenschlager found that these would not have been used for digging, which would have been done with the foot claws because, as in other maniraptorans, feathers on the forelimbs would have interfered with this function" you're missing a "because" somewhere in there, and this seems to imply that all maniraptorans dug   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Added "since". The source implies digging even more strongly, so I have actually toned it down: "While the large body size largely rules out the possibility of burrow digging in therizinosaurs, troodontids and dromaeosaurids most probably used their hindlimbs and pedal claws for digging [33,34], as feathering on the forelimbs would have interfered with manus digging [35]. The same can likely be assumed for therizinosaurs and other feathered Maniraptoriformes, such as oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Added "(always returning to the same site to breed)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "raised their jaws isognathously whereby the upper and lower teeth of each side occluded at once" some big words in this sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The latter part of the sentence is an explanation of what "isognathously" means. I have linked occlusion and added "(contacted each other)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Diet and feeding is about half the size of a small article. Maybe you could partition it off into other subsections (like Older/Initial hypotheses, or Chewing mechanics, or Competition)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There aren't really good, logical ways to split this. Everything past the first paragraph mainly covers hypotheses that are presently considered likely. And those sources discuss many different, interrelated aspects of feeding that can't really be seperated easily. I'd prefer it as it is, chronologically, and it doens't seem like other reviewers have felt it necessary to divide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The formation may be at least partially lacustrine" why not "The formation may have featured a lake"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It would partially have been a lake, not featured one, which is awkward to phrase. I added "(representing lakes)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
You could also say "could have had a lake" or "was a lakeside environment" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The source I found for the information below consolidates some of those older findings, now "The deposits of these formations reflect alluvial cycles of meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain (flat land consisting of sediments deposited by highland rivers) with a semi-arid climate." Doesn't exactly make it simpler, I have a hard time explaining "alluvial cycles", perhaps Jens Lallensack can help? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the alluvial cycle in this case is supposed to be. Maybe better simplify to "The sediments were deposited by rivers and within lakes on an alluvial plane". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
How about "The sediments of these formations were deposited by meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
That's better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You should add at least a sentence on paleoclimate (like, if you can find it, "The area had an annual temperature of x and had a humid/wet/dry/whatever climate, based on the presence of [plants]")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Only additional source I could find (didn't turn up in Google Scholar when I had looked before) states it was semi-arid, added. It is pretty rare that detailed studies of formations have been done in most of the non-Western world, so they aren't necessarily to be expected. Also added a conference abstract that mentions a possible fourth therizinosaur in the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • during the Late Cretaceous in what is now known as Mongolia.—that's unneeded, I doubt that the dinos had a name for it.
Not sure how that popped back in actually, thought I had removed it (added by copy-editor). I've changed it to "in what is now southeastern Mongolia". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would have been bipedal and the trunk of its body would have been tilted upwards. The head would have been (also in Description) —repetitive and could be replaced by plain "was"
You mean the "would have"? it is to be careful as all of that is just inference; how it carried itself, as well as some of the features that are unknown for this prticular genus, such as the skull and neck. I'm wary of saying "it had a small skull and a long neck", when we really can only say this because we know its relatives did. Likewise, can't say outright it had feathers, because such are only known definitely from its relatives. So I tried to restrict "was" to known parts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • bore large claws—(in lead) how many?
Changed to: " The forelimbs were robust and had three fingers which bore large claws". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • paleontologist Altangerel Perle, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno—I get told off for using false titles when I do this, apparently should be "the… etc
Heh, I get told something new at every other nomination. I don't personally care, I just let the copy-editor decide, which was the case here. Added "the" because it's easy enough to do those few places. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • but not appressed—I've never seen that word so link, explain or replace I think
Changed to "but not pressed closely together". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

the genus Therizinosaurus itself was originally identified as a turtle—"turtles"?

Changed to "(the forelimb elements of Therizinosaurus itself were originally identified as belonging to a giant turtle when described in 1954)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Gregory S. Paul —probably repetitive to give the job where it's palaeontologist, but perhaps for someone like him precede hname with what he does
I had "paleontologist" in front of every new name, but they were removed by the copy-editor except for in the discovery section. I can see how it is a bit redundant after the first dozen mentions (and it'll be quote some work to add it back), so I'm not sure what to do... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues—if there is no link, perhaps state what they do
Like above, I'd like the consistency, but it was removed by the copy-editor, so I assume they thought it says without going after the first few times (every person mentioned in this article is a paleontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It appears that if you put multiple links to your source in a ref, eg url and doi, the url will be removed at some stage as superfluous, although personally I can't see the harm
I think it's only when they link to the same destination they are removed automatically by bots. If I have a DOI for an old Ibis article, I can still use a different link to its Archive.org version, for example, and it won't be removed. But if the DOI is for, say, an open access PLOSONE article, the DOI leads to the exact same place as the URL, making either redundant. But that also goes for paywalled articles. So I personally find it more clear/helpful knowing that when a title has a link, it's because it will go to a place different than the DOI, where I might get to read the otherwise paywalled article. If every title is a link, I can't tell a redundant link from a helpful one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My point with the first comment is that just "in Mongolia" would do; since there were no humans then to name the region, it's not as if it had a different name in the age of the dinosaurs. Anyway, no big deal so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I usually write "what is now" because often an area covered by a modern country may have been divided or submerged at the time... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

It looks like all images are placed in well suited sections and are pertinent to the article. I'll defer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review with regards to their factual accuracy. Regarding the individual files:
  • File:Segnosaurus Scale.svg: Given that this is a derivative file of two others and one of them is not PD, it needs to mention the license of the other file.
I'll ping the creator, Slate Weasel. But yeah, I guess the solution is to add the licenses of the original files. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The silhouette is completely original (different neck angle, jaws closed, limbs posed differently, filaments added, etc. etc.), with the skeletal being used as a reference for proportions and size, so I'm pretty sure that this doesn't qualify as a derivative work of the skeletal. Is this reasoning correct, FunkMonk? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep. The human is taken directly from the other image, right? So at least that license should be copied over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I could, but is it necessary? The human's under CC0, which I thought didn't even require attribution. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Probably, back to Jo-Jo Eumerus on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Upon looking closely, it seems like the dinosaur silhouette might be too derived to be a derivative work. The human ... I've seen some spirited discussions about CC-0 and actual PD status, perhaps better to mention the license as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added indication of the human's license. Anything else that needs to be done with this chart or is this good? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like it's all sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is stated on the first page of the PDF version, but the entire journal is CC, as can be seen here:[27] FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I drew it on myself, with proportions based on illustrations of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, to warn people that it is not anatomically accurate anymore, but used to illustrate historical views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, none of the images has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm unsure whether they're needed or not these days. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK they are a good idea but not mandatory. Sometimes you don't need one (for purely decorative images) or you can't do one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Herbert Maryon

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.
  • Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • Added. It's now The University of Reading War Memorial, designed by Maryon and dedicated in 1924
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[28][29]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • Added: These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson in 1929, and Sir Charles Parsons in 1932
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
  • FunkMonk, it's in Herbert Maryon#Later years: Before his departure Maryon had been planning a trip around the world, and at the end of 1961 he left for Fremantle ... From Australia Maryon departed for San Francisco ... Maryon devoted much of his time during the American stage of his trip to visiting museums and the study of Chinese magic mirrors ... His trip also included guest lectures, such as his talk "Metal Working in the Ancient World" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 2 May 1962 ... Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I assume this would be a difficult subject to get a coherent story from if an actual biography hasn't been published, but I think it succeeds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".
  • Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.
  • I would consider moving the complete list to a talk page or other non-mainspace location, just a suggestion. buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, just wanted to check in to see if any have any further comments. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
  • File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.
  • Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.
  • Done.


Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.
  • Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Comments by Tim riley

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

  • I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".
  • Done.
  • I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.
  • Fixed.
  • "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.
  • Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.
  • Reworded: He spent most of World War II, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work.
  • "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.
  • It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.
  • "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?
  • Fixed.
  • As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.
  • Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.
  • Removed.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources review

I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages
  • This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.
  • As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
  • Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate
  • I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".
  • Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever
  • It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.
  • But I can't see the content, so it's not obvious to all non-German speaking readers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas
  • This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.
  • There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS
  • Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.
  • Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call
  • No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?
  • Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case
  • Done.
  • I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SG

Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, the MOS says that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Do you take issue with that, or is there another section you think is more relevant? Likewise, could you please point to the section of WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Citations
  • There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
      • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
    • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
      • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
    • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
      • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
  • See WP:NOTCATALOG on this source. Since this is only covered in a Note (not in text), and there is independent coverage, the sales catalogue is not overly problematic, but you might consider whether to remove that link and stick with the independent source. I'm not fussed either way on this, other than noting external criticism that FAC needs to keep a better eye on WP:NOT, which we have historically neglected.
    • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
  • What makes K Simon a reliable source? [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
    • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
  • A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?
Works and Layout
  • See MOS:BIB. One expects to find a list of works in the article, before See also, Notes and References, per WP:LAYOUT and MOS:ORDER. MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
    The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.
Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.
MOS
  • Please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK and review throughout. For example, San Francisco, World War (either; probably the most overlinked terms on Wikipedia-- everyone knows what World War I, and no one is likely to click on that article from this one) are low-value links that are not likely to be clicked on. Tailor is probably understood to most English speakers, as is a world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
  • I added samples of WP:NBSP; please review throughout.
    • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
      • I believe it was Reidgreg who indicated elsewhere that links aren't non-breaking and do need nbsps; perhaps they will weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
        • (talk page stalker) Linked phrases will line wrap. I'll almost always use [[World War&nbsp;II]], the non-breaking space works fine in a link, it doesn't have to be piped. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:LQ generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
    • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
    • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
      • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ? :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks, SandyGeorgia—yes, given my own propensity to forget things from five minutes ago, that might be a bit of a stretch. Anyways, hope the VBB (Very Big Birthday) was fun. I just need to respond to the "Overcitation" section, but will get to that today. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Prose

A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

  • There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:
  • Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
  • Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:
  • four other drawing designers?
  • Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?
  • He also had the help of his sisters:
  • Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.
  • Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,
  • Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee
  • The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:
  • Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)
  • Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).
  • Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.
  • Removed.
  • Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.
  • Removed.
  • … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.
  • Removed.
  • Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …
  • Changed to "Yet its importance..."
  • Other opportunities to vary the prose:
  • frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.
  • Now "often ... frequently".
  • exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910
  • Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Overcitation

Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").
Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources

I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the 1901 census listed as living with her sister [Edith],[77][78]; the second citation is to the census, and the first is to a secondary source which states Edith's sister, Mildred (born c.1881) is listed as an art student, designer and living at the same address in the Census of 1901. The half-dozen ancestry.com sources thus do little independent work, but serve to confirm secondary sources, show their work, and provide launching pads for interested readers. That is to say, the article would be substantially the same without them, but is marginally better with them. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [31].


Fir Clump Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable
  • Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Image review
  • All images are free and appropriately licensed.
  • Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
    • This still hasn't been done. I had to stare at the map for some time to figure out what it was showing. buidhe 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean; would you like to see the caption on the map made clearer? Or rather alter the pinpoint on the map in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. Done buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Other comments
  • It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

  • ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"
  • A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....
  • Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.
  • A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.
  • More than happy with the diagram in the infobox, although I shifted the picture of the M4 from a left alignment to a right alignment as I think it looks a bit neater, if that's okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?
  • Good idea. I've listed them in the "Context" section; we do not yet have articles for a couple of them but I should be able to create these without too much trouble. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.
  • A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?
  • I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?
  • There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.
  • The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

Context

  • "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?
  • The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?
  • His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?
  • In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

  • a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?
  • It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discovery and destruction

  • the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?
  • Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • after they had been purchased by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — How did the society come to purchase the notebooks?
  • Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.
  • He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?
  • Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?
  • Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)
  • Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"
  • Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?
  • I can see your point. I've replaced "produced" with "wrote" here, which I think is an improvement, but I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Good idea; this could be achieved in the form of a note. I won't do this just yet, as I'll need to look up the right sources in the literature, but is something that I shall try to do soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SG

  • I have now added   to all of the dates specified in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Convert templates are missing.
  • I've added the templates to the lede, so that we now have imperial measurements there as well as in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
    • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
      • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I see your point. The numbers provided in the lead were those of the outer ring. To make this clear I've changed "in diameter" to "in total diameter". I've also added mention of the inner ring diameter. (Does this work? I can always make it more explicit). The differing diameters (107 m by 86.5 m) stem from the fact that the "stone circle" is not (despite its name) a perfect circle, but an oval, and hence its diameter differs at different points. I've added mention of the oval-shape to the lead so that this becomes clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, SchroCat, both for your time and your support. As you suggest, I've brought the Field and McOmish quote forward, so that it appears before we mention the measurements. I've also clarified that the dimensions given are those of the outer ring. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

GB

Support - it's a shame we have lost it. Can we check the usage of "also" is really warranted? It's an ugly word that often breaks the flow. (No big deal of course). Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I've removed one instance of "also" and changed another to "similarly". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod

  • Support - well chewed-over & I have nothing to add. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [32].


The Holocaust in Slovakia

Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
    • Fixed those, although I'm not too concerned about it either.
  • "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.
    • Reworded to get rid of them. (The sound actually from wikt:strana and very similar to English /s/).

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! buidhe 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1938 deportations
  • No need to link "the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" (and as you've introduced the United Kingdom at the end of the previous para, you can shorten to UK). I tend only to link to non-existent states, so the links to Nazi Germany are good.
    • Fixed
  • "voluntary Aryanization" is a circular link and advised against at WP:SELFRED. If it only occurred in Slovakia then best not to link; if it was a policy in several states, then maybe a quick stub by way of explanation?
    • I redirected voluntary Aryanization to Aryanization, where it is discussed a little, and took out the link to the later section (see below)
Aryanization
  • In my notes for the 1938 deportations I initially wrote that "voluntary Aryanization" needs an explanation "to explain what sounds like, but probably wasn't, a benign process". The explanation in this makes it a lot more clear that the name was a euphemism and that the process wasn't benign. It does, however, read a little awkwardly to have the full explanation on the second mention, which is in a different section. Can we clarify at the first mention (in the 1938 deportations section) what "voluntary Aryanization" was, and then we can deal with its effects in this section?
    • Changed to "a precursor to the state-sponsored transfer of Jewish property (Aryanization)." I don't think we need to be explicit about the type of Aryanization.
  • Is there a reason you've capitalised "Slovak State", when that's not a proper name? Shouldn't it be "Slovak state" in the same way you refer to the "Czechoslovak state" or "Slovak government"?
    • It was (temporarily) the official name of the state; see First Slovak Republic#Name. All of (First) Slovak Republic/Slovak state/Slovak State are used in reliable sources, but I stuck with the last one because it is the most common in the sources that I was using.

Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Code
  • Full stop for the image caption as it's a full sentence. I'd also prefer to see a cite there (I'm not sure what the rules are on using citations for translations, but I think it would strengthen it against someone who may later query it
    • Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, if there was a published translation, I would have cited it. The translation is my own work and verifiable to the headline on the image.
      • (See - I told you I didn't know what the rules are!) Given the guideline, that's OK then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "denounced non-Jews perceived as sympathetic to them as "white Jews", engaging in antisemitic demonstrations on a daily basis" This reads as if the so-called "white Jews" were the ones taking part in the antisemitic demonstrations – I think it needs a little tweak to clarify.
    • Reworded

More to come shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Planning
  • "In November 1941,[93]": I'm never a fan of citations immediately after just a few words. A citation should cover all the information in the text from the previous citation. In this case "November 1941" is meaningless without the text after the citation. Move it to the next one to cover both parts of information in two citations.
    • I realize that there are different opinions on this, but I tend to emphasize WP:text-source integrity in order to maximize verifiability. However, I did move the Hilberg citation to a later punctuation mark.
  • The 'Linda Reich' image caption needs a full stop.
    • Done
Opposition
  • " Acting on behalf of the Vatican[204]": ditto my comment on the November 1941 citation
    • See above. Paulovicova is the only source which states this explicitly, so I think it is helpful to keep that close to the information.

Done to the start of "Hiatus". More soon. This is well written and covers (from the point of someone with no detailed knowledge about the history) everything I would except to see in such an article. It's difficult to get through in places, but that's because the subject matter is appalling, not because of the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Final comments...

Hiatus
  • Are there any further details of the attempt to bribe Himmler? I presume it didn't work as they "tried" to bribe him, but even a few words to say that it failed would stop me clicking on the link to look at another page.
    • Clarified
German invasion
  • "Nazi authorities were eager to murder Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland; Auschwitz would shut down its gas chambers in November 1944" The two halves of this sit a little uncomfortably next to each other, with the meaning not totally clear (partly because I don't think you've clarified anywhere that Auschwitz is in Poland). I think I know what you're getting at, but it could be rephrased a little better.
Legacy
  • "The neo-Nazi[394]" Ditto on my earlier comments about refs after a few words
    • Because the Kotleba party is strongly associated with its founder, Marian Kotleba, it's particularly important for BLP to have a strong and verifiable citation for any contentious claims, such as the party being Neo Nazi.

That's it from me. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  • Spot checks not done.
  • Impressive amount of research and source gathering here. All sources and citations are correctly formatted and in line with the MoS requirements and FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Ealdgyth: because I think she is up on sources about the Holocaust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I meant to try to get to this sometime this week... being on the road is a bit difficult on reviewing Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both: given the subject matter and possible foreign language sources, all I can realistically do is check the formatting and style, so if anyone else wants to look at any other aspect, please feel free: I'll consider it a great help - I certainly won't think my toes are being stepped on or anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
A quick glance shows nothing that's screaming at me as far as unreliability. I own perhaps half the books cited, but they are at home and I am not. I'll do some spot checking when I get home in the next week or two, as well as a deeper dive into the various sources and reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, though I must admit I waited until someone else had commented because it is a bit of a daunting subject that I don't feel qualified to be the first reviewer of. But it certainly shouldn't be archived due to inactivity. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a good deal of WP:duplicate links htorughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[33]
    • Fixed all except First Vienna Award, which is piped on the first mention and may be confusing otherwise.
  • A bit unfortunate one photo is only an external link. Perhaps we could find out when the photographer, Bedrich Fred Vohryzek, died, to see if it might be public domain?
  • "Holokaust na Slovensku" I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't this refer to Slovenia?
    • It's the dative case of sk:Slovensko, "Slovakia". The names are very similar.
Oh, forgot to remove this point after I had looked it up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "had adopted Hungarian language" Link this and other languages?
    • I don't have a preference, but as I recall the languages were unlinked by previous reviewers who felt they were common
  • "Territorial losses to Hungary in 1938 and 1939" Probably good to state who suffered the losses in the caption.
    • Done
  • "The dispute was submitted to arbitration in Vienna by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hungary was awarded much of southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938" Makes me wonder why Germany gave parts of Slovakia to Hungary, but later supported the Slovaks?
    • It's complicated and not a subject for this article; see First Vienna Award for more information.
  • "Between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated before 1940" But after when? "Before" seems pretty vague when no interval is mentioned. Also, did they move because of persecution?
    • Reason for the emigration is explained later on. I left the numbers in the background section for numbers purposes, and corrected the interval to 1938–1940 after checking the sources.
  • "Administrative regions of the Slovak State" You could state the interval in the caption, as is mention on the image itself.
    • Done
  • "Solution of the Jewish Question" Link something?
    • Redlinked since there's no article in any language.
  • "using antisemitic stereotypes" Link?
  • "to blame them for the Hungarian domination of Slovakia" What was the rationale behind this?
  • "because of Jews' alleged support for Hungary during the partition negotiations" I guess the above is related to this? Or was it more general than that?
    • As explained in the background section, many Slovak Jews spoke Hungarian and the national-conservatives suspected them of being pro-Hungarian as a result.
  • "were still permitted, and the Nazi German Party formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia" It is unclear from reading this article that those groups were formed by the local German minority, so you could state it here in parenthesis or similar for clarity?
    • Clarified—I hope
  • You are inconsistent in whether you link countries (I think all former countries should be linked in any case), and sometimes you link them at second rather than first mention.
    • I think I've now linked all the former countries on first mention.
  • "to "voluntary Aryanization"." Anything to link? I now see you link it further down, but links should be placed at first mention. Perhaps you could add a "main article" link under the section header there?
    • I linked the relevant section.
  • "through the Reich" Could be linked.
    • Reworded "through Nazi Germany"
  • "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." What time interval?
    • I think it's clear from the context that this refers to the time between the 1938 deportations and when it became impossible to leave. I considered making it explicit, but that seemed redundant. Also, the sources are a bit vague about exactly what interval they refer to.
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "enriched by property stolen from Jews" Did they call it "stolen", though, and not "confiscate" or such? I realise it is effectively stealing, but the sentence is written as if reporting what they said themselves.
    • Changed to "confiscated", which better reflects the sources.
  • "acquired by Aryan-owned competitors" Were Slovaks considered "Aryan"? I thought it specifically excluded Slavs?
    • I removed "Aryan-owned" because it's not necessary in the sentence. (Nazi racial theories make no sense, but the Slovaks were German allies and therefore considered Aryan, more or less).
  • "Adolf Hitler (left) at a Wolf's Lair meeting" Links and date?
    • Done. Sadly there are no free images of the meeting discussed in text.
  • "Although the Ministry of Defense was pressured by the Ministry of the Interior to release the Jews for deportation in 1942, it refused" Why?
    • Added "possibly because the leadership wanted to avoid complicity in war crimes".
  • "The party's radical wing controlled the Hlinka Guard, whose leader, Alexander Mach, who was appointed interior minister in 1940 at German request" Is the "who" needed?
    • Removed
  • It seems a bit odd that the Holocaust memorial and Tiso's grave are presented side by side. But I guess it is necessary due to lack of space? Is the grave necessary?
    • The intention is to juxtapose different responses to the event within Slovak society.
  • "sealed within the framework of Operation Reinhard" Shouldn't such direct quotes be attributed in-text?
    • Done
  • "the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter" The global Catholic Church or just locally?
    • Locally, clarified
  • "and the anti-Zionism which had followed the 1967 Six-Day War intensified" was this related to anti-Semitism as such or more with official Soviet policies which favoured some of the Socialist anti-western Arab states that went to war with Israel? And how was it expressed?
    • Basically. See article for expansion, although I don't want to go into too much detail on this point.
  • "Situation during the first days of the Slovak National Uprising" Give dates in caption?
    • Source does not state exact dates, only that it was at the beginning of the uprising.
  • "Over 1,000 Jews were at Sereď by 11 September" I think you could give the year here. 1944 is only mentioned in the preceding section by this point, so it is uncertain the reader would be aware.
    • Done
  • "Alois Brunner took over" Present him?
    • done
  • You mention Gisi Fleischmann multiple times, I think it might be notable to mention she also died in Auschwitz herself?
    • Done
  • I wonder why this image[34] is kept both on Wikipedia and on Commons, unlike the other free images?
    • Actually, I just found out that this image is not PD in the US (although it is free in Slovakia and Germany. I started an import request for a series of similar images to dewiki and will delete once that's been completed. I've removed it from this article.
  • "In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces" Here at the end of the article is the first time you link the Axis forces, should be linked at first mention.
    • Done
  • "and about 1,000[329] or 2,000 Romani people were killed" Any article about this to link to?
    • Not really, it was a very minor part of the Romani genocide and there's more detail in this article than that one, so I don't see the purpose of a link.
  • The Summary section does not seem to really be a summary, as it introduces new information? Is there a more inclusive title that could be used? It seems to be more about how people reacted to what happened during the events? Or maybe the info could be spread out in other parts of the article?
  • "returned from concentration camps and Hungary and 10,000 Jews" In Hungary?
    • Refers to Jews from 1939 borders who fled to Hungary versus those who lived in the annexed areas. Clarified this.
  • "After the conquest of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic." Reads a bit awkwardly, as it may be unclear what "it" refers to. Maybe "after the Red Army's conquest of Slovakia in 1945, it became part of"?
    • Done
  • "(who had fled to Austria)" When?
    • Clarified
  • "A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews" I wonder if Slovak Jews shouldn't be linked earlier in the intro than the third paragraph?
    • done
  • "The Czechoslovak government, initially supportive of Zionism" Was that government dominated by Czechs?
    • Yes, but not exclusively and it governed Slovakia as well. This is a bit tangential so I'd rather not expand on it in this article.
  • "the ban was only removed after the 1989 Velvet Revolution" Not a big deal, but you don't use this name outside the intro, maybe best to be consistent.
    • Fixed this.
  • "The one-party" Only stated in intro.
    • Removed.

Thanks for your comments! buidhe 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I think it's a strong article, there wasn't much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto

While I read, can I ask that you go through this article and put the refs in numerical order? There seems to be a lot that are highest number first. CassiantoTalk 21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Ordering of refs is not part of the Featured Article criteria; moreover, it's a moving target because refs are always moving around. I agree that it looks slightly better when they are all in numerical order but not enough to spend time going through the article and fixing it. buidhe 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • What is the source for "File:Slovakia borderHungary.png"? "Own work" doesn't cut it any more than it would for text. Ultimately we need RSs to back what the map is saying - textual, maps or a mix. It may be that you need a separate cite for each of the five sections of the description.
  1. Reliable source for Bratislava bridgehead: "Na pripojenie Jaroviec, Rusoviec a Čunova sa zabúda". SME.sk (in Slovak). Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  2. This source should cover #2 (upn is the National Memory Institute (Slovakia))
  3. See Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (2016). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-250-11475-4. for #3
  4. Lemkin, Raphael (2005). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-58477-576-8. for #4
  5. Rychlík, Jan (2017). "Slovakia (section: The Slovak Republic, 4th paragraph)". Joining Hitler's Crusade European Nations and the Invasion of the Soviet Union, 1941. Cambridge UP.
Excellent, now you need to cut and paste that to "Source" on File:Slovakia borderHungary.png.
  • "File:Slovak Republic 1939 45 Administrative Map.png": Ditto.
    • Third map on this portal, published by the Slovak Ministry of the Environment
Ditto.
Done for both

The source cited for "File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png" is the sort of thing needed.

  • A couple of images lack alt text.
    • Added

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "File:Antisemitic graffiti in Bratislava, c. 1941.jpg" I am doubtful re its copyright status. Yes, there is freedom of panorama, but that means that the photographer has sole copyright. That means that if you, say, had taken the photograph, you could abrogate your rights, but what makes you think that this actual image is PD?
Très amusant. No, it's fine.
  • "File:Ľudové noviny 1941.jpg" Could you add a US PD tag?
    • Done

An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed everything. buidhe 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Good stuff. That'll do fine.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron

I would like to add a couple of comments to the review, mostly on rather trivial issues. I wrote The Holocaust in Belgium and certainly defer to the author for having produced a much better article here!

My comments mostly relate to the lead - and I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I would make the following points:

  • The first paragraph of the lead should establish a very potted history of the subject's most important aspects - as a non-expert, I would suggest that this means (i) a two-sentence summary of the article, (ii) a mention about Slovakia's status during the war, viz being a German puppet state (iii) a mention of the number of Jews in Slovakia before the war and the numbers actually killed. I think it must also make a very cursory reference (and link) to The Holocaust which is after all the main topic.
  • I think the "Background" section is entirely absent from the lead at present - one or two sentences would be helpful.
  • It might be worth thinking whether the infobox really adds anything to the article.

I would also make some more general observations:

  • I would suggest breaking up "Background" into at least two sub-sections - perhaps entitled something like "early history" and "Slovak independence" - for users on mobile devices, it is rather too big at present. It might be worth thinking about this in the context of some of the other sections too.

Just a few comments, then. Overall I think the article is very close to FA status! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I believe I have addressed all your comments. Thank you! buidhe 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Note, I intend to claim Wikicup points for this review.
  • Hradská, Katarína (2016). "Dislokácie Židov z Bratislavy na jeseň 1941" [The Displacement of Jews from Bratislava in Autumn 1941] is lacking publisher information.
    • Added
  • "Their multilingualism (many Jews spoke German, French, or Yiddish)" is sourced to (among others) Bauer 2002 p. 172. I have the paperback edition, but I checked the pages around just in case. Page 172 (and surrounding) is discussing specific examples of Jews in Slovakia - and is borderline supporting the information - it's not really discussing "many Jews" and only mentions German and Hungarian. It says "The meetings must have been held in German, possibly Hungarian, because those were the languages of the Jewish intelligentsia - Slovak was the "dialect" spoken by the peasants." This isn't a great source - I can't access the other two sources, but give that there is three sources listed - this one isn't really a good use of the source.
    • There are several sources for this because each one discusses different languages—removed because this is a less important point. Hutzelmann source specifically discusses multilingualism and the implications of this in that Jews were not seen as Slovak enough.
  • "and Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 175 and Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596. I have both. The Bauer ref does not really support "Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." because it is discussing Gisi Fleishmann's brother being killed - one specific case isn't actually supporting this phrase. The Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596 only supports the attacks on the streets and looting - there is nothing on that page that says that Slovak Jews were killed in the streets.
    • Removed
  • "neither the Slovak authorities nor the Jews in Slovakia knew about the Final Solution." is sourced to Bauer 1994 (which I don't have) and Bauer 2002 p. 177. In this case, Bauer 2002 does support the information.
    • Bauer 1994 p. 67: "At this stage, it is unlikely that the Slovak officials knew of the fate that was awaiting the deportees." "After the war, the charge was made that the UZ knew the destination of the transports and did nothing to warn the Jewish public. (70) (discusses details of accusations) "The main point to remember, however, is that not even the Slovak leaders had any definite knowledge in March, April, or perhaps even May or June that all the Jews were indeed destined to die in Poland." (71). Removed citation to Bauer 2002.
  • "Members of the banned Zionist youth movements traveled around the country to warn Jews to hide or flee," is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 177. It mostly is supported, but it does not support the fact that the Zionist youth movements were banned.
    • Added reference to Bauer 1994, p. 70, which mentions "now-illegal Zionist youth movements"
  • "In mid-1941, the Germans demanded 20,000 men from Slovakia for forced labor.[137] Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks or care for the families of deported Jews.[137]" First, we don't need the duplicated identical references here. This is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 176-177. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the source - Bauer says "The Slovaks could not fulfill their commitment to the Germans to supply them with a large number of Slovak laborers for Germany, so they suggested deporting 20,000 Jews instead. It immediately became clear to them, however, that deporting productive workers would leave them burdened with their families, and they therefore asked the Germans to accept the families as well." This isn't supported by the source - the number demanded by the Germans is not given nor is it stated that Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks explicitly.
    • Supported by a different source:

      On May 29,1940, the Slovaks signed an agreement according to which theGermans were to receive 120,000 Slovak workers. On June 17, 1941, Moravek wrote a letter to Tuka in which he reported on a discussion he had had with Wisliceny and another German (Erich Gebert, an economic "expert"), saying that he had offered to the Germans Jews for labor in Poland or Germany.7 In the late summer of 1941 the Germans demanded 20,000Slovak workers, and Izidor Koso, head of Tiso's and Mach's chancelleries,again suggested that the Germans should take Jews instead (see below). In the autumn Tiso and Tuka went to see Hitler and Himmler, and Tuka asked Himmler for help in taking the Jews out of Slovakia. There, too, the Slovaks learned of German plans to "liberate" Europe from its Jews—exactly how they were not told, except that the Jews would somehow be "settled in the East."8 In October they agreed to have Jews with Slovak citizenship living in Germany deported along with German Jews "to the East."9In January 1942 the Slovaks said they could not send Slovak workers;10however, they again offered 20,000 Jewish workers—to Sager, the representative of the German Ministry of Labor.

      — Bauer 1994, p. 65
  • "Initially, most Jews believed that it was better to report for deportation rather than risk reprisals against their families." is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 177-178. But Bauer says "By and large, leaders and even youth groups and individuals in the communities refused to listen and decided that it was best to report to what they thought would be forced labor in order to avoid reprisals against their families." This is a bit more nuanced and I'm not sure it really supports "most Jews"
    • How about "many Jews"?
  • "Gisi Fleischmann, leader of the Working Group." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178. This one is mostly supported, although we're losing some of the nuance in Bauer - who states "According to all the documentation we have ... it is clear that Fleishchmann headed the Working Group."
    • Yes, this article is written in summary style and does not include all details. If you prefer I can remove the image, but a caption is not the place for that information.
  • "in 2002, he revised the figure to 7,000." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 178.
  • "Several thousand[j] Jews fled to Hungary, aided by Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Ungar and the youth movements, in early 1942." is also sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178 - although it specifically mentions that the youth groups were Zionist and that "fair numbers of ordinary, unorganized people" joined the organized groups.
    • The only youth movements mentioned in the article (earlier in the same paragraph) are Zionist. Yes, it's missing some detail, the article is written in summary style.
  • "She was deported to Auschwitz and murdered in October 1944." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 183, although Bauer states "No one knows how she was killed." so I think a better rendering would be "She was deported to Auschwitz in October 1944 and killed/murdered."
    • I just took this out because it overburdens the caption.
  • "Between 1,600[321] and 1,800[202][322] Jews were arrested, including most of the ÚŽ and Working Group leadership.[202][322][321]" First, footnote 202 is Bauer 2002 p. 183, which supports that the Working group was arrested, but does not mention 1800 anywhere, so the 202 on the 1800 number is wrong. I do not have access to the other sources used here.
    • Supported by the Fatran ref and also Fatran 1994, p. 192: "Some 1,800 Jews, including Working Group activists Oskar Neumann, Rabbi Frieder, Vojtech, Winterstein, and the treasurer, Wili Fiirst, were arrested". The Putík source is open-access.
  • "Polish Jews escape to Hungary via Slovakia. In late April 1944 two Auschwitz escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, reached Slovakia." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 229. There is nothing on that page about the escape of Polish Jews to Hungary through Slovakia. It does, however, support the next sentence.
    • Sorry, that part was supported by the citations on the numbers. Since it wasn't clear, I moved one of the refs to the end of the sentence.
  • "The Working Group sent a report to Hungary and Switzerland." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 237 and is supported, but it leaves out some nuance in Bauer, which notes that the information reached the Working Group in late April but did not reach Hungary and Switzerland until early June.
  • "On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Slovakia in 1938." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 226. It supports the date and the invasion, but not the phrase starting "including..."
    • Hmm, that's a tricky one. Saying that Hungary was invaded sort of implies that all of the areas which were part of Hungary at that time were included. I did find a more explicit source and added it to the article.
  • "About 1,600[305] to 2,000[306] Jews fought as partisans"... the 305 ref is to Bauer 2002 p. 139, which does support the information given.
    • Wrong source, this should be Kubatova. Fixed
  • "In June, Ludin reported that popular opinion in Slovakia had turned against the deportations because gentile Slovaks saw the Hlinka Guard's violence against Jews." is cited to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641 is supported by the source.
  • "German and Slovak propaganda blamed the Jews for the uprising," is also sourced to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641. which is subtly different - Rothkirchen says "The fate of the remaining Jews was sealed in September 1944 following suppression of hte Slovak National Uprising. Jews were accused of acting as ringleaders. The deportations were renewed and carried out with great efficiency by the German army, aided by storm troopers of the Hlinka Guard."
    • OK, I have added two sources that explicitly mention "propaganda".
  • "was justified by the popular belief (reinforced by HSĽS propaganda) that Jews had obtained their wealth by oppressing Slovaks.[63][64][65]" 64 is Tonsmeyer 2007 p. 81. (63 is Legge 2018 pp. 226-227 and 65 is Lônčíková 2017 p. 85)... which is kinda supported by Tonsmeyer's "This is all the more important as some peopel in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia still believe rather that it was the Jews who had "acquired national property in an illegal manner. Therefore, these people view the expropriation of the Jews in the 1940s as a harsh but not necessarily unjustified measure."
    • The most direct support for this is Loncikova: Propaganda used and misused many stereotypes including the above mentioned notions of poor Jewish immigrants arriving from Galicia and becoming rich inn-keepers shortly after their arrival, stereotypes of Jews who allegedly abused Slovaks for their own personal profit... state propaganda emphasized a pre-supposed right of Slovaks to confiscate all Jewish properties The background also references the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks, which has multiple sources that could be cited. Kubátová and Láníček 2018 discuss the Jew "as exploiter" on pp. 26, 32–3, and 43–4. As "stereotype" more closely matches the sources than does "popular view", I edited accordingly.
  • "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information.
    • Perhaps you have a different edition? I am citing the pdf version (via JSTOR) which includes the quote "In November 1938, a month into Slovakian autonomy, the government de-cided to deport poor Jews and Jews without Czechoslovakian citizenship twenty kilometers into territory ceded to Hungary as a reaction to the result of the First Vienna Arbitration.7 Altogether, approximately 7,500 Jews were forcibly transported from the country, including children, elderly, and pregnant women." on page 506. I'm happy to send you the pdf of this chapter if you like.
      • Reread what I wrote - "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "For the most part, Holocaust relativism in Slovakia manifests as attempts to deflect the blame for it onto Germans and Jews rather than outright denial." is also sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which somewhat supports it - "Although I would argue that Holocaust denial does not occupy an important place in Slovak postwar historiography, relativization, including deflecting political responsibility for the Holocaust on others - either Germans or Jews - is a widespread and dangerous issue." which doesn't really suppor the "for the most part... "
    • OK, reworded and added source.
  • "Jews fought as partisans, ten percent of the total insurgent force." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 516 which does support this information.
  • "Before 1939, Slovakia had never been an independent country." is sourced to Deák 2015 p. 31 which does support the information.
  • "with the proviso that their confiscated property be passed to Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 285 which does support the information.
  • "A letter sent 15 October 1941 indicates that plans were being made for the mass murder of Jews in the Lublin Reservation of the General Government to make room for deported Jews from Slovakia and Germany. It is possible that these plans contributed to the decision to build Sobibór extermination camp." is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 295, 428 - one quibble - the date of the letter is given on page 294. Also - pp. 294 and 295 do not tie this letter to the construction of Sobibor, and the content on p. 428 makes it clear that the possible connection to the construction of Sobibor is tied to an offer made on 20 October by Himmler to the Slovakian head of state: "There is also the offer that Himmler made to the Slovakian head of state on 20 October, to deport Slovakian Jews to a particularly remote area of the General Government, possibly as the basis for the construction of the second extermination camp at Sobibor." Longerich does NOT tie the letter of 15 October to Sobibor on any of these pages. While the sentence in our article says "these plans" ... it's still a bit of a leap, because the plans in the letter are not expressly tied to the plans of Himmler to the Slovakian head of state.
    • Removed.
  • "The original deportation plan, approved in February 1942, entailed the deportation of 7,000 women to Auschwitz and 13,000 men to Majdanek as forced laborers." is sourced to Longerich pp. 324-325, which does support the information.
  • "Transports went to Auschwitz after mid-June, where a minority of the victims were selected for labor and the remainder were killed in the gas chambers. This occurred for eight transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 326, which is supported by the source, but with a bit of nuance lost - Longerich says "By 21 October we are able to identify eight transports from Slovakia" ... which is historian speak for "we don't have all the records from Auschwitz so there might possibly be other transports" - Longerich sources this information to Czech's Kalendarium, which is reconstruction of the records, not a complete record of transports.
  • "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 58,000 Jews[188][182]" - where 182 is Longerich 2010 p. 326. (188 is Ward 2013 p. 235 which I do not have access to), but it does support the information.
  • "At the end of the deportations, between 18,000 and 25,000 Jews were still in Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 404, which supports the information.
  • "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had organized the deportation of Jews from France and Greece," is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 391, 395, 403 which supports that Brunner was involved with the deportations, but our article implies that he was the only one in charge, which is not really the case - Longerich mentions other Germans involved in the deportations. And Longerich always calls him part of the RSHA, not as an SS officer.
    • Removed reference to SS officer, although that is potentially supported by other sources. Changed to "participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece"
  • "and about 1,000[340] or ... Romani" 340 here is Longerich 2010 p. 419 which has a subtly different emphasis - "...possibly as many as 1,000 people"
    • Fixed
  • Given the above, there are some problems that have shown up. I don't think they are intentional or malicious, but they are enough that I feel the need to suggest that a thorough audit of the sourcing is done. And .. therein lies the problem - just the above took me most of the morning and its barely scratched the surface. Doing a source audit is exhausting and very demanding work and it isn't exactly rewarding. But we need to get the sourcing right on such an article - there should be no ability for anyone to point to errors in sourcing.
  • I hate to recommend withdrawing the nomination, but I do not think a thorough source review is best done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it. I think I've fixed all of the problems. It's worth mentioning that most of the sources that you checked are the ones which have been in the article longest and have the most opportunity for something to get changed along the way. buidhe 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
      • The thing is... finding this many problems in the ones I checked (and I listed every citation I checked - noting when they did support the information) ... means that there are likely other issues lurking. Just fixing what I've brought up isn't the solution - the whole article needs to be checked against the sources. One or two small errors within this many checks would be "eh, it happens"... this many means that there has been a lot of slippage of sources around ... not saying it's anyone's fault, but that everything needs checking before the source review can be considered passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
        • What venue do you suggest? The article has already been through GA review and A-class review. Peer review is dead. I could of course go back and double check all 400 citations myself, but that's not really a source review. buidhe 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @Ealdgyth: I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination, otherwise, let me know what you think would be a good next step for this article. Thanks. buidhe 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Let me answer on behalf of the coords: I think that given Ealdgyth's concerns and recommendation that all citations be checked, we do need to close this (and I'll treat it as a withdrawal) and work on that outside FAC. The page you've started seems a fair way to go about things but I'll leave to Ealdgyth to comment further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wolf

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Comment from Tim riley

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Yup:
  • "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
  • "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy to Support. All points fixed. Article meet FA standards. Nice read. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank

  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [35])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?
Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is als