Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article review (FAR) Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Mentoring for FAC Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Disambig links External links Alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. 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

1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a little known but important episode in US history. The article has, perhaps, not the most impressive of titles, but tells of the only congressional election in US history to feature two future presidents, James Madison and James Monroe. Madison was the victor of this battle fought one cold Virginia winter, and had he not been in Congress to use his influence to fight for the Bill of Rights, the key issue in this campaign, it might not have passed.Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cefnllys Castle

Nominator(s): Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a largely forgotten medieval castle, once a crucial frontier outpost in the most volatile part of the Welsh Marches, now reduced to rubble on an isolated ridge. My curiosity was piqued after coming across the stub a few weeks ago, and I was surprised to learn that the castles (there were in fact 3 successive castles, spanning 400 years of history) played a major role in English attempts to subjugate the independent Welsh princes. The strategic location made it a focal point of the conflict, and the building of the final castle at Cefnllys – following a Welsh siege which had destroyed the second – helped cause the final conquest of Wales. Its later history, and the failed castle town, also provide an insight into the social history of the Marches.

The article has undergone a peer review, with very helpful input from @Dudley Miles:, @Catlemur: and @J Milburn: following their feedback I feel it's ready for featured article candidacy. I look forward to hearing your comments and addressing any potential issues, thanks in advance, Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

43rd Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 43rd Chess Olympiad, a biennial chess tournament for teams representing nations. The main improvements to the article that led to its current shape were made immediately before and during the event. For that purpose, many chess sources were consulted and selectively used to reference the content based on their reputability and popularity in the chess world, so it abounds in details that are typically present in similar multi-country competitions (e.g. Olympic Games). Finally, the article has a GA status, having been promoted in April 2009. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

This article uses an excessive number of flag icons, to the point that they dominate the visual presentation of the text. Some seem at odds with the MoS (which discourages use in infoboxes among other things). What is the service to the reader? --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly impartial to Laser brain's issue above, but at the very least, the table in Sponsorship should be a bulleted list by itself... Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter Raw

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter Raw was one of the Royal Australian Air Force's leading pilots during the post-war era, but turned in a mixed performance in an important command role during the Vietnam War. He cut his teeth, and demonstrated remarkable skill and bravery, as a bomber pilot during World War II and remained in the air force after the war. He placed second in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race and commanded the RAAF's first jet bomber squadron. In 1966 he was posted to South Vietnam to coordinate air support for the Australian Army force there. He was not well suited to this role, and ended up in frequent shouting matches with his Army counterpart. This culminated in a bitter argument during the crucial Battle of Long Tan where Raw was probably wrongly perceived to be reluctant to risk RAAF helicopters to save an Army unit which was close to being overrun. After completing his posting to Vietnam, Raw served in administrative roles and commanded the RAAF's base in Malaysia.

I created this article in 2011 (before Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry was published), and have worked on it on and off since then. It was assessed as a GA in 2013 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in 2014. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved, and the recent digitisation of back issues of the RAAF's in-house newspaper make me feel confident that I haven't missed anything significant. As such, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this check Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi

Nominator(s): Gazal world (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Co-nominator(s):Nizil Shah

This article is about 19th-century Indian philosopher, writer, and social thinker. After the first nomination was archived, the article has been majorly expanded. In doing so, I received enormous help from my mentor User:Mike Christie, who also reviewed the previous nomination. Without his help, such improvement would not have been possible. The article has now became clean and polished. I am also thankful to User:Nishidani, User:Gog the Mild, and all the editors who participated in Peer Review and GA review.

Reviewers may want to take a look at the article talk page, where User:Fowler&fowler has expressed concerns about the notability of the article subject and whether the sources are of sufficient quality to support a featured article, since Fowler&fowler has indicated they will probably not be commenting at this FAC. However, regarding sources, I believe that they are quite reliable and scholarly. Thanks. Gazal world (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per previous FAC (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

• I don't know if I'm going to give this a full review but there a little of odd things that stick out to me:
• There could definitely be at least 2 more pictures, especially something in the Philosophy and social reform section... also why are the two pictures in the biography section so tiny? And is one building right after another really an appropriate use of media?

• There is no images available related to the subject, except book-covers written by him. So I can add book covers in Philosophy and social reform section. --Gazal world (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I glanced through the talk page and with the doubts on Dwivedi in mind (which I am not attempting to take a side on), where is "He was an influential figure in 19th-century Gujarati literature" supported in the text – and what does the reference say to explicitly support this?

• Doing... --Gazal world (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• "commonly referred to as Manilal in literary circles." seems unnecessary, why does this matter? If you want to keep it it should be formatted right after the name, like how Josquin des Prez is in the first sentence
• I'm not really sure how I feel about "Philosophy and social reform" – I'm not getting a very coherent section here. From looking at it (albiet not intensely closely) it seems like an "extended bullet point list" of his ideas. I don't know though, maybe other reviewers will disagree.
• "among the masters of Indian philosophy" seems editorial, does the source really say that?

• Yes. The source uses the exact wording: among the masters of Indian philosophy. --Gazal world (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• His father being a "temple priest" could mean so many different religions in India... and shouldn't Manilal's religion be mentioned in the bio as well? Aza24 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Manilal's father was Pujari, which means priest in English. --Gazal world (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• The link is changed to Pujari.-Nizil (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC) and TheSandDoctor

With this monster album, America's Sweetheart turned into a fully-fledged pop machine, churning out hits after hits. I tend to dislike manufactured pop, but this album was different: the aesthetics, the irresistible beats, and most importantly, the sharp, witty lyrics that seem to be out of league for the heartless top 40.

After two failed FACs, with the biggest concern regarding thoroughness of research, I have done a(nother) rather exhaustive review of the existing literature and reorganised the whole article. With the help from TheSandDoctor, the article has seen improvements in sentence structures and cohesiveness. I am aware that I have another active FAC at the moment, but I believe that it wouldn't go against the rule since this FAC is nominated by two editors. Hoping third time's the charm, and looking forward to comments and concerns, HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Is there any critical commentary on the album cover? (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I added some info on the album's cover and artwork, HĐ (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You might find User:Headbomb/unreliable useful. It highlights sources not considered reliable, including International Business Times (see WP:RSP), cited in this article (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, the tool is really useful! I agree that International Business Times is not a reliable source and will try to find some alternatives. For Amazon, I think the sources cited are tolerable as they provide the release dates and nothing else. For the Cuepoint sites, they contain a review from Robert Christgau and an interview with the producers, so I think they're tolerable as well. Thanks so much for introducing the tool for me! HĐ (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  IBT resolved. I concur about Cluepoint and am working on replacing Amazon and other retailers where sources exist otherwise. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: I believe it is ready for another look. IBT has been replaced, Amazon has been swapped out in several places (remainder should be okay per WP:AMAZON?), and no Forbes contributor articles are in the article now. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't usually work on music articles so I wasn't going to do a full review, but I'm glad that my comments were helpful. Yes, Amazon is accepted as a source for release date. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Australian Journal of Herpetology

Nominator(s): —Collin^{t c} 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no FAs about academic journals! The Australian Journal of Herpetology might seem at a glance like an inauspicious choice to be the first contender: the journal published just four issues and a supplemental series between 1981 and 1985 before disappearing. However, behind these numbers is a wild story about two rogue researchers (one an undergrad student, the other a high school teacher) who commandeered this unassuming journal and published three papers of their own with no peer review in which they collectively proposed "more taxonomic changes [to Australia's reptiles] than had been proposed by all other authors in the previous decade." Their efforts ignited controversy in the herpetological community, leading to an appeal to the highest body in faunal scientific nomenclature to officially suppress their work. Did it succeed? And what aftereffects of their "terrorist tactics in taxonomy" are still felt today? I'm looking forward to any comments and guidance towards ensuring this article meets FA criteria. Thanks! —Collin^{t c} 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

One other note: I'm especially interested in making sure the terminology used in this article is precise. I am not a taxonomist/nomenclaturist myself but want to ensure that the wording used reflects the realities and nuances of both taxonomy and nomenclature, so if you're keen on either of those fields, your feedback is hugely appreciated! —Collin^{t c} 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed, or else correctly tagged fair use. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Will take a better look later, but the phrase "Wells and Wellington" appears 46 times. Can we vary this, using they, both etc. Overall the writing here is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Trimmed to 22 instances between the lede/body. Unfortunately, this affair was dominated by two guys versus pretty much everyone else in the world who cared about amphibians and reptiles, so I had to use W&W a lot but I hope this is preferable. Thank you! —Collin^{t c} 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Does ref 29 (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) really need to mention every author. Presumably they didn't all gather and form a consensus that "Wells and Wellington's case was cited during a different ICZN case initiated nearly three decades later, concerning the taxonomic work of another amateur Australian herpetologist, Raymond Hoser." Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trimmed to 18 using display-authors to match the other ref (21) with the next highest number of authors. —Collin^{t c} 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Have made light c/e's., nothing major, the article is clearly FA standard on prose, although agree with Graham below re some overly long and complex sentences...eg He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo. I'm not especially bright, but not thick either, and had to read t to read this a few times.
• No issue with the quality of the sources used, but the formatting I have no idea about as I dont understand how to cite scientific journals.
• Spot-checks to follow. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  Would you mind emailing versions of, J. B.; Thomson, S. A.; Georges, A. (September 2001); Shea, G. M. (December 1987), Wallach, V.; Wüster, W.; and Broadley, D. G. (September 2009) Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Pinged you! —Collin^{t c} 14:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Can we take a second look at the long sentences that are used with a view to splitting them? This is one for example: "He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo." Ironically, these are called "snakes". Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

2018 FA Cup Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jose, Butch, Prince William.... This match had it all (or most of it). The oldest and greatest association football cup competition in the world, 2018 edition. Worth a read. As always, I'll endeavour to address every comment as soon as I possibly can, and thanks in advance for your time and energy in reviewing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Images are freely licensed
• Need a source in the image description of File:Chelsea vs Man Utd 2018-05-19.svg for the positions of players (t · c) buidhe 07:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • PeeJay created the image and is having a look for a source more suitable than the YouTube video of the game where it's shown. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • For clarity, the YouTube video mentioned is a third-party highlights package that uses the original BBC broadcast of the match. So while this specific video isn't itself necessarily a reliable source, the footage it uses is. I'm trying to find an alternative, but considering the provenance of the footage, it should be fine. – PeeJay 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDuke

• "... and was his third full season at Manchester United without winning silverware." - Mourinho won the Europa League with United the previous year so that can't be. What the source means is that it's the third full season in Mourinho's entire career without silverware. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC) He also only spent 2 full seasons as Manchester United's manager. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Good spot, so I've just removed "at Manchester United". As I was writing it, it struck me as odd because he barely spends more than three years anywhere. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• I can't see "world's oldest football competition" sourced anywhere in the main body, so it needs a ref in the lead.

  Worse, it's not even mentioned in the main body, so added a mention and a ref. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The 1994 final is linked in the first paragraph, but not the 2007 final?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Links are generally starting afresh after the lead, so perhaps link extra time and VAR again and possibly link BBC also?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link Manchester United at the start of their Route to the final section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "most recent appearance being in 2016 final in which", doesn't quite work.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Liverpool are linked in the paragraph on refereeing, but are mentioned at the start of the section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• VAR uses the full name and abbreviation in the refereeing section, but is used only as an abbreviation twice in the Route to the final section.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The article states that Man Utd kicked off both the first and second halves?

  Typical United tactic. Get away with murder. Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "normally have attended the final and present the trophy to the winning captain", should this be "presented"?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A few minor points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kosack initial points dealt with, many thanks. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Made two very minor fixes in addition, but I'm happy to support this. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

2017 EFL Trophy Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My Rwandan Civil War article is the TFA today, which reminded me that I haven't nominated anything for FA for quite some time now. This article is about the 2017 final of the EFL Trophy, an annual competition for clubs in the third and fourth tiers of the English football system. The match that year was contested between Coventry City and Oxford United, at Wembley Stadium, with Coventry the winners by 2–1. Disclaimer: I am a supporter of Coventry City, and I was at the match myself, but obviously I've written it from what I hope is a neutral point of view, with equal attention to both teams and due deference to what's written in sources. The GA review was carried out by The Rambling Man, who also has a wealth of experience in getting articles of this nature up to FA status, so hopefully it's got most of what it needs. I'll obviously be happy to address and respond to any concerns anyone has, so bring them on please! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Not sure that I can commit to a full review, but I noticed an issue in the second half summary. The statement "Oxford had their best chance of the second half so far with 15 minutes remaining" can't be correct, as they scored three minutes later in the 75th minute, according to the statistical summary. There had to have been more time remaining than 15 minutes, unless the stats below this are wrong. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: actually now you mention it, I think I vaguely thought of this as an issue when I was writing it... it's most likely a discrepancy in timelines between the minute-by-minute coverage in one of the newspapers and the official goal timings. I'll look in to this shortly and make it consistent. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

• Probably worth linking English Football League in the background section.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link Wembley in the background section as the first use outside the lead.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• In the third sentence of the first paragraph in the background section, we have "48 clubs" later followed by "sixteen category one...". Generally, comparable figures should maintain the same words/digits format per MOS:NUMNOTES.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why do the club headings in the "Route to the final" section use the "F.C."? I don't think these are necessary.

  Done. Removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The link for the West Ham Academy is a redirect, not much need for that when you're already piping.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "hosted the West Ham academy team", in all other instances in reference to a specific side "academy" is capitalised, but not here?
• "Coventry's final fixture in the knockout phase was against Crawley Town", do you mean first knockout fixture?

  Yes. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "the academy side of Swansea City F.C.", not sure why the F.C. is suddenly used here?

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link FA Cup at the end of the Coventry section as the first use.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• premier league > Premier League, at the start of the Oxford section.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "they made the journey down the A420", maybe it's just me, but this comes across a little journalistic perhaps?

  Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link hat-trick.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wembley Stadium is linked at the start of the Pre-match section but, as noted above, is used prior to this.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is it worth noting that Robins chose to step aside in leading the team out? It's a break in tradition for a Wembley final and would probably help explain why there's no mention of who led Oxford out also.
• "Coventry City sold around 42,500 tickets for the match, outnumbering the opposition fans", the ref at the end of this sentence makes no mention of ticket numbers?

  Fixed. Refs for 42,500 and the outnumbering added.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• No need to repeat Charles-Cook's first name again in the second paragraph I would say.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "His most recent game involving Oxford was a goalless draw at Exeter in 2014", source?

  Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• While ref 43 supports the highest crowd at the new Wembley, it doesn't seem to support the "was the third highest in the cup's history" part?
• No need to repeat Bigirimana's first name in the first half section.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 2 has expired and needs recovering if possible.
• I'm assuming the publisher of ref 25 should be Swindon Town rather than Swansea City?

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 36 needs filling out a little, dates and author are available.
• AFS Enterprises are the publisher of 11v11.com

  Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice work overall Amakuru, here's a few things I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1925 FA Cup Final

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1925 final of England's primary football competition. Cardiff became the first Welsh team to reach a final here, but went on to lose through a single goal to Sheffield United. The goal was largely due to an error by poor Harry Wake who received considerable flak and even missed his chance at redemption two years later through injury. I started work on this article earlier in the year and got it to GA in May and feel it's now in a position to come to FAC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Bluey (2018 TV series)

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 Australian children's series Bluey which has quickly experienced success as the highest rating children's programme in Australia. Its deal with Disney has seen it made popular in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. The series is unique for being a high quality show for preschoolers that many adults also enjoy. I would appreciate it if you head over to the article and leave a review here.

@JAYFAX: @Allied45: I appreciated your input on the B-Class and Good Article reviews and would love it if you could provide further input on the updated article. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: All references on the page have now been archived. SatDis (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Citation bot used. SatDis (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@SatDis: Heya, I'll get round to looking at a diff from the time I reviewed. JAYFAX (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Resolved comments
Images are either freely licensed, or appropriately tagged fair use images (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Aoba47

Resolved comments

Apologies for bringing this up, but I believe there is an error in this nomination. SatDis had an FAC archived on September 28, and according to the FAC guidelines, "none of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator". Since it has not been two week since the nominator's last FAC, I think this should be archived. Pinging the FAC coordinators (@WP:FAC coordinators: ) Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC) IDK if that's fair. The last nomination got hardly any feedback at all. If I were the coords I would waive the waiting period (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies, I was unaware of the rule. Yes, the last didn't get any feedback so I thought I'd try a different project. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC) I do not mean to be harsh, but I was genuinely curious about this. The FAC guidelines getting permission from a coordinator. Apologies for any offense, but it was just something I had noticed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Hi guys, pretty well everything said above is more-or-less correct: people whose noms have been archived are supposed to wait two weeks before nominating any other article unless they've checked with the coords first, and the coords have discretion to waive the two-week rule when the archived nom has attracted little or no feedback. That said, my fellow coord Andy did specifically mention the two-week wait when archiving that nom so I'd prefer to give him a chance to weigh in here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies again for being careless with the nomination. I thought the two week rule was in reference to the original article being re-nominated. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC) I'm OK with this going forward. Thanks for checking in! --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• with all of the characters representing a particular dog breed → is this breed the "Blue Heeler" one mentioned earlier?
• Brumm stated that the first pilot contained some "dangerous" character behaviours → Interesting. Is there anything specific about these "dangerous" behaviours, if any?
• with BBC investing → I believe it should be "the BBC"
• Brumm drew inspiration from watching his two children play, ..., many of which are based on his experiences playing with his daughters → I think these two sentences can be merged into one concise sentence
• I've read up to the "Writing" section and the article is well written. Will try to examine the whole prose within a few days' time, HĐ (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Have replaced "particular" with "distinguishable"; as there are a range of dog breeds. I was also thinking of "distinctive".
• For "dangerous" behaviours; Brumm stated "It just had some dangerous stuff in it. Bandit was pushing Bluey and she wanted to go all the way around on a swing, so she ends up doing a full 360 degrees. It was just unsafe. You could never put that on kids TV." Not sure how I would include that in the prose?
• And have fixed the other suggestions; thanks for reading. SatDis (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A short article about an instructive episode of recent Latin American history; Cuba seized two freighters flying Panamanian flags, accusing them of piracy, and a controversy followed. The article has been through a military history A-class review. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion I started, with Coord permission for nom, moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Pass, per my comments at ACR (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support by PM

I examined this in considerable detail at Milhist ACR, all my queries ans comments were addressed, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Review by SG

I will be reviewing this article in the context of the faulty MILHIST A-class pass of Manuel Noriega, with similar issues as discussed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, which may be of interest to Peacemaker67. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

2010 Football League Championship play-off Final

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk), The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Another step towards that elusive featured topic, for the world's richest association football (soccer) match. This is a joint nomination, most of the hard work was done by Kosack and I tagged along for the ride to hopefully get it up to snuff for FAC. A ding-dong of a game, at least in the first half, and "little old" Blackpool's zenith of glory for 40 years. Both nominators will work tirelessly to assuage reviewers' concerns, as ever, and thanks in advance for all the time and effort everyone puts into the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Images appear to be freely licensed, the only issue is that File:Blackpool vs Cardiff 2010-05-22.svg should indicate the source for the players' positions in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for taking a look so quick. I can provide sources for the image, but where is best to place them? When you say in the image description, do you mean on the page itself or over at Commons where the image is hosted? Kosack (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The image description on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Added. Kosack (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I've made some edits. A cracking article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

John Early (educator)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a man who was instrumental in the early years of 3 Jesuit colleges in the United States, one of which he founded. It is currently a GA. Thank you in advance for any feedback. Ergo Sum 03:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Heaven Upside Down

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Marilyn Manson's tenth studio album Heaven Upside Down. It has recently gone through GA and peer reviews, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Would appreciate any feedback at all. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps link/mention what scoring is in the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• entry on Billboard's Mainstream Rock... chart. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Manson was injured on two occasions during the Heaven Upside Down Tour; an incident wherein he was crushed by a large stage prop resulted in the rescheduling of an entire leg of the tour.... and, the second? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Heaven Upside Down Tour; he injured his ankle after jumping off the stage at one concert, and was crushed by a large stage prop at another. - how about "Heaven Upside Down Tour; injuring his ankle jumping from the stage at one concert, and was crushed by a large stage prop at another." - any ideas what he did to his ankle? Can we say he broke/sprained his ankle? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Celebritarian art movement - reword to avoid the easteregg/WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• You pipe to a redirect of Audio mastering Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Another instance of two links not seperated at stage IV colorectal cancer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

More to come...

• Three days later, Manson announced he had "decided to part ways" with Twiggy, after the bassist had been accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend, Jack Off Jill vocalist Jessicka, - as we aren't really talking about this person in terms of music, could we use their full name? Perhaps "decided to part ways" with Twiggy, after the bassist had been accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend, Jessicka Addams, who was the vocalist for alternative rock band Jack Off Jill." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Roger Joseph Manning, Jr. - no comma. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Track Listing contains two duplicate links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• • I've done a first pass of the article. It's in great shape, I've left a few comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thanks so much for the commentary, @Lee Vilenski: I figured this would get the usual responses from the GA and PR reviewers, but that it would take at least another month before any other user commented. Genuinely wasn't expecting this so soon, so I'm sorry for the delay. I've [hopefully] resolved all these comments, but let me know if you're not happy with my rephrasing and I'll have another go. Looking forward to any future commentary. I really don't know anything about snooker, but I'll see where I can help out with your current projects over the next few days. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Rest looks fine, I've added an additional comment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
        • After further research, it appears he tore the ligament of his left ankle when he jumped off the stage. Added this to the article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I believe I've rectified all your comments. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Marilyn_Manson_-_We_Know_Where_You_Fucking_Live.ogg has the wrong fair-use tag and is longer than permitted by Wp:SAMPLE given the length of the original. Also the purpose of use is poor: if it's being used only to demonstrate the lyrical content, that could be done with quotes from the song rather than a full sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Added alt text to all images, and have removed the sound sample. Will request it be deleted ASAP. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I added a di-orphaned fair use tag to the sound file several days ago. Should be deleted by October 5th, should no one object. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have been told in a previous FAC that the "the" in a band or group name should be lowercase. So, "former The Mars Volta bassist" should be "former the Mars Volta bassist". I'd recommend checking the article as a whole to avoid this. There are other instances like The Beatles instead of the Beatles. This is per MOS:THEMUSIC.
• In the "Critical reception" section, I would not put the star ratings in the prose, as done for "ABC News rated the album 3.5 stars out of 5" and "Singapore's The Straits Times awarded it 3.5 stars out of five". This information is already present in the "Professional ratings" table, and it would be benefit the reader more to focus on what the reviewer said. The numbers should be kept for the first paragraph for the aggregator, but I personally do not find them helpful in the other paragraphs.
• Should the lead mention that the album charted in other countries? Right now, it only mentions the Billboard 200 placement.

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. These are three comments that I have noticed during a brief re-read. I will look through the article again and post any further comments by the end of the week. Please ping me if I do not get back to this by the end of Saturday for whatever reason. Hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks for commenting Aoba47. I've resolved all the title-case instances of 'The' throughout the article, except for Twins of Evil: The Second Coming Tour, which I believe is correct (per MOS:CT). I've also removed the ABC News and The Strait Times ratings, although neither of those appear in the professional ratings table, and added info on the album's commercial performance in Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your responses. I will look through the article again tomorrow and add any further comments then. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• For this part, (Courtney Love and Lisa Marie Presley appear in "Tattooed in Reverse".), I'd put video or music video at the end or something like (appear in the video for "Tattooed in Reverse) to just clarify this. I know that is already rather obvious from the context of the sentence, but I'd say it is worthwhile to clarify that they appear in a music video.
• I think we discussed this before so apologies for bringing it up again. I am uncertain of the wikilink in this part: (In August 2012, it was announced Manson) I'd use the full name Marilyn Manson instead for further clarification. Something about cutting off the first name seems odd to me.
• I am not sure if the following sentence is really needed: (In August 2012, it was announced Manson would play a fictionalized version of himself in the sixth season of Californication.) This information could be folded into the second sentence by changing it something like: (Manson met the score composer of Californication, Tyler Bates, while playing a fictionalized version of himself in the sixth season finale in 2013). Unless the August 2012 date is important for any reason, I'm not sure it is really necessary to say when Manson's guest star role was first publicly announced.
• This is more of a clarification question, but did Manson ever provide a reason for the album title's change from Say10 to Heaven Upside Down. It is rather common for albums to change titles during production (and often without any public explanation given), but I was just curious if there was a reason given for this. If not, then it is completely fine.
  • Explained later in the article, with the sentence beginning "I was going to call the record SAY10, but I didn't feel that that defined the album..." I suspect some people may complain about the amount of Manson quotes contained in the article, but it is especially hard to paraphrase some of Manson's witticisms/hyperbole without the paraphrase coming across as undue weight. Such is the case here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (and compared its lyrics to those of Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death),), I'd add the year the album was released as you have done for The Pale Emperor in the previous section.
• I am uncertain if the soundtrack covers, ("Stigmata", "God's Gonna Cut You Down" and "Cry Little Sister"), are relevant to this particular article. They may have been released during "the album's promotional cycle", but none of them are included on the album or have direct ties to this album. Information about them seems more relevant to Manson's main page.
  • They were all produced by Bates, and at least 2 of them were recorded during the Heaven Upside Down sessions ("Stigmata" & "God's Gonna Cut You Down"). All work subsequent to this album was produced by Shooter Jennings. Have been procrastinating somewhat about Marilyn Manson (band): it needs some major refinement/deletion, so have been loathed to add more content to it. I figured it was best to perfect that article after I finally got around to bringing all his album articles to GA or better. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review which is about a song from very different artist lol. I hope you are doing well and that you find these comments to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've resolved all these issues, except for the two I've responded to above. Let me know what you think. If you disagree, I'll reword. And I've just finished my FA review for another user, so will hopefully be able to get to "Candy" tomorrow. Looks like Storm Alex is gonna be an ass, so unless it does something stupid like disrupt my internet, I should have plenty of free time tomorrow evening. ;) Hope you're keeping well too. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything, and I agree with your responses above. I hope you stay safe, and hopefully your internet does not get disrupted too much. I support this article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, third times the charm. Hopefully.

This article is about In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, one of the most widely beloved and incessantly mocked indie rock albums ever made. With weirdly named instruments and even weirder lyrics (this is the "semen stains the mountaintop" album), In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is a bizarre album that in theory shouldn't work, but my goodness it does.

The first FAC nomination failed because I had personal issues to attend to so I couldn't respond to comments. The second FAC nomination failed because of not enough comments. Now it's back (with a brand new aftermath section courtesy of BLZ. @Aoba47:, @Casliber: (as the two editors who supported the FAC last time, sorry to keep making you guys do this), @Nikkimaria: (as the editor who supported the FAC based on a source review), and @Buidhe: as the editor who gave the media review. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Okay then...looking good...

• The On Avery Island tour generated enough money to afford the band members to move to Athens, Georgia... - not how I'd use the verb "afford", maybe "The On Avery Island tour generated enough money to enable the band members to move to Athens, Georgia"

• The final band member came when Mangum was traveling to New York City to live with Koster. - odd construction - maybe, "Mangum found the final band member while traveling to New York City to live with Koster. " or somesuch..

@Casliber: How does the sentence look now? Also took care of the other issue. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

All good now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

I have contributed to the past two FACs for this article. I agree with Casliber's assessment that this article appears ready for promotion. I have read through it a few times, and I do not have any further suggestions. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SatDis

I picked out this article purely due to having listened to the album before. I have just left a few comments which will hopefully help to make the article even better.

• I noticed the '50s progression has the apostrophe but the 90s underground does not. Is that because the "90s" is from a quote?
• I don't know if Ironically enough, is the best encyclopedic language; maybe just "Ironically,"?
• but could not bring himself to tell the band. Some of them had quit their jobs to be in the band, and it seemed impossible to... The repetition of "band" here. Could it be changed to "tell the other band members. Some of them had previously quit their day jobs to join the band, and Mangum perceived it as impossible..." Just a few changes to tighten that sentence?
• As it was a successful vinyl in 2008, are there any anniversary vinyl reissues worth mentioning in the "Release" section?
• I love the layout of the references as well. I haven't seen this much before, is there a particular reason for this style?

Apologies that there are not many suggestions, as the article is very well written and interesting. Best of luck with the FA nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese nationality law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Chinese nationality law. The framework for a lot of these regulations was created in the waning years of the Qing dynasty, through which we can take a peek into the monarchy's views on the rest of the world at that time. This article just passed GA review and I think it's ready to be reviewed here. Horserice (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Only image looks OK for copyright (t · c) buidhe 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment

The article is very short for a FA, only 1939 words of readable prose. I am surprised that there is not more to say about this topic. (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Had to do a bit of reading before getting back to this. The basic principles of the law have barely changed in the last century and I think what has been changed is already covered here quite succinctly, so I'd have to ask what you'd like to see added? Horserice (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The article lead does not properly summarize the article. This is the most important part of an article and I wonder why this was not at least mentioned as a topic for improvement in the GA review. Hekerui (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kentucky Kingdom

Nominator(s): BlueShirtz (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Kentucky Kingdom amusement park, located in Louisville, Kentucky. Plans for the amusement park were created in 1977 by the Kentucky State Fair Board, as a proposal to expand the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center grounds. Kentucky Kingdom opened in 1987 as a park focused on the commonwealth of Kentucky's history and culture, but filed for bankruptcy after one season. Businessman Ed Hart purchased the park's operating rights in 1989, and reopened the park one year later. Under Ed Hart's leadership, attendance increased by 1.1 million people in seven years, making Kentucky Kingdom the fastest growing amusement park in North America. Kentucky Kingdom's success led to Six Flags, a national amusement park operator, purchasing the park in 1998. The park, now known as Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, began to experience a decline in attendance, as the company brought smaller additions to Kentucky Kingdom. After Six Flags filed for bankruptcy, the company announced in 2010 that they would no longer operate Kentucky Kingdom, and for five years the park was closed as the local government searched for a new operator. In 2013, Ed Hart announced that he would return to operating Kentucky Kingdom, and the park reopened one year later. Since Hart's return in 2014, Kentucky Kingdom has added new attractions and seen a growth attendance every season.

I began working on this article in April, and it was promoted to Good Article status in May. Throughout the past five months I've added 131 sources, new images, new sections of the article, as well as expanding older sections of the article. Many of the sources that I added were from local newspapers and magazines that featured information about Kentucky Kingdom that had not been documented on the internet. Because of the recent of expansion of this article, I believe that this article meets the qualifications to be classified as a Featured Article.

Comments on images

• Commons:COM:FOP US isn't clear whether photographs of amusement parks are protected by freedom of panorama. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Spicy

Thanks for putting this up for FA. I can tell you have put a lot of work into this article - the history section in particular is quite detailed. I think that the article will need some more work to meet the FA criteria, though. Here are some things I noticed while skimming; this is not meant to be comprehensive.

• The park originally opened on May 23, 1987, after years of planning by the Kentucky State Fair Board and Kentucky Entertainment Limited, the parks original operators, at a cost of $12 million. - "the parks" should be "the park's". This is a rather long and unwieldy sentence. Is "years of planning" necessary? Presumably most amusement parks take a significant amount of time to plan. "at a cost of $12 million" is too far away from its referent, making the sentence awkward to read. This could be rephrased to something like:

"In 1977, the Kentucky State Fair Board announced plans to build a theme park on the grounds of the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center. The park's construction, overseen by Kentucky Entertainment Limited, began in 1986 and cost $12 million in total. Kentucky Kingdom opened to the public on May 23, 1987..." (the specific phrasing could be improved but this is just an example of how to restructure the sentence)

• $12 million in 1987 dollars, or 2020 dollars? Also, the $12 million figure does not appear in the article body. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; it generally shouldn't contain information that isn't in the main article text.
• The park went bankrupt after one season, and was reopened in 1990 by businessman Ed Hart, who would reopen the park again on May 24, 2014, after it was closed by the park's third operator, Six Flags, in 2009 -> there is a lot going on in this sentence and it's out of chronological order which makes it a confusing read. Should probably be split into two, and mention the acquisition by Six Flags and the 2009 closing before the re-opening
• There are 4 social media links in the infobox; should only be one per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL
• Kentucky Kingdom's normal operating season runs from late April to early August. The park then reopens only on weekends until the end of October, the same month that the park hosts their Halloween-themed event, known as HalloScream. - Do we need this much detail about their schedule in the lead? Remember that this is supposed to be a high-level summary. This information doesn't seem to be in the body of the article, either.
• The lead should be expanded. From WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Think of the lead as a mini-version of the article, and keep in mind that many people only read the lead, so it should be a reasonably detailed summary of the article's content. The article's history section, for example, is very detailed but all the lead tells us is when it was opened, closed, and bought.
• signed a contract with a group called "Kentucky Entertainment Ltd." - why the quotes?
• Kentucky governor Martha Layne Collins and Louisville mayor Jerry Abramson - WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK issues; the governor and mayoral positions are not particularly relevant to this article so no need to link them
• many people who visited Kentucky Kingdom complained about the park's small size and how it had very little attractions, one person who visited the park said, - comma splice
• kiddie area - slang/jargon; would change to "children's area"
• the 10-acre park closed - the "10-acre" part kind of shows up out of nowhere. Wouldn't this fit better in the previous paragraph which talks about visitors complaining about the size of the park? The previous paragraph says it was planned to be 13 acres, did it end up being smaller or did the source round the figure down?
• park closed and filed for bankruptcy after only one season, due to few attractions - perhaps nitpicky, but I imagine it didn't close because of having few attractions, but because it didn't attract enough guests due to having few attractions...
• What makes hellotravel.com themeparktourist.com, davealthoff.com parkvault.net, this Youtube channel, thrillhunter.com ultimaterollercoaster.com, moxietalk.com, etc. FA quality sources? Many sources seem to be fan pages, commercial sites, or blogs. These would not satisfy the basic WP:RS criteria, let alone the FAC requirements for high-quality reliable sources.
• Kentucky Kingdom reopened for the 1990 season on June 13, an estimated 2,000 people visited the park on the first day of the season - comma splice. There are a few others throughout the article.
• Despite the Starchaser being sold it had remained on-site at the amusement park allowing Hart to purchase it back. - what is "the Starchaser"? It is not mentioned previously and the reader has no indication of what it is or why it is important
• On August 24, 1990, Kentucky Kingdom announced plans to build a water park ... On July 11, 1991, the park announced plans for Ocean Avenue, a 6-acre water park - repetitive
• The NFCC rationale for File:Bluegrass Boardwalk logo.png is incorrect, it is not placed in the infobox at the top of the article. I think this logo would fail NFCC in any case because there is no discussion of the logo itself in the article.
• Images should have alt text.
• Storm Chaser is a Rocky Mountain Construction roller coaster which will use part of Twisted Twins' existing structure - article says it opened in 2016 so why future tense?
• Many entries in the list of rides are lacking inline citations
• In light of WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY, I would avoid giving the names of non-notable children in the "Incidents" section. It is unnecessary and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic.
• When Ed Hart talked about the new additions to Kingdom Gardens, he said "We’re very proud of Kentucky Kingdom Gardens. Sure, the Kentucky Kingdom experience centers on the rides and water park attractions, but we think the Gardens program provides an extra dimension for many of our guests, riders and non-riders alike" - of course the park owner has good things to say about the park. This is promotionalism, not encyclopedic content.

I would recommend seeking a copyedit and a peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks members to ensure this article is ready for FAC. Spicy (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE

Thank you first of all for your commendable effort to improve this page over the past few months. The article has developed along sound lines and I can see there's potential for a true FA, however I think that is still quite far down the line from here. I have read through and echo the concerns voiced above, and have outlined a few of my own below:

• The prose does not meet 1a, b & c:
• "The park closed and filed for bankruptcy after only one season, due to low attendance numbers, which were contributed to the small amount of attractions and poor weather conditions throughout the 1987 season", "There was also more tables, chairs and benches and smoother, quicker season pass process processing and in-person purchases through technology improvements"—among other examples.
• Much of the article reads like proseline and lacks connection:
• "On May 29, Kentucky Kingdom announced...", "On June 9, Kentucky Kingdom announced...", "However on June 25, the park announced..." is one of many notable examples.
• Note that when running through multiple dates with a single a year, you shouldn't refer back to the year each single time. The prose in 1.4 - Attempts to revive the park (2010–12) really suffers here.
• "the park made its biggest investment yet with the addition of Chang" is puffery.
• Many sentences could be recast in active voice and this would improve the prose's cadence and flow.
• Numerous instances of choppy paragraphs. Three paragraphs less than three lines in "1.5 - Ed Hart's latest return" alone.
• Attendance figures are visited a handful of times, there's some commentary on the park's growth, initial public criticism of its small footprint is mentioned, and there's a "top 10 amusement parks" listicle from MSN Travel (notability?). Beyond that, I just don't see the level of comprehensive analysis on earnings/industry performance/awards/attendance/etc that is expected of an FA. Perhaps you have indeed exhausted the available literature, but the article leaves the impression there is much more that could be said.
• The tables don't meet 2b & c:
• The table format for the attractions list isn't kind on the eyes. Perhaps this is personal preference, but I wonder how this would look converted to prose. A glaring concern is that almost none of these table entries cite reliable sources. If individual attractions can't be cited in any way, it raises the question of whether a protracted list is encyclopedic content.
• Perhaps former attractions could be forked into a child article to improve page readability.
• Inconsistent height formatting: The Giant Wheel is listed as a "150 ft (46 m) tall Ferris wheel" but FearFall is a "A 129-foot tall drop tower ride".
• References look solid. Note several journals are missing publisher fields (ie The Courier-Journal is published by Gannett). It would be nice (not required) to see archiving.
• The article is well-illustrated with plenty of free media. However, I really don't see the non-free File:Bluegrass Boardwalk logo.png as additive to the article. The rationale for why this can't be conveyed through text alone remains unclear.
• Images in the roller coaster table lack alt text.
• One {{Citation needed}} tag noted.

I feel that the level of clean-up required extends beyond the scope of this review. As such, unfortunately in its current state I would oppose this candidacy. I am happy to revisit this if you can address my concerns, or I can give input at a future peer review. Please do let me know if you would like follow-up. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The twelfth and last instalment in my series of Featured Articles on South Australian Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients, Arthur Sullivan was a bank clerk who enlisted too late to serve in World War I. After the war ended he sought discharge from the Australian Army and joined the British North Russian Relief Force. He fought during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, where he saved the lives of four members of his unit who had fallen into a river, some of whom had been wounded, and did all of this under intense fire from Bolshevik troops. Awarded the Victoria Cross, he survived the intervention and returned to Australia where he continued his successful career in banking. His reticence to talk of his exploits meant that he became known as the "Shy VC". He died in a freak accident while in London for the coronation of King George VI as part of the Australian Coronation Contingent in 1937. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text, while the VC has two
• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Probably gonna claim 5 WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't bust a gut, Hog Farm. I'm going to have limited internet access from this Saturday till about 5 Oct. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

But I have to have something to do during boring university classes Hog Farm _Bacon 02:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox gives the birthplace as Crystal Brook, but the prose says he was technically born in Prospect, although he was raised in Crystal Brook. I get there's some question as to which one it was, based on the note, but you align with one in the prose and one in the body. Might be worth having the birthplace note in the infobox too, unless you consider it to be clutter

Fixed to be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "On 30 October of the following year he returned to his home state" - Comma after year? I'm not good with commas, though, so I'll defer to your judgment on this.

I don't think it is necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "He played golf and football" - Which football? Association or Aussie Rules?

Good point, Aussie Rules of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• " training camp at Heytesbury, Wiltshire on 5 October 1918" - Geographic comma after Wiltshire?

Yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• " on board the Steigerwald" - What type of ship is this?

cargo ship. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe link bayonets?

sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "aboard the Nestor" - Either provide the ship type, or drop "the"

troopship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the manager of the Casino, New South Wales branch of the bank - Comma after New South Wales?

yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "embarked at Melbourne on the SS Oronsay" - Drop "the" or call it a troopship or whatever it was

ocean liner, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The Oronsay sailed" - Drop "the", ship names without classes don't have the the

dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Chauvel was also a friend of Sullivan's and, as a director of the National Bank of Australasia, also knew Sullivan on a professional level." - Is there a way to remove one of the two alsos here

dropped one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's it for the prose stuff from me. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm, all done I reckon. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Republic of Guria

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Guria is a region in western Georgia, and a century ago was a hive of activity for Georgian socialism. The so-called Gurian Republic, which was more a quasi-rebellion than organised state, was sort of a trial run for the Georgian Mensheviks, many of whom would play leading roles in the first Georgian republic in 1918-1921. The article went through GA, and a thorough copyedit during a Peer Review (credit to @K.e.coffman and @Daniel Case for their help there). Now looking at the next step. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Can we get ISBN or OCLC for all print sources?

Done for all but the Zhghenti book. Honestly I can hardly find anything online from it, aside from being cited in other works. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability of sources looks OK for what they are being cited for.
• Ideally there would be a verifiable source for the Russian and Georgian translations.

@Buidhe: I noticed you tagged the translations. I'll be happy to go and find some sources, but it may take a couple days (really wish I could get access to the university library again). Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is now addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Source checks TBD (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Nasakirali ob.JPG—since there's no freedom of panorama in Georgia (commons:COM:FOP Georgia), we would need ascertain if sculptor's underlying copyright on the statue has expired.

I'm far from well-versed in copyright regulations, so am not sure how we would go about that, but am willing to do the work if you have suggestions. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Georgian copyright law, "Copyright shall commence upon creation of a work and shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his/her death, except for the cases provided for by Article 32 of this Law." By that standard the author would need to have died before 1950, unless the sculptor is unknown in which case the statue would need to have been erected before 1950. Since it was "built in 1965", it seems neither condition has been met: I've nominated for deletion on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey buidhe, while you're correct on the underlying legal framework, I'm not convinced this particular obelisk is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection - at least in the US. Your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I don't know much about threshold of originality for 3-d works. For this, it's hard to say which elements are sculptural and which are damage... (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Think it's mostly damage, though agreed it's hard to tell. KM, do you have a better sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Lots of monuments around Georgia are in rough shape, and I would suspect this one is also like that, but I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Knowing that it is located out of the way on a side road (I lived right by there for a time, it's not close to anything) I would think that is damage, though. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Other images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• For quoting Georgian language text, one should ideally use Georgian: Georgian script text, More Georgian script text and Transliterated Georgian text (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe I addressed this, but I misunderstood let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• Suggest adding alt text

Done

• File:Colchis_and_Iberia_on_Ptolemy_Asia_map.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag

That I have no idea about, as it is part of the History of Georgia template. But based on the source image, File:Third map of Asia (Caspian Sea and surrounding), in full gold border) (NYPL b12455533-427045).tif, would that be sufficient information to give it a US PD tag?

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Have updated the status on that to match the source image. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• File:ოზურგეთის_მაზრა.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag

The author died in 1906, so that should be good. Added a tag.

• File:Gogiashvili_A.,_'Gurians',_1906.jpg: when/where was this first published?

Earliest book source I can find is a Soviet/Georgian book from 1947. If that is good just let me know if the tags are appropriate, and I'll go from there. I will note I can't find any info on the book's author, so cannot confirm a date of death (or if he is alive).

The current tagging is based on an author date of death of 1907 and a publication before 1925. If neither of those things can be demonstrated the tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion then? This is not something I'm familiar with at all, unfortunately. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the info you've provided here I'd be inclined to say it's non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• File:Benia_Chkhikvishvili.jpg: how do we know this was published shortly after being taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This is tenuous I know, but the source website has the backside of the photo, which uses pre-1917 Russian spellings (the Bolsheviks reformed the orthography in 1917). Other than that there is nothing to really solidly confirm date of publication, but there is no reason something like this would use outdated spelling. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how that would confirm publication at that time? You mean something printed with old spellings, or just written? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Like I said it's a tenuous connection, and with the old spelling printed on the back I would argue that it meets the criteria. But I also realise that's not exactly evidence, and if you think it isn't strong enough I have no objection to removing it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Esculenta Comments

• Hi; I have access to the highly-cited Jones 1989 article, so I'll try a source review by checking the source-text integrity of all statements cited to this. Esculenta (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I worked through the first half of the citations to this source, which I hope will be sufficient for the FAC coordinators to help assess compliance to FAC criteria 1C. There's only a few small concerns in this source review, so feel to move this to the talk page when addressed. (SFN numbers based on this version of the article) Esculenta (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for going through like that. As noted below, the Jones 2005 source may be on Google Books (I can see most of the relevant pages), and I'll also note I have a copy of Lee, Pate, Rayfield, and Suny available if you would like help with those. For the others I don't have physical copies at the moment (the university library nearby won't lend them out yet). Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• SFN 4: “The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000, while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate). That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent.” The citation placed at the end of this sentence needs to support several facts presented:

• ”The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000” I did not find this fact on page 408. However, page 406 does state “In 1904 the population was just under 100,000…” which is not the same as the article text

Thanks for catching that. It is from the other Jones citation, which I have added now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• "… while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate)." OK
• "That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent." OK

• SFN 5a: OK
• SFN 5b: OK
• SFN 10: OK
• SFN 17: “The average peasant household had no more than 1.5 desyatina (roughly the same amount of hectares), with half of that land rented. In European Russia this figure was closer to 10 or 11 desyatina per household, while the authorities in Kutaisi estimated at least 4 desyatina were required for a poor family to survive.” OK for the first facts; I don’t have access to the second cited source to see if it confirms the rest.

It may be possible to get access through Google Books; I searched and found most of the relevant chapter available, and if you're unable to see it I can get screenshots.

• SFN 21: “By the 1880s, Guria had the highest average rent of anywhere in the Transcaucasus.” The source mentions the land price change from the time period 1880s to 1900, with the implication that latter year is when average rent prices were the highest, not quite the same as what the wikipedia article claims.

Fair enough. I read it as Jones saying the rent itself went up the highest, not just the rate of increase. But I've added a clarifying word to best reflect what the source says.

• SFN 22: OK
• SFN 24: OK
• SFN 28: OK
• SFN 29a: Parts of the sentence are supported by source, other parts I assume are supported by the second citation.

I modified the page to better reflect that the refusal to support was due to the religious overtones.

• SFN 29b: Supports first half of sentence (there is another citation). "… and by the spring of 1903 half of Guria was involved." is the exact wording as the source, so should probably reword.

Done

• SFN 29c: OK
• SFN 34: OK
• SFN 36a: OK on fact support, but there is a quote with no attribution, and the change in ending punctation suggests a visit to MOS:LQUOTE might be helpful

Reworded to remove the quote, let me know if you think that's better.

• SFN 36b: OK
• SFN 36c: OK
• SFN 36d: OK
• SFN 41a: OK
• SFN 41b: OK
• SFN 41c: OK
• SFN 45a: OK but check quote formatting (final comma in quote that's not in source; what’s done with beginning capital letter of quote?)

Fixed.

• SFN 45b: OK
• SFN 45c: OK
• SFN 47: OK

SMS Preussischer Adler

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an article on an early vessel of the Prussian Navy, though it was actually initially built as a commercial vessel. Preussischer Adler had a long career, taking part in the First and Second Schleswig Wars and seeing action in both; she was still around during the Franco-Prussian War but did not see combat, and she ended up being used as a torpedo target. I wrote this article last year, and it passed a Milhist A-class review shortly thereafter. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm

I'll be looking at this soon. Might be claimed for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The ship was purchased by the Prussian Navy and rearmed, once again as an aviso" - I'm assuming this is shortly after the packet route became obsolete in 1862. If not, indicate a date.
  • Yes, in 1862
• "Prussia's ally Austria. the combined squadron attacked" - Start the sentence off with a capital letter
  • Good catch
• You might want to qualify in the infobox that the two mortars were the original armament.
  • Clarified in the box caption
• I'm not familiar enough with naval cannons to tell if these links are the same guns as those had by the ship, but look into 32-pounder gun and 24-pounder long gun to see if they're correct links.
  • No, those aren't right
• Go ahead and indicate that Barandon was a civilian when the crew is still civilian; I'd assumed that he was Prussian Navy commanding civilians until I got to the part about his commissioning into the military later
  • Good idea
• " the two 32-pound guns were added." - Use pounder, instead of pound.
  • Done
• "though Preussischer Adler was hit once by a shell that killed one man" - This almost implies that the ship only took one hit
  • I don't know that it wasn't a single hit; Hildebrand et. al. just say "Ein daenischer Treffer hinter die Maschine hatte den Bootsmann Treptow so scher verwundet, dass er spaeter verstarb...der erste Gefallene der jungen preussischen Flotte". Naval gunnery in this period was pretty poor (even with early fire-control systems and early computational devices, the best the British did at Jutland in 1916 was in the range of 5-6% hits)
• " At this time, she received her armament of 36-pound guns" - From my understanding of 19th-century cannon, it ought to be 36-pounder, as the name comes from the weight of the shell fired.
  • Fixed
• "At the time, unrest in the Kingdom of Greece threatened German interests, including the reign of King Otto of Greece—a member of the German House of Wittelsbach, who was deposed in 1862." - At the time appears to refer to 1863, when the ship was commissioned for the long international cruise, but then the phrasing suggests that Otto's reign was threatened at the time, when it ended the year previous to what "at the time" is implied to mean. Is there a more straightforward way of phrasing this?
  • See how it reads now
• "of the steam frigates Niels Juels and " - Is this the same as Niels Juel mentioned earlier?
  • Yes
    • @Parsecboy: Is the spelling difference intentional, then? Hog Farm _Bacon 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't notice that - just a typo. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• "The war ended with the Treaty of Vienna" - Can we get a date for the Treaty of Vienna?
  • Added
• " Kapitänleutnant Reinhold von Werner," - You generally give English equivalents for the German ranks, but not for this one. Specific reason why?
  • Nope, just an oversight
• "The ship was recommissioned briefly in early 1870 for use as a harbor vessel in Kiel.[19] She was mobilized after the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in July" - Was there a decommission between the two dates?
  • Yes, but Hildebrand et. al. don't say exactly how long the "kurze Indiensthaltungsperiode" in early 1870 was.
• By bow ornament is the intended link Figurehead (object)?
  • Yes, I'd say so - probably a useful redirect to create as well
• It's in Category:Ships built in Leamouth, but Leamouth isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Leamouth and Blackwall are roughly (but not exactly) synonymous

I think that's it from me. Nice work. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look down the line, being from Denmark, this will be interesting... FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• At first glance I wonder why the meaning of the name (Prussian eagle) isn't stated?
  • Good idea
• Link place names in captions.
  • Done
• "this was the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been re-established" Maybe I'm missing something, but when was it de established?
  • Under Frederick the Great, but I think it's beyond the scope of this article
• You link commodore twice, but first to the German version, second to the English, which seems confusing.
  • Deleted the second one
• "The war ended with the Treaty of Vienna" Perhaps state what it ended with, Danish loss.
  • Good idea
• "The French Navy send a squadron" Sent?
  • Good catch
• "She was sunk by two torpedoes in tests conducted on 26 June." Do we know from what ship they were shot?
  • Added
• "the ship's bow ornament was removed and is preserved at the Mürwik Naval School" Would be interesting to have a photo of this...
  • It would be, yes, but I looked through the Commons category when I wrote the article and didn't find anything.
• "SMS Preussischer Adler[a]" It's a bit distracting that the first name in the article has a footnote, perhaps it could be relegated to the article body or something?
  • Shifted to the body. Thanks FunkMonk! Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - looks nice to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

Up to your usual high standard, Nate. Having looked at this at Milhist ACR and found little to quibble about, I only have a few comments:

• the lead says "the first naval battle of the Prussian fleet" but the body parses this as "the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been re-established". We haven't been told about a previous Prussian navy, so it jars a bit
• a similar comment could be made about "the first battle death of the Prussian fleet"
• suggest "received repairs for the shell hitdamage"
• link mobilized
• "Preussischer Adler spent the war at Friedrichsort" as you've just been talking about the Baltic Sea Forces

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources are high quality reliable sources, exactly what you would expect for a Prussian ship of this vintage. The citations are properly formatted. There is an unused Notes subsection under Footnotes. There is a snippet of additional detail on the Battle of Heligoland in Sondhaus [1] that could be included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Third Punic War

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

After the long-drawn-out bloodbaths of the first two Punic wars the Romano-Carthaginian conflict ended with this war and the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the death of most of its population; the survivors were enslaved. For what it was worth, they went down hard. This article received a good poking at at GAN and I believe that it is potentially up to FA standard. Any and all comments will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

comments by T8612

• Primary sources. I'm just going to comment on this section for the moment. I'll deal with the rest later. I think it needs significant changes, as it is mostly issued from articles on the First Punic War, but things are different for the Third one.
• "The main source for almost every aspect of the Third Punic War". Not really. Polybius' books on the Third Punic War only survive in fragments (books 36 and 38, 37 is entirely lost).
• Livy's books also end in year 166 BC. Two other major sources: Dio Cassius and Diodorus Siculus are also lost for this period, as well as Plutarch's Life of Scipio. In fact, the most important ancient author on the 3PW is Appian, a Greek living the 2nd century AD, who is known for making damning mistakes (although he apparently used Polybius for his book, cf. Goldsworthy pp. 22-23). As a result, the 3PW is the least known of the three PW, and I would say this ("The 3PW is the least known of the three PW, because of the loss of the two most important historians of the Roman Republic, Polybius and Livy, for the years dealing with the war. Appian is the only surviving author that left a full narrative of the events, but his reliability is often in question, etc. Polybius still survives in fragments etc."). Many questions on the war cannot be answered because of the sparsity of the sources (typically the reasons for the Roman agression).
• Then, it is also necessary to balance the statement that Polybius is reliable, because Polybius' fragments on these years deal a lot with Scipio Aemilianus, who was Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius is often biased in his favour; he unfairly berates Scipio's opponents several times (see Astin's statement in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 8, p. 5). This is not a problem for past events, but it is quite important for contemporary ones. Walbank says that Appian's text, which derives from Polybius, "has many of the marks of a panegyric on Scipio" (vol. III, p. 662). In short, you need to tell more about Appian, detail the loss of the sources, and balance your statement on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Gog the Mild, did you miss these comments? I can do a source review but it would probably work best if I waited until you got to these. (t · c) buidhe 18:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, yes, I missed this. Thanks for the nudge. T8612, apologies for the delayed response, I am currently on a family holiday and a certain amount of participation is expected. Plus the last place we stayed at the WiFi went down and I had a very limited mobile data. I am now back up and have read your comments, but don’t have the sources I need; in particular I have lost my link to Walbank! Which is a bit of a handicap. The earliest I am going to be able to come back to you is the 27th, possibly later. If you feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw this nomination, I would quite understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have heavily edited the "Primary sources" section along the lines you indicated. I would be grateful for your views on the revised version. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's much better. I'll continue the review tomorrow.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Two short remarks:
• I see that you have included the footnote about Punic in the text, but I find it a bit awkward to have such a long parenthesis in the beginning of the text. Is there a better way to place it?

In the text at Borsoka's request. I'm not sure that it is not better as a note. I have moved it out of parentheses and into the start of "Background", where I think that it fits as well as anywhere if it is going to be in the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus". Diodorus Siculus means Diodorus of Sicily in Latin, so you don't have to say "Sicilian Greek" before, the English form "Diodorus of Sicily" also exists.

I'm trying to have it both ways, aren't I? Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Background section

• Carthage and Rome fought the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would mention both the 1PW and 2PW.

Done

• I think we need a map with Numidia here.

Added.

• The second paragraph details the building up that led to the war, but only from the Numidian side. You ignore the Roman point of view. The famous word by Cato the Censor Carthago delenda est ought to be mentioned here, as well as the Roman embassies that were sent to Carthage. I would also mention that the war was opposed by Scipio Nasica Corculum, the son-in-law of Scipio Africanus. The fact that Cato had to repeat his sentence in every speech is a proof that his opinion was in minority in the senate.

As is often the case we have a difference as to the level of detail appropriate regarding the minutae of Roman domestic politics. A FAC is required to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." The detail you suggest may be appropriate for an article on the Causes of the Third Punic War, but not, IMO, for this one. I could see the point (just) in unpacking "Nevertheless, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage, and, using the illicit Carthaginian military action as a pretext" a little, although I doubt what a reader might gain from it; but not to the extent you suggest.

• The problem in academic sources is that there is no consensus as to why Cato was so obsessed about destroying Carthage, and why the rest of the senate followed him. The ancient sources don't make sense; they say Rome felt threatened by Carthage, but it was hardly a threat; it couldn't even defend itself against Massinissa. There have been a number of alternative theories: (a) Mommsen developed an economic argument: Carthage was an economic competitor to Rome (hence was Cato brought fresh figs from Carthage in the Senate) (b) a Machiavellian argument: the Romans wanted to prevent Massinissa from building a huge empire in Africa and so had to take Carthage before him (c) an imperialist argument: after the defeat of Macedon in 168, Rome became a power-hungry state that conquered lands at the first opportunity (no more "defensive wars") (d) individual ambition: conquering Carthage would bring immense fame and fortune to the Roman general (Astin wrote an article in which he said Scipio Aemilianus sabotaged the peace negotiations between Massinissa and Carthage because he expected to be part of the incoming war, sadly he withdrew this idea in a later statement). I suggest you include information from this article by Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, which summarises the debates [she separates the immediate causes of the war and the longer reasons]. She suggests that Rome made a pre-emptive war to avoid the possible reemergence of Carthage as a rival, while Rome was waging wars on several fronts at the time: in Spain and in Macedonia (the Fourth Macedonian War) [it seems to be Goldsworthy's argument too]. W.V. Harris in th CAH still uses the economic argument (p.156). Interestingly Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion to Punic Wars rejects all argument and seems to return to the ancestral fear of Carthage developed by ancient authors.

I refer to my response above. I simply don't find this, admittedly fascinating, content relevant, in this level of detail, to this article. The fact that there seems to be more theories than proposers and nothing even approaching a consensus makes me even less inclined to feel that a reader of this topic will find them either relevant or of interest.

By all means write an article on Causes of the Third Punic War or, better, Possible explanations for Roman involvement in the Third Punic War, but what, IMO, is needed here to meet criterion 4 is a one or two sentence summary.

I wish I had the time. I think it's possible to fit everything into a small paragraph. I've done a demo here. T8612 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

T8612 Frankly I find it a pointless addition, but I am just one editor so I shall work it in. Give me some time to source it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Done - at least a first draft. I have tried to work it a bit more holistically into the flow of the article. (Plus some sources I consulted flatly contradicted some of the stuff in your draft[?]) Hopefully I have retained both the intent and spirit of your suggestion. See what you think.

That will do. What was contradicting?

• I think the wealth of the propositions shows that there is no consensus, so I would list the above arguments, saying that none of these explanations has reached consensus. Then I would tell about the debate between Cato and Scipio Nasica, and their embassies. See what I wrote here too (as an aside, I paused writing on this article as the literature was really confusing).

Well quite; so why inflict this confusion on a reader - at, it seems to me, to do it justice, possibly greater length than the whole of the rest of the article.

• There is ground to explain internal politics in Carthage too. It seems easier: the constant one-sided Roman policy in favour of Massinissa led to the dominance of the "democratic" faction which pushed for the war, with Carthalo and Hamilcar the Samnite (see CAH, pp. 149-150). T8612 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I know. Again I am not completely adverse to expanding this a little - although the current amount of information on the internal politics of Carthage is my personal preference - but this, again IMO, should be limited to a maximum of an additional sentence or two.

Hi T8612: responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would introduce Scipio Africanus here, as you mention him in aftermath without telling who he was. (sth like "-after the victory of Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama.").

Instead of in the footnote, as now? I'll transfer it up and we can see if it reads better. (I was mostly concerned about flow.) Done.

• It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year It was not just a "procedure", but the Roman constitution. I think it's better to say "The Romans elected two consuls every year, each received the command of an army; they could have their command extended for several years as proconsul." I mention the promagistracy here, because Scipio was prorogued as proconsul in 146 BC.

Done. Although using slightly different words.

T8612 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well Borsoka wants to include mention of a consul's other duties. I have tweaked. See what you both think.

Good.

• Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Censorius, it's Lucius Marcius Censorinus.

What a stupid typo - I am not even consistent. Thanks. Fixed.

If you want to shorten the name, I would prefer "Marcius Censorinus", then either Marcius or Censorinus. If you wish, you can say that Manilius was a good friend of Scipio Aemilianus, member of the Scipionic Circle.

Do you have a source? Miles, the CAH and Goldsworthy all abbreviate to just Censorinus after their first mentions.

I don't think you need for a source for that, use the most distinctive between praenomen/nomen/cognomen. Censorinus seems appropriate here. Sometimes it can be the praenomen too (especially with rare praenomina like Appius or Caeso). T8612 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• the consuls made the further demand that, only Marcius did so. Frustratingly, the Cambridge Ancient History just says "to receive the consul's final demand." (singular). This article gives his name (p. 20). (As an aside, the arms given by Carthage were collected by Nasica Serapio, and Scipio Hispallus, son and nephew of the Nasica opposed to the war. There has been speculation that this demand, as well as Marcius', were last chance requests to avoid the war from Nasica and his friends.)

I had assumed that he was speaking on behalf of both of them - I mean, obviously only one of them actually said it. Goldsworthy's "Censorinus, elected first by the comitia, probably older and a better speaker, spoke in answer" strongly suggested this, and the CAH not giving a name seemed to support this. Nevertheless, tweaked.

• Coming back to the primary sources section, Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion is very critical of Polybius (pp. 430-431). "I would object that the reputation of Polybius is totally undeserved, for this Greek showed no objectivity when he spoke of the Carthaginians and the Romans."

I know. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. I keep hoping to come across another reputable opinion which speaks badly of Polybius to give myself something more interesting to say about him. As it is Le Bohec just seems a rogue outlier.

T8612 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@T8612:: thanks for that; addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• How is the gallery more beneficial in this article than one or two images of the ruins?

Removed.

• File:Carthage.png: I'm a bit confused by the attribution here - what component of this came from Livius, and what was the permission granted?

I may have been/be confused/wrong as to what goes in each section. The map is copied from Livius.org, about half way down. The information within it is the same as that in Goldsworthy p. 341, but is probably redundant and so I have removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this, and apologies for the time taken to respond to you. I believe that I have now addressed both of the issues you raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• Is The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy a reliable source? I am not sure the book was peer-reviewed.

It is about as reliable as you get. It certainly meets WP:RS. Books are not usually peer reviewed, but it has been well reviewed; eg here (paywall).

I did not find a single review about the book at JSTOR. I am not convinced that Phoenix publishes scholarly books and Goldsworthy seems to be the writer of popular histories. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Goldsworthy is not an academic and his book doesn't bring anything new, but he has made good use of the academic literature. His book can be seen as representing the academic consensus on the subject. T8612 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Like a FA in WP? :) I think we need further references to verify each statement based on his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a very bold suggestion. You are saying that Goldsworthy should not be used at all. Can I ask what policy or guideline you are basing this on?

Like many scholars Goldsworthy writes some fiction - clearly labelled as such - as well as non-fiction - also well labelled. The copy I use was published by Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books. A glance at their Wikipedia article would suggest a very reputable publisher. I note in passing that Goldsworthy has had at least four non-fiction books on Roman history published by Yale University Press.

Thank you. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I continue the review assuming that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk)

• The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. Could the term be introduced in the main text?
• His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics... Is this relevant in the context?

I am trying to establish Polybius's military expertise, so I think yes.

• ...he is now known for The Histories, written sometime after 146 BC. Do the cited sources verify the sentence?

In the light of T8612's comments above I am working on a rewrite of the "Primary sources" section, which hopefully will address that point and several of those below, which I am trying to work in.

• Consider mentioning that now The Histories is a fragmentary work.

Does "In addition, significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost" - given that the article is on the Third Punic War - cover this?

• He accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus during his campaign in North Africa which resulted in the storming of Carthage and Roman victory in the war. 1. Maybe this info should be presented soon after Polybius' introduction because this is the reason his work is the most important source of the war. 2. Here I would only say that Polybius accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus to North Africa during the Third Punic War, without mentioning the consequences of the war.
• Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants, from both sides, in the events he wrote about. Do Shutt and Goldsworthy verify this statement?
• ..analytical historian.. Source?
• The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the war in modern sources are largely based on interpretations of Polybius's account. I understand Tipps writes of the relibiality of Polybius's account of the Battle of Ecnomus in the First Punic War.
• The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; When stating this, Curry only writes of a specific naval battle.

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for this start. An interim response above, with more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is the ISBN for Miles (2011) correct ([2])?

I am looking at the hardcopy and that's what is printed in it. I would be happy to scan and email you a copy.

• Is this a Kindle edition or e-book? Thank you, I do not need a copy. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No.

OK. I found the book at Open Library ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notes 3 and 4 seem problematic. 1. One of the cited sources, Lazenby (1996), covers the First Punic War, while the notes provide information in relation to the Second Punic War. 2. Scullard (2006) is obviously not correct. 3. What about consolidating the two notes?

• I have consolidated the notes as suggested.
• Scullard: You are quite right. I meant to refer to Scullard 1989 (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VII). However, as this merely duplicates Lazenby, I have removed the cite.
• Lazenby: I am not sure that it matters which war is being referred to when the conversion rate is established. Anymore than, for example, establishing that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg in 1789 by referring to source discussing such things in 1748. Or today. If I were to state that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg at the Battle of Trafalgar It would be odd, IMO, if a reviewer were to insist on a cite which stated exactly this, and would not accept that the same was true at the Battle of the Nile, or forty years earlier, or later. (Lazenby 1998 p. 19 could also be used to establish a convertion rate, if you prefer a work on the Second Punic War.)

• As far as I can remember conversion rates could change from region to region and time to time. The statement that "The ones referred to in this article are all Euboic (or Euboeic) talents, of approximately 26 kilograms (57 lb)." can hardly be verified by a reference to Lanzeby's book, taking into account the different contexts. We can state that the article accepts Lanzeby's conversion rate if none of the books about the Third Punic War determine it. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka I dropped by to comment that I have made changes to the "Primary sources" section which I believe mean that your outstanding comments above are now moot. Thanks for helping to spur me into the rewrite. I have a couple of RL issues, but will try to get back to these points later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your edits. I must admit that the change relating to the relibiality of Polybius' account seems to be quite radical for me ([4]). Could you read and double check the whole article? Please ping me if you think the review could be continued. Consider also seeking advice on Goldsworthy's reliability in the light of the above comments on him. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, yourself and T8612 seemed to be requesting radical changes, and so I made them. Is there anything about the current section which you think should be changed.

• The new version looks fair. When writing of a radical change above, I only referred to Polybius's introduction: in the previous version, he was described as a neutral historian, no his bias towards the Romans is mentioned. That is why I thought the article should be double-checked.

• I will double check the whole article as you request and ping you once I have.
• Borsoka: I think that the review should be continued. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will continue the review.

• I have no doubts as to Goldsworthy's reliability. I have not as yet sought advice as I would not know what to ask; which policies or guidelines cause you to doubt this work's reliability?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:Source. I have not found a review about his book cited in the article at JSTOR; Goldsworthy is not an academic as T8612 mentioned above; and the Orion Publishing Group quite obviously publishes popular literature ([5]). For instance, Steven Tibble is a well-known specialist among people who regularly read books about the crusades. Tibble is not an academic, but his books are regularly cited in academic works and they receive positive reviews in academic journals. However, an experienced administrator associated Tibble's best known work with Emil's Clever Pig multiple times (both books were published by Oxford University Press). Tibble's reliability was also challenged by an editor who regularly edits articles about the crusades ([6]). What do you think is the best approach now? Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka: anyone can misuse a source, or make an honest mistake. That is what reviews and source reviews are for. If you cannot find a policy which rules it out, then, SFAICS, you have to let it go, whatever your doubts.

Buidhe is as thorough a source reviewer as one could wish for - as I have discovered the hard way; they have saved me from many an embarrassing error. They have indicated above that they are only waiting for outstanding issues to be resolved before doing a source review. If they are still willing, why don't we allow them to do a source review, with a concentration on Goldsworthy, and see what they think?

Re your points above, if we couldn't use any author who had ever written fiction, or any publisher which had ever printed it, or any book which didn't have a review at JSTOR, we would have very, very few sources we could use.

You may be relieved or horrified to hear that to my certain knowledge The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC has been accepted in 22 GA source reviews; 4 A class source reviews; and 11 FAC source reviews. It may be many more, I don't especially track it. In other words, it has already had a lot of scrutiny from a lot of experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Goldsworthy is not an academic does not make his book unreliable on this subject. It is a good synthesis of the Punic Wars, on which there are not that many books in English, especially for the Third Punic War. As I said, he follows the academic consensus on the subject and refrains from making any bold assumption or generalisation. T8612 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. I agree that we can assume that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. I only raised the issue, because one of the best sources of a specific aspect of the crusades was challenged multiple times just a couple of months ago, because Oxford University Press also publishes popular literature and its writer is not an academic. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: That's fine. If you have any qualms as a reviewer it is the role of the nominator - ie, me - to assuage them. You do quite right to press me on anything you are not happy about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitary break

• The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. 1. Consider shortening the sentence. 2. Sidwell & Jones do not state that the Carthagians had Phoenician ancestry, they say that Cathago was established as a Phoenician colony. Could we state that USA citizens had British ancestry?

Considered, but I don't see how. (Why is it an issue? It is shorter than the sentences on either side of it.) This may no longer apply as it has been moved further to your next comment.

Tweaked.

We could, if like Carthage the US defined citizenship by direct descent from the original settlers.

• Introduce Rome and Carthage (and the term Punic can also be introduced in this context).

Good idea. Done. (Also done, despite my qualms about defining it before the first usage of "Punic" in the text.)

In the mid-1st-century... Which century?

Gah! It's this backwards counting. Thanks. Corrected.

• Introduce Hannibal and his war elephants and also Scipio Africanus (they are now mentioned in note 2 in the subsequent section).

Why? Hannibal had been dead for centuries, and war elephants were nor involved in this conflict; this is just a passing reference to a term of a 50-year-old treaty. If a reader really wants to know more, they can click on the Wikilink.

Hannibal and his war elefants are mentioned in the text. Scipio Africanus is mentioned in a footnote.

Hannibal introduced - I had missed that. Scipio Africanus - the first one, is only mentioned in a footnote, where he is already introduced. Reference to elephants removed.

• ...the dominant indigenous people in North Africa west of Egypt. Does Kunze verify this statement?

Rephrased

• In 151 BC Carthage raised a large army commanded by Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians. Which source verifies this statement? Kunze, who is cited in the next sentence, writes of the late 150s and he does not mention Hasdrubal.

Additional citation inserted.

• Introduce Hasdrubal.

I started to do this, but can't find anything useful to pass on to a reader. I have added 'the Carthaginian general' but I suspect that a reader will have already worked that out. I have also added that he was previously unknown in the records.

• Carthage had paid off its indemnity and... Is this text verified?

Citation added.

• Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. Does Le Bohec verify this statement? I think Kunze is the source of the second part of the sentence.

She is, that is why she is cited. (I have moved the positioning of her cite in case it was not clear.)

• Carthage ... was prospering economically... Does Le Bohec write of a prospering economy? He writes of an "economic renaissance", but he also emphasizes that "several arguments prompt us to limit its size" and he refers to "mediocre funeral stelae" and "currency of weak quality".

• Consider mentioning multiple possible reasons of the war, for instance, taking into account Kunze's and Le Bohec's summaries.
• Why are Cato the Elder and his words "Carthago delenda est" ignored in the article?

Because of "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", but see discussion above.

Now included - although (again) see discussion above.

I cannot imagine an article about the Third Punic War without mentioning these famous words, but now it is OK.

• Carthaginian embassies attempted to negotiate with Rome, but when the large North African port city of Utica went over to Rome in 149 BC the Senate and the People's Assembly declared war. 1. Does Kunze verify the statement? 2. The connection between Utica and the declaration of war is unclear. 3. Clarify that Rome declared war against Carthago.

1. Kunze and Goldsworthy between them do.

2. Clarified. (To the extent that the sources link them.)

3. The rephrasing "aware that its harbour would greatly facilitate any assault on Carthage, [Rome] declared war" makes this clearer, IMO.

• Those who know that the Senate and the People's Assembly are Roman institutions realize that the war was declared by Rome. However, I am not sure that all WP users are required to know it by heart. :)

• It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year, known as consuls, to each lead an army. Consuls had multiple tasks. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

True. Including each leading an army, which is what is relevant here. I have added a general indication that they had other duties, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Section "Opposing forces" describes the fortifications in the city of Carthago and provides numerical information about the armies. Consider adding a more detailed description: services, ships, arms, tactics....

If we had any reliable sources, I would be happy to do so, as I have for similar articles on the earlier Punic Wars. If you could point me towards some, I will see what I can incorporate, but I haven't come across any.

Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• The second of these wars ended with a Roman victory... Both wars ended with a Roman victory.

D'oh! Fixed.

• The Roman army moved to Carthage and twice attempted to scale the city walls, from the sea and the landward sides, being repulsed both times, before settling down for a siege. When? I know we are in the year 149 BC, but no more information. The chronology of the events sometimes remains unclear.

The sources give no indication of when things happen. A lot seems to have gone on in 149 BC. The order of events is mostly (not always) clear, but there is no suggestion as to when in the year any of them happened.

• The first and second paragraphs are not linked in section "149 BC".

Hi Bosoka: I am probably being slow, but I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate a little? (I have tweaked the first sentence of the second paragraph to, hopefully, be a little clearer; which may or may not have resolved the issue. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• When deciding if a source is reliable for a particular claim, there are multiple considerations to evaluate: author, publisher, reviews/citations of the work, how extraordinary the claim is, etc. One factor doesn't usually determine reliability all by itself. (BTW I don't share Iridescent's view of OUP, especially the very prestigious Clarendon Press—in my experience, more prestigious outlets are much less likely to publish garbage than other publishers). Likewise, although academic works are usually preferred to popular history, well regarded popular works and garbage academic ones also exist. However, just because a source has been accepted at previous source reviews is not a guarantee that the previous reviewers were correct in their estimation. (For example, Franz Kurowski was cited in several FA and A-class articles). (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your remark about the reliability of some sources used in FAs and GAs. I did not dare to say this. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Source checks

• "the modern consensus is that this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in an excessively favourable light" I wouldn't say that Astin supports "consensus" (see WP:RS/AC). I do not have access to the other source.

Hmm. This is definitely the case, but I see your point. Every historian who discusses Polybius at any length comments on his pro-Scipio bias. I am loath to support it by giving a cite to a dozen separate sources. {u|T8612}}, do you know of a source which expressly states that this is generally agreed?

See Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, pp.3-4 (see screenshot); and also the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8, pp. 5-6.

@T8612: Thanks. Unfortunately CAH pp. 5-6 is precisely what Buidhe was unhappy with. I am sure that they will point out that the other Astin cite you provide is just one scholar's opinion and does not prove a consensus. Where is Lazenby when you need him? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You cite Walbank, who is the most important scholar on Polybius. The Cambridge Ancient History is a reference work, especially the first pages on the "sources", which all the contributors certainly reviewed and participated, although it is signed by Astin. I think it is enough to establish consensus. T8612 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe: you convinced? T8612 explains the situation better than I could. Ot should I water down the claim? Your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Le Bohec does not support "significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost". He does say Polybius has not left us much information but that is ambiguous as to whether it was never written or lost.

OK. Replaced with Hoyos "Only Polybius’ first five books (out of 40) are complete, although we do have sizeable extracts from the rest" and Goldsworthy "only a small part of the total work has survived".

• "Modern historians also use the account of the 2nd century CE Greek historian Appian" Bohec does not say that Appian was Greek or lived in the second century: he describes him as Appian, a provincial living under the High Empire

That had me stumped for a moment - as to how I had messed up. not as to its accuracy. In the next sentence I quote Mineo, from an earlier article in the same volume. I also cite to the appropriate page of Mineo in the previous sentence. I must have had it in my mind that this covered the sentence in question as well - obviously it doesn't, I am merely going senile. Mineo - "Appian was a Greek from Alexandria (born at the end of the first century AD, died in the 160s)." now cited at the appropriate place.

Other comments

Yann Le Bohec states on the first page of his chapter:

The conflict known under the name of the “Third Punic War” does not enter the category of wars in the general sense of this word: it amounted, in fact, to one single military operation, the siege of one city, in this case Carthage. The author who wishes to describe it will have no order of march to report, no great battle in open country to describe, neither armistice nor peace treaty to mention. But the expression “Third Punic War” has been adopted by tradition, and that is why we are allowed to keep it. In reality, the title “Siege of Carthage” would be more appropriate.

This supports my view, after reading both articles, that there seems to be a very high amount of overlap between this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). I think that a merge would be a good idea, especially considering that both articles are pretty short. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree, there were a small naval battle and other skirmishes. The general context and preparation with the Numidian confrontation don't really belong to the siege of Carthage too. I think the "background" section should be expanded to better show the diplomacy and political debates at Rome behind the Roman invasion (will comment on this tomorrow). Le Bohec is deliberately simplifying things here. It could be possible to merge all the skirmishes into Third Punic War, but the article would be quite large. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

From my limited investigation, Le Bohec is in a minority, probably of one, in holding this view. While there is overlap, other authorities consider the War and the siege to be separate. I could OR as to why they may consider this so - not unreasonably none of them attempt to deal with this negative - eg the Carthaginians fielded an army of 30,000 entirely separate from the siege, which was involved in several pitched battles (not, IMO, "skirmishes") and was eventually (after nearly three years) destroyed when its camp was stormed by a Roman legion. Yes, there is overlap between the Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia of course, is not a reliable source. I note in passing that both the siege and the war are separate vital articles; not, of course, a conclusive point, but one assumes that a similar discussion to this one was held at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that you would emphasize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but then count Vital articles (a Wikiproject) as a reliable indicator of anything. According to a free online tool https://www.cortical.io/freetools/compare-text/ 85% of the text in the articles is identical. I have often been concerned by overlaps in your Punic Wars articles, but this is worse than usual. I can't support this article until the issue with having a substantially identical duplicate in mainspace is addressed. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe and thank you for picking up assorted idiocies of mine above. Now addressed bar Polyibius's pro-Scipio bias. Let's see if another editor has an explicit source; if not I shall have to do it the hard way. Is there more to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations

Trading Places

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1983 comedy film Trading Places starring Eddie Murphy (in only his second film at the beginning of his career explosion), a pre-Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd and pre-"The Body" Jamie Lee Curtis. It's one of those comedies that has lasted with me and is enjoyable to put on now and again, and it even gave me an appreciation for classical music. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

I have not seen this movie; hopefully this will prove to be an asset in reviewing the article, as it should be understandable to general audiences and not just fans.

• Please add brief, descriptive alt text for all images, to aid readers with visual impairments.
• Paynter and Campbell are only mentioned once (in the infobox), without any sourcing.
• Harris conceived the outline for Trading Places in the early 1980s after encountering two unpleasant, wealthy brothers - while it doesn't exactly seem like a controversial opinion, I'd avoid describing them as objectively "unpleasant" in Wikipedia's voice, rather than in Harris'
• Unsure about the way "The Muppets" is handled in the casting section: if it refers to the group of characters, I would expect "the" to be written in lowercase, but if it's about the creative work, I would expect the title to be written in italics.
• Landis disliked the working title,[2] but favorably compared it to older screwball comedies: minor issue here, "it" seems to incorrectly refer back to the title rather than to the script.
• the main updates were the swearing and nudity - this phrasing makes it ambiguous to readers unfamiliar with film history whether these elements were increased or de-emphasized compared to the 1930s films.
• Curtis' used a mix of German attire - this apostrophe seems unintentional.
• During an intermission, Bellamy said that Trading Places was his 99th film; Ameche said it was his 100th. Murphy informed Landis that "between the three of us we've made 201 films!" - Murphy is being pretty funny here, but I don't know how relevant for an encyclopedia this anecdote actually is.

I'm obviously not able to comment on the plot summary's accuracy, and I have not done a source review, but outside of those aspects and the issues I listed, this looks good. Please @ me when you have addressed my issues or if you have any questions/comments, and I will take another look.--Alexandra^IDV 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Alexandra IDV. I have done all of your issues bar one. I can understand your point on the anecdote. My view as a film fan is that it is an interesting behind-the-scenes anecdote between two legends of their time nearing the end of their game and Eddie Murphy at the beginning of what WAS a promising career. It's just fun, as you say, and I feel like it's the kind of thing that would be lost to time without us preserving it. I'm happy to look at maybe another way it can be introduced if you want, but I'd very much like to keep it in the article if possible. Especially as there doesn't really seem to be much behind-the-scenes info available for this film. Also if you ever get the chance I would recommend it, it's a classic 80s comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I added alt text for one image that you had missed, feel free to tweak it. Regarding the anecdote - I see where you are coming from, and agree that it would be nice to be able to preserve it. I won't oppose on grounds of this, but I do think we could/should be introducing the anecdote in a better way. Maybe one could go at it from an angle of describing the mood between the actors at the shoot and how they bantered during intermissions?--Alexandra^IDV 16:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, I've made a small tweak here, I'm not 100% on it though. It's difficult to retain the spirit of the source and not also duplicate it. If you get a chance I'd appreciate your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, and reading the source I agree with you.--Alexandra^IDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support on prose (and image alt text) - the issues I brought up have all been resolved.--Alexandra^IDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions need editing for grammar
• File:Trading_Places.jpg: source link is dead, and FUR is missing some of the necessary components
• File:Ralph_Bellamy_still.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Don_Ameche_1964.JPG
• File:Edward_VI_of_England_c_1545_(drawn_1899).jpg: date appears incorrect, need "reasonable evidence" of the creator's anonymity, and what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the links in the first three images and improved the FUR for the poster. I've replaced the Edward VI image completely. I have taken a look at the grammar of the captions and run it through Grammarly but nothing significant stands out. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Complete sentences should end in periods, there's a mismatch between "Heritage club" in caption and "Heritage Club" in text, etc. With regards to the new Prince and the Pauper image, it needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok, I think I've sorted those things out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Hi Nikkimaria, sorry I didn't ping you in my response. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Still missing some periods but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • A different editor seemed to notice the missing period and sorted it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad IV of Granada

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, the last Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula. The five preceding sultans, as well as his successor Yusuf I have passed FA review, I hope this can continue the series. Compared to his predecessor and successor, there is somewhat less content here because he only ruled for 8 years, and some of it while he was underage. His rule included a civil war between his general and ministers, an invasion by an alliance of Christian kingdoms, the arrival of the North Africans who then captured Gibraltar with his help, and ended abruptly when he was assassinated in a conspiracy by his own military leaders. I believe it is ready to be considered for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Disclaimers: I know little about the subject matter, and I might end up claiming this for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• "was the ruler of the Emirate of Granada on the Iberian Peninsula from 1325 to 1333. He was the sixth sultan of the Nasrid dynasty, succeeding the throne at ten years old when his father, Ismail I (r. 1314–1333), was assassinated. - The end of Ismail I's regnal span does not make sense. So if Ismail was assassinated when Muhammad IV was 10, and Muhammad IV was born in 1315, that would imply Ismail's death date as 1325. How did Ismail I reign until 1333?

  You are correct, this is a mistake - Ismail's death was at 1325. Article corrected.

• " reconciled with Uthman" - I'm not familiar with Islamic naming concepts. Is this Uthman the same as Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula or Abu Said Uthman II?

  Good observation, indeed without context it can refer to either. Added full name (Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula) to disambiguate, as well as several other instances in the article where the identity of "Uthman" might be in doubt. Let me know if you think there's more places where I should spell out his full name. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I could generally puzzle out which Uthman was being referred to through context in the other areas, so I think the changes should be fine.

• "the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula[1] Through a combination of diplomatic and military" - Lacking a full stop before the ref

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "three galleys and 300 men were captured and taken to Seville" - Link galleys, and move the link for Seville from later in the article to here.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Uthman, back in his previous position of power, sent the pretender Abu Abdullah to North Africa," - The lead implies that Muhammad IV did this

  Updated the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• " was recorded to include 4,000 horseman" - You're gonna want to use the plural form of horsemen

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Link Fez where it appears in the body

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The Muslims have reinforced the town by moving supplies from Algeciras," - Wrong tense

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alfonso Jofré Tenorio is a duplink

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto with Guadiaro

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Willing to discuss any of these. Since I don't have a whole lot of background knowledge, this is mostly prose/MOS type stuff. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thank you for taking a look and for your review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Let me know what you think, or if you have more feedback HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

• Founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s, the Emirate of Granada was the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula. Do the two cited pages verify the sentence? Maybe page 22?

  Hmm weird. Replaced by another source that directly says this. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• the sultans of Granada swore fealty ... to the kings of Castile... Do the cited page verify this part of the sentence?

  You're right, the fealty part is not in this page. The instances of such oaths by the individual sultans can easily be found, but I can't find a source that says it in this manner - so I deleted the fealty part. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning the imposition of illegal taxes in Granada to finance the tribute to be paid to the Castilian kings. (O'Callaghan 2013 p. 456)

  added "a heavy burden for Granada", which should suffice as a background info. Unqualifiedly calling it "illegal" might be too strong. Even though O'Callaghan used this word, he qualified it as "not sanctioned by the Quran", and also mentions that there are legal opinions justifying it in the following sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...while Muslim sources never described the relationship as such The cited source does not state this. Harvey writes that the concept of "vassalage" was alien to Muslims, and Muhammad made "repeated acts of submission to Muslim suzerains".

  Harvey writes "nowhere in any Arabic source is there any mention of Muhammad being Alfonso's vassal or liege man" (p.28) HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  And in the following sentence he explains: "It seems likely that we have to do with a problem at once political and linguistic: a lack of communication between two incompatible worlds." (page 27) Harvey also writes that "That Muhammad I made an act of feudal submission to the Christian monarch at Jaén in 1246 is confirmed by all the Christian sources, and his political conduct over the next two decades is consonant with his continuing acceptance of such status". (page 27). I still think the article does not reflect Harvey's approach: from Castilian PoV, Muhammad was a vassal and he acted as a faithful vassal for lengthy periods, but from a Muslim PoV the Castilian interpretation was irrelevant and Muhammad was ready to repeatedly express his loyalty to other Muslim rulers.

  Any suggestion how to improve the current text?

  What about this ([7]) version?

  That looks good to me. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• At the time of Muhammad's accession... I guess you refer to Muhammad IV (not to Muhammad I who is mentioned in the previous sentences).

  Yes, clarified. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...the first son... Does the cited source state that he was the first of the sons of his father?

  Replaced with another citation that specifically state this. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...who took the throne in February 1314 after deposing his uncle Nasrí. Does the cited source verify this statement?

  Same as above. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...his father was assassinated by a relative, Muhammad ibn Ismail of Algeciras. 1. Catlos writes of two assassins, Muhammad ibn Ismail and his unnamed brother. 2. Catlos clarifies that the assassins were Ismail's cousins. 3. Can we refer to the governor of Algeciras as "of Algeciras"?

  1) My reasoning of writing this way is that Vidal Castro's more detailed account explains that it was the named Muhammad ibn Ismail who actually stabbed him and the other person was just an accomplice (see p. 371 about the identity of the assassin and p.375-376 for the full account of the event). I mentioned the brother in the following sentence "as well as his brother who participated in the attack". 2) Similarly, Vidal Castro has analyzed the identity in more detail and proposed that the "sahib al-jazira" (lord of Algeciras) and the cousin of the sultan was as actually the father of the named assassin, and calling the assassin as the cousin/lord of Algeciras was a misreading of the sources. By calling him a "relative" we avoid having to go too much into the details (a longer discussion of this assassination in Ismail's own article if you're interested), I hope that's fine 3) removed "of algeciras" . HaEr48 (talk)

• The direct motive of the attack was a personal grievance, but Christian sources state that it was secretly masterminded by Uthman ibn al-Ula, the powerful commander of the Volunteers of the Faith, North African troops in Granadan service. 1. Harvey refers to a single Christian source (Chronicle of Alfonso XI) 2. Harvey refers to the same chronicle when writing of the assassins' personal grievance. 3. Is the adjective "powerful" necessary? It is not verified in the cited source. 4. Harvey emphasizes that an alternative narrative (by Ibn Khaldun) exists.

  1) named the chronicle. 2) the personal motive is also attested by another historian and appeared to not be in dispute. Added another citation. 3) removed "powerful". 4) Added "According to Ibn Khaldun, Uthman was instead the person who found and executed the murderer", which was how his narrative differ from the previous one. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Among the people who swore their allegiance were judges, preachers, sufis, ulama, grammarians, and secretaries of the chancery. Is this important?

  Arié mentioned it, so I thought it can be considered notable. It can be removed if you think it's too much, but I feel it adds a nice flavour to show what kind of courtiers were present in an bay'ah in Granada.

• ...his link to the vizier made him a powerful figure in the young sultan's court. Catlos writes of the conflict between Uthman and the vizier.

  Their conflict would be covered in the second paragraph of "The young sultan" section, as well as in the "civil war" section, but initially it appears they were allied. Added a better source for the statement you quoted HaEr48 (talk)

• Is reference 15 correct?

  Are you referring to Catlos 2018, p. 437? (the numbering might have changed since my last update). If yes, the purpose was to identify the full name/identity of Ridwan (Rubiera Mata, also cited in the sentence, only call him "his [Muhammad's] tutor Ridwan"). If this is confusing I can remove it. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Uthman ibn al-Ula, the commander of the Volunteers of the Faith and Uthman, who kept his post as Chief of the Volunteers (shaikh al-ghuzat). 1. The Arabic term should be added when his post is first mentioned. 2. I would change the "Chief of the Volunteers" term to "volunteers' commander/commander of the volunteers", because now the article contains two translations for the same group of soldiers (Volunters of the Faith/Volunteers).

  Mentioned the Arabic term in the first mention, but it now looks a little awkward because I have to introduce the translation of the title, as well as the organization, in the same sentence. Let me know if you have a better idea. As for shortening the name to just "Volunteers", I think it's fine to do so in order to avoid too much repetition of the long nae, as long as the reader is clear that it's the same thing. Similar to, for example, after introducing the Knights Hospitaller in Great Siege of Malta the text can just refer to it as "the Knights". HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  It does not seem look awkward for me: both parts of the Arabic term are explained in the same section. :)

• ...he had to surrender Ronda and Marbella, followed by Algeciras in the next year, to the Marinids in exchange for troops. Is this presented as a fact or as a possibility in the cited source?

  Added "probably", per source. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• On 6 November 1328 Muhammad's household slaves assassinated Ibn al-Mahruq when the vizier was visiting Fatima's residence to discuss state affairs. Vidal Castro writes that Muhammad ordered the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq. Vidal Castro also writes that Ibn al-Mahruq was assassinated in his own palace.

  Added "Muhammad ordered" (I thought it was implicit by saying they're his slaves), and added Vidal Castro's reported location in addition to the location mentioned by the other sources. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Do we want to know where he was murdered? I deleted this info ([8]). Do you agree?

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Muhammad, now 13 years old, began to exercise effective control of his government. I think the reconciliation with Uthman and the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq - facts mentioned in the previous sentences - are the signs that Muhammad began to exercise effective control of his goverment. Could this sentence be an introduction to the changes? Now the sentence is unexplained at the end of the section: it does not contain actual information, because his actual acts are explained in the previous sentences.

  Good point, reordered. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• However, James II died in 1327 and was succeeded by his son Alfonso IV, who took a more belligerent stance towards Granada. Alfonso's more belligerent stance towards Granada is unexplained, although O'Callaghan writes that Alfonso was "disturbed by Muhammad IV's alliance with Abu Said, the Marinid emir, who was reported to be preparing an invasion of Spain".

  Added the reason of Alfonso's wariness. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• He cancelled the Aragon–Granada treaty in March 1329. O'Callaghan writes that "In March, protesting persistent Muslim attacks he nullified his pact with Muhammad IV..."

  Added more details. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...was recorded to include... By whom?

  Arie does not say by whom, and her footnote only points to another modern source. Reworded the sentence to not beg the question of "by whom". HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• The 1330 campaign was a declared a crusade, according to O'Callaghan. This info is not mentioned in the article.

  Added. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alfonso IV sent his troops to Granada in early 1330, while Alfonso XI personally led his troops from Córdoba in July 1330. Does the cited page verify this sentence?

  Yes, it's just the page number was slightly off. Corrected. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Abu Thabit Amir Thabit or Tabit in English?

  Thabit is the standard rendering of ثابت‎‎ in English. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  • O'Callaghan and Catlos use the Tabit form. Could you check it?

    • Harvey (p 188) and Latham & Fernandez-Puertas use "Thabit". ثابت‎‎ (standard English transliteration = Thabit) is a moderately common name in Arabic, frankly I don't think there's any doubt that it was the actual name. It is possible that O'Callaghan & Catlos used a non-standard transliteration. By the way, I don't see O'Callaghan mentioning the name of Uthman's sons, but in p. 121 he is referring to another Abu Thabit who was the Sultan of the Marinids in 1307-1308, see Abu Thabit 'Amir. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Castilian forces ravaged the Granadan countryside... The statement is correct, but I think it does not present the facts properly. I understand crusaders (mainly Castilians) under the command of the infante Juan Manuel ravaged the countryside. O'Callaghan emphasizes that the infante did not want to cooperate with the Castilian king (we do not need to mention this fact in the article).

  Changed to "Crusading forces operating independently from Alfonso XI ravaged ..."

• ...sent his representative to pay homage to Alfonso XI Do the cited source verify this statement? O'Callaghan indeed refers to this act of homage, but he writes of more than one representatives.

  By this I mean the representative that Muhammad is supposed to send annually. Clarified. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alfonso XI soon broke the truce by stopping the food exports to Granada. O'Callaghan mentions that a general rise in prices persuaded the King to stop the food export to Granada.

  Not sure if it follows from the source. It mentions one of his courtiers manipulating prices, and later asking the king to stop the export, but I don't read it as the prices causing the stoppage. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...was given safe conduct... Plural?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• ...the Castilian nobles who were supposed to oppose Muhammad rebelled and attacked the Alfonso's castles... I cannot check the cited source, but O'Callaghan writes of 1. Castilian nobles deserting Alfonso's camp, and 2. the infante Juan Manuel who not only deserted Alfonso's camp, but also plundered Alfonso's realm (page 164)

  Hills mentioned that Juan Manuel was one of the plunderers, but not only him. Added his desertion and pillage to the text. Also, is he an infante? HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  • ...together with many other nobles Could we delete this part? Too many nobles are joining each other. :) O'Callaghan refers to him as "Infante Juan Manuel" (page 431). Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

    • Agree with the removal. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Moreover, the Marinid military involvement on the Iberian Peninsula caused the two brothers—who were the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith—to lose the influence they previously had as the dominant military force fighting for Granada. 1. The cited source only refers to Abu Thabit/Tabit succeeding their father as Chief of the Volunteers of the Faith. 2. The Volunteers of the Faith (not the brothers) were the dominant military force.

  Reworded to be more precise. HaEr48 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• According to the historians L. P. Harvey and Brian Catlos, who follow the report of the Castilian chronicles,... 1. Harvey only quotes text from the Chronicle of Alfonso X, without stating that he accepts the chronicle's report. (Actually, he emphasizes that the Castilian chronicle and Ibn Khaldun provide concurring explanation for the murder.) 2. Vidal Castro is cited instead of Brian Catlos. 3. A single Castilian chronicle is quoted in Harvey's book.

  The contrast is not about the manner of the murder, but the manner in which Yusuf was proclaimed as Sultan. 1. Reworded to not imply that Harvey endorses it 2. Vidal Castro also cites it (also without endorsing) - reworded to make it clear 3. Vidal Castro says "las fuentes cristianas" (in plural), so keeping it in plural.

• ...after consultation with Fatima,... Do any of the cited sources verify this statement?

  It's based on this: "with assent and collaboration from the queen mother, Fatima, ..."

• The proclamation took place the next day. Does the cited source verify this statement?

  It's from this: "Fue proclamado el ... 26 de agosto de 1333, solo un día después de que su hermano fuese asesinado."

  • Sorry, I missed this text.

End of my review. Thank you for this interesting, thoroughly researched and well-written article. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very thorough and constructive review, it has been very nice working with you. HaEr48 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is only one pending issue: Thabit/Tabit (see above), but this does not prevent me from supporting this candidate. I hope you are plannig to improve the articles about Muhammad's successors. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thank you for the support. I missed the open point about Abu Thabit, I replied above. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Squirm

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"Late in the evening of September 29, 1975, a sudden electrical storm struck a rural sea coast area of Georgia. Power lines, felled by high winds, sent hundreds of thousands of volts surging into the muddy ground, cutting off all electricity to the small, secluded town of Fly Creek. During the period that followed the storm, the citizens of Fly Creek experienced what scientists believe to be one of the most bizarre freaks of nature ever recorded. This is the story...."

This is the second attempt of having Squirm nominated for Featured Article. Thanks to an extensive Peer Review, I believe that we finally reached the point where this can have a bronze star to its name. GamerPro64 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Joe

Coming soon. JOEBRO64 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: just pinging you about this. GamerPro64 17:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: I was actually writing down some comments earlier today. They should be up tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• @TheJoebro64: pinging again. GamerPro64 14:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. Sorry for the wait!

• "Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film, using prosthetics for the first time in his career."
• "The script was based on an childhood incident in which Lieberman's brother..." I think this should be here for clarity and to line up better with the lede
• "... after which the project moved very fast swiftly..." "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
• "Production began in the warmer climate of Georgia in the late fall of November 1975." MOS:SEASONS

• Disagree. I added that redundancy specifically to deal with the seasonal issue in the rest of that passage and to address the SEASONS problem, because it was a seasonal schedule. Here's the issue. The producers read the script during the summer ... that is ... the project was moving quickly. We don't know in what months they read the script, so we can't avoid saying "summer". The point is they moved quickly when it was warm weather, but then had to move production to the south (Georgia) as fall (colder weather) approached in New England. SEASON is about avoiding ambiguity in the months corresponding to seasons, as they differ between the southern and northern hemisphere. That doesn't mean we can never mention seasonal (weather) issues ... we just have to explain that fall in New England = November, which is a date that we do have. If someone can think of a more elegant way to address this, great ... but we can't remove mention of season and weather-related issues that affected production because of an interpretation of SEASON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Principal photography wrapped after five weeks, seven days one of which were was dedicated to..."
• "... but the film it still received an "R" rating."
• I'd add the years Swamp Thing and Return of the Living Dead were released in parenthesis next to the titles

Don't have anything else to say. Nice work. JOEBRO64 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Did everyone except the one Sandy commented on. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Alrighty, looks good. Support. JOEBRO64 19:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence, (In the rural town of Fly Creek, Georgia, a powerful storm blows down an overhead power line, leaving the town without electricity.), I would avoid repeating the word "town" twice. Maybe something like, (leaving the area without electricity), to avoid this?
• I would move the worm farm link to this part, (worm farmer Roger Grimes), earlier in the plot summary.
• I think these two sentences, (Geri and Mick arrive at Beardsley's house; they do not find him but Geri sees a human skeleton outside the property.), to something like: (After arriving at Beardsley's house, Geri and Mick cannot find him, but Geri sees a human skeleton outside the property.) Something about the current wording seems choppy to me.
• For this sentence, (Alma, who survived by hiding in a chest comes out of the chest and looks out the window), I would avoid repeating the word "chest" twice. I would just say something like, (Alma, who survived by hiding in a chest, comes out and looks out the window), to avoid this.
• The word "sandworms" is linked twice in the article, and both instances go to different articles.

• This part still needs to be addressed. The word "sandworms" is linked twice in the article, with one instance going to Arenicola marina and the other going to Alitta virens, and I find this confusing since it is not clear from the prose that these two words are referring to what I am assuming are two different types of worms. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Somehow missed this one. I just un-wikilinked the word sandworms. I dont know what specific genus is used in the movie. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should AllMovie be italicized in the prose? I am only asking because it is not italicized in the database's Wikipedia article.
• For this part, (The cinematography was praised, with John Kenneth Muir commending the cinematography and the film's imagery), I would avoid repeating "cinematography" twice in the same sentence, and I have been told in the past to avoid using the "with x verb+ing" sentence structure in featured articles.

I hope this review is helpful. Wonderful work with the article. Once everything is addressed, I will support this for promotion. I always enjoy watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode on this movie lol. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Answered all of these. Though the last point was a bit difficult to try to remedy. GamerPro64 15:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have made the following edits (here). Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with.
• These two sentences, (While on the boat, Mick is bitten by a worm. Roger tells him worms attack when electrified.), read rather awkwardly to me as there is rather abrupt transition from a worm attack to an informational bit. I would try to make this part flow a little bit better.
  • Added some lead in and more context. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am confused by this sentence, (Mick leaves Geri with Roger so he can tend to his wound), specifically the (he can tend to his wound) part. Why would Mick leave Geri with Roger if Roger was going to tend to his own wound anyway? Is that accurate or should it be (she can tend to his wound) instead? Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-worked. Also he left Geri behind to distract Roger while he went to check out the skeleton. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I do not think the sentence about AllMovie's praise of soundtrack fits in the paragraph about negative reviews on the film's production, performances, and direction. It should be kept in the article, but its placement seems rather random to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Moved it up a paragraph. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• This part, (The original filming location and setting was planned to be New England but this was changed to Port Wentworth, Georgia), is not correct because the film is set in a fictional Georgia town not Port Wentworth.
  • I think I got it down. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I do not think "idiot" needs to be put in quotation marks.
  • Done. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• As I said in the previous FAC, I think this sentence, (Squirm was the only film produced by The Squirm Company), is necessary, but I am uncertain about its current placement. I think it seems out of place in a paragraph mostly about the worms, and I think it would be better suited for the section's first paragraph which is more so about the film's development and production.
  • Moved it. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would recommend cutting the first paragraph of the "Production" section into two, with the first focusing on the film's inspiration and the second on the writing and filming. This part, (He completed a rough draft in six weeks and gave it to producer George Manasse, who saw potential in it.), seems like a good place to start a new paragraph after changing "He" to "Lieberman". The paragraph just seems like a rather large wall of text so I think this separation will be helpful in keeping a reader engaged with the prose.
  • I didnt even notice this comment and I split the sections in two. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (He runs off into the woods and Geri tells Mick.), I would clarify what Geri told Mick. If it was about the worm attack in the previous sentence, I'd say something like, (Geri tells Mick about the attack), to be clear.
  • Re-worked. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Admittedly, I have only seen the MST3K episode on this movie, but I have a question about this part: (he remembers the worms only come out at night). I rewatched the scene, and he hypothesizes the worms are repulsed by light so I do not this current wording is quite right. I would not say he "remembers" this and he does not directly say the worms only come out at night. The exact line of dialogue is: "See, if I'm right, the only thing holding them back is the light".
  • Changed to hypothesizes. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• I rewatched the part right after the tree scene, and I am uncertain about this part: (Mick realizes electricity is still being released from the power lines and that the wet soil is acting as a conductor). I could be missing something as again I have only seen the MST3K episode and not the film itself, but I do not see the part where Mick comes to this conclusion.
  • No he definitely realizes there is still electricity in the ground. I believe its also in the MST3K episode too. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I probably just missed that part. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about this part, (Some retrospective reviews were less than positive), as there is only one less than positive retrospective review so "some" does not seem accurate unless other citations can be added here to better support this claim.
  • Reworked. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• The following book (here) has an estimated production budget for the movie. The book was published by ABC-Clio which seems like a credible publisher to me.
  • Yes it says the estimated amount is $470,000. But in the Fangoria article, it mentions they also had a few investors before the Broadway producers. So a majority of the budget is 470K, but I'm not entire sure if having the budget section say "est. $470,000" is standard. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I understand your point. It should be fine as it current stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• The American Film Institute entry mentions planned premieres in Buffalo, New York and New York City. The entry also mentions that the film had four screenings at the Cannes Film Festival, and specifies that Lansbury and Beruh had intentionally invited "non-pro locals” as seat fillers. Are these elements notable enough for inclusion in the article?

  “Papering the house” (filling unsold seats by giving away tickets) is so common in theatre and film that I would not worry about mentioning this. Thanks for the solid review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Would the planned Buffalo premiere be notable enough for inclusion though? Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• On second thought this is likely not that important as I doubt it would be helpful to include information on a canceled premiere. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• According to Rotten Tomatoes (here), the film is available on Amazon Prime. I would add that to the article. And according to TV Guide (here), it is also available on Tubi.
  • Not entirely sure this is worth mentioning. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I am not saying you have to mention Amazon Prime or Tubi by name as I can how that could be misconstrued as some kind of marketing, but I believe it is relevant to mention that the film is available on digital formats in the same way that the article mentions the film's VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray releases. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope my review is helpful and thank you for your patience. Once my comments are addressed, I believe that should be everything, but I would like to do one last read-through tomorrow to make sure as I want to give a thorough review. You have done a wonderful job with the article, and it would be great to see a smaller, cult film get the bronze star. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I still think there should be a brief sentence in the "Release" section that mentions the film being available digitally as that section already mentions VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray releases. Once that is done, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there even a proper source to use to mention its digitally available? GamerPro64 02:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Either of the sources that I have provided above would be proper or you could cite the digital platforms directly. The TV Guide is probably the better of the two. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I just don't think mentioning it being on these services are necessary. We don't always have mention of movies being on TV. Nor have I seen other articles mention that they were on Netflix or Hulu or the like. GamerPro64 03:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am still uncertain about mentioning the VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray releases without even a brief part on its digital release at all. The specific names of the services do not need to be used in the prose, but it still seems like a gap in information to mention all of these other ways that the film has been released for public consumption and leave one release method out completely. I can wait to hear other editors' opinions about this, but it does hold me back from supporting. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree with the comparison to "movies being on TV". I personally do not find a digital release to be comparable to television syndication. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I bit the bullet and added in the mention of the streaming services. GamerPro64 03:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

SG review

In reviewing changes to this point, please let me know if I have missed anything with this reinstatement of one word, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• It looks good to me. I removed "unsuccessful" because I thought it would already be understood from the word "attempt", but it is probably best to as clear as possible to avoid any potential confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To be aware: [9]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll just wait for the result of that discussion. GamerPro64 03:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been extensively involved at this article since the first FAC, and during the Peer review. At the first FAC, I had concerns that the prose could be better. A good amount of that has been addressed, but I am waiting to see what others think. If others think that the prose is now up to snuff, everything else looks good, per the earlier FAC and PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

• While on the boat, Mick is bitten by a worm, leading to Roger telling him and Geri that worms attack when electrified, showing the two his bitten-off thumb—this sentence stumbled me a bit. For the last part, it's Roger showing his thumb? And it was bitten off by worms previously, as in some time in the past or during the film? How'd regular worms bite off his thumb? Is this really important anyhow?
  • Yes Roger is showing his thumb. And it was bitten off when he was a child because of the electrified worms. I thought it would be worth mentioning to show how violent the worms would end up being. I can remove it. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mick gets off the boat to tend to his wound, leaving Geri with Roger; he and Alma—likewise here, the "he and Alma" I think refers to Mick, but it's unclear since you mention Roger most proximately.
  • Its Mick. Changed it.
• Special make-up effects artist Rick Baker created the make-up in New York for R.A. Dow's character Roger, who turns into "Wormface", and made a facial mold using prosthetics, which he had never worked with before. This sentence just kind of runs on. I would start a new sentence after "Wormface".
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I don't really think you need the explanatory 1975/76 dollar footnotes. I think it's naturally understood the prices are contemporary.
  • I didn't like it in the last review anyway so I'm removing it. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'd reword This version was also released in the United States on Blu-ray by Shout! Factory under its label Scream Factory on October 28, 2014.[14] Squirm was also released on streaming services Prime Video, Tubi, and Shudder. a bit so it's not repeating "was also released" phrasing twice in two sentences.
  • Reworked. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Images look fine.
• Source check forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Hector (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Hector... While not an impactful storm in any manner, it did pose a threat to Hawaii when its track was unknown. Hector was the longest-lived storm of the season and broke intensity records. Noah^Talk 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• First lede para is mahusive. Can we split? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I can't split it per rules on lead size, but I can move two sentences down to the second para. Noah^Talk 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's not exactly true... Ledes shouldn't be more than four paragraphs, there are some guildelines about lengths, but they aren't that specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• It does list specific article sizes for 1-2, 3, and 4 paragraphs. I think it is better now since I made paras 1-2 about the same size. Noah^Talk 15:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• That is more of a rule of thumb than a guideline, but w/e. Fine now it's less ridiculous Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Add a WP:Short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Done... I may have accidentally deleted the original. Noah^Talk 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is one citation in the lede, can we move it to the body? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Similar to the other storm, this is just being used as a source for a sentence introducing the topic (at least the first half of it does) and relating it to the season. Noah^Talk 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The eighth named storm, fourth hurricane, and third major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season,[1] Hector originated from a disturbance that was located north of South America on July 22. - could be split into two sentencesBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• As the first part is much larger than what is at Vicente, I split it. Noah^Talk 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• It gradually organized - how does a natural event become organised? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Generally, thunderstorms group together rather than have individual bursts, winds increase a little, and the pressure drops a bit. The NHC doesn't make mention of this as it is minor compared to what happens later. Noah^Talk 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• A favorable environment - for whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The rest of the sentence says it allowed the storm to rapidly intensify. Noah^Talk 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ok,almost ready to support this one. There is two duplinks with Eye (cyclone) and microwave imagery linked twice in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed that. Noah^Talk 16:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

• I'm not a fan of "long-lived", since hurricanes aren't alive. Could you reword in the opening sentence?

• Changed to long-lasting. Noah^Talk 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Could you link "named storm" and include a note or some explanation for what a major hurricane is?

• Done. Noah^Talk 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• You never really describe what a "disturbance" is. I get it that it wasn't a tropical wave, but I'd like some more specific wording and less jargon

• As the NHC doesnt specifically mention what it was as the origins were difficult to ascertain, I will add a note with a dumbed-down version of the definition for tropical disturbance. Noah^Talk 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Could you link or explain what the "Big Island" is? You link it on its second usage.

• Moved to the first usage. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "It fell below major hurricane intensity around 18:00 UTC on August 11 after spending a record 186 hours at that intensity." - is that a worldwide record or basin one?

• Clarified. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe add the latitude markers for where the CPAC and WPAC are in the lead? You made a point about the three NPAC basins

• Added 140W, but I already mentioned the IDL. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is there another way to describe "convective activity" to the layman?

• Thunderstorm?

• Link Saharan Air Layer when you mention "Saharan air"

• Done. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• How can a system "strengthened into a tropical depression"? Why not "developed into"? Also, is it worth adding that it was TD 10E?

• Done. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "After strengthening into a tropical storm, increasing easterly wind shear caused..." - the shear strengthened into a tropical storm?

• Reordered. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Soon after" - IDK how well this works starting a brand new section (which you do twice!)

• Removed those. Noah^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "At the same time, the storm continued to track westward." - you ended the previous section with "continued to travel due west", so I'm not sure this is needed again

• Removed. Noah^Talk 14:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "About six hours later, a 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron plane recorded a stepped frequency microwave radiometer (SFMR) wind speed of 158 mph (254 km/h) as it surveyed the cyclone." - was this a gust?

• All CPHC discusses is SFMR surface winds. They do not explicitly state whether it is a sustained wind or a gust. Noah^Talk 14:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "As Hector approached Hawaii, mid-level dry air, low ocean heat content, and 81 °F (27 °C) sea surface temperatures caused the weakening trend to continue." - the sentence structure got confusing after you said "mid-level dry air" and it turned into a list. Avoid using lists of three items right after you used a phrase like "As Hector approached Hawaii", which would naturally be followed with what the storm did; in this case, weaken.

• Reworked that. Noah^Talk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• " Hector weakened into a low-end Category 3 hurricane as it passed south of the Big Island on August 8." - how far south?

• Added the measurement CPHC listed for where winds were recorded; they did say Hector was at its closest point during the afternoon which matches up with that location. Noah^Talk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Many remained in temporary tent structures that could not withstand a hurricane; however, plans were made to relocate people to sturdier structures." - what happened with these plans?

• I can't find anything about what happened to these plans. The watches and warnings were discontinued, but that is all I see discussed in detail in news sources. Noah^Talk 14:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "All absentee walk-in voting sites, as well as, Whittington, Punaluu, and Milolii Beach Parks in Hawaii County were closed on August 8 as the hurricane passed south of the island." - this could've been stronger

• Is that better? Noah^Talk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Hector began to rapidly weaken soon after as wind shear increased to a high 35 mph (55 km/h)." - I'd end with "as wind shear increased further to 35 mph", as the current wording is odd

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is the subtropical transition worth mentioning in the lead? That's a semi important status change for a TC.

• I didn't mention it because it is an unofficial status given by the JTWC. Noah^Talk 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All in all it's a fine article. Some of the wording just needs to be spiffied up, and a few things reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink:I should have addressed everything. I wish the CPHC would have put more into certain aspects of their TCRs as they did neglect them quite a bit (more evident on other storms). Noah^Talk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to support! Thanks for the quick fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC

Support by JavaHurricane

Will do. JavaHurricane 04:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• "degradating" in the last line of the second MH section.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 10:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• "it had the highest accumulated cyclone energy since 1994's Hurricane John." Which basin?

• Added a little bit on it. Noah^Talk 10:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No issues otherwise. Excellent article. JavaHurricane 04:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Er in like half an hour irl issue distracting me... Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Retrieval date for ref 2?

• Added a date. Noah^Talk 02:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• ref 30 missing author

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 02:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• These are very minor things and reliability looks good so I'm give a preemptive pass for source review, with the expectation that these issues are addressed. Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The issues should be fixed now. Noah^Talk 02:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Réunion swamphen

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while since we've had an extinct mystery bird at FAC, and here's one of the most enigmatic ones. The few things known about the bird are covered here, and there is probably little more that can ever be said about it until a fossil is some day found. Since it is only known from contemporary accounts, most of these are included, similar to how most sources treat the bird. It is therefore rather quote heavy (with commentary on these when available), since merely summarizing them would need unwarranted OR interpretation, and would be less interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

NB: It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I had a look at this at GA and it seemed destined for FA. Good to see it here and this is a placeholder for me to have a proper look over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back on this. A series of issues have limited my contributions to Wikipedia in general and reviews in particular over the past few weeks. I shall endeavour to get it done over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I've also been busy with other things! FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Lead: Should that be 'previously known as the oiseau bleu'?

English sources as recent as Hume 2017 and 2019 list it as "Réunion Gallinule (Oiseaux Bleu) ", so it would seem it has not fallen completely out of use. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• A lang template should be used for each mention of a foreign language word or phrase, eg every mention of oiseaux bleu.

Added, as well as for quotes (and Plaines des Cafres, though it does not seem to have an English name), not sure if I overdid it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "also considering it akin to the takahe". "akin" is a bit ambiguous; it can mean either related to or similar to. Possibly clarify which is meant?

It could actually mean both in this case, but I just said related to keep it simple. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The bird was subsequently mainly considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis throughout the 20th century" I am not too happy with "mainly", and the whole sentence is a bit clunky. How about 'Throughout the 20th century the bird was usually considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis'? (I think that "subsequently" can be taken as read.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "there were two more contemporary accounts". Is "more" intended to mean 'further'?

Not sure what the difference is, but changed to further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "yet he considered it to be no doubt a derivative of Porphyrio" Maybe 'yet he considered there was no doubt that it was a derivative of Porphyrio'?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "generally agreed to have been a large, terrestrial swamphen". What does "terrestrial" mean in this context?

That it spent most of its time on the ground, linked to Terrestrial animal. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Caption: "The Réunion swamphen was possibly similar to the takahe, and was at times thought to be closely related." Maybe 'and has at times been thought to be closely related'?

Done. By the way, did I get all the captions that are "complete sentences" right with the periods? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it to me, but what do I know?

Probably more than me! In regard to this "While it probably derived from", should that be "was derived from"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The first description of the Réunion swamphen is that of Dubois from 1674, which reads as follows:" Optional: delete "which reads as follows".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "was said to nest among grasses and aquatic ferns"; "the Réunion swamphen did not inhabit swamps". There may be nothing to this, but I tend to think of aquatic ferns as growing mostly in or on the margins of swamps.

Or waterbodies at least, which we know existed on the plains, temporary marshy pools mentioned under behaviour/ecology, and the brook mentioned in the quote under extinction. The sources don't address a supposed discrepancy, but I think it's because the waterbodies there just weren't swamps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And the crunch point. We have no description of the Plaine des Cafres, the supposed location of these birds, which I think would be helpful. And, for the moment leaving aside MOS:QUOTE ("While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) I am still genuinely unsure what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds to an encyclopedia article. Frankly, to me this part of the quote reads as waffle, and I fail to see what it communicates to a reader about the topic of the article.

The only description of the area provided by the modern the sources about the bird is already summarised under behaviour and ecology: "At least in the latter part of its existence, it appears to have been confined to mountains (retreating there between the 1670s and 1705), in particular to the Plaine des Cafres plateau, situated at an altitude of about 1,600–1,800 m (5,200–5,900 ft) in south-central Réunion. The environment of this area consists of open woodland in a subalpine forest steppe, and has marshy pools." That's it, which is probably why some of the sources include this quote, which appears to be the most precise description of the area as it was when the bird was alive back in the 1700s... As you can see in the photo under extinction, there is not much vegetation left, but plenty of buildings, so the best we can do to give an impression of it is look to the contemporary sources (which is why I'm reluctant to cut it further, it was already reduced by almost half). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Description: fair enough. Trying to describe what an area was like 300 years ago is probably bootless anyway.

A cracking article, but you have been let down by your copy editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and nah, you had to leave something for the FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Right, that's all of the routine stuff dealt with. On to quotes. For the moment leaving the MoS aside, could you explain for the hard of thinking - ie me - what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds for a reader? I am making a real effort to understand your PoV, but I really baulk at these sentences in particular. Could you talk me through them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It is overly flowery for sure, but what's interesting about it is that we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; cold, rainy, and with a broad, shallow brook. As Hume 2019 presents it before quoting it: "includes an insightful contemporary description of the Plaine des Cafres, the prime habitat of the gallinule". You could argue it's excessive to quote all that for this information, but I'd argue it is more engaging this way. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that you have put your finger precisely on our difference. I do not have a major issue with it being flowery. My point is that we do not "get a description of the climate and environment". We get one person's impression of one day. Perhaps it was mid-summer and that shallow brook is a raging torrent ten months of the year. Or was it the rainy season and it is empty most of the time? How cold was a winter's day in England in 1763 anyway? Even you seem to struggle to interpret it "we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; ... rainy"; there is no mention of rain, the account is speaking of the effect of the clouds. (Possibly a flowery attempt to describe their cooling effect[?]) Perhaps the brook is fed entirely by snow melt and it never rains there? And much of the quote describes physical features which (I assume) will not have changed ("The plain des Caffres, is formed by the summits of mountains at a very considerable elevation above the sea: it is said to be twenty miles in extent, and is very flat, and without stones. The access to it is very difficult in certain places, though it may be ascended on horseback") not "a description of the climate and environment". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can agree that it's subjective whether the article is better off with it or without? Perhaps the other reviewers, Dunkleosteus77, Hog Farm, and Nikkimaria, have some opinions on this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can. And I would also be interested in the other reviewers opinions. I would however, above and beyond any question of subjectivity, like to draw their attention to MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, by the very wording, I'd say it's subjective and ambiguous: "try not to overuse them". "Try" leaves choice, and "overuse" leaves interpretation... The question is, when is it "overuse"? Also note that the guideline begins "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." That would imply the limitations are mainly to prevent copyright violations. But given these quotes are centuries old, it should hardly be a problem, FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall good use of quotes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally find the quote useful. It's one of those things where IMO its ambiguous enough that keeping it in the original words is the best option. The one question I would ask is the season that the plain des Caffres description is suppose to describe. I doubt it's known, although if known it would give context. Honestly, I think since, per the reasons Gog mentioned, it's not a great description of the climactic elements described, so using the quote for the climactic elements actually avoids a bit of drawing too heavy of conclusions based on a singular experience. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, now it is also mainly used under extinction to give an impression of how the area was in its pristine condition, before humans destroyed interfered. The circumstances around the quote aren't precisely known (not even who wrote it), so info on the season is probably unavailable. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree it's not a copyright issue, but in terms of style in the case of the particular quote mentioned I lean towards Gog's perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like an even split, then. Could we wait and see if potential further reviewers bring it up? To me, this still seems like a matter of individual taste, not hard policy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "Visitors to the Mascarene island of Réunion during the 17th and 18th centuries reported blue birds, referred to in French as oiseau bleu" since oiseau bleu means blue bird, it may be better to say "reported blue birds (French oiseau bleu)". Also, you have singular/plural confusion, you say blue birds but say singular oiseau instead of plural oiseaux   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to parenthesis as "(oiseaux bleus in French)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Did Strickland refer to bats as oiseaux bleus or was that somebody else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Added "in an old account". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Who's Selys Longchamps and when did he do the thing?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Should already be covered by "Responding to Strickland's book later that year, the Belgian scientist Edmond de Sélys Longchamps coined the scientific name". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The then recent discovery of the takahe showed that members of Porphyrio could be large" are you talking about the discovery of the bird being recent or it being moved from Notornis to Porphyrio? The next paragraph seems to indicate that many still included it in Notornis until later in the 20th century, so maybe you should say something more generic like "showed that swamphens could be large" or maybe "rails" if accurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated, because even at the time, some placed the takahe in Porphyrio (such as Schlegel, who is the one cited), while others placed it in it's own genus, Notornis. I've added "Schlegel argued that", because it was his paper the statement is from, and "(now called Porphyrio hochstetteri, then also referred to as Notornis by some authors)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• When quoting Dubois, you should say it's translated from French   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think most (if not all) of the quotes were translated from French, so it would be a bit arbitrary to only clarify that for Dubois (especially since the sources don't always state which other accounts were translated and from what language). But the names and indications of nationalities for some of the writers should give some indication. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• "since an account stated the Réunion bird tasted good" is this Father Brown?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is Dubois, mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• "It resembles a wood-pigeon [in colouration]" contradicts "Olson stated the comparison to a 'wood pigeon' was a reference to the common wood pigeon, implying that Brown described it as smaller than Dubois did"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean the " [in colouration]" part? I'm not sure why that is added in the 2019 paper, it is not in the 2008 book the translation is taken from. I have removed it by quoting the 2008 book instead, which should remove ambiguity, but of course still doesn't explain why the brackets were added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Do we have a map of the island that labels the Plaine des Cafres?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Not from what I can see, but the sources imply it was more widespread before humans arrived anyway. The IUCN also just shows the entire island:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The ZooTaxa source says that Berlioz 1946 considered it a population of African swamphen, and Barré 1996 a western swamphen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I tried to avoid mentioning the relevant specific species and subspecies within Porphyrio because their classifications seem to be in flux (they were considered species, then subspecies, and then very recently species again, see purple swamphen), but it's what I allude to here: "Some writers equated the bird with extant swamphens". To complicate matters further, Barré and a co-author also suggested African swamphens in 1982, while he somehow changed his opinion in 1996. But I've now added mention of specific species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm

I'll give this a look; I might wind up claiming WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• "since Dubois' account stated the Réunion bird tasted good, which extant swamphens do not" - This just doesn't read right to me. "which" doesn't doesn't seem to fully match with the rest of the phrasing

I replaced "which" with "while", does that look better? FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Cattle grazing on Plaine des Cafres was promoted by the French explorer Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier in the 1750s, which may have also had an impact on the bird". Hmmm. Seems a little to me like maybe this statement should be qualified about if the birds were still in existence at that point. If the source includes that, maybe include such a qualification.

Before that sentence, it is stated the bird perhaps survived until 1763. Shouldn't that be enough for the reader? In any case, it is not known for certain. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's in pretty good shape. Not much for a non-expert to gripe about here. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added one comment above and will try to fix the other tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

Not being a native English speaker, I am not entirely sure which captions are complete sentences, but I have added periods for three captions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both points should be addressed. but not sure about the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2020 edition of the World Snooker Championship - an event disrupted twice by the COVID-19 pandemic changed dates and was eventually a test event for an audience to be in attendance which lasted for a single day.

Ronnie O'Sullivan won his sixth world championship, defeating first time finalist Kyren Wilson in the final. One of my favourite recent events, due to the quality of play at times, a maximum break made by John Higgins and one of the best days of snooker in the semi-finals where both matches went to a deciding frame. Please let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Support from Hurricane Noah

Will review this tomorrow. Noah^Talk 23:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry for not getting to this. I have been busy with a lot going on right now. I will leave comments today after my college class. Noah^Talk 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Qualifying for the tournament was due to be held between 8 and 15 April 2020 at the English Institute of Sport, Sheffield, but this was also postponed. Qualifying instead took place from 21 to 28 July at the originally planned venue. This could be condensed into a single sentence. The year also isn't needed as it is specified in the previous sentences. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• maximum in a professional competition. Missing "break". Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree - a maximum is a synonym for a maximum break and I don't want to reuse the word break over and over. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Link World Snooker Championship in the background as the first mention outside lead. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Also Sheffield should be linked at first mention. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • DoneBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Friday 31 July to Sunday 16 August I would remove the days of the week as they aren't mentioned elsewhere. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a holdover from when we had a discussion as the event traditionally ends on bank holiday Monday in May. changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The event features a 32-player main draw to be contested If this is discussing the 2020 one in particular, it should be written in past tense.
  • No, this is more general. It's been 32-players for many, many years. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Also, I would split that sentence up at the semicolon as it is a big boy. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There's already a semi-colon so I split into two sentences as well.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The tournament is the last of 17 ranking events in the 2019–20 season on the World Snooker Tour. Was the last now that it is over? Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's still the last of 17 ranking events in that season (the new season just started).Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• This is the 44th consecutive year that the tournament has been held at the Crucible Past tense needed. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Rodney beat me to this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The tournament is sponsored by sports betting company Past tense needed. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Government" capitalization isn't consistent. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Multiple instances of "best of x" and "best of x frames"; hyphens are needed. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Stevens won frame 13 before Higgins won the next frame despite requiring Stevens to make foul shots and then frame 15 to win 10–5 This needs a little love. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • DoneBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The 2010 winner Neil Robertson met Liang Wenbo Comma needed before and after the name since the title is out front. Noah^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• With the scores later tied at 11–11 Should be score singular. Noah^Talk 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• the stage of the tournament again Was it meant to be "that stage"? Noah^Talk 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That is everything I noticed with the prose of the article. I do have another FAC up if you would be interested. It could use someone outside the field to help make things more understandable in places if it isn't already. Noah^Talk 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Hurricane Noah No worries. I'm quite behind, but I'll put something there now. Thanks for taking a look at this - I've addressed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Source Review: BennyOnTheLoose

• "...World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association..." is in the lead but not in the article body and is uncited. (I'm not sure that subsidiary is the right word, as Matchroom Sport is the controlling entity of World Snooker/World Snooker Tour (link) -as well as being one of the broadcasters!)
• Background: "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the snooker world rankings and a pre-tournament qualification round" not verified in the cited source.

• • • I've added something for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Background: "Stephen Hendry ... seven times" seems to all be supported by the BBC source, so the Global Snooker source archived in 2012 can be removed here.

• • • That can be removed then. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Format: "This was the 44th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible, and the 52nd successive world championship to be contested through the modern knockout format" - not verified by sources cited.

• • • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Qualifying stage: "The final round of qualifying was played on 27 and 28 July, with matches played as the best of 19 frames over two sessions." is uncited.

• • • Sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Second round: I've added a Snooker Scene source for this being O'Sullivan's 28th appearance and a record. This is redundant as there is already a source, but I think it's more easily to verify against than the Eurosport broadcast. Happy for either ref here to be removed to avoid overkill.

• • • If both make the point, 2 refs is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Qualifying: I checked a number of results against the reports in Snooker Scene, no issues found. Although Snooker Scene is more reliable than snooker.org for results IMO, I'm happy to keep snooker.org as the source in the article as 1. snooker.org is the more easily accessible of the two and there is no consensus against using it; and 2. Snooker Scene doesn't include all of the nationalities and seedings for qualifying.

• • • We could easily just have both, it's no big issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Made some minor changes to parameters, hopefully uncontroversial.

• • No worries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment against criteria:

(1c): well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; TBC

(2c): consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes TBC

Other comments:

• The first World Snooker Championship in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, which was won by Joe Davis. - word in bold should probably be removed.

• • Done.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I should note that I plan to claim WikiCup points for this review. epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

• The event was one of the first to allow live audiences since the outbreak of the pandemic - I would say "the onset of the pandemic". While I don't think "outbreak" can be confused for a noun here, it still sounds strange.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• 16 players reached the main stage of the tournament - This immediately follows a semicolon, so I suggest either spelling out "16" or saying something like "of these, 16"

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• This was O'Sullivan's 37th ranking event win of his career, the highest of any player. ... This was Higgins' tenth career maximum break and his first at the World Championship; aged 45, he became the oldest player to make a maximum in a professional competition. - In my view, having two sentences in such close succession begin with "This was", is pretty awkward. I would consider combining the sentences Ronnie O'Sullivan won his sixth world title, defeating Wilson 18–8 in the final. This was O'Sullivan's 37th ranking event win of his career, the highest of any player. However, I can understand if that isn't desirable.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Background

• but was postponed until 1 July to 16 August as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. - I suggest "but was postponed to between 1 July and 16 August" for consistency with the other half of the sentence, and because "until 1 July to 16 August" sounds strange.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2015 - "as it had been" should be past tense

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Internationally, the event was broadcast by Eurosport in Europe and Australia,[18] by Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku and CCTV in China, by NowTV in Hong Kong, and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil - In this case, you should add semicolons to break up this serial list, since each list item also has commas. I.e. Internationally, the event was broadcast by Eurosport in Europe and Australia; by Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku and CCTV in China; by NowTV in Hong Kong; and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• A reduced audience was to be admitted to allow for social distancing - I'm not sure, but should the sentence clarify that social distancing required more space between people?

Hmm, I have linked it - to me its enough to say there was a limited audience due to the pandemic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• The event, along with the Glorious Goodwood Festival and two county cricket matches, was being used as a trial for live audiences by the UK Government, ahead of restrictions being lifted in October - If I understand correctly, the UK government wanted these events to go forward in order to determine the feasibility of live-audience events being held after restrictions ended in October?
  • Indeed - I thought this was pretty explicit? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, it is heavily implied. I was just checking to see if I understood correctly - I must've gotten something mixed up. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Also, "UK government" should probably be lowercase unless it is a proper noun.
  • Her Majesty's Goverment is indeed a proper noun with various names. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In that case, it looks fine. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• the sporting event pilots, previously postponed, would resume - How about "the previously postponed sporting event pilots would resume"?
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Tournament summary

• health concerns over the coronavirus - I would be consistent in using "coronavirus", as the rest of the article mentions "COVID-19 pandemic", and it may not automatically be clear that these are the same.

They... aren't the same thing? Coronavirus is the branch of disease as I understand it, whilst COVID-19 is the specific disease. Whichever, but I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, these are different things. The specific coronavirus being mentioned is the one that causes COVID-19, which was my concern. The current wording works fine. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ding had not played in any tournaments since the COVID-19 pandemic - since the onset of the pandemic? (Only because the pandemic is still ongoing)
  • changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Two 50-minute frames were won by King, leading to a deciding frame - I suggest using active voice just to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph.
  • reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Williams potted the black, and also the respotted black to win the frame - there should probably be a comma after "the respotted black".
  • Hmm, I'm not sure. He won the frame because he potted the respotted black, which is the tense. I could be off base here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • OK. I think it would be fine in this case, then. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• The pair were reprimanded by referee Jan Verhaas, however, Clarke was followed out of the arena by McGill. - is there a particular reason that McGill followed Clarke out of the arena? Also, this should probably be in the active voice too.
  • They had a barny backstage by all accounts. However RSs are content with just saying that he followed him, rather than suggest something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I see. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Wilson, however extended - there should also be a comma after "however" because that word is used as a qualifier for the text that follows it.
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• The penultimate frame saw McGill be trapped in a snooker, - This wording strikes me as strange: it raises ambiguity about whether McGill was becoming trapped in that frame, or he was already trapped. I think you can change the word "be" to "become", in the case of the former, or remove it altogether in the latter instance.
  • Hmm, I don't think become trapped in a snooker is quite right either. I've reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• He also stated that his shot choice was due to not being able to control shots out of snookers the same as Selby - I'd rephrase this too, particularly the wording "not being able" (there should probably be a noun there instead of a verb) and "the same as Selby". E.g. "He also stated that his shot choice was due to his inability to control shots out of snookers the same way Selby did".
  • Changed - I like that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying

• Originally organised for all matches to be best-of-19 frames, the first three rounds were played as best-of-11 frames, with only the final round being played as best-of-19 - There might be a dangling modifier here. I'd add a word such as "although" in the beginning, e.g. "Although all matches were originally organised to be best-of-19 frames..."
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Also, two invited players from the World Women's Snooker Tour, Ng On-yee and Nutcharut Wongharuthai, declined to participate due to COVID-19 safety concerns - I would move "also" to before "declined". It sounds strange to begin a sentence like this with "also".
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: These are all the prose comments I have. epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Cheers epic thanks for the review - all seems pretty minor stuff, but improves the article. Let me know if there is more to do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: No problem. I support this article for promotion now. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

Just in the process of finishing this off, so will place my comments here within next 24 hours. I'll do some general tidying and non-contentious copyediting afterwards. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I think I just about met my self-imposed 24 hour deadline! Here are my comments on the main article. I do still want to take a closer look at the sources so I'll get back to you on that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Change "The tournament was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association and the World Snooker Tour," to "The tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association," ?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Only the final of the 1927 WSC was held at Camkin's Hall, not the whole thing, so I think this sentence is inaccurate. Would this make more sense: "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England; Joe Davis won the title."
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• General background runs into sentence "The previous year's championship was won by England's Judd Trump..."; as we're now talking about the 2019 event, it's a bit confusing. We need to either explicitly state "The 2019 championship was won by England's Judd Trump..." OR use this sentence to start a new mini-paragraph?
  • 2019 is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• I find it rather confusing that we call the organisation the "World Snooker Tour", as in "World Snooker Tour chairman Barry Hearn" but then in the next sentence we refer to the actual World Snooker Tour. Could we get away with just calling him the "World Snooker chairman Barry Hearn"? In fact, do we actually need to mention him by name in relation to this announcement? Could we just say: "World Snooker [Tour] announced..."?
  • Kettle = worms. I agree, it's a silly rebrand and causes exactly this issue. However, we can't just change the name of the organisation because it makes no sense. Arguably however, Barry is also the chairman of the Tour as a whole. I've removed his name, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Link 2019–20 snooker world rankings in "the latest 2019–20 snooker world rankings"?
• Move Seed (sports) link up to first mention of seeding in Format section? i.e. "with seeding given to players" instead of "for the main draw as seeded players" lower down.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• At end of Format subsection, "played as best-of-19 frames" should be "played as the best of 19 frames", and "played as best-of-25 frames" should be "played as the best of 25 frames". This is because "best of 19 frames" literally just means "the best out of a total of 19 frames"; the "best of 19" bit does not modify the word "frames", and since "best of 19" is not a compound modifier there is no need for any hyphens. However, "a best-of-35-frames match" at end of paragraph is correct because the hyphenated "best-of-35-frames" is a four-part compound modifier for the word "match".
  • Yeah, I'm not really all that clever! I've made the changes though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe add a sentence above the prize fund list to introduce the list? Something like "The total prize fund was £2,395,000, of which the winner received £500,000." Then you could remove the "Total: £2,395,000" entry from the list which I think looks a bit out of place.
  • Yeah, I agree. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying (1)

• Two red-links in first para don't look very nice... will these articles be created any time soon? I can help!
  • Yeah, the challenge Tour final should be made - not sure about Ivan Kakovskii, probably at best borderline. Might remove redlink.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Two-time runner-up" might look better as "Twice runner-up"?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "The match went to a deciding frame" has a cuegloss link on "deciding frame" but there doesn't appear to be an entry for that term in the glossary... do you want me to make one!?
  • I've said before I don't really check that article, but we should definately have some sort of item Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    •  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Link COVID-19 in last para, as this is specifically referring to concerns over catching the disease rather than the more general COVID-19 pandemic which has already been linked higher up (so it wouldn't be an overlink as such).
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Louis Heathcote, Alexander Ursenbacher, and Sam Baird are all mentioned a second time using their full names (after being linked at first mention), so should they not be referred to as Heathcote, Ursenbacher, and Baird after their first mention in the section? "after defeating Louis Heathcote 10–5" > "defeating Louis Heathcote 10–5"; "Alexander Ursenbacher became the first Swiss player" > "Ursenbacher became the first Swiss player"; and "lost only one frame in his win over Sam Baird" > "lost only one frame in his win over Baird"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

First round

• "After the performance, Williams said..." — sounds a bit odd, maybe change to "After his victory, Williams said..."?
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• In para 4, "Between frames 9 and 13 there were four century breaks in a row." — strictly this should be "frames nine and 13" but I didn't change it as obviously it gives two different numeral formats in close proximity, might look odd.
  • MOS:NUM actually says to not do exactly that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe add this sentence at end of section: "Kyren Wilson received a bye through the first round, after Anthony Hamilton withdrew from the event at the end of qualifying." because at the moment his bye is not mentioned until we get into the 2nd round section. (see below)7
  • hmm, I don't think we need to go over this twice, it is mentioned in Second round. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Second round

• "Kyren Wilson received a bye through the first round, after Anthony Hamilton withdrew and met Martin Gould." — I would add the bye statement to the end of the first round section (see above) and change this sentence to: "Having received a bye through the first round, Kyren Wilson met Martin Gould in the second round, Wilson's first match of the main draw."
  • I don't really see what we gain by saying it twice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Link to "foul" in glossary: "barring foul shots"?
  • A foul (sports) is quite a common term, but that's a better term.. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• In "frame-ball pink", link to "frame ball" in glossary? However, pink is already linked, so might this give a SOB problem? Also, would need to unlink frame ball lower down in QF section.
  • Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Quarter-finals

• "Selby commented that he had lost confidence at reaching that stage of the tournament again." — Not sure this is very clear, do you mean he had lost confidence that he could reach that stage of the tournament again? Or are you saying that he had lost confidence once he got to that stage? (I think it's the first, in which case please reword?)
  • The first, reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Trump was contesting the Crucible curse" — Not sure "contesting" is the right word here. Maybe change to "facing the Crucible curse", meaning he was "up against" it?
  • changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "no such player had retained the championship" sounds odd — maybe change to "no player had retained the championship in defence of a maiden world title." or simply just "no player had successfully defended a maiden world title."
  • changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Scot Anthony McGill and Norway's Kurt Maflin" > do we really need to accentuate their nationalities here? On first reading this, I thought "Scot Anthony McGill" was the guy's name, as Scott is itself a first name!
  • Yeah, I like these, but I've changed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• Shouldn't we mention at start of section that the semi-finals used a single table setup (with the sessions alternating between the two matches)? And should we not explicitly state that the first semi-final was between Kyren Wilson and Anthony McGill (to match the statement "The second semi-final was between Mark Selby and Ronnie O'Sullivan." lower down)?
  • I've never actually seen a snooker article mention how many tables are being played on, so I'm not sure about adding here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• The World Snooker source used in paras 2&3 (ref.166: "Wilson Beats Champion Trump") is about the Trump/Wilson QF, not the Wilson/McGill SF. For example, it certainly doesn't say anything about the record combined score of 103–83! Maybe this source should be used in para 2 of QF section and we could do with a different source here?
  • changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think "wracked" is a word. Did you mean "whacked" or "rapped"!?
  • the second one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• "broke down" is snooker jargon and is not included in the glossary, so maybe we shouldn't be using it here?
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Selby quote in last para is a bit long-winded and repetitive, maybe cut the last bit out, i.e. "I felt he was being a bit disrespectful to me and the game, not many players would just get down and hit them at 100 mph when you put them in a snooker. Some would look to work it out or put you in trouble. It just felt like he was doing that throughout the match..."
  • changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Final

• "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and his 37th ranking event victory, the most of any player." — Last bit sounds awkward to me. Possibly change to "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and his 37th ranking event victory, a record number of ranking titles." or just "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and a record 37th ranking event victory."
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying (2)

• Could we rename this section "Qualifying stage" as there is already a section further up called "Qualifying" (under "Tournament summary") and it would be consistent with "Qualifying stage centuries" subheading in next section...?
  • I'd rather change it in the summary to avoid fixing links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Fixes needed per previous comments (if you agree): "organised to be best-of-19 frames" > "organised to be the best of 19 frames"; "played as best-of-11 frames" > "played as the best of 11 frames"; "final round being played as best-of-19." > "fourth-round matches played as the best of 19 frames."
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Likewise, "Best-of-n frames" in table headings should be "Best of n frames" per previous comments
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(End)

• I've worked my way through this now Rodney Baggins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments from Rodney Baggins (5 Oct)

• There's a slight error in the semantics of this sentence in the lead: "It was the 44th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, and was the final ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season." The two clauses don't sit naturally together in the sentence. The subject of the first clause is the year 2020, but the subject of the second clause is the 2020 event, so grammatically speaking they cannot share the opening "It". (I notice same thing in 2019 article). Not sure what to do about it. Maybe break off first clause as a single sentence: "It was the 44th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible." followed by "The final ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season, the tournament was originally scheduled..."?

• I still think the 1927 sentence in Background section sounds awkward. The first clause needs to state explicitly that the first WSC was in 1927, i.e. "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927..." My suggestion for the whole sentence would be: "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis." or even "and the first world title was won by Joe Davis."

• In Qualifying stage, it says: "This was the first time in 17 years that Carter did not play in the main stage of the event"... It was actually 18 years since he last failed to make it to the main stage (last knocked out in qualifiers in 2002), so we're counting from 2002 to 2020. It was 17 years since Carter first made it to the Crucible (in 2003) but that's not what we're saying here. Anyway, might it not be clearer to just change this to say "first time since 2002". In fact, I'd change the sentence to "This was the first time since 2002 that Carter had not qualified for the main stage of the event."

• I still think it's odd that we don't mention Wilson's bye in the First round section, since that's the round that it applies to, and it's currently not mentioned until we get into the Second round section. I certainly think the sentence needs rewording because at the moment it says "Anthony Hamilton withdrew and met Martin Gould" which isn't true. Suggest expanding to: "Kyren Wilson met Martin Gould in the second round; this was Wilson's first match of the main draw, having received a bye through the first round when Anthony Hamilton withdrew from the event at the end of qualifying."

• I would say it's quite a fundamental piece of info to say how many tables are being used in the arena at each stage of the main draw. When the dividing screen is removed for the semi-finals, the atmosphere in the arena changes as all eyes are on the one match, and the commentators tend to make quite a big thing of it. The single table setup is mentioned in the 2017 article and the number of tables is included for each round in the 2018 article (that one even has a cuegloss link in Semi-finals!) I'm thinking we should retrospectively add this info to 2019 and also include it in 2020, and make the articles consistent. I'd be happy to sort that out if you agree. What do you think? (I notice that we do mention the eight-table set-up in the Qualifying section.)

References (6 Oct)

• Why do all the Sporting Life refs have UK set as their location? It looks a bit out of place. The BBC Sport refs don't have it, for example.

• It looks like the Eurosport archives aren't working. I just get a blue screen with a message saying "Eurosport is unavailable in your region" – or is it just me!? Examples: refs. 14, 31, 57, 74, etc. etc.

• This statement in Background section is not verified by Ref.1: "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the snooker world rankings and a pre-tournament qualification round." (I already added a new source to cover another statement lower down that was also not verified by Ref.1.)

• Ref.15: This sources the new dates (31 July to 16 Aug) but says nothing about the tournament being "the last of 17 ranking events in the 2019–20 season on the World Snooker Tour," which is the statement it is tagged against.

• Ref.7 & Ref.45: Why are these two BBC Sport articles in a different format to all the others? The URLs have both got an /amp branch in them for some reason and they look different to the others. What does the amp bit mean? Why not just use [11] and [12]? Is it something to do with the archives for the original URLs being problematic?

• Refs. 41/62/145: Shropshire Star looks like a tabloid. The articles contain clickbait & pop-up ads.

• The RTE refs (42/113/117) have no work alias parameter. I did try adding website=rte.ie, but Benny deleted it (I think because there was already a publisher param and you shouldn't really have both?) Maybe we just need to get rid of the publisher param altogether or change it to work=RTÉ ?

• That change would probably have been suggested by the script and looked OK. Happy for my change there to be overwritten. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ref.41: Express & Star looks like a tabloid. Has it anything to do with the Daily Express / Daily Star, which are both blatant tabloids?

• Refs. 57/70/71/76: These articles were all live reports that used the same URL ([13]) and this URL was then reused for the article on the final "...Ronnie O'Sullivan Beats Kyren Wilson" It appears that the four articles just used this URL temporarily while the matches were in progress, hence all titles have "World Snooker Championship LIVE – " at the start. So they can't really be used. Unless you can find some archives that were captured for the specific dates, but Eurosport archives are looking a bit temperamental.

• Ref.100: This seems to be citing a TV program that was shown live on the Eurosport channel on 1 August. I don't see how we can use that as it cannot be verified.

• Ref.142: London Evening Standard is described as a tabloid (in its wiki article). Should we really be using it?

• Ref.143: This source fails verification because I can't find the quote anywhere in the report or the video. I think we need another source for the statement: "Although O'Sullivan had won four of their six previous meetings, Wilson had won their latest encounter in the semi-finals of the 2020 Welsh Open."

So, that's everything from me. Cheers for now, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Images look OK except for File:World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png. Although it is probably below TOO in the US, the UK has very low standards for copyright protection. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, but it could be local uploaded as PD-logo (enwiki only pays attention to US copyright laws). (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from Homeostasis07

Lead

• "It was the 44th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, and it was the final ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season."

^ There's an unnecessary repetition of "it" in this sentence, and is there any way you could quantify what a "ranking event" is here? I was confused about the term until I read Snooker world rankings (which is linked to later in the 2nd paragraph of the lead). So it may be a good idea to add that link to 'ranking event' here, and remove the link in the 2nd paragraph?

• • Agreed. That is fine in this case - moved. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• "The tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, and was broadcast by the BBC, Eurosport and Matchroom Sport."

^ Reads like it's missing a comma after Tour.

• • Done. Good catch, this was changed earlier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

• "The first World Snooker Championship in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, which was won by Joe Davis."

^ Could be more simply reworded to "The final of the first World Snooker Championship in 1927 was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and was won by Joe Davis." I see this sentence was mentioned by another reviewer above, so I hope my rephrasing is to both of your liking.

• • I'm not so fond of this. The point is that the event was first run in 1927 (and is almost 100 years old), the info on the final itself is quite important, but not why it's being brought up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Couldn't find anything to complain about in Format, Coverage or Prize fund sub-sections.

Qualifying stage

• "Allan Taylor won the Challenge Tour play-off to gain a two-year professional tour card prior to qualifying, and won both of his first two matches 6–1." → "Allan Taylor won the play-off of the 2019/20 Challenge Tour to gain a two-year professional tour card prior to qualifying, and won both of his first two matches 6–1."

^ That is, unless you know of someone intending on creating 2019/20 Challenge Tour Playoff? Since there's no corresponding article for the 2018/19 Challenge Tour, I doubt one will be created anytime soon.

• • Well, there was no playoff in 2018/19, so it won't have been created. The playoff itself is notable enough for an article of its own merit, so I don't see the need to remove it. Also see WP:REDLINK for where its suitable to retain links to articles to promote them being created like in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Will review subsequent prose sections later, as the article gets quite technical from this point onward. Having said that, there's quite a bit of WP:Overlink in the 'Main draw' section. I'd understand if you want to link every name during the first round phase, but there's no need to link the same names over and over again in subsequent rounds. It seems the 'Highlight duplicate links' tool isn't working anymore, so I'm afraid this will need to be done manually. I know this is a tedious task. So let me know if you want me to chip in with link removal at any point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Homeostasis07 - tables and brackets (in this case) are exempt from OL, as well as things like captions. Highlight duplicate links script is working as it should. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So it must just be me and/or the browser I'm using. The thing just won't run, even on articles I know contain dup links. Nevermind. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Have you successfully used it before? Bare in mind it only displays on looking at a preview/article, and not edit source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tournament summary

• I honestly found myself becoming bored reading line after line of 'player 1 was ahead until X happened, then player 2 took the lead until Y happened, with player 1 winning the game by [X score]'. But I guess, as a sports article, this style of prose is similar to what's found in any other sports FAs: goals and points and scores and events which had an impact on the overall game, etc. Like I said elsewhere, I genuinely don't know anything about snooker, but even for me, this section was easy to follow. I particularly liked what you did in the Ronnie O'Sullivan vs Mark Williams paragraph in Quarter-finals. No typos jumped out at me either.
  • Good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying

• If you've followed a template, then please disregard this point, but wouldn't it make more sense for this section to be included above the Tournament summary? The qualifying stage of the main tournament took place concurrent to the qualifying stage for the amateurs, right?
  • There was no seperate qualification for amateur players, there were some nominated to play in the qualification round with the professionals. This is here, as it follows the main draw. There was a discussion somewhere on the archives of WT:SNOOKER about how these should be ordered; but this is where it traditionally sits, other FAs such as 2020 Masters, 2019 World Snooker Championship and 1985 World Snooker Championship all have this in this area. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I accept your responses to my previous points. Will be happy to support this for promotion soon enough. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. I'm satisfied with the changes you've made to the article. Happy to support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Riegelmann Boardwalk

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wooden boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. First proposed in the 1890s, the boardwalk opened in 1923, and has been renovated and expanded several times since then. Its namesake is a borough president who didn't want the boardwalk to be named after him. There are several attractions and landmarks on this boardwalk, which became a New York City designated landmark in 2016.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man (who incidentally also reviewed Parachute Jump, another Coney Island-related FAC). After a much-appreciated copy edit by Tdslk, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lede feels a little dry. Could easily be two paragraphs, but is quite a long article in comparrison, anything we could add? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added a few sentences to beef up the lead. epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Might be personal preference, but could we move the first two images to the right? Feels a little cramped Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
• five pergolas[a] were complete - is the note necessary to be here and not at the end of the sentence? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
• The boardwalk is also used as a bike lane. Cycling is allowed from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day, except during summers when cycling is curtailed after 10 a.m.[17] - do we need a para for one sentence? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
• You pipe to the redirect Childs Restaurants (Coney Island Boardwalk location). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• and Dreamland (1904 amusement park). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Same with Rockaway Beach (beach). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed - this was before I decided on making the Rockaway Beach and Boardwalk article at that title. epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much here. I do think there should be a little merging of a few paragraphs that are quite short, but I didn't see all that much that would be in opposition here Epicgenius Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your comments. I've gone through the article and addressed these issues. Let me know what you think of these edits. epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from Therapyisgood

I don't believe the use of {{open access}} is appropriate on the majority of references here. From Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required: "There are several url-holding parameters. Each may be marked with an access icon. Links inserted with any of the url-holding parameters are expected to be free-to-read by default, so |url-access=free is not valid." Therapyisgood (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: You're right, thanks for pointing this out. I've removed that template. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for over a month with relatively little activity, and not much has happened in recent weeks. It will be archived soon if it does not attract some additional review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm Sonic. Sonic the Hedgehog! – Sonic
Not that irritating hedgehog again! ATTACK!! – Doctor Eggman

— Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)

Even if you don't follow video games, there's no way you've never heard of Sonic the Hedgehog. It's the series that single-handedly ended Nintendo's monopoly on the market, the franchise that turned Sega into a corporate behemoth and industry leader, and the brand that proved how effective youth marketing can be. Maybe you played the games in the '90s, when Sonic was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. Or the 3D games of the early 2000s. Or maybe you or your kids watched the TV shows. Or you know about the memes and bizarre fanbase. Sonic's been a huge part of pop culture for almost 30 years, and I think it'll be staying around for a lot longer. This article chronicles the entire history of the series, through all of its greatest accomplishments and most devastating embarrassments.

I began working on this page around October 2019 and finally finished up the bulk of the work in early March. It was not an easy task—I essentially had to blow up the whole thing and start from scratch. Compare October to now: there are almost 500 references, a testament to how I had to cover essentially every aspect of a franchise that's seen so many ups and downs. These references ranged from old magazines to books to recent online retrospectives. It took a lot of time. But it was a labor of love and I'm extremely satisfied with how it's turned out. I hope you'll enjoy the article. Before starting, I'd like to thank Indrian for giving the article a thorough GA review, and Red Phoenix and Darkwarriorblake for participating in a peer review. My goal is to get this on the main page for the 30th anniversary on June 23, 2021. Now, I've got to go—I need to find the computer room. JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - at 286,991 bytes, this is way larger than the longest article I think I've reviewed, Maya civilization, which was on the border of being too long. I wonder why this article has to be so long when most of the info should alreayd be covered in the spin of articles. See WP:article size. Especially the intro seems bloated, could be summarised much further. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: the vast majority of the bytes are taken up by the references. The actual article itself is "only" 62kB, whereas the article you linked is 95kB. As this is one of the largest Japanese media franchises, I think it's sort of expected that it'll be a big article, but I'm willing to trim some of it down. Is there anything in particular you think should be trimmed? (I'm not opposed to trimming the intro as well, though I do think it's proportional to the content of the article.) JOEBRO64 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the intro should be shorted, see WP:lead length. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: how does it look now? JOEBRO64 17:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks better to me. I'm not exactly an expert on this kind of article, but I'd like to review once someone more familiar has had their say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by GamerPro64

Going to try my best at reviewing this nearly 500 referenced article so this will be a slow process. Will start by saying that Ref 12 has a date error with it. GamerPro64 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• So I have some reservations for the use of a Sonic cosplay near the end of the article. Especially due to cosplaying as Sonic is not even part of the body of text. GamerPro64 00:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: fixed the date error. As for the image, do you think any of the media we've got at Commons could replace it? I was thinking maybe the Macy's parade time lapse since that's mentioned in the article. JOEBRO64 21:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • If you mean when Sonic's balloon popped during one year, I think that would be interesting. Or anything from the parade would work. GamerPro64 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64: added in the time lapse. Unfortunately all the images/videos of the 1993 one where the balloon popped seem to be copyrighted so I'm a bit wary on using them. JOEBRO64 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• So the time lapse looks good. Another comment I have is why is Sonic Forces not listed in the sales section? Is there not any concrete stats for the game? GamerPro64 04:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: Sega stopped regularly giving out concrete sales numbers a while ago, so we don't know the exact numbers for Forces other than that it sold well. They did give the 1mil number for Mania, but that's it. JOEBRO64 11:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

After going over the article, I feel comfortable in giving this nomination a Support. GamerPro64 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TarkusAB

I'll do a review. If I don't get to it by October 6, ping me. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph in Saturn era, you go from mentioning Sonic Team's reform in Japan, to 3D Blast, then back to Sonic Team with Nights, then back to 3D Blast. I think it would be better to introduce 3D Blast after all the Sonic Team/Nights info.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• The Development section might be better titled History. That's how it felt to me. It's not just development, as it does talk about critical and commercial reception too. I suppose it doesn't touch on the history of the franchise, only the games. So maybe Games history or something like that. But even just History would be OK. Readers will know where to look in the article for info on other franchise elements.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• OK, the Story section. Before I went into this section, the heading made me think it would be an explanation of the overall series story elements. I finally got that in the last paragraph. The first two paragraphs about abandoned story drafts for Sonic 1 dragged on and feel like they belong in the Sonic 1 article and not this franchise article. Those abandoned drafts have really no relation to the franchise as it's known now. I think the one last paragraph for Story would be OK, though if you feel differently, it could be combined with Characters.
  • How does it look now? I combined the story stuff with the characters section and deleted the Sonic 1 concepts. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Crossovers section. Take out the Rad Mobile and Flicky pieces and put it into the Development/History section if wanted there, then I think the rest would be better served as a Legacy subsection. It feels weird in the middle here, like you didn't know where to put it.
  • Moved Rad Mobile to History, Flicky to characters, and the rest to Legacy. JOEBRO64 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Music section. I feel there's a problem with undue weight here. The first three paragraphs go into incredible detail on the music production for the first three games. Despite the hatnote and picture for Crush 40, Jun or his band are not mentioned until paragraph 4. The final two paragraphs glaze over the music compositions for the remaining games. If the music for the first three games were that important, it needs to be demonstrated why. Maybe they were better received and more well known, maybe they built a foundation upon which later soundtracks built upon.
  • I actually moved most of the information to a separate article called Music of Sonic the Hedgehog, which is certainly a notable topic on its own. The main reason there was an imbalance was that the franchise didn't have a consistent musical direction until Senoue came with 3D Blast and Adventure. JOEBRO64 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Rest of the article looks good.
• (Edit): One other thing. Regarding the video of the Macy's day parade. It would be better to screecap the moment Sonic transverses the screen and use it as an image. Requiring the reader to play the video and wait 40 seconds for him to zip by is not very helpful.
  • I did what FunkMonk suggested below. As for copyright concerns, Sonic is not the subject of the video (the parade is) and the file was kept in a 2017 deletion discussion, so while I'm not well-versed in Commons rules I think it's alright. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Just use the thumbtime parameter, as for example here:[14] I wonder if there might be copyright issues with the file, though, the uploader of course doesn't own Sonic's likeness. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: responded above. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Article is looking really great, I support promotion. As someone who has edited extensively in the Sonic sphere (and written 6 GAs on Sonic games), I think the page is worthy of a star. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Magnavox Odyssey

Nominator(s): PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Third in a series of early video game FACs (Spacewar!, Computer Space), here we have the Odyssey, the first video game console. Released in 1972 after 6 years of development and 21 years after Ralph Baer first had the idea, it had the good fortune to come out not only the year after Computer Space proved arcade video games could be a thing, but only a couple months before Pong, allowing for a mutual sales growth for both of them due to how similar Pong and the Odyssey's Table Tennis were. Though, as 20 years and US$100 million of lawsuits in Magnavox's favor proved, that wasn't exactly a coincidence. Calling one of Baer's patents for the console "the pioneering patent of the video game art", as a judge did, is frankly pushing it, and calling him the father of video games requires ignoring a lot of earlier video game history, but it's safe to say that his work on the Odyssey launched the entire concept of video games in the home before any other company had even considered the idea. It draws a line and three dots, and not much else, but the Odyssey is one of the first parts of the multi-billion dollar video game industry. I originally wrote this article in 2016, but worked it up to bring to FAC now due to better sources only recently coming out. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Spicy

Quite a well-written article. Speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's not particularly interested in video games, I found this a very accessible and enjoyable read. Comments below.

Not a full image review, but I have a couple of concerns about the images:

• I’m not sure the public domain tags on File:Magnavox-Color-Screen-Overlays.jpg and File:Magnavox-Odyssey-Accessories.jpg are valid. These are photographs of presumably copyrighted artwork, which would generally need permission from the original artist in addition to the photographer.
  • There is also some copyrighted art in File:Festival_du_Jeu_Vidéo_-_2010-09-11_-_Magnavox_Odyssey_1.jpg but I think it's de minimis
• In the NFCC rationale for File:Magnavox_odyssey_gameplay.jpg you state that the game is copyrighted. While the actual game is copyrighted, the elements shown in the photo - three white squares and a line - seem like they would fall under the threshold of originality in the US. If this is the case then I am not sure the NFCC rationale is valid - hard to see a justification for using someone's copyrighted photo if an image like this is in the public domain.

(I'm not an expert on image copyright, though, so would appreciate feedback from more experienced image reviewers).

• I'll hold off on a full image review before removing the two images, though I understand your point and won't argue it. I disagree on the final point- a digital image representing the visual elements is very different from the fuzzy analog shapes that would have been shown on a television in 1972, and I think that an actual picture of a CRT television showing a game is more relevant than a clean digital reproduction, even if it's fair use. I appreciate your point that it may still be free use- I'm not sure, I was playing it safe since it was a crop of someone else's television set. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that the white dots and lines are simple enough to be free use. But then you should take a free use picture of the TV and game, and not rely on an uncredited internet image. Also consider CRT emulators. - hahnchen 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on prose:

• It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white, with differing behavior for the dots depending on the game played, and with no sound capabilities. - it seems a little jarring to introduce the final part of the sentence with “and”, because it’s talking about what the console can't do, while the sentence opens by talking about what it's capable of
• The Odyssey console came packaged with dice, paper money, and other board game paraphernalia to go along with the games” - “go along with” seems informal; what about something like “to accompany the games”?
• The idea for a video game console was thought up by Baer in August 1966 - “thought up” also seems informal, would replace this with “conceived” or similar
• The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used by different games to reset individual elements - is “by different games” necessary?
• The games include plastic overlays which stick to the television via static cling, to create visuals for the game - do we need "for the game"? Seems like this is implied
• Different games that use the same game card can have different overlays - the first “different” seems unnecessary, and in fact confusing, since the “different games” are actually the same things with different overlays
• and demonstrated it for months prior to Magnavox dealerships and media. - seems like there’s something missing here? “prior to its appearance in Magnavox dealerships…” maybe? (have not read the sources so just guessing at what might be meant here)
• Magnavox won more than US$100 million in the various patent lawsuits and settlements involving the Odyssey related patents - is it necessary to specify “patent lawsuits” when you later say "involving the Odyssey related patents"?

• Done; done; done; tried to adjust to make it more clear that what it resets depends on the game; done; done; tweaked (it was demonstrated to the dealerships + media over that summer); Done. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy: Thanks for the review! Responded below both sections. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy: I've now removed the two images you raised concerns about and replaced the third with your suggestion, as the consensus seems to agree with you on that, so I believe I've now addressed all of your points. --PresN 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now that the image issues have been resolved & the article has been reviewed by people knowledgeable in the subject area I am happy to support. Just want to add that I think you'd have a valid fair use claim for the image of the overlays, since it's an integral part of the gameplay and there is no free alternative. Spicy (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indrian

• "It was developed by a small team led by Ralph H. Baer at Sanders Associates and released by Magnavox in the United States in September 1972 and overseas the following year." - I know we do not want to get too complex in the lead, but this is not quite accurate. Baer and his team at Sanders developed the internal hardware, but a console is more than that. The casing, the controllers, the circuit cards, the overlays and other pack-in materials, etc. were developed at Magnavox or at other partners of Magnavox. So to say that Baer developed the console is misleading.

• Reworded a bit to not imply that Baer et. al. did literally everything

• I made an additional tweak to this as well. I just want to make sure the lead does not leave the impression that design work was finished when Magnavox licensed it. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white" - It can also display one line of varying height.

• Added

• "Players place plastic overlays on the screen to create visuals" - Nitpicky again, but placing the overlays is not an act of "creation" by the players, which implies they are building something out of parts or whatnot.

• Tweaked (display)

• I tweaked this a little more. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The games do not make sounds or track scores." - Should probably refer to the system itself here as opposed to the games?

• Done

• "Baer's patents for the system and the games" - More nits to pick. One of the important patents was Baer's, but the critical patent relating to machine-controlled objects changing vectors belonged to Bill Rusch.

• Well, I only discuss the '480 and '285 patents in an attempt to streamline it, though you're right that '285 is awarded to several of them, and the one I don't discuss was to Rusch. Reworded.

• The '285 patent is not the proper patent to focus on. See the detailed explanation further down the list. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The release of the Odyssey marked the end of the early history of video games, the beginning of the first generation of video game consoles, and the rise of the commercial video game industry." - This is original research based on how Wikipedia organizes information rather than how scholars at large necessarily do. And it cannot really be considered the start of the rise of the commercial industry when Computer Space predated it by a year.

• Hmm, reworded- I don't want to lose the concept, as I think it's important to the lay reader to see that while it's not literally the first commercial video game, when it launched there was only Computer Space and I guess its '"Star Trek clone, which relatively few people ever played, and by a few months after it launched between it and Pong there was beginning to be an "industry", or at least the idea that commercial video games were possible.

• Its a little better, but I am still not completely satisfied. The problem is that "early history of video games" is a Wikipedia organizational concept. I know you want to get that article name in the lead somehow, but its not really accurate to say that the Odyssey was transitioning out of anything. Its creators did not see it as some kind of transition in computer games. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, alright, redone in the lede and legacy sections. I should just stop trying to shoehorn in these links with awkward phrasings; I really do it just to push readers to check out the rest of semi-related history but it's a stretch here.

• "which allows the player to switch the television input between the Odyssey and the regular television input cable, and presents itself like a television channel." - It is probably worth mentioning that the Odyssey tuned to Channels 3 or 4 specifically, and that this became a video game industry standard.

• Eh, added; I know it became a standard, but as the 'first' quite a lot of it became a 'standard' for at least a while, and the 3/4 thing stuck partially because most regions didn't have strong tv channels on both of those, so it's possible that even if the Odyssey had never existed, the new 'first' console would have done the same.

• "In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and game boards much like a traditional board game." - I do not believe the Odyssey came with any game boards. The only game that used a board, Invasion, was sold separately. On the flip side, it did ship with card decks, which are not mentioned here.

• Replaced

• "While the commercial video game industry did not yet exist at that point, the very first electronic computer games had been developed at the start of the 1950s, and by 1966 several early mainframe games had been developed for mainframe computers, which were typically only found in large academic or research institutions." - All true, but it really has nothing to do with Baer and his brainstorm and breaks up this material in an unhelpful way.

• Condensed, rewrote, and moved to the end of the paragraph so as not to break up the thought as it definitely got away from me there, but I do want something like it early in the development section- as a million shoddy articles have shown, there's a common conception that Baer "invented video games", but what he invented in 1966 was the video game console and the ability to play a video game in your home- whether he knew it or not, by 1966 "video games" had existed for years, they just weren't commercial or available.

• This works much better at the end of the paragraph. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "by the time he finished it he was referring to it as Channel LP, short for 'let's play'" - This is a common misreading of the material. The hardware was never called "Channel LP." He called the signal frequency on which the hardware would transmit data to the television "Channel LP."

• Fixed

• "Baer instead commandeered an empty room" - Its all nitpicks today. I don't think Baer ever described commandeering a room at this point, just a technician. I think the technician just worked wherever he normally worked. The dedicated space would come later.

• He did, actually, I don't recall which interview with him it was- he oversaw a group of ~500 of engineers/technicians (cite: Smith 143) in a fairly large space, and he had Tremblay work in a room that was far away from the main hallway so that he wouldn't get questions about it before he had something to show. "Commandeered" is maybe a bit strong- it's not like he needed to ask permission to use that room, it's just that he didn't go out of his way to tell anyone what the project in there was.

• I mean, yeah the guy had to work somewhere. My confusion was just that he later secured an official project room that he kept secret. But I agree there is no need for a change here. Consider this struck. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Baer, meanwhile, collaborated with engineer Bill Rusch on the design of the console, including developing the basis of many games for the system." - This does not quite capture the relationship here. Rusch was not a design partner on anything at this point, but they did brainstorm some game ideas together.

• Hmm, yeah, I'm combining the Feb-May 1967 discussions with the post-August development there. Fixed.

• "by coming up with a way to display three spots on the screen at once" - Just as important was making one of the dots machine-controlled. Earlier dots were only movable by the players.

• Fixed.

• "Vice President of Marketing Gerry Martin" - He was VP of Planning for Console Products, not VP of Marketing.

• Gah, that's clear in both Smith and Tristan, I don't know where that snuck in.

• George Kent should get a shout-out. We don't know anything about him but his name, but he led the Magnavox team that transformed the Brown Box into the Odyssey.

• May as well, done.

• "The games for the system were designed by Ron Bradford and Steve Lehner" - Its probably worth noting that these were outside contractors working via Bradford/Cout Design, a firm that had done work for Magnavox's ad agency in the past.

• Namedropped the firm, though it's previous history with Magnavox seems a little too much

• I feel like the article skips over a lot of important details between Baer's design of the system and the September retail launch. These include: conducting customer surveys in California and Michigan, deciding to break the system out of the Color TV Division and assigning it its own product planner, the initial launch plans in terms of how many to produce and where they would be sold (geographic areas, not the dealer exclusivity part, which is covered) and how those changed over time, the official unveiling at Tavern on the Green in May 1972, and the roadshow that followed over the next few months. Some of these things are mentioned in passing, but I think it can all be fleshed out a little for comprehensiveness. All of this info can be sourced to either Baer or Smith.

• Yeah, this and the previous two points are things that I tried to flense away to avoid bogging down the reader with small details; adding them back in.

• I think you have a decent balance now of getting some info in without weighing the article down. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the company hoped that as the first such product" - The first what? I realize its the first home video game, but the article has not actually connected the dots here.

• Now connected earlier, and connected here again since it's a ways later

• "Other sources have stated that dealers misled customers to sell more televisions" - I think its more accurate to say that other sources state that dealers may have been misleading. There is not proof, just reasonable speculation.

• Yeah, that's fair.

• I think a little fleshing out is needed on the post-launch period as well, including Don Emry producing new games and Bob Fritsche proposing several extensions of the line that were rejected. Its probably also worth noting that, per Smith, the system was discontinued and replaced with the TTL-based 100 and 200 largely due to manufacturing costs. Again, I know this is touched on briefly in the legacy section, but its probably better served being fleshed out and moved into the narrative around the performance of the system in 1973-75.

• Expanded both the Reception and Legacy sections a bit with this- Legacy for plans made for the Odyssey itself (even if they didn't happen), and Legacy for the 100/200 bits.

• "no other true home video consoles were produced until the 1976" - They are all video game consoles, putting "true" on there feels like OR.

• Reworked to avoid that word- there's a real distinction to be made between a console that only plays what it comes with and a console that can play games created for it after release, but that was a clumsy way to do it

• "saw a demonstration of the Odyssey at a dealership" - The demonstration was at a hotel. It was part of the roadshow Magnavox did between May and September

• Fixed

• "The root of the conflict was a pair of patents by Baer" - As above, one by Baer and one by Rusch.

• Reworded

• So there are a lot of patents that flew back and forth, which I think is where the confusion here lies. There are some patents with Baer's name, some with all three names, and some with just Bill Rusch's name. The two patents that were actually litigated and ruled upon in multiple cases were the '480 patent (US3728480) and the '507 patent (USRE28507E). The '507 patent is the one that secured Magnavox most of its judgments, because the '480 patent was more conceptual and the '507 patent was concrete. This was the big patent in the original suit decided in 1977; this was the patent that Activision fought literally to the death (or at least bankruptcy), and this was the patent that Nintendo tried to invalidate (alongside a reissue of the '480 patent, U.S. Patent No. Re 32,305, just to confuse the issue even more). While the patent you are currently citing, US3659285A, is quite similar to the '507 patent, its the wrong patent because '507 superseded it. And '507 is Rusch's alone. So we still need a little work on this one. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm, learning a lot about patents here- specifically, I saw a mention of a '284 patent somewhere, but then not again so I didn't include it. RE'507 is, as it turns out, the reissue of '284 (US3659284), but there's no easy linking in either the espace or google patents sites- you have to look at the actual patent, where it's written on the first page, and the fact that it's a reissue is why it has an application date in 1974- the original was in 1969. And now that I'm specifically looking for it, I see Smith referring to the '507 patent as the other important one besides '480, just as you say here. Good catch, thanks! Fixed, I hope.

On the whole, I think there is a lot of good information in here, but I believe we are still a little short of meeting the comprehensiveness FAC criteria. We are not that far off though, so I can see myself supporting before the end of the nomination period. In addition to mining Baer and Smith a little more, I would recommend sourcing DP's interview with Don Emry, which it appears has only been referenced indirectly through other sources that used pieces of it. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Responded to all but the more open-ended post-launch bullet point, which I'll sort out separately. Thanks so much for reviewing this in such depth! --PresN 03:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Okay, responded to the last one. I haven't used Emry's interview- while it's a good interview with some useful bits, I'm not confident that I can justify DigitPress as a source in this FAC, even if Smith used it as a source- it looks like an interesting site/forum, but while I'm personally lenient when it comes to interviews it's hard to say it's an RS. I actually culled a couple Baer interviews just before nominating for the same reason- small hobby sites are hard to swing. --PresN 02:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• @PresN: I don't think anything critical has been missed in the Emry interview, so that's fine, but I don't see a reliability issue. The interview subject is the source of the content, not the hobby site, and Emry is a reliable source on things that happened at Magnavox while he was there. The only time the reliability of the site would be in question would be if there was reason to believe the interview itself was a forgery. Anyway, you have cleared up nearly all of the issues I had with the article. Two more still need some attention, but we are getting close. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Okay, fixed the last two, I hope. --PresN 02:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Everything looks great! Thank you for all your hard work on the article! Indrian (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Joe

Should get to this soon. JOEBRO64 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm not terribly familiar with console articles, I'm doing a prose review. Starting with the lede and design:

• I'd add a "(1972)" after Pong in the lede.
• "The controllers, which are designed to sit on a flat surface..."
• "Different games direct the player to adjust the dials to different positions, for example to change such as changing the center line of a tennis game into the side wall of a handball game." I think it flows a bit better this way.

That's all for now. I should have more time later this week for a full review, but it's looking great so far. JOEBRO64 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• These three done in advance of the full review. --PresN 14:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• @PresN: I looked through the rest of the article and nothing glaring stood out to me. The only comment I have is on the Reception section. Do you think it'd be better to retitle it "Sales"? That seems to be the main focus. Otherwise I'm ready to support. JOEBRO64 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Yell at me if there's nothing here by the beginning of next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: poke. --PresN 02:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Overall, the article is in pretty good shape, and there are only a few issues I have before supporting.

• General and prose:
  • Overall I think the article meets criteria with regards to layout and structure; it covers the overall parts of the topic appropriately, and from my look into sources I didn't see anything that seemed missing.
  • The prose still needs a bit of work, primarily in reducing wordier sentences. Even simple stuff like Loral did not decide to pursue the idea to Loral did not pursue the idea would help.
    • I've tried to cut some of the wordiness while doing your and Masem's comments, though I have a marked tendency towards more elaborate sentences and I don't know if it's enough.

• Images:
  • I agree with Hahnchen above about File:Magnavox-Color-Screen-Overlays.jpg and File:Magnavox-Odyssey-Accessories.jpg; the use of original art seems too high to meet public domain thresholds to me. Likewise, while I understand why you want to use an example of what the gameplay "actually" looked like with File:Magnavox odyssey gameplay.jpg, I don't think the fair use rationale is strong enough; it could be replaced by a free alternative that isn't as good, but the article isn't significantly harmed by its loss.
    • Alright, well, there seems to be a consensus on that, so replacing/removing images.

• References:
  • Referencing schema generally seems internally consistent. Doesn't appear to have issues with excessive reliance on single sources, or reliance on primary sources.
  • I did spot one or two places where it looks like the publisher should be italicized (Diehard GameFan,
    • Moved publisher to website; which other one did you think should be italicized?
  • THE USPTO filings seem like they're missing publisher information, and are formatting differently with regards to author location, etc.
    • That's just the way {{Cite patent}} renders, unfortunately- it doesn't seem to match the general CS1 pattern. I'm... hesitent to haul off and design my own version of cite patent, or make up a new format with bare text, but I can if you insist.
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, and 25.
    • Ref 2 is used to cite the following passage: The controllers, designed to sit on a flat surface, contain one button marked Reset on the top of the controller and three knobs: one on the right side of the controller, and two on the left with one extending from the other. The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used to reset individual elements depending on the game, such as making a player's dot visible after it is turned off during a game. The system can be powered by six C batteries, which were included. An optional AC power supply was sold separately. The Odyssey lacks sound capability and can only display monochrome white shapes on a blank black screen. However the source does not include much of that info.
      • Okay, found it- there's no way I just made up something so specific as "6 C batteries", but completely losing a reference is unfortunately in character. That whole thing is from a PC World article, now added.
    • Ref 4 is used to cite In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and card decks much like a traditional board game—while the ref mentions these items, it doesn't directly compare them to an analog board game.
      • That sentence has drifted over the course of this FAC; removed that comparison.
    • Ref 6 and 7 are used to cite {[xt|and the next morning wrote up a four-page proposal for a US$20 "game box" that would plug into a television screen and play games on it.}} I don't have access to 6, but 7 gives "perhaps, twenty-five dollars at retail", rather than $20.
      • The quote from ref 6 (Donovan p. 11) is "The next morning he set about writing a four-page proposal setting out his ideas for a $19.95 game-playing device that would plug into a TV set.". Since they contradict, I'll defer to Baer and change it.
    • Ref 3 and 21 are used to cite the Odyssey being a financial disappointment, but I'd note that several other sources used in the article (c.f. [15] specifically push back on that summation, so it might be worth including those takes.)
      • The article doesn't call it a "financial disappointment", though, it says "the Odyssey is not generally considered a major commercial success", and the VGHF article doesn't contradict that- it counters the narrative that it was a flop due to the 1972 overproduction, but does not go so far as to declare it a major success. And it wasn't, by all indicators- they cancelled most of the planned extra games, decided not to make further versions or accessories, and cancelled production within 3 years when inflation overtook the profit margin. It sold well enough that "flop" would be wrong, though you could argue about calling it a "disappointment" as the interview Indrian wanted me to add pretty explicitly said Magnavox felt that way, but "not a major commercial success" is pretty on the nose, I think.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Responded inline; thanks for reviewing and doing a source review! --PresN 04:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Masem

I am a VG editor so I am biased here but also well aware of this area having done a lot of work in this early history area recently.

• "while doing so, Baer claims he had the idea to build something into a television set..." shouldn't this be past tense (particular with Baer now passed away?)

• Fixed 2 places that implied present tense

• "As a "game box" had little to do with the typical military contracts Sanders worked on, rather than bring the idea to his bosses Baer instead picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him." I'd flip the back part of this sentence around, eg "...worked on, Baer picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him rather than bring the idea to his bosses." (two "flipped" phrasings here , just sorting them out better).

• Flipped

• You may want to date the Brown Box prototype image since due to how you have images, its displayed a bit earlier than its discussed. Since you have the text well dated, stating in the caption that that prototype is from 1969 preps the reader that they aren't seeing the early prototypes being discussed.

• Done

• In the dev section you want want to briefly mention the patenting of the system which they did before seeking a manufacturing partner. Obviously you seek more on these later, but I think alluding to patenting in the timeline (as it would have been standard practice then) helps to show this earlier.

• Done

• In the Legacy section it is probably worthwhile to briefly note the connect to the Color TV-Game line from Nintendo since some of these were developed under license from Magnavox based on their later-generation Odyssey's. (see [16] if you need a ref).

• I feel like it's getting far afield for this article to call out specific licensees of later Odyssey dedicated consoles, as this article is about the original Odyssey only, not the 100+ line.

• In discussing the recognition Baer got, probably should also add how he is recognized as the "father of video games" or "father of home video games" (depending on which side one takes).

• Added

• Minor nit but while Bushnell is THE name for Atari, not including Ted Dabney at least once is a bit of a oversight. But it is Bushnell's story about the lawsuits over Pong/Odyssey so Dabney only needs a brief mention. Eg "Inspired, when he quit Nutting to start his own company, Atari, with Ted Dabney, he assigned..." would be sufficient.

• Good point, added

• Date Pong 's release in the Lawsuit section

• Done

• Reading on the lawsuit, mentioning the patents earlier in the Dev section might help the flow here. I don't know if you need to establish what the patents were in the Dev or this Lawsuit section, I feel they would fit better in Dev , and then that description doesn't break the flow in the Lawsuit section, but it could go either way.

• Hmm, I think it's better to leave it here- as per the discussion above, there are other patents beyond those two, those are just the ones that were the basis for the lawsuits, so it'd be awkward to describe only a couple of patents in the dev section without explaining the context why those were more important for a couple sections. I do now mention that patents were filed in the dev section, as per above.

• I believe (Based on what I researched over for video game clone that the Atari-Magnavox settlement also gave Atari perpetual licenses to the Baer patents, which was sorta critical for Atari to make the home versions of Pong. (based on "They Create Worlds", here [17]) This was something not afforded the others involved in the lawsuit (which were seen to judgement).

• I think that is getting in the weeds a bit, and I'm not entirely sure the implication is true- specifically, while the settlement may have included that Atari bought a permanent license, there were a ton of Pong clones, so all the other manufacturers either bought limited or perpetual licenses themselves (and figuring out which was which isn't doable), and actually many of the lawsuits besides Atari were also settled and Smith doesn't specify their terms. It also implies that Atari got a better deal than others due to settling- which is an urban legend that isn't true (though this article used to say so as well), they arguably got a worse deal with the "Magnavox gets access to all their technology for a year" thing.

There's something else related to the lawsuit (on its importance to IP and video games) I could have sworn we had somewhere but I can't find it, but otherwise

• Well, let me know if you remember it.

Also complete happenstance in trying to find a source, I came upon this article from the Video Game History Foundation on the advertising used for the Odyssey: [18] Yes, non-frees, but one could easily be justified, and also described the font used. --Masem (t) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• I use that as ref 16; I'm not actually convinced that I could use them as the article does not go into detail about the advertising for the console. I'll be replacing some images in a bit per Fuchs' review, so maybe, though. I don't think that the packaging/ads used a tweaked version of the "Moore Computer" font is non-trivial, that level of packaging detail isn't usually something we cover, as interesting as it is.

@Masem: Thanks for reviewing! Replied inline. --PresN 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think all my points were fairly addressed, the latter ones were more optional/thoughts, and as I said, if I can relocate this source that put the weight on the Magnavox suit as critical, I'll let you know or add it myself. --Masem (t) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Sorry to bug; can you explicitly support if you're satisfied? I don't want the coordinators to miss it. --PresN 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am satisfied with the adjustments. --Masem (t) 04:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not do this when the reviewer hasn't explicitly supported promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, being bold and putting a bolded Support here then, since that's the magic word that the nominations viewer script uses when counting. --PresN 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference concern Support by Lazman321

I am concerned about citation 3. The website is managed by a librarian who researches video game history as a hobby. The website is powered by WordPress, making the website self-published. Despite being self-published, the citation is the most used citation in the article, being used 11 times. Maybe I am worrying too much. What do you guys think, should this citation be kept, or should it be removed and either replaced by better sources or the statements that the citation supports be removed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, but the author of the Wordpress blog has published a book on video game history through a reputable academic publisher (CRC Press), so I believe it qualifies as a reliable source according to the guidance at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Spicy (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is a website containing research notes as he was writing the book; the book itself is used extensively as a source in the article, as it's a reputably published book and the the highest quality book yet written about the time period in video game history. Most of the notes made it into the book, so I cite that preferably, but some specific details (exact details of the internals/controls of the console, descriptions of all of the games, etc.) did not. It should be fine as a source due to the book; in fact the reason I waited years after I got this article to GA before bringing it to FAC was that I was waiting on the book to be published. --PresN 02:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this article is featured article status. I was able to read throughout the entire article and the details presented in an understandable way, along with the reliable sources used throughout and the amount of effort that was put into the article makes this a great article and one that deserves to be a Featured article. Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

We have a good amount of commentary but no support for promotion after almost a month open. I'm willing to keep it open for a few more days so see if we will have any significant movement, but otherwise it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping @Indrian, TheJoebro64, and David Fuchs: to return. --PresN 18:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am almost ready to support. Just a couple things left. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't forgotten, don't worry! Just been extremely busy IRL. I'm going to make a real effort to finish this by the end of the week. JOEBRO64 23:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Suffren

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Another one of my ill-fated battleships, Suffren was the last predreadnought battleship built for the French Navy. She spent almost all of her career in the Mediterranean, frequently serving as a flagship. She was an unlucky ship before the start of World War I, twice colliding with other ships and she had a strange habit of breaking propeller shafts. Thoroughly obsolete by the beginning of the war, Suffren was ordered to the Dardanelles in late 1914 where she bombarded Ottoman defenses on multiple occasions. The ship was badly damaged when she collided with a British cargo ship at the end of the 1915. After repairs she spent most of 1916 in Greek waters. Suffren was ordered home to refit in November and she was sunk by a German submarine with no survivors en route. The article had a MilHist A-class review earlier this year although I recently overhauled it a little in preparation for this FAC. I'd like reviewers to look for the usual suspects like unexplained or unlinked jargon with particular attention to the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm

Will probably be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• General characteristics in the infobox, should maybe be qualified as (as designed), as the horsepower and top speed were different as designed and as in practice.
  • Trial speeds and horsepower generally exceed the specifications because the ship often isn't as heavily loaded as it would be in service and the designed figures are closer to what the ship could do in service. So I usually put which ever is lower in the infobox
• For consistency's sake, use either 164.7 mm guns or 164 mm guns (one's used in the infobox, and the other's used in the prose)
  • Good catch
• Coastal artillery is a duplink
• "The armour plates were 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) high of which 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in) above the waterline and 1.1 metres (3 ft 7 in) below it - Feels like there's a word missing in this
• Isn't conning tower armor normally included in the infobox for these ships?
  • Usually, but it's not a requirement. Everything in the infobox must be sourced in the main body, but not vice-versa.
• "remained in the area until she fired her last mission on 31 December." - What does "fired her last mission" mean?
  • Her last gunfire support mission as mentioned in the preceding sentence.

That's all, I think. Good work. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, see if my changes are to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I was surprised to discover this was my first look at this. A few pretty minor prose things:

• "the constant thickness of the waterline belt armour compared to Iéna's belt which thinned towards the ends of the ship" but Suffren's did too, didn't it?
  • Damn good catch. Caresse's article didn't mention the thinning of the armor in what is a pretty cursory description, but his book with Jordan provides much more detail.
• perhaps add that the main battery turrets were on the centerline and move that link up?
• the secondary guns are 164 mm in the infobox and 164.7 mm in the body
• what is "special-steel"?
  • I wish I knew, Jordan & Caresse never explicitly state what it is.
• link ship commissioning
• "When Suffren was commissioned on 3 February 1904 in Brest" as you've already given the date
• "Suffren accidentally rammed the submarine Bonite"
• Escadre de la Méditerranée and Mediterranean Squadron are both used. Suggest choosing one, perhaps the French as it seems to predominate in unit names within the article.
• "German battlecruiser SMS Goeben and the light cruiser SMS Breslau"→"Ottoman battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim and light cruiser Midilli, both of which had been transferred to the Ottomans by the Germans in August"
• predreadnought or pre-dreadnought?
• suggest "The pre-dreadnought Bouvet assisted Suffren"
• Asian side or Asiatic side?
• "On 7 March the French squadron attempted to suppress the Ottoman guns while British battleships bombarded the fortifications." where?
• "They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March." which ones?
• "Admiral John de Robeck's"
• drop the comma from "she collided with and sank, the British steamer Saint Oswald"
• "the French ship returned to theirits harbour"
• "which was en route to the Austro-Hungarian naval base"
• perhaps say that Cattaro was in the Adriatic

That is all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

no worries, a pleasure as usual. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

1984 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 1984. A year before the blackball final, Steve Davis won his third world championship. He defeated Jimmy White in the final, which was White's first of six losses at this stage! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

I am reviewing the prose of the article. I will leave the source checking to the editors more experienced in this realm of Wikipedia. If you could review one of my GANs in return, that would be great. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• 16 invited seeded Something about two -ed words together doesn't resonate well. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• the highest total pool for any snooker tournament to that date I feel this would be better as "the highest of any snooker tournament at that time?". Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Qualifying for the event was held Looks like this is missing a couple of words. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the issue, but I have reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• (4th seed), Alex Higgins (5), John Virgo (14) and Tony Meo (15) Could "th" be added to the others so it is consistent? Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've actually changed to words for consistency and to meet MOS:NUM Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• in tabloid newspaper missing "the". Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Taylor won just one frame in the first five frames in third session, Davis lead 13-6 Semi-colon instead of the comma? Also missing "the" here. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• White attributed his illness to some sandwiches he had eaten, and some cough syrup he had used to recover from a throat infection. Remove the comma here as these are part of the same thought. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• White however won the next three Commas needed to offset however. Noah^Talk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• I've covered the above Hurricane Noah. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Supporting on prose! Noah^Talk 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Not a topic I am familiar with, but the article is in good shape and I'm leaning toward support. I have a few comments:

• "and broadcast by BBC and ITV." - might be worth making clear whether we are talking about radio or television (or both). The kids of the future might think it's referring to online streaming or something unless we make it explicit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It does say "televised" in the prose. I don't think we need to be super specific in the lede, as I'm sure they also did cover results and such on the radio (not that ITV has a radio station). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• We could have a picture of the Crucible in the "Tournament format" section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Coronation Street needs to be italicised; ideally also spell out which channel it was on (ITV I'm guessing?). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It was on ITV, but that's not really the point. It's the fact that Coronation street took eyes from the snooker. I have mentioned and have italed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• "Alex Higgins provided commentary" - might be worth introducing him as "Sports commentator Alex Higgins" or something. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The reason it's notable is because he wasn't a commentator, I've added that he was the world number five at the time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• "who played snooker part-time" - who played professional snooker part-time? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Interestingly, he only played two more professional matches after his first round loss! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I would re-word "If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings as an automatic qualifier.[4]" to make it a bit clearer. At present I'm not altogether sure what is meant here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done Midnightblueowl, thanks for the review! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • In that case I give my support to this nomination. Thanks for your hard work on the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Blank Space

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When Taylor Swift announced she would go full pop six years ago, almost everyone (including me) rolled their eyes until they realized that the music was actually pretty good. For this article, I can ensure that all existing literature has been exhaustively reviewed to create a concise and informative article without straying into excessive fancruft and trivia. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestion concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Minor concerns regarding the lead's tone...

1. "Swift took inspirations from the constant tabloid gossip on her image..." What does "image" refer to? Appearance? Personality?
2. "Blank Space" is an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to Swift's image as a seductive and psychopathic woman." She is referring herself as "a seductive and psychopathic woman," as I know. Maybe put that in quotations?

• Overall, decent good article to be FA. GeraldWL 05:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the comments. I have revised the lede accordingly. HĐ (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7 Looks great to me. I corrected one warning message.

Image review

• Three images. All have appropriate licenses. One has fair use rationale.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your review, HĐ (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment The chorus contains the lyrics "I've got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name" According to the lyrics at MetroLyrics and the music video (go to the 1:18 minute mark), there is no "I've" in "I've got a long list of ex-lovers". Is there a reliable source that quotes the correct lyrics? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The redirect Starbucks lovers currently points to Blank Space, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why was the mention of the misheard lyric removed? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't consider the misheard lyric bit encyclopedic as it's rather trivia (unless the misheard lyric contributed to the song's or the brand Starbucks's sales or reputation in a proven quantitative way). I also think that the redirect should be deleted since there's no point for a meaningless term to exist on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear more about opinions on this should there be contradicting views though, HĐ (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand, not everything belongs in Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the issue. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I am putting this up more as a placeholder. I will read through the article and provide feedback by the end of the week. If for whatever reason I do not post further comments by Saturday, feel free to ping me as a reminder.

I actually disagree with the above assessment on the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric. I can understand how this may be seen as trivial, but it did receive coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It was covered twice by Billboard (1 and 2) and has been mentioned in other sources (Glamour, Bustle, Insider, Entertainment Weekly, and People to name a few). It even got to the point where it inspired a Kickstarter project (which you can read about here).

To clarify, I am not saying that all of this should be used. However, I believe based on this type of coverage, a brief sentence about it being a commonly misheard lyric should be added to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if misheard lyrics are that notable to be included, especially when people could just come up with some hilarious bits with any popular song. Given that misheard lyrics are a rather common phenomenon ([19]) that is not exclusive to some songs and is part of a temporal reaction to the song's immediate release, I'd choose to not include the "Starbucks lovers" part, HĐ (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I normally agree that misheard lyrics are not notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but I disagree with you here. In my opinion, this particular misheard lyric has been covered in enough publications to warrant a small reference. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Aoba47 here. It is well enough sourced in WP:RS that there should probably be a brief mention of it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• This sentence, "For the lyrics, she conceived "Blank Space" as an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman resulted from her dating history with numerous high-profile celebrities, which blemished her once wholesome girl next door image.", seems unnecessarily wordy. I would cut down "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod" to just "a satirical nod", and I would try to condense the sentence more.

• I reworded it to "a satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman with a series of romantic attachments." Do you think it's better?

• It seems better to me. I do not see the need for both "satirical" and "self-referential", but that is more of a personal preference so it should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have a similar comment for the audio sample's caption, specifically this part, "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod". I'd cut it down to just "a satirical nod". Satire by its very nature is already exaggerated and often self-referential so I think the use of adjectives here and in the lead can come across as somewhat repetitive. I have the same comment for this sentence: "Talking to GQ in 2015, Swift said that she envisioned the song to be an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation."

• You are right. I reworded both

• For this part, "Musically, the track is an electropop number", I'd say "it is an electropop track". I get what you mean by "number", but it does not sound right to me in a Wikipedia article.

• Reworded

• For this part, "her boyfriend's loyalty", wouldn't "fidelity" be a better word choice rather than "loyalty"?

• Reworded

• Would there be a way to word this part, "upon suspecting her boyfriend's loyalty and is ready to change boyfriends right after a breakup", without repeating "boyfriend" twice in the same sentence?

• Removed the latter part

• I am uncertain of the value of this line: (The chorus contains the lyrics "Got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name".) I have received this note in a past FAC, but it is not encouraged to just quote lyrics if there is not a clear significance or critical commentary. So I would either add more to this part or remove it.

• Added a bit of interpretation

• I am uncertain about the structure of the second paragraph of the "Lyrics and music" section. It has a lot of similar sentence structures (i.e. X critic says Y opinion), and I think you are positioning the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Fact, and PopMatters as taking the song literally rather than a joke, but I am not sure if that was intended or if I am just reading too much into it.

• Yes, I provided the interpretations to cite some examples of those who took the song seriously. I'm not sure if indicating an overall statement (i.e. "Those who took the song seriously") would be a case of original research or not, though.

• I see your point, and I agree with you. I think it would be helpful to add some further sentence variation to the paragraph, but it is not something that would prevent me from supporting this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• For this part, "Swift and Martin employed a sparse production for "Blank Space" as Swift", do you mean "Shellback and Martin" as Swift did not produce the song.

• Yes

• I'd change "works" to "music" in this part, "that of New Zealand singer Lorde's works". I've always been told to avoid words like "works" as they are rather vague.

• Reworded

• I am uncertain about the final two sentences in the "Lyrics and music" section's final paragraph as they read more like a review than a more objective view of the song.

• I think they are more of an analysis rather than a judgement to be included among the critical reviews

• I am probably over-thinking it. The two sentences, specifically the Baesley one, sound more like praise to me than an analysis, but I will leave that up to other editors as it could just be me overthinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• In the article, you specifically say the song was released "to US rhythmic crossover radio on November 10, 2014", but in the lead, it just says "to US radio stations on November 10, 2014". Should rhythmic crossover radio be included in the lead?

• I think that's rather too specific and would overshadow the song's release to other radio formats

• That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• What separates the "Critical reception" and "Recognition" sections? They seem rather similar to me.

• I merged it as a subsection

These are my comments up to the "Music video" section. I hope this is helpful. I am only focusing on the prose right now. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should this part, "but Yahoo! leaked it a day before", clarify that the leak was accidentally and not intentional?

• Yes, clarified

• This is more of a clarification question, but for this part, "go to other rooms in the mansion to find interactive easter eggs", are there any examples of these easter eggs?

• Added

• I'd add a descriptive phrase for Gone Girl to be consistent with how A Clockwork Orange is represented in the prose.
• Yahoo! is linked twice in the article. So is Entertainment Weekly. I'd check the entire article to see if there are any further duplicate links.
• I think the Shane Dawson parody should get a brief mention as it was covered in Glamour.
• I would say Louisa Wendorff's cover also should get a brief mention as it was mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
• The Postmodern Jukebox cover has also been mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
• For this part of a footnote, "Those who compared "Blank Space" to Lorde's work", I'd change "works" to "songs".

This is my full review on the prose. I hope it is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive prose review. It really helps, — HĐ (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I still think the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric has enough coverage to warrant a small mention. I agree that misheard lyrics are often not notable enough for inclusion, but this one (at least in my opinion) has been brought up in enough sources for a brief inclusion. And this is coming from someone who 1) cannot hear the misheard lyric and 2) think it is kind of stupid and played up more for publicity than anything. I will read through the article again tomorrow to make sure I caught everything. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Aoba, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, HĐ (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: From what I understand, the convention is to strike your "comment" header and replace it with "Support from..." --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen arguments for and against this practice, and I have seen editors that do it and others that do not so I would say it was not a firmly established convention either way. My support is already clearly established. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Fair enough. -TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was a good question so thank you for asking. I just wanted to err on the side of caution. Aoba47 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from TheSandDoctor I've made a small grammatical fix and clarified a sentence, but that's it. Looks good to me and is written to an FA standard. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SatDis

This article is meticulously referenced with high quality writing. Apologies that I haven't got many suggestions, but just a few notes;

• Inspired by 1980s synth-pop and its experimentation - I understand the meaning, but literally, is 1980s synth pop able to experiment?
• in 2013 that her "dating history has..." - "has" should be paraphrased as "[had]" so that the sentence reads cohesively.
• she noted that "Half the people - capital H in the quote should be a lower case.

Best of luck with the nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns accordingly. I'll try my best to take a look at your FAC in the near future, and if there's a delay (because I'm quite busy these days), just let me know! HĐ (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Pepi I Meryre

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty and arguably the most charismatic of this line of kings. Reigning for some 50 years in the late 24th century BC, Pepi faced the murder of his father, a possible usurper, several more conspiracies and the decrease of the pharaoh's power as the Ancient Egyptian society became more and more decentralized. In spite of this, he managed to be the most prolific builder of the Old Kingdom period, building temples and chapels throughout Egypt as well as at least 7 pyramids. Pepi's vigorous policies both internal and external as well as delicate power plays stabilized the situation allowing trade to flourish, asserting Egypt's power and influence abroad. This article is the fruit of extensive research over several months. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

Marking my place. Looks like a very well written and researched article – in good company with your previous articles. I'll get around to reviewing at some point soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 Thanks, I am looking forward to your comments ! By the way, I saw that you are interested in early music, perhaps you know the youtube chain "Early Music Sources" and accompanying website [20], written by professional musicians specializing in Renaissance music from the 1500s and which details the complicated musicology of the time. Their website has an impressive quantity of original sources on that, including links to most of the original Renaissance era treaties on music. However, they don't go much farther back than 1500. It is regrettable, for example I wish they had something on Jacopo da Bologna, an italian composer of the 14th century, whose Wikipedia article is neglected but his music is really good (to me at least !). Iry-Hor (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have heard of that channel! I'll bring this to your talk page. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally getting to this, comments:

• Is there a reason he's referred to as a "king" rather than "pharaoh" – surely the former is the standard?

Done Actually I use both terms more or less freely to avoid repetitions, with "king", "ruler" and "pharaoh" being taken to be equivalent. The question came up in a past pharaoh FAC review (I don't remember which though) and it was settled that "pharaoh" was a widely accepted modern English term to refer to Ancient Egyptian kings and thus that it could be used as such, even though it is anachronistic (the term came into being no earlier than the Ramesside period and was really used to designate the king only from the Saite period onwards). I reformulated the first sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The 2nd–4th sentences all start with "Pepi" – perhaps mix it up a little?

Fixed. Well spotted.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm assuming with "the decline of the pharaoh's power at..." you're saying that the role of pharaoh was weakening, but at the moment it makes it sound like Pepi and the pharaoh were two different people – perhaps rephrase? Maybe something like: "At the expense of emerging dynasties of local officials, the role of pharaoh began declining in power; Pepi reacted with..."

Fixed I meant indeed several pharaohs, not just Pepi here as troubles started earlier than Pepi's reign. To clarify I wrote "Confronted with the protracted decline of pharaonic power..." which makes it clearer that Pepi was facing a long trend, not just something that sprung up during his reign.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is relief in reference to Relief? Should link if so (same with Mastaba)

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The "as well as" in "as well as by inscriptions in her pyramid" seems unnecessary, clutters up the flow too

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Surely the sentence "She seems to have died..." should be after the " Iput may have been a daughter of..." sentence?

Done yes of course I don't know what caused the mix up.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "most likely Pepi's father then follows" – "then"? Did he stop being his father later? :)

Fixed ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The "Pepi's best attested wives..." sentence may be better combined (less choppy) into the next ("and Ankhesenpepi II,[note 2][22] both of whom bore future pharaohs..."

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reading further it looks like the earlier sentence with "Six consorts of Pepi I have been identified by Egyptologists" would be better amended to something that implies that these 6 have been identified with more certainty ("reasonably identified"?)

Done You are right, I wrote "identified with near certainty" to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Two more queens have been proposed as Pepi I's consort" makes it sound like he can only have one consort?

Fixed I wrote "Two more queens have been proposed for Pepi I based on partial evidence." Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• It may just be me but are you missing a word in "with and as yet unidentified consort..."?

Fixed I changed the sentence completely to "Another son of Pepi I was Teti-ankh, meaning "Teti lives", whose mother is yet to be identified".Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wait how can Neith be "likely the eldest daughter" if Meritites IV is the eldest daughter?

Fixed well spotted, this is an issue of Egyptologists having competing hypotheses on the matter. The hypothesis that Neith was the eldest is not the current dominant one (Meritites), so I included this in a footnote.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "as we do today" sounds somewhat un-encylopedic, perhaps it could be altered or taken out completely (During the Old Kingdom period, the Egyptians recorded time by counting years... ?)

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lol did not expect to see that much text after hovering over note 6

Yup actually this discussion made up the majority of the article on Pepi I before I started editing it. Such technical digressions on reign lengths are typical of user Leoboudv. I thought it was worth keeping in a footnote as it is entirely correct although perhaps too technical for the main text...Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The South Saqqara Stone is already introduced in the above paragraph and is probably best without the "The Sixth Dynasty royal annals, now known as... and dating to the reign of Pepi II," part

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Got to the Reign section; damn, I meant to read through this in one sitting but my slow reading combined with ignoring how late it is here seems to have prevented that. I will be back tomorrow to review the rest, looking good so far and a very enjoyable read. Aza24 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• 2nd batch:
• "important increase" doesn't really explain why the increase was important by itself, would perhaps "significant" (implying that it was a rather large increase) or "notable" (implying that the increase could have been in response to his father's death) be more appropriate?

Fixed this is actually a poor French to English translation of what I had in mind. The English word "significant" is exactly what I meant in the original French.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "who could therefore be behind the regicide" sounds like it's referring to only Seankhuiptah, but I'm assuming its meant to be referring to all 3 people?

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "or occupied the throne in the interregnum" well... I mean he did occupy the throne during the interregnum (right?) – so I'm unsure what the intended meaning is

Clarified Actually either he really did just occupy the throne to keep the seat warm, or he claimed himself to be a kind. This is the distinction that is meant here in the sources. I changed the sentence to clarify.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The "Further archeological evidence lending credence to the idea that Userkare was illegitimate in the eyes of his successor Pepi I is..." seems unnecessary and may be better replaced with something more to the point like "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is..." (if change were to happen then the following part "the absence of mention of Userkare in" may fit better as "Further archeological evidence of Userkare's illegitimacy is his absence in...")

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Miroslav Bárta has an ill link (here)

Fixed as recommend.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• As someone largely unfamiliar with Ancient egyption history, I have no idea what a "Ka-chapel" is, is there anything this could be linked to? (I'm talking about in the first mention in the "Policies and power play" section)

Fixed. I changed to " He gave such an exemption to a chapel dedicated to the cult of his mother located in Koptos" which clarifies what is meant here. What is a Ka-chapel is explained in details later in the article, in the relevant section.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "At some point in his reign, either early[49] or late,[note 12] around his 44th year on the throne" this sentence is rather ambiguous. If there's no agreed upon general time maybe just stating that the time was unknown and having a note mention varying estimates would suffice

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• • After reading further it looks like you go in to detail about different views of when it may have happened, so a note like I suggested above would not be necessary; consider still simplifying the opening sentence of the paragraph though

Actually I did a footnote I think it is a good idea at this point and it makes the first sentence simpler.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I may have missed something but who is "Re" in "with Pepi incorporating Re's name into"?

Fixed I wrote "incorporating the sun god Re's name ". Re was the sun god and the dominant god of the Egyptian pantheon at the time. So much so that during the preceding Fifth Dynasty, Re was essentially "the" official state-god of Egypt. I clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is there something that nomarch and/or Abydos could link to?

Fixed I can't add a link here because nomarch is already wikilinked earlier in the main text, in the section on Pepi's family. I changed to "provincial governor" to make it understandable. Same problem with Abydos, which is wikilinked earlier in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "is further suggested by the fact that" may be less awkward as "is furthered by the fact that"

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The whole "The political importance of these marriages..." sentence has 5 commas, making it rather choppy to read, rephrasing would be worthwhile here I think

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "This part of Pepi's rule may not have..." –> "This end of Pepi's rule may not have..." or something, I wouldn't rely on the reader to read the header and carry it over as context of the first sentence

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• link for Canaan?

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Got to Building activities section, more soon – finding less and less things to comment on

Aza24 Thanks for all your inputs !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The changes you have made thus far look good. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Last batch:

• "the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie considered in 1900" – considered seems like an odd word to use here. Maybe "so much so that in 1900 the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie stated/suggested that"

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The thing with this line: "contemporary sources to have stood in Hierakonpolis,[176][177] in Abydos, [178][179][note 26] two[182] in Bubastis,[171] one or more Dendera,[note 27] and in the central Nile Delta region" is that I'm unsure whether how many stood in Hierakonpolis, Abydos and the central Nile Delta region. I'm assuming that the implication is that at least one was in these places, but then why is Dendera specified as "one or more"? At the moment the sentence remains somewhat ambiguous.

Fixed. I made two sentences: the first one listing places where one chapel stood and the second giving the two location where two or more stood.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• "A further chapel" in this context makes it almost sound like it was "further away" perhaps "Another chapel" or "A chapel may have also..." would be better

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Missing word in "for example that at Abydos was likely" ?

Fixed. I changed the sentence completely.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, in an underground store, –> "In an underground store beneath the floor of Hierakonpolis Ka-chapel of Pepi, – to avoid the extra commas

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I almost feel silly for point this out but you seem to be rather consistent with have "Egyptionologist so and so said/did..." but this is absent before James Quibell

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Confused with "comprised a 95 m × 60 m (312 ft × 197 ft) enclosure wall and, near its north corner, the small Ka-chapel made of rectangular building housing 8 pillars." – not sure the line makes sense. If you're meaning to say that it comprised a small Ka-chapel then surely "a small Ka-chapel..." would be correct?

Done. Yes it is a typo, probably a remnant of something I wrote before. I wrote "...enclosure wall with, near its north corner, a small rectangular Ka-chapel housing 8 pillars".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wait he's referred to as "Son of Hathor of Dendera" for Khenti-Amentiu's chapel too? (if so an "also referred to" the second time would be helpful) – also why is "son" capitalized the second time?

Yes this is correct. Pepi liked to be called this way (why?! I don't know obviously), he is given the title of son of Hathor of Dendera on inscriptions found throughout Egypt and abroad, even on cups, pots, and whatnots. I removed the capital S in Son.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• "a direct evidence of the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time" could be a lot more to the point as something like "direct evidence for the consolidation of the Heliopolitan cults at the time"

Done. Thanks that reads much better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• "witness royal interest" – "suggest" instead of "witness" not sure "witness" makes sense since who is witnessing?

Fixed. Ah my bad, my use of "witness" isn't good, I meant testify but I guess this would require a person too.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be ignorant, but as someone who is unfamiliar with Egyption history, the line "gave rise to a novel designation for the nearby capital of Egypt originally called Ineb-hedj, designation which ultimately gave Memphis in Greek." makes little sense to me...

Fixed. I clarified with: "The diminutive name Mennefer for the pyramid complex progressively became the name of the nearby capital of Ancient Egypt—which had originally been called Ineb-hedj. In particular, the Egyptian Mennefer ultimately gave Memphis in Greek, a name which is still in use for this ancient city". Amazingly, this means that a city such as Memphis, Tennessee owes its name to Pepi's pyramid complex since Pepi Mennefer gave Mennefer which was adopted as the name of capital of Egypt located nearby, which the Greek read "Memphis". Now the US settlers of Tennessee wanted a name for a large city located near a river and took the Greek name for Egypt's capital, on the Nile, as a template.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Pepi's mortuary complex was surrounded on its south-west corner by a necropolis built during the reigns of Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II." Would begin this sentence with "Pepi 1" to avoid confusion with Pepi II later in the sentence. I'm confused, if it was built during the reign of Pepi I that means it was built during his own regin, among others, right? This should be said if so ("during his own reign and those of, Merenre and Pepi II" ?)

Clarified. Yes you are right. I changed the sentence as you suggested.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• "fashion as others since" – the "as others" is probably unnecessary as it's implied

Done.

• link to Jamb and Obelisk?

Done.

• I think that's it for me... great job here, I'll go through your responses to my earlier comments now Aza24 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 Thank you for your review !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 Actually, once you feel like you have finished the review, could you please indicate whether oy support or oppose the nomination ? This would help me keep track of what is finished and what needs work.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding me. My comments have been fully implemented or addressed, I support this article for FA. Gosh I hope this nomination picks up more reviewers, would be a shame for it to stay in limbo... Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

Very sorry I haven't gotten to this earlier. I haven't been able to focus on the article as much as I should, but having taken so long I decided to post some initial comments. I'm concerned with the prose, a lot of which is awkward. These are the first few prose problems I noted; I'll have more once I've looked through the article more thoroughly. A. Parrot (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's acceptable to write "Old Kingdom period" (and the like, for the other two kingdoms) once, to make it clear to readers that "kingdom" in this context refers to a time period, but it's not standard Egyptological usage and shouldn't appear more often than once in the lead and once in the body.

You mean that "Old Kingdom period" should be used only once in the lede and once in the body or "Old Kingdom" should be used only once ? At the moment "Old Kingdom period" appears only once in the lede and once in the body, but "Old Kingdom" appears multiple times.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Words should be capitalized when used as titles: "Prince Hornetjerkhet", as opposed to "a prince named Hornetjerkhet".

Done. I fixed all instances of "prince" and "queen" followed by a proper name.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Pepi II was the last great pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period." That's a matter of opinion.

Fixed well yes, I removed the sentence. That said I am fairly sure I read this somewhere. But this is irrelevant to the present article anyway.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• "While Pepi's wider necropolis witnessed continuing burials until the Late Period, Pepi's cult stopped early in the Second Intermediate Period." I think the first half the of the sentence can be excised. Intrusive burials really aren't that relevant to Pepi himself.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• …with lime production resuming later…" Most readers probably won't be aware of the connection between lime production and the dismantling of Pepi's monuments, and the lead isn't the place to explain it, so it makes sense to just say that the dismantling of the monuments resumed later.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems there's enough evidence that Iput was Pepi's mother that you really don't need to list all the individual attestations for it.

Well here I must disagree. I see this as relevant encyclopedic information on Pepi. After all, taken together there aren't so many evidences that listing them all is cumbersome, and this information is important to appraise the relation between Pepi and Iput, which itself is profoundly important for the various hypotheses regarding Pepi's early reign.

• "…she may be the queen who was referred to as the queen of the west by the Ancient Egyptians, the owner of a pyramid west of Pepi's." I think I can tell what this means, but it's not clear.

Done I simplified the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A. Parrot thanks for your help.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "He was the son of his second predecessor Teti, ascending the throne only after the brief and enigmatic reign of the shadowy Userkare." I do not think "second predecessor" is widely understood term, and you do not need "enigmatic" and' shadowy. Maybe "He was the son of the founder of the dynasty, Teti, and ascended the throne after the brief reign of the shadowy Userkare."

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• "to place her son as heir to the throne" What does this mean? To have her son designated as heir or to usurp the throne?

Fixed, it means to have her son as designated heir. I clarified the sentence: "Pepi faced a harem conspiracy hatched by one of his queens who tried to have her son designated heir to the throne".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Continuing Teti's policy, Pepi created a network of warehouses". What policy of Teti? If it was creating a network of warehouses, then Pepi must have expanded not created it.

Done Well Pepi did create lost of warehouses but it is true that the network itself was initiated under Teti. Pepi is clearly the dominant builder of the two so I wrote "largely expanded".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• "landing troops directly on the coast thanks to Egyptian transport boats." Which coast? Also, I assume you mean that he invaded by sea rather than taking a long way round by land, but it is not clear.

Done I wrote " landing troops directly on the Levantine coast using Egyptian transport boats". Is this clearer or should I write that a seaborne invasion occured ? Because the source talks about of transport boats and all but does not say "seaborne invasion".Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would leave out "directly". What would landing indirectly mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Ok Done both in the lede and in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Excavations revealed a bundle of viscera and a mummy fragment, both presumed to belong to the pharaoh." If this was all that survived of his mummy, you should say so.

I can't tell: the source is ambiguous on this, I suppose it is all that was found but the source does not explicitly state this. It talks only about viscera and a fragment. Should I make the jump to the obvious conclusion that this was all there was ?Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think that if the source is ambiguous then it is best to keep the wording as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok !Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The Sixth Dynasty necropolis at Saqqara was used as a stone quarry from the New Kingdom up until the end of the Late Period with the dismantling of the necropolis' monuments resuming later in the Mamluk era of the Middle Ages." Why is this relevant? If his monuments were dismantled, you should say so.

Done I added " when most of Pepi's pyramid complex was destroyed" at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Made a start. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles thank you for your comments, I am looking forward to more!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am confused about the conspiracy by a queen. In the lead it is to get her son named heir, although that is what most mothers would do and I do not see how it could be a conspiracy. Under 'Consorts' it is a conspiracy against Pepi with no details. In the 'Conspiracy' section, the nature of her crime is unknown.

Fixed 1) The original text in Weni's tomb goes to great lengths to not tell the queen name nor her crime but she is judged for something and by the context, it can only be a conspiracy against the king (Weni says he was chosen because the matter was delicate). So in the conspiracy section and the consort section, it is said there was a conspiracy but we do not know which one. Many sources see her as trying to have a son designated heir, but this is not said by Weni who judged her. So I toned down the lede, writing that "she may have tried to have her son designated heir to the throne". As the king always chose his heir personally and he had a designated heir at all times, it would have been a crime to have someone else designated heir, especially if the way to achieve this is as a coup. This is a common issue in Ancient Egypt history, Ramses III was murdered for this very reason: having someone else be the heir and inherit the throne at the pharaoh's death in a coup.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Egyptologist is usually capitalised.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The first, Meritites IV,[note 4] was the king's eldest daughter". No change needed, but this sounds odd. If Pepi II was born near the end of Pepi I's 50 year reign then Pepi I's eldest daughter would presumably have been much older than her husband.

This does not seem to surprise the sources, and actually it does not surprise me either given the Ancient Egyptians kings routinely married their sisters, or the wives of their fathers. Most of the case, I suspect these marriages were related to prestige and position, and thus power by association.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "During the early Sixth Dynasty, this count might have been biennial" "might have been" is indefinite. Elsewhere you are stronger, for instance in the note, saying "probably"

Done I wrote "probably" in the instance were there was a "might have been". Depending on the source you get "was biennial", "was probably biennial", "might have been biennial", "was irregular" (but close to biennial...) Most of the sources say that it was biennial or very close to it, but this remains one of the most important and (I quote) "vexing" problems in Ancient Egyptian chronology. An entire chapter is devoted to this in Hornung's hanbook of Egyptian chronology.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "At the opposite the Turin King List gives only 20 years on the throne to Pepi I while his successor Merenre I is said to have reigned 44 years. This latter figure contradicts both contemporaneous and archaeological evidences, for example the royal annals mention no further cattle count under Merenre I beyond his fifth, which might corresponds to his tenth year of rule. The Egyptologist Kim Ryholt suggests that the two entries of the Turin king list might have been interchanged." As this reign length is generally rejected, I suggest relegating it to a note. Also, "At the opposite" is clumsy. I would delete.

DoneIry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "For example, numerous ointment alabaster vessels celebrating Pepi's first Sed festival have been produced." Presumably they have been discovered rather than produced by archeologists.

Fixed yes sure, but initially I meant produced by the Ancient Egyptians.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Pepi was by then perhaps too young a child to reign." This is clumsy. Perhaps "Pepi may have been too young to be king."

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Kanawati has argued that Userkare's reign length—at no more than five years—is too short for a regency". I do not understand this. Why should not Pepi have been five years short of the age of majority when his father died?

Major problem fixed thanks for posting this, of course this makes no sense. It seems like I mixed several sentences and garbled their meaning at some point beyond recognition. I corrected everything going back to the source. So here is what I wrote (and this is what the source says, I can send you the book pdf if required): "Against this view however, Kanawati has argued that Userkare's short reign—lasting perhaps only one year—cannot be a regency as a regent would not have assumed a full royal titulary as Userkare did nor would he be included in king lists. Rather, Userkare could have been an usurper and a descendant of a lateral branch of the Fifth Dynasty royal family who briefly seized power in a coup, possibly with the support of the priesthood of Re." I also added the following footnote attached to the word "usurper": "Pepi's claim to the throne, as the son of queen Iput and thus a male descendent of Unas was the strongest in Kanawati's view, implying that Userkare was an usurper." I apologize for this terrible mix-up.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet funerary complex, reusing the block for his own mortuary temple." Why state this interpretation as fact and the alternative in a note? Is the alternative less credible? Also it should be "grandmother's". Why "the block"? A complex cannot have been made of only one block.

Done I added the missing "s" at the end of "block" and move the footnote to the main text. But I don't understand the "grandmother's", because the sentence is "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet funerary complex", so shouldn't it be "paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "In any case," This phrase does not serve any purpose and I think you should delete it.

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "all of these events and evidences suggest". This is ungrammatical. Maybe "the evidence suggests"

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again Dudley Miles I hope my modifications address all your concerns.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother[85] Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, reusing the blocks for his own mortuary temple.[86][74] At the opposite, Wilfried Seipel thinks these blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother." 1. You are right on "Sesheshet's". 2. "At the opposite," is ungrammatical. You could say "One the other hand" or "However". 3. I still do not understand what you are saying. How could dismantling his grandmother's funerary complex bear witness to his foundation of a pious memorial to her?

Done I wrote " on the other hand". Look the seeming lack of clarity here comes from Egyptologists contradicting each other because the evidence is ambiguous. For Barta and Baud, the blocks have been reused by Pepi as building material so this means he dismantled a previously existing structure to build his own and did so because he had no problem desecrating his grandmother's temples. For Seipel, the blocks have not be re-used by Pepi rather they show that a structure dedicated to Pepi's grandmother once existed, and given the location of the blocks, it is likely that this structure was built by Pepi himself who thus held his grandmother in high regard. The ambiguity comes from the poor state of Pepi's necropolis which was used as a limestone quarry so blocks from all structures lay mixed-up on the ground, some having been displaced to be thrown into furnaces in the Middle ages. To clarify I wrote "For the Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta, further troubles might have arisen directly between Pepi and relatives of his father Teti. Bárta and Baud point to Pepi's apparent decision to dismantle his paternal grandmother Queen Sesheshet's funerary complex, as he reused the blocks for his own mortuary temple. On the other hand, Wilfried Seipel disagrees with this interpretation of the blocks as having being reused by Pepi, he rather thinks the blocks bear witness to Pepi's foundation of a pious memorial to his grandmother."Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "by creating true local dynasties". What does "true" mean here?

Done I removed "true". Here I wrote "true dynasty" (this is used by the source, you will see why) in the sense that you normally understand "dynasty" in ordinary English. For Egyptologists this is in contrast to the Egyptian royal dynasties, which were invented by Manetho, and were not recognized by the ancient Egyptians themselves. So in fact, here we are talking about local dynasties with male successions, whereas the case of the king is different as kingship was perceived to be eternal and passing from person to the next. As such, Teti was not seen as the first founding member of a new line of king, he was just the successor of Unas, the passing incarnation of divine royal power.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The concurrent rise of small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown may prove that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of predominant regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials outside of them." This is clumsy and hard to follow. Maybe "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials loyal to the pharaoh."

Done I modified your sentence slightly to "Small provincial centers in areas historically associated with the crown became more important, suggesting that pharaohs of the Sixth Dynasty tried to diminish the power of regional dynasties by recruiting senior officials that did not belong to them and were loyal to the pharaoh".Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "This territorial mode of organization disappeared nearly 300 years after Pepi I's reign, at the dawn of the Middle Kingdom period." So it continued in the First Intermediate Period?

Yes. This is not surprising, it was helpful for all rulers and the FIP wasn't quite as chaotic as the reputation of the period says. Rulers of the 9th, 10th and 11th Dynasties had taxes to levy too.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "this at least shows that the person of the king was not untouchable anymore" Surely the murder of his father had already shown this.

No because the murder of his father is not established with certainty: it is a tale told by Manetho, who wrote almost 2000 years after the events. Some Egyptologists like Kanawati see good reasons to believ this on archaeological evidences, but we do not have any contemporary document telling us this happened. Thus, perhaps it is true, perhaps not. But the conspiracy against Pepi is different: it is mentioned by his contemporary Weni, so it is established fact, especially in view of the Criterion of embarrassment.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the queen concerned could have been Userkare's mother and Teti's wife rather than Pepi's." Does this mean that Userkare may have been a son of Teti?

Yes, the text says that, at minima, the relation of Userkare and the royal family is uncertain. The problem is complicated and detailed in the article on Userkare. It would be too long to discuss all possibilities in this article I think, only the hypothesis by Kanawati is stated (that he was a descendant from a lateral branch of the royal line of the 5th dynasty), because this could explain why Pepi chose the name Meryre later in his reign in an agreement with the priesthood of Re. This is stated in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Consequently, to the failure of this conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign," I think I understand this, but it is unclear.

Fixed, I wrote "As a consequence of this failed conspiracy, Pepi I would have taken the drastic step of crowning Merenre during his own reign..."

• Do you mean "may have taken"? Also why was it a drastic step? If it was very rare, you should say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I wrote "may". I wanted to say that he may have done something that may have led to something which may have happened. I thought the "would" would convey this degree of uncertainty: the original cause is uncertain (the conspiracy), the causal relation is uncertain (that the conspiracy aimed at replacing the heir and that Pepi wanted to secure his chosen heir in consequence) and the consequence is uncertain (that he decreed a corency (which remains only an hypothesis). Regarding "drastic", I would like to keep it. The step is not just "very rare" it is the first time this ever happened (as far as we know), while numerous examples exist in later Middle and New Kingdom Egypt. The step is really drastic with respect to the Old Kingdom perception of kingship, which posited that kingship stemmed from one permanent divine manifestation/being embodied in a physical person for a short while, and then passing onto another at the death of the person. So having two kings at the same time makes almost no sense in this view: the godly existence of the king appears to be in two people at the same time. The source actually says "drastic" for these reasons, I thought this was right so I kept it. For Pepi to have done that (if he did!) really means something was amiss.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC) #

I think you need to explain these points in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Done this is now footnote 17.Iry-Hor (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but it makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father." What makes it more likely?

Clarified. The royal annals ! I clarified with " The Sixth Dynasty Royal annals bear no trace either for or against it, but the shape and size of the stone on which the annals are inscribed makes it more likely that Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is a common argument in Egyptian chronology: reign lengths can be estimated even on erased or damaged stone fragments from royal annals by estimating the maximum space that could have been devoted to a king's reign on the stone.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to add a note explaining how the size of stones is used to estimate reign length. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• More to follow. The language seems to become more clumsy later in the article. Has it been the subject of copy editing which was not completed? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles No there was no copy-editing, but I think the issue is that 1) there is a lot of information on Pepi in good sources because there is a lot of archeological material and he was an important pharaoh; 2) most of these informations are contradictory. These two facts make it hard to expose all opinions on any one subject without writing a lot more text (Kanawati has an entire book just on the possible archeological traces of conspiracies involving Teti - Userkare and Pepi). These issues arise later in the text of the article because of what is discussed there (conspiracies, policies etc.), which have been the subject of so many competing hypotheses.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Merenre did not count his year of reign until after the death of his father". This is unclear. Maybe "Merenre started his reign when his father died".

Clarified Actually what you propose does not mean the same thing as what I want to say here: the Ancient Egyptian calendar restarted at 0 everytime a king ascended the throne, so the question arises when there is a coregency if the coregent dated all documents related to him with the number of years (or cattle counts) since the coregency started, if he used the number of years of his father's reign or if instead he started at 0 again at the death of his father. Here Baud and Dobrev say simply that Merenre did the last, i.e. his official year 0 started (soon) after Pepi's reign. I clarified with "Merenre did not start to count his years of reign until soon after the death of his father".

• "Titulary" is a specialist term which will be unfamiliar to many readers. Why not titles?

The royal titulary is the ensemble of 5 names used by the pharaoh and not an ensemble of titles. The names of the pharaoh are not earned, cannot be given or taken away from him and do not correspond to any charge be they fictitious or honorary, all contrary to titles. They really are just proper names (Did you know ? you can see all names of Pepi in hieroglyphics with transliteration and translation in the infobox by clicking [show] button on the right of the "Royal Titulary" title). I would be happy to wikilink "titulary" to Ancient Egyptian royal titulary if I could see where the word titulary appears in the article but an automatic look-up did not produce any instance of it (?).Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• The arrangement of the sections looks a bit curious to me. You have sections '3. Reign', '4. Building activities' and '5. Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis', but these are all part of Pepi's reign and pyramid building is part building activities. Also 'Political situation' does not sound right as a sub-section as it is about the politics in the whole reign, not the situation at one time. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to any arrangement, but one possibility is '3. Politics', with '3.1 Ascending the throne' ... '3.4 End of reign: coregency', and 'Military campaigns' moved into this section as 3.5; '4. Economy', '4.1 Foreign trade and mining' (You do not appear to cover the domestic economy. Is no information at all available about this?). '5. Building activities', with the 'Pyramid complex and surrounding necropolis' heading deleted, and pyramids etc as sub-sections of this section. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Thanks let me think about this for a day or two, I will try to pick a better layout. Note that regarding the domestic economy I do cover it a bit, when I present Pepi's policy (which expanded upon Teti's) of creating a network of special warehouses to help levy taxes and which played a new role in the territorial organization. We discussed it briefly when you asked if it continued during the FIP. The trouble is that there is much less to say on domestic policies because they are mostly continuous in Egypt throughout the Old Kingdom. Ancient Egyptian society is one of the most stable mankind ever produced.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think you still need a paragraph on the domestic economy for a complete picture, making clear of course that it did not change from before his reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I've added this to the Urgents list hoping for more feedback. As this has been open for well over a month and not much activity has occured in recent weeks, it will need to be archived soon if it doesn't gather some more consensus for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Limusaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This little dinosaur may seem inconspicuous, but there are many interesting aspects to it. All known specimens were found stuck in what appears to have been mud pits formed by the footprints of giant dinosaurs (which gave it its name). while it had teeth when juvenile, these were entirely lost as it grew up, a feature only known from a few other animals. Adults appear to have been herbivorous, though it belonged in a group of otherwise carnivorous dinosaurs. In addition, its unusual hands were also thought to have implications for bird evolution, but this idea has fallen out of favour. The article was originally brought to GA by Lythronax, and Jens and I have since built further on this solid skeleton for FAC, so the entire literature about the animal should be covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

• Caption: "Block containing holotype (green), gastroliths (red), assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)". Should that be 'Block containing the holotype (green), gastroliths (red), an assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)'?

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "It underwent a drastic morphological transformation as it aged; while juveniles were toothed". I think that semi colon should be a colon.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "which is also confirmed". Suggest deleting "also".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "As in most dinosaurs, the skull featured five principal fenestrae (openings), including". I am not sure that "including" is the right word when you go on to list all five. Perhaps replace "including" with a colon?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "which is also unique for this genus". Do you mean 'which is also unique to this genus'?fs

Yes, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "had three fingers (the middle three, as compared to the five fingers of more basal relatives)". Optional: move the closing parenthesis to after "three".

Done, much more elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Link "robust" to Robustness (morphology).

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The third finger only had three phalanges". Optional: A) 'The third finger also only had three phalanges' B) insert a comma after "phalanges".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Optional: Wiktionary link to "stout".

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Unique for the genus"> Again, I think that 'to' would express your meaning more clearly.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Another unique feature, the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced". This doesn't really work. Maybe 'The hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced, another unique feature,"? Or 'Another unique feature was the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw), which was reduced.'? Or whatever.

Your first suggestion is correct, took it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The only known specimen of Elaphrosaurus itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "during the Middle/Late Jurassic period". Optional: → 'during the Middle and Late Jurassic'.

Added "to". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Along the lineage that led to birds, however, the number of digits in the hand decreased"> Does the "however" add anything?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "which includes birds, two digits had disappeared from the hand, leaving three digits." Optional: delete the second "digits".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "due to not receiving the necessary signals". I think that this either needs further explanation (possibly a footnote?) or deleting.

Hope it is understandable now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The major alternative hypothesis supported by Xing and colleagues," A) "major" → 'main'? B) comma after hypothesis?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The divergent developmental pathways of ceratosaurians and tetanurans is associated with". "is" → 'are'. (Or "pathways" → 'pathway'.)

Changed to "are". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "tetanurans utilized their hands for grasping, while the hands of ceratosaurians almost certainly played no role in predation." This makes the assumptions that "grasping" only occurs when grasping prey, and that a reader would understand this. Perhaps a bit of tweaking?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look soon, pinging my co-nominators Jens Lallensack and Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Wang and colleagues analyzed". Suggestion: let the reader know when this was.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "growth had ceased in these particular individuals" I am not sure that "particular" adds anything.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "the most extreme case of tooth morphology changing with age among dinosaurs". Do we need a 'known' or 'recorded' somewhere in there?

Added "recorded among dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "(the others are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus)" Could we make this a separate sentence?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "genetic developmental signal pathways". Is there any way of making this a little more accessible?

• "the small head with toothless jaws and long neck were interpreted as". When?

Added date. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "gastroliths (stomach stones)". I know that you have Wikilinked, but perhaps expand the bracketed explanation? '(stones ingested to be used to grind fibrous vegetable matter in an animal's stomach)' or similar.

Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "in old adults". Possibly 'in older adults'?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "the increased amount of gastroliths". "amount" → 'number'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "trapped on any other basis than size". Optional: maybe 'trapped on any basis other than size'?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "but it is yet unknown whether". Is there a missing 'as'?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "sedimentary rocks that was deposited". "was" → 'were'.

Changed, though I think "was" may have referred to "a succession". FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Any chance of a map to show where Xinjiang is within China? Ideally, also Shishugou Formation. Personally I like the two in Shishugou Formation.

I made a new map[21] that specifically shows the Wucaiwan locality (based on another published map showing an adjacent fossil locality). FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Wucaiwan locality include the theropods Haplocheirus, Zuolong, and Guanlong, the latter of which is, like Limusaurus, frequently found in mud deposits; the sauropod Mamenchisaurus; the ornithischians Gongbusaurus and Yinlong; the cynodont Yuanotherium; the mammal Acuodulodon; the crocodyliforms Sunosuchus, Junggarsuchus, Nominosuchus and an unnamed species associated with the holotype specimen of Limusaurus; and the turtles Xinjiangchelys and Annemys." The section after the semi colon is not grammatical.

disentangled. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods". Would it be possible avoid "abundance" twice in seven words> Possibly replace the first with 'incidence' or whatever?

Took incidence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods is underestimated elsewhere as these animals are generally less likely to fossilize." Is this universally accepted? It seems a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice.

Added "According to Eberth and colleagues". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "in the article by Eberth and colleagues" → 'in the XXXX article by Eberth and colleagues'?

Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also added a bit more context, authors and dates to other studies with this[22] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "range in depth from 1–2 m (3 ft 3 in–6 ft 7 in)" For clarity, consider changing the em dashes for the word 'to'.

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "laminae": is there a link? If not, perhaps an in line explanation?

Added link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Guanlong, would merely have been 66 cm (26 in) tall" → 'Guanlong, would have been merely 66 cm (26 in) tall'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "could have led to soil liquefaction, creating a trap for smaller animals". Why might soil liquefaction create a trap? (Rhetorical question.)

Fixed, hopefully. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "much larger individuals likely got stuck in a highly viscous sediment and got preserved in their original death positions". Second "got" to 'were' or 'became'.

Changed to became. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "four theropod dinosaur skeletons including two Limusaurus, two Guanlong and one individual of a not yet described species". I make that that the four skeletons included five individuals.

Oh yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• "low sediment cohesivity". What that?

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone through some issues, but I'll need my co-nominators to help with other parts in sections I didn't write. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for the detailed review. I think everything should be fixed now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That is nearly all looking good.

• "Xu and collagues replied in 2011 that they still a step-wise shift more plausible" There is a word missing; or possibly several. And a spelling error.

Fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Wang and colleagues analyzed growth rings (visible in bone cross-sections and analogous to the growth rings of trees) of the tibiae from the various developmental stages of Limusaurus in 2917". :-) Probably not.

We're dealing in millions of years here, how much difference do a few centuries to or from make... Fixed, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus to get stuck". Grammar. Maybe 'resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus getting stuck'. Or (better, IMO) 'which resulted in smaller animals such as Limusaurus becoming stuck'.

Took the latter suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• "suggest low sediment cohesivity". I think that "low sediment cohesivity" is going to sail over the heads of most readers.

I think Jens knows it best, so I'll leave this tasty morsel for him (oh, and you forgot to sign the nomination, Jens!). FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we loose too much if we just call it "soft mud". Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, much of those were my late night, half asleep additions from yesterday, should now be fixed, except the last one... FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tell me about it :-) . All good. Just the cohesivity issue outstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, last issue fixed now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from LittleLazyLass (Lusotitan)

Given the triple nomination, there's less WP:DINO folks available to review, so I might as well chip in.

Thanks, yeah, that's always a danger, we're a bit low on manpower in the FAC department... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• The skull section seems rather lopsided in terms of paragraph size, and as far as I can tell the information is not conveyed in any particular order (notice, for example, information on the jaws spread all across the section instead of collected together). It seems to me that about half of the section is spent talking about fenestrae, so why not put all that in one paragraph and then the rest of the info in the second? It would balance things out and make it feel more organized. Merely a suggestion, but I thought it would be worth bringing up.

It follows the order "Cranium" (first paragraph) and "Lower Jaw" (second paragraph). The lower jaw does not belong to the cranium, that's why I thought it should go into a separate paragraph. Teeth are discussed at the very end since this is the usual order followed in the literature. We could, however, make three paragraphs out of it ("Fenestrae", "other cranial autapomorphies", "lower jaw"), would that improve things? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, what's there is fine now that it's been explained. I just didn't appreciate the logic of the order. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest renaming "Classification" to "Classificiation and evolution", because I don't think the current title really encompasses "Digit homolgy" very well.

good point, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• it was often considered an ornithomimosaur from 1928 and well into the 1990s - I'm not sure what "and" is doing there, "from 1928 well into the" seems to convey the intended meaning in a clearer fashion.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Together with an as-of-yet unnamed taxon represented by specimen CCG 20011 (formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses), the three taxa formed the clade Elaphrosaurinae - this should say "the two taxa", since "the three taxa" is referring to the aforementioned taxa. The current wording implies three taxa plus CCG 20011.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the part "(formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses)" is really needed here, thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This info could be useful, but I also think that there is excessive detail that makes the sentence convoluted and difficult to read; I would support simplification and remove this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I would likewise say to cut it; while it's technically background info, it's just an incorrect classification, so it communicates no relevant info about what this specimen actually is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed for now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• which Rauhut and Carrano used to extrapolate the complete length of the former taxon at 6.0–6.3 m (19.7–20.7 ft). - it seems reasonable to note that Limusaurus clarified the position of Elaphrosaurus, but I think talking about the size of said relative is digressing a bit too much - how exactly is this passage relevant? I would cut it.

yes, done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it because Limusaurus was the "key" to a more accurate size estimate after so many years of uncertainty, and because it is interesting to note how much larger it was. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough then. If you go to User:Lusotitan/sandbox you'll find a slightly restructured version of the section with the statement re-inserted. I changed the wording a bit to put more focus on how it was the size estimate was made possible by the discovery of Limusaurus. The purpose of the restructuring was to place the sentence in the first paragraph. While it may seem intuitive to place it with the other info from the same paper, I think it fits better to talk about its impact on our knowledge of Elaphrosaurus right after we introduce the idea that they're related, as opposed to in the middle of the paragraph about them moving to Noasauridae. It also happens to balance out the paragraphs quite nicely. No obligation to follow this, you could just put it back in like it was, but I thought it was worth making the suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the way the section is written is chronological, study by study, though, so it seems kind of misplaced to have this info upfront when it wasn't even considered or had an impact until 2016. Putting it at the beginning would make it look like it was conclusions already made in the 2009 description of Limusaurus. Also, I'm a bit uncertain about saying "the closely related Elaphrosaurus" already at the beginning of the section, because though the 2009 paper made comparisons between the two, it did not yet consider them "close relatives", as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

They found the two to nest together in a cladogram in the supp. info; and your version already says they're related, it's just that you do it in parentheses. If you think that keeping it strictly chronological is better (I disagree) than that's fine, as I said it was just a suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it back with your new wording. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The cladogram below shows the position of Limusaurus within Noasauridae according to Wang and colleagues, 2017: - pretty big concerns with this; first of all, neither tree appearing in the paper shows such a cladogram. Both instead show Deltadromeus, Genusaurus, and Velocisaurus as noasaurines. One of them also shows Spinostropheus as an elaphrosaurine, which seems like a very relevant detail to include in this section.

I'm not sure when this cladogram was added, but it would seem there are also newer ones we could use, anyone have suggestions for what would be the best, most inclusive one to add? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The cladogram is in the supplementary information of the paper, the last one (including both juvenile and adult Limusaurus as seperate taxonomic units). But this also makes that cladogram unusual, and its difficult to declare why we use this and not one of the other versions presented. Let's just use the cladogram published in the recent Huinculsaurus paper instead, I can include it later today. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Replaced the cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

In restructuring the section you misplaced the reference for the Wang et al. paper; reference four should be included at the end of this sentence: significantly through growth. A 2019 study by. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Added back. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• (continuing from the above point) Why is the cladogram restricted down to just Noasauridae? Retaining the original extent that also shows "Ceratosauridae" and abelisaurs would be more informative, and it isn't like it would be much larger anyways. As is it's just a tiny polytomy that is barely useful at all. Related suggestion, the "Etrigansauria" paper could be sourced used instead, being a similar but more recent tree; you could perhaps go for a paired cladogram format to show both theories as to whether Noasauridae or Ceratosauridae is closer to Abelisauridae.

The "Etrigansauria" do not seem to get much support however, the paper seems to reflect a minority opinion, and therefore maybe is not the best choice. Let's just go for the most recent cladogram. They are usually restricted to Noasauridae though, so not sure if we can "expand" them without violating WP:Synth? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd also say that the wider interrelatiobships of Ceratosauria aren't that important here, maybe if it had been in Noasaurus, which is more important for the history of the clade. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The cladogram you've gone with seems agreeable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• In a similar vein to the lack of mention of potential relative Spinostropheus, the recently described Huinculsaurus was found as an elaphrosaurine so is also worthy of mention in this section.

Huinculsaurus is mentioned now; what makes Spinostropheus more relevant than the other unmentioned noasaurids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the trees from Wang et al. (2017) found it within Elaphrosaurinae, so it seems to me relevant to include a (very brief) mention that it's a possible member of the group. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Spinostropheus is now mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Biologist Josef Stiegler and colleagues stated in a 2014 conference abstract that Limusaurus is the earliest known toothless theropod - the original description paper of Limusaurus says this as well, so it seems preferable to cite it to that, where one can assume Stiegler got that fact from in the first place.

I can't find this in the 2009 paper? It says it's toothless, yes, but not the earliest known, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

LittleLazyLass, all other points should now be addressed, but neither one of us could find this specifically mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the paper's statement Limusaurushas a fully developed rhamphotheca. Amongnon-avian theropods, this condition has been previously reportedonly in some Cretaceous coelurosaurs8, so this new find extendsthe distribution of rhamphothecae within theropods both temporallyand phylogenetically., but in hindsight saying it has a fully developed beak is a bit different from saying it's toothless. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but of course, a beak does not preclude teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• The most basal theropods had five digits on the hand. - this phrasing seems awkward, wouldn't "on each hand" be a less clunky way of saying this?

OK, but we must make clear that we are talking about manual digits, not pedal digits. "five digits in the hand" or "five digits in the forelimb" maybe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The former sounds good to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• by the emergence of the group Tetanurae - I would probably link the word "Tetanurae"; it was done earlier in the article but that way back in the lead and this is a term meaning nothing to a layman reader.

did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• and has been used by paleornithologist Alan Feduccia to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs which had lost the first and fifth digits. - are BANDits really so significant that they specifically are worth giving specific mention to amongst "200 years of debate"? It has no bearing on anything else in the section. I'd cut this passage.

Not sure, I think a bit of background is usually a good idea, and this is perhaps the most significant discussion related to the digit homology thing. But will see what my co-authors think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Since he was the most vocal proponent of this idea, and is respected in ornithological circles, we can't really leave out mention of him just because we disagree with his ideas, per WP:NPOV. He was not exactly David Peters. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Feduccia is certainly relevant to the LDR/BDR hypotheses, and thus Limusaurus. Nevertheless, I think we should clarify the sentence to make it clear that the BANDit hypothesis is a fringe theory at best. Perhaps it can be rewritten as "to support the fringe hypothesis that birds..." Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it fringe, but maybe we can add "now widely refuted" or something similar to make clear that this hypothesis is a minority opinion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That would also be good. Fringe is just a nice way of saying pseudoscience anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess my main issue was that it's brought up but nothing else in the section ever comes back to it. In other words, it's relevant to the topic of the section but not to anything in the section, if that makes sense. It would be nice if there could be some resolution later about how Limusaurus provided evidence against this, but sources probably don't give anything to work with there. I won't pursue the issue further since how significant it is is rather subjective; it's inclusion or not has no bearing on me supporting or opposing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

But we'd need reliable sources stating that his ideas in this particular context (digit homology) are fringe or pseudoscience, which I don't think exist. It was legitimate, peer-reviewed science, but the conclusions reached from it have fallen out of favour, which the article already states in the intro and with these sentences in the article body: "and therefore have no bearing on the issue of avian digit homology", "and is unconnected to the pattern of digital reduction and frameshift that occurred in tetanurans". But what I think we need instead to counter the statement "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs" would be to see if one of the relevant articles directly refutes this part, stating that birds more likely evolved from theropods. I'm not familiar with that part of the literature used here, but we can have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I added a counterclaim sourced to this multi-authored paper[23], so that it now reads: "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods (wich is the mainstream view on bird origins) but from some other group of archosaurs" What do you guys think? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to make it its own sentence, but it looks a bit tacked on: "The mainstream view of bird origins among paleontologists is that birds are theropod dinosaurs." But I think the source is good for what we want to say, it can be arranged any way we like. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Saltriovenator description paper had quite a bit to say that's relevant to the digit homology section, so I think it's worth incorporating that into the section here. At the very least, Figure 15 of the paper seems like it would fit wonderfully into the section.

This is of course an important paper to include. Added now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I still think the image would do well to be included, but it's not a deal breaker of course.

Whoops, I completely missed the good suggestion about the image, now added, of course! I moved the more general arm diagram up to description instead. Also spelled out Cristiano Dal Sasso and linked him. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would move the arm diagram to the left side; it goes against the direction of the image but having four images in a row be on the same side always look a bit awkward if you ask me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Moved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I layed it on pretty heavy for that Classification section, so I'll stop here for the moment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the classification section was also the hardest to get into shape. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Juveniles began with one tooth in the premaxilla, eight in the maxilla, and eleven in the lower jaw (42 teeth in total) - I think some explanation of the math might be needed, this is quite confusing. I'm assuming the logic is that this is per side, so maybe swap out "in the premaxilla" for "in each premaxila" and so forth. But that still only makes 40 teeth, is one of the numbers here wrong?

It should be "at least 12" in the dentary, not sure what happened here. Corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• At the next stage, the first, sixth, and eighth teeth in the maxilla, as well as the sixth in the lower jaw had all been lost (34 teeth in total), although the sockets were still present, and there was a small replacement tooth in the socket of the sixth lower toot - I would move the total number of teeth to the end of the sentence, since I was quite confused at how eight teeth were lost but the total only went down six until I read the bit about the replacement teeth.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the growth and diet sections could be combined? The latter is a singular paragraph and it builds off the section before it, even referring directly to the mullet and catfish comparison. This is another "just a suggestion" comment.

There is a detailed description of Limusaurus on the way I just learned, so I'm sure these sections will both grow a lot when that's out, so I think it's easier to keep them as they are, as the structure will be ready. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah - ah. That's unfortunate. Where did you hear this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can bring it over to WP:PALAEOPR once new research comes around. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The current citation 19, a conference abstract which is a precursor to a coming article (it says so). And yeah, PR was also a good place to get a new look on the expanded Ankylosaurus FAC (still there if anyone has comments). FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scratch that, I think I may have conflated that abstract with this statement in the Elaphrosaurus paper: "Further possible apomorphies of this clade that are currently unknown in Limusaurus, pending a more complete description of this taxon". But the level of information in that abstract certainly implies something bigger is underway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I likewise wonder if the social behaviour section would feel too out of place in the taphonomy section alongside the preservational information it builds off of.

I think we also need to consider where the reader would look for such info, and it probably wouldn't be under taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good point. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Paleontologist Rafael Delcourt agreed in 2018 that assemblages of associated Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus specimens suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups. - this could be easily misunderstood as saying that Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus were found associated with each other, I think some re-wording is necessary.

Yeah, tried with "since both Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus have been found in assemblages of multiple specimens each, this suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups", better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's about all I can find to comment on, good work. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, things seem in order now. I will pledge support for promotion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot of improvements came out of it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• You imply that there is only one species in the genus but this should be spelled out.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Limusaurus was the first known member of the group Ceratosauria from Asia. Along with its closest relative, Elaphrosaurus, it was a member of the family Noasauridae, a group of small and lightly built abelisaurs." This is difficult to relate to the classifications in the infobox. If I understand correctly, Limusaurus and Elaphrosaurus are genera of the group Ceratosauria, an unofficial classification which is part of the Elaphrosaurinae sub-family. These are all part of the family Noasauridae, which is part of the abelisaurs super-family, which is mentioned in the text but not in the infobox. Is it possible to make this clearer?

The hierarchy is Ceratosauria > Abelisauria > Noasauridae. I have reworded this sentence but I'm not sure it is an improvement. In particular, I cut out Abelisauria entirely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "which has implications for the evolution of birds, though this has been contested." You first state the implications as fact, then as contested, then in the intro to the FAC as out of favour.

Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "probably corresponded to a dietary shift from omnivory to herbivory" This does not seem logical as most herbivores have teeth.

Not so in dinosaurs, where many herbivorous lineages modified their dentition into beaks. Indeed, even fewer carnivores lack teeth. I don't think your assumption is a common one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The tip of its jaws was covered by a beak, a feature that was previously unknown in theropods more basal (or "primitive") than coelurosaurs". It may be me but I am not clear what this means. Are you saying that there are theropods which are less basal than coelurosaurs which also have beaks?

The group of theropods "less basal than coelurosaurs" is just the coelurosaurs, so yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• This still seems to me confusing as you only explain later under 'Classification and evolution' that Limusaurus was more basal than the coelurosaurs. Indeed, its basal status seems to be disputed, although the discussion is difficult for a layman to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Of the pelvis, the ilium was small and tilted towards the midline of the body, as is the case in Elaphrosaurus" "Of the pelvis" sounds odd and seems unnecessary. Why not "The ilium was small"? Also there is a change in tense with "was small" and "is the case".

The opening lays out that the paragraph pertains to the pelvic girdle and legs, so it is relevant. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice that this review was going so I'll take some of these comments. Responses soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth." "one of the only known" is confused. Do you mean "one of the few known"?

Changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth. The other known examples are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus. Its complicated pattern of losing teeth from both the front and the back is most similar to that of the avialan Jeholornis." You say that the only parallels are in fish and mammals, and then that the closest parallel is in avialans. This seems contradictory. Perhaps worth saying that this is convergent evolution?

There are two issues here: total tooth loss and the pattern of tooth loss. Reworded to note the difference. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Image label: "Restoration of two Guanlong and a Yinlong, contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Shishugou Formation". "Restoration" is the wrong word "Artist's impression" would be better.

Restoration/reconstruction is the common term for illustrations of prehistoric animals (paleoart), used both in technical and popular works. In any case, "impression" would imply the artist had observed the animals, and I have never seen that term used in relevant sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• A climate consistently dry with wet summers seems a contradiction.

Reworded to "relatively". It can be drier than other environments overall but still wetter during the summer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• You say that Limusaurus was in a layer 14-16 inches thick, and then that one of the mud pits containing specimens was 21 ft higher in the stratigraphic column than the others.

I think there is a mistake. According to the source the former should be 350–400 metres thick. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article is sometimes difficult to follow for a layman, but this is common for technical articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, certainly helps to get a "layman" review for clarity! FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I've requested an image and source review. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

All images seem like they are in a good section. Is the licence of File:Wucaiwan locality.jpg shown somewhere? File:Limusaurus size.png doesn't give the source images. Is File:Limusaurus-skull-diagram.png really an own work and freely licenced? No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

• File:Wucaiwan locality.jpg: The whole paper where this is from is under a Creative Commons licence, as stated at the bottom of page 2 of the pdf. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is also stated on the journal's website[24], I added this link to the file page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Um... about this image - Wucaiwan is misspelt "Wucaivan". FunkMonk, can you correct this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, fixed, remind me to not delete psd files for images with text haha... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• File:Limusaurus size.png: Not sure which is the original for the human silhouette. @IJReid:, any help? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is a modification of Headden's skeletal[25], added to file description. The human is a PD image by NASA. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah thats correct (also my contributions rn are throttled by university). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• File:Limusaurus-skull-diagram.png: Yes, I drew it from photographs specifically for this Wikipedia article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• ALT text added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Images seem now OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a peek at the sourcing. As it's quite late here I won't be doing a source spot-check unless asked. I am not so sure if BCC, CNN and The Guardian are good sources to use on a paleontology article, there should be more scientific sources available for these claims (#43 is a better use as it explicitly sources a statement on how media depict this thing, rather than the academic facts). All sources appear to be of the type that are expected at this type of article, but I notice that the available information (DOI, PMC, archivelinks etc.) often varies from citation to citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the news sources are used for circumstantial info that would be unnecessary to mention in scientific papers, such as how the animal has been depicted in life, and that some specimens were preliminarily considered different species from each other, and what the press called the "death pits" the animals were found in. Removing this info would not make the article better, so I don't see how we could remove those sources. In any case, those news outlets are not unreliable by any stretch of the imagination. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran the citation bot. I don't think there are any other identifiers that can be added. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Landis' Missouri Battery

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Bacon 21:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

An understrength Confederate artillery battery, Landis' Battery was formed in Missouri in early 1862, may have fought in the Battle of Pea Ridge, and then spent the rest of it's combat career in Mississippi. After surrendering at the conclusion of the Siege of Vicksburg in mid-1863, it was not reformed. I've created this from a redlink and taken it through DYK, GAN, and MILHIST ACR. After a comprehensive rework after the ACR, I'm ready to take on the final leg of the Four award. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per my review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I gave this a close look at ACR, and haven't a lot to add:

Lead

• suggest "The battery fielded two 12-pounder Napoleon field guns and two 24-pounder howitzers for much of its existence,"
  • Done. Someday, I might write the 24-pounder howitzers article, in which case the link could be readded.
• suggest "where the unit was commanded by Lieutenant John M. Langan, as Landis had been promoted." given the battery is named after him it is important to say what happened to him
  • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Body

• say what sort of riot it was ie pro-secession
  • Done
• "Price followed up the Confederate victory at Wilson's Creek"
  • Done
• is "the anti-secession elements of the legislature had previously voted against secession" a repetition of "The state legislature voted against secession", or did this vote occur after the pro-secessionist elements were ejected from Jefferson City?
  • Clarified that the second vote occurred in July. I think it's important, as it underscores Missouri had two rival governments at this point
• "The battery was assigned two 12-pounder Napoleon field guns"
  • Done
• "However, several sources indicate that the battery did not see action in the battle" do they specifically say it didn't, or it is that they don't mention it?
  • McGhee explicitly states that the battery was not with the army at this time, and Barr states that the battery did not see combat (although Barr doesn't state if the battery was present in reserve or not with the army)
• "on the night of May 29/30" as suggested by MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done. I wasn't aware of that part of DATERANGE
• was Van Dorn's army the Army of the West? Suggest stating that Price was relegated to commanded a corps.
  • Done
• "beggingbeginning the Second Battle of Corinth"
  • Oops. Fixed
• "from the outer line"
  • Fixed. Evidently, I wrote this section too late at night

Down to 1863, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• "the defenses ofn the Big Black River" as the river itself wasn't being defended
  • Done. Good point.
• as the battery wasn't involved, suggest condensing to "On April 29, Union Navy vessels commanded by Admiral David Dixon Porter bombarded the Confederate position at Grand Gulf resulting in the Battle of Grand Gulf, but Landis' Battery was not part of the Confederate front line at Grand Gulf.[35] Due to one fort which held out, Grant landed 24,000 men downriver at Bruinsburg," including relevant links, of course
  • Done
• move the link to Vicksburg to the first mention
  • Done
• suggest moving "During the campaign, Lieutenant John M. Langan replaced Landis as battery commander,[62] after the latter became divisional artillery commander within Bowen's Division.[63] The change in command occurred before Champion Hill.[61]" immediately after "During the battle, Landis' Battery provided artillery support for the Confederate center." in the form "By this time,[61] Lieutenant John M. Langan had replaced Landis as battery commander,[62] after the latter became divisional artillery commander within Bowen's Division.[63]"
  • Done
• add |author-link=Richard Holmes (military historian) to Holmes entry in the Sources
  • Good catch, I'll need to fix that at the Battle of Newtonia article, too

That is all I could find this time around, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• • @Peacemaker67: - All done, I believe. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A couple of other things that occurred to me on a last read through:

• suggest just adding field gun to the infobox for the Napoleons
  • Done
• suggest moving the mention of Landis' promotion in the lead to the point where it occurred, along the following lines, "After Major General Ulysses S. Grant landed Union infantry at Bruinsburg in late April, Landis' Battery formed part of Confederate defenses at the Battle of Port Gibson in early May, after which Landis was promoted and Lieutenant John M. Langan took command. In mid-May, the battery was part of the defences during the Battle of Champion Hill."
  • Done, although I went with something slightly different that removed the second (somewhat repetitive) "defenses"

The rest have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• • @Peacemaker67: - And these have been addressed, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Thatoneweirdwikier

I'll take a look at this. Will be starting in about an hour due to the technical work going on soon. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 13:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "In mid-May, it took part in the Champion Hill." Considering how the other sentences in the lede have been structured, I think a little variety would be beneficial.
  • Changed the sentence opening, does this help?
• "...as much of his support was from the northern states, while he received no electoral votes from the Deep South." Replace ", while" with a semicolon.
  • Done
• "The fort surrendered on the 13th." Change "the 13th" to "the next day".
  • Done
• "Two days later, the Missouri State Guard suffered another defeat at hands of Lyon..." Should be "at the hands of Lyon", should it not?
  • Good catch. Fixed
• "Price was eventually joined by Confederate States Army troops commanded by Brigadier General Ben McCulloch, McCulloch commanded the combined force." These two sentences feel awkward. I would suggest a rewrite. Also, there's a comma where there should be a full stop.
  • Rephrased
• "After Port Gibson, Grant was faced with a choice: he could approach Vicksburg from either the south or the east. An attack from the east presented the better chance of a complete envelopment of Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's garrison at Vicksburg, so Grant decided on that route." I think it would be worth presenting the reasons to go south as well.
  • Done

That's all I could find. Ping me when you're done and I'll change my vote. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• • @Thatoneweirdwikier: - All replied to so far. Anything I didn't quite get like you wanted? Hog Farm _Bacon 02:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Everything looks good to me. Changing my vote to a Support now – very good work. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 05:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

Well, I've become aware that the MOS would have this title be at Landis's Missouri Battery, rather than the previous one. I'll be moving it (if it'll let me move it over the redirect) after the relevant promotion/archival. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• "Order of Battle – Confederate" has a last updated date, which should be added as the publication date.
  • Added
• Given all the other sources include it, add a publication location to "Wright, William C. (1984)"
  • Added, had to get if off worldcat
• Other than that, all citations are made in an appropriate, consistent format.
• "However, several sources indicate that the battery did not see action in the battle." The definition of several includes "more than two", but only two references are provided.
  • Changed "several" to "other"
• Bevier 1879 is a primary source, but is used in a limited manner, and only for factual statements.
• Spotchecks on McGhee 2008 all check out.
• Spotchecks on Bevier 1879 all check out.

Overall, this just needs a couple of minor changes, and then it will be sorted. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias: - I've gotten these taken care off. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Great: nice work here, source review passed. Harrias ^talk 07:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Adding to the urgents list to hopefully get another review or two outside the subject area. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

I'll get to this tomorrow assuming I don't contract Covid. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think I'm surprised to not see this at "Landis's" although I'm old school and prefer its current title, yet MOS doesn't agree I think.
  • See the note above, it's gonna be moved there after promotion/archival, although I prefer the current title as well
• Is John M. Langan not notable enough for an article/red link?
  • Nope. Fails GNG and WP: SOLDIER
• "in the Champion Hill." surely "in the Battle of Champion Hill"?
  • Weird piped link. Fixed.
• "the battery saw was part " remove "saw"
  • Removed. Apparently when I rewrote the lead, I didn't copy edit.
• "the Siege of Vicksburg. While at Vicksburg, " quick repeat, why not just "While there.."
  • Done
• Especially as you link Vicksburg second time round.
  • Well, it's the first time now...
• Infobox red-links "24-pounder howitzers" (not surprised) but in the lead you just linked howitzer for this purpose, be consistent.
  • Went with the redlink. I hope to try to stub 24-pounder howitzers at some point.
• "the northern states and the southern states over" the respective articles suggest these should be capitalised, e.g. Northern States/Southern States.
  • Done
• " 1860 United States Presidential Election" presidential election.
  • Decapped
• "after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Lincoln's " quick repeat of Lincoln, why not "His..."
  • Yep. Done
• "electoral votes" redirects to a general "electoral college" article, should really be pointed at United States Electoral College.
  • Fixed.
• "On December 20, th" what year?
  • 1860. Added.
• "nascent nation's" is nation the right word? Our article calls that collective a "state"?
  • I went with state. Whether or not the Confederacy was an independent nation is debatable. I'd say that if the US can give a founding date of July 4, 1776, then the CSA was comparably a nation, but the consensus of RS is that it probably wasn't a nation.
• "the important military installation" important in what sense? According to whom?
  • Removed "important". I can't really explain that without going down too much of a rabbit trail.
• "The fort surrendered on the next day" maybe an ENGVAR thing but I don't require "on" in this sentence.
  • Removed
• "the important St. Louis Arsenal" similar to above, important in what sense and according to whom?
  • Nixed important. Importance was really on a local thing for that one
• "Major General[b] Sterling Price" awkward, I would move to end of sentence and expand footnote to a proper sentence.
  • Done
• "12-pounder Napoleon cannon" previously referred to as a "field gun"... Is there a difference between a "cannon" and a "field gun"?
  • Went with field gun. A field gun is a specific type of cannon
• "defeat at the hands of Lyon, this time at the Battle of Boonville. The defeat at Boonville" repetitive.
  • Blended the two sentences together
• " of his command, under the command of" likewise.
  • Rephrased
• " Ben McCulloch" looks like his common name was Benjamin.
  • Fixed
• " to full-strength" no need to hyphenate.
  • Removed hyphen
• " 24-pounder howitzers" again red linked here, I doubt an "s" would ever be in the title anyway.
  • Moved the s to after the link. It's probably a notable cannon type; it's just an underwritten area.
• " fighting[2] as" awkward ref placement, just end of sentence would be fine I'm sure.
  • I've actually rewritten the sentence so that the ref now follows a comma after a clause break, so it should be fine now.
• " Corinth, Mississippi found" comma after Mississippi.
  • Added
• "May 28[22] " awkward placement again.
  • Moved to end of sentence
• " Iuka, Mississippi as" comma after Mississippi again. See MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Added. I always forget these.
• "E. O. C. Ord " why not just "Edward Ord" per his article?
  • Personally, I get why the article is at Edward, not E. O. C. for simplicity, but the majority of ACW sources call use E. O. C. Ord. I prefer to stick with the nomenclature used by the sources. It's like P. G. T. Beauregard, sometimes the initials are just used more commonly.
• "fought on September 19, Landis' Battery fought ..." fought, fought... repetitive.
  • Reworded to avoid the first usage
• "had escaped from Iuka.[23] ... The escape from Iuka " repetitive.
  • Rephrased the second usage
• I guess if you decide to go "Landis's" then you need to check for things like "Rosecrans' " as well...
  • Yeah. Changed Landis' and Rosecrans'. Did not change states' rights and four days', as those seem to be standard usage
• " to Jackson, Mississippi for repairs." comma after Mississippi.
  • Added
• "Due to one fort which held out," -> "One fort held out so..."
  • Done
• John S. Bowen is overlinked.
  • Removed the second one
• "After Port Gibson, the Confederates ... After Port Gibson, Grant was ..." repetitive.
  • Replaced the second one with Meanwhile
• "By this time,[49]" awkward and odd, you've said nothing, move this to the end.
  • Moved this to before the NPS ref in the middle of the sentence.
• "10[1] or 13" ditto.
  • I actually like this, as it makes it clear which source the different numbers are from. I'll change it if you have really strong feelings about it, though.
• "15 were the result of battle, while six" MOSNUM, comparable items either all words or all numbers.
  • Spelled out fifteen

That's all I have, FWIW I'll claim WikiCup points for the review. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: - I've responded to all comments above, although there's a couple not done for various reasons. Willing to discuss those further. Hog Farm _Bacon
  • @The Rambling Man: - Anything further left here? Hog Farm _Bacon 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I'll try to take a look tomorrow, I've become quite busy IRL. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Discovery of nuclear fission

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938. It is better known than other scientific discoveries because nuclear fission led to the development nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It is also controversial. The award of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for 1944 to Otto Hahn (but don't mention the war!) raised issues about whether the discovery was about physics or chemistry, and what indeed is meant by a scientific discovery. It has also been touted as an example of the Matilda effect. This carries over to Wikipedia as well; in the English language version, Lise Meitner gets more page views than Otto Hahn, but in the German Wikipedia the reverse is true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Up to the start of "Discovery"

• Nucleus is double-linked in the lead.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "that alpha particles were helium" Would it be accurate to say "that alpha particles were helium nuclei"?

  Sure. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Irène Curie" You probably have your reasons for not including the Joliot?

  Yes. Everyone is consistently referred to in the article by the name under which they published their scientific papers. This affects four individuals mentioned. Curie never published under her husband's name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• " But after Rasetti went on his Easter vacation before preparing the polonium-beryllium source, " After and before makes it feel a little unclear.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• " and the radium continually produced a new batch.[33][34]" I might say "it" or "more" instead of "a new batch".

  Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "When they got to fluorine, they had their first success. Induced radioactivity was subsequently found through the neutron bombardment of 22 different elements.[35][36] " The "subsequently" makes it unclear if fluorine is included in the count.

  (Checks) Yes, fluorine is included in the 22. Changed to "ultimately". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "with the longest-lived having 13- and 90-minute half-lives" Wouldn't you list the longest first?

  No, why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "What they found was three different decays series, all alpha emitters—a form of decay not found in any other heavy element, and for which Meitner once again had to postulate multiple isomers. They did find an interesting result: these (n, α) decay series" should "decays series" be "decay series"?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're consistent with hyphens in "half life" and "half lives".

  Settled on the hyphen, per out article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Meitner departed for the Netherlands with Dutch physicists Dirk Coster." Were there multiple physicists or should this be "physicist"?

  Just one. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bohr Institute v. "Bohr's Institute". Wouldn't mind if it was lower case but ...

  Because it wasn't officially called that until 1965, but the name was in use before that. Corrected to use the possessive.

  This tale has a moral, tho' we knew it before.

  It's foolish to question the wisdom of Bohr.

• Why is Fermi linked in the US section? He's been mentioned many times.

  Probably because the text was lifted from another article. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Was the Fifth Washington Conference at Princeton (which I found odd) or at Washington? You say both.

  At The George Washington University. My geography of the US isn't too good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• In DC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is The George Washington University (as an alumnus; J.D., 1990)

  Okay. Capitalised "the". You should consider moving the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Similar to The Ohio State University. Not gonna fly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is "straight forward" rather than "straightforward" an Engvar thing?

  Possibly. Going with "straightforward". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• A clearer timeframe for the first two paragraphs in "Nobel prize" might be helpful.

• "During celebrations in Germany of the 100th birthdays of Einstein, Hahn, Meitner and von Laue in 1978," Does it matter that Einstein was born in 1879?

  It's apparently within the margin of error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting. I didn't know much of this. Look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hahn and Meitner in 1912.jpg — unclear copyright status, nominated for deletion

• We'll upload it to Wikipedia to get around Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• File:DBP 1979 1020 Otto Hahn Kernspaltung.jpg — non-PD stamp, nominated for deletion
• Other images are OK for copyright
• Image locations meet MOS (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

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

• There is a lot of over-linking; three cases in the lead.

  All done with the help of the duplicate detector. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "discovered that barium had been produced". Optional: 'discovered that barium was produced'.

  Sticking with this wording. The point here is avoid giving the reader the impression that have that barium is what you get from fission. In fact, it is one of the less common fission products. It was found because they went looking for chemically similar radium. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Protactinium" section: paragraphs 1 and 3 commence "In 1913". Can a reader assume that everything in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 took place in 1913?

  No. Re-worded to remove this repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased. Not only had they discovered a new form of radioactive decay". Possibly a brief in line explanation/summary of what this new form of radioactive decay was?

  Positron emission. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Based on the table of the time" → 'Based on the periodic table of the time'.

  Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "because that was what was the case with alpha particles and protons" → 'because that was the case with alpha particles and protons'.

  That was awkward. Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the neutral neutrons were more likely to be captured by the nucleus if they spent more time in its vicinity". Do you mean 'as they spent'?

  No, the distinction here is between fast neutrons and slow ones. Only the slow ones spend more time in the vicinity of the nucleus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure that it will be clear to a reader that a neutral neutron is the same thing as a slow neutron. Why not stick with "slow neatron", as used in the rest of the article? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  By "neutral neutrons" I mean that they have no electrical charge. If a proton approaches the nucleus, it will be repelled, because the nucleus is also positively charged. In order to hit it, they have to have enough energy to overcome this repulsion. But a neutron has neutral charge, so it can hit the nucleus at any speed. As it happens, if it comes in slow, it is more likely to be captured. Changed to "neutrally charged". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The current model of the nucleus was" → 'The model of the nucleus in 193X was'.

  Added "in 1934". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Nor was Noddack the only critic". Optional: 'Noddack was not the only critic'.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "and provided a physical explanation by von Weizsäcker". Has the grammar gone awry here?

  No, but split the sentence. Nuclear isomerism isn't covered in high school, and some readers had it confused with chemical isomerism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "when the energy of the incident neutrons had energy less than 2.5 MeV". Maybe delete "the energy of"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "when the energy of the incident neutrons had energy less than 2.5 MeV; when they had less". Should one "less" actually be 'more'?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "contaminated with yttrium, which is also chemically similar." Delete "also".

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "though without her possessions". Did the missing possessions include the ring?

  That was Hahn's; she later returned it to him. Deleted "though without her possessions" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Hahn dismissed it as contamination". What is "it"? (This is a new section.)

  The 3.5-hour half-line. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "used fractional crystallisation to separate it from its barium carrier". Should "it" not be 'them'?

  Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I (think I) understand why you do it, but your extended quotes, especially the one in "Eureka!", seem to me to fall foul of MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". I feel that the article would actually benefit if this were applied to Frisch's quote.

  Actually, I think it was lifted from Meitner's article. I have reduced it by paraphrasing the first half. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Nobel prize" section. The insertion of some dates in the first two sections would be helpful.

  Added some. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work, lovely prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Great work, happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye, mostly typos and questions etc as my knowledge of physics and chemistry is very sketchy (though I will say I could understand 95+% of this story of discovery) ...

• Otto Robert Frisch in full twice in lede - intentional?

  I thought it was awkward without it, but we'll give it a try. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• cathode ray tube - add hyphen per just above

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• "had become accustomed to working closely with a physicist" and "Hahn was accustomed to collaborating with a physicist" - rep

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Two scientists at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute (KWI) in - this link to the society meant to be hyphenated?

  It is in German. I suspect someone added the "e" to make it English. Removed the hyphens. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• "that alpha decay caused atoms to shift down two places in the periodic table, while the loss of two beta particles restored it to its original position." and in caption "beta decay shifts one element up." - I know very little about the periodic table but that caption means 2 x beta means 2 x up?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• because was the case with alpha particles - as was the case?

  Probably a word missing, but I like your prosal better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• for research, as adminstartion was devolved - typo administration

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hahn's and Meitner's assistants - drop the apostrophe from Hahn's for consistency per "Cockcroft and Walton's feat" and per "defending Meitner and Frisch's claim"?

  Hmmm. Cockcroft and Walton collaborated on one feat, whereas hahn and Meitner each had their own assistant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hahn and Meitner were joined by Fritz Strassman. Strassmann had received - double N

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• on the grounds that World War I service was - her World War I service?

  Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Carl Bosch, the director IG Farben - director of?

  Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Before she left, Otto Hahn gave her a diamond ring he had inherited from his mother. - just out of curiosity, was that a friendly/romantic gesture or for Meitner to sell to gain some money?

  To sell if need be. Added that. She returned it to him when they met again in Stockholm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• to separate them from its barium carrier - from their barium carrier?

  Changed to "the barium carrier". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Breaking it up seemed far more dificult- typo difficult

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• nucleus could become elengated and - elongated

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• according to Einstein's formula E= mc2, and one-fifth - wlink E=MC2? Did Frisch include the space after the equals sign?

  Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Several more nomination followed - nominations

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• In 1944 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry voted to recommended - recommend

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• sole recipient of the 1944 Nobel Prize for Chemistry - in Chemistry

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• During celebrations in Germany of the 100th birthdays - were they combined celebrations or individual?

  Combined. Added. Hope it is not too awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Nobel prize v Prize - (other than proper names) ie these 4: "was collecting his Nobel Prize in Stockholm" and "awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering" and "his Nobel Prize acceptance speech" and "using Bohr's Nobel Prize medal" have cap P but section head and elsewhere do not

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Gamow v Gamov

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• No alts for images - intentional?

  Not good at alt text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• caption Lise Meitner in 1946 with physicist Arthur H. Compton and actress Katherine Cornell. - spelling should be Katharine (even though file has it wrong)?

  Well spotted. It is misspelt in the name of the image, and in the caption on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notes 46 Gamow, George - link

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notes 48 von Weizsäcker, C. F. - link

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notes 51 Noddack, Ida - link

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notes 111 redlink typo - author-link3 Kowarsk add i

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Fab, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I've requested a source review. Please let me know if there's one I'm not spotting. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

1982 Formula One World Championship

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. This is the third time I am attempting to get enough participation for the article to get to FA, and I really hope that this time around, some editors might find the time to go through it and make suggestions. Unfortunately, a peer review I initiated in the meantime also yielded no comments. Feel free to comment and I'll gladly respond to them asap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by WA8MTWAYC

The 1982 season was very eventful and unique, so I'm interested. I'll finish this later (hopefully this weekend). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Lead

• Link "World Championship for Drivers" and "World Championship for Constructors".

Done.

• "Motorsport journalist" > Motor Sport journalist

• Just noting here that I personally read this as being a motorsport journalist, not a journalist for Motor Sport magazine, in which case the change isn't necessary. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Roebuck was a journalist for that magazine but I don't know if he already was in 1999, so this indeed open for discussion. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

While Roebuck has worked for Motor Sport, in this instance, I actually just meant motorsport in general, not the magazine. He wasn't at Motor Sport in 1999 as well, as far as I know. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Image

• I would rather say "Constructors' Championship" instead of "Manufacturers' Championship".

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Driver changes

• In the lead, Mario Andretti is listed as "World Champion", whereas Alan Jones is a "world champion". Is World Champion with or without capital letters? Please be consistent with this.

Have chosen capital letters in all instances. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "but won none with only one podium finish to his name" better to rewrite it to something like "with a third-place finish as his best result".

Done

• Did Surer broke his legs or his feet?

His feet, as stated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Calendar changes

• "with several of them pulling out of financing the race due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike at the previous round at Kyalami" is quite a large sentence. Better to rewrite it with something like "as several pulled out due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike in the opening race".

Done.

• "held the previous year" > link that specific GP and not the previous season.

Done.

• "Two races were added to the calendar compared to 1981" two new races or two extra races (which in case it would only be one)?

Done.

Politics

• "works" teams is a bit vague. Do you mean non-British?

I have wikilinked it, a works team describes a motorsport team run directly by a car manufacturer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Regulation changes and technological development

• "making it hard to see while driving" this part is redundant and can be deleted as it's clear what a blurred vision leads to.

Removed.

• motorsport writer > Motor Sport writer

See above.

• "including special qualifying tyres, which provided much increased levels of grip during the qualification sessions that determined the starting order for the race" > simplify it by saying something like "including special qualifying tyres with an increased grip level" and drop the latter part of the current sentence.

Done.

Pre-season

• "The week before the first Grand Prix of the season in South Africa, going into race week itself, testing for the season was conducted at the Kyalami circuit." needs rewording as it reads odd.

Reworded.

Opening rounds

• Maybe move the heading "First European rounds" above the previous paragraph? (Since the San Marino GP is discussed there)

I had deliberately done it like this, since in that paragraph, I am writing about the after-effects of the first races, which obviously would have had effects on the San Marino race, but I wanted to seperate it, since the disqualifications cover the non-European rounds. But I could change it if you think that's stupid, I am open to that.

First European rounds

• "was from their number" I've never heard of this expression. Is this correct?

Rephrased.

• Motorsport journalist > Motor Sport journalist

See above.

• Maybe link the "previous year's race" with 1981 Monaco Grand Prix?

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This a really interesting article and I think it's certainly in with a chance of success. The content is excellent (it covers all events as far as I know) and the sourcing is (after a quick glance) done well. However, I feel there is a difference in the level of prose at some places throughout the article. It would be good if a native English speaker had a look at this article (English is not my first language so I can't really help). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@WA8MTWAYC: Thank you for your comments, see my responses above. Looking forward to more! I agree that the prose might need some work at places. I am not a native speaker myself. The biggest problem I faced was that I am not certain how well I managed to convey the very complicated technical stuff. I need outside input from others to determine this, since it all makes sense to me, but it might not do to others. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article in the near future, but I'm positive. I think the technical information is well put and clear, and some things just can't really be simplified. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. Good work, Zwerg Nase. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Zawed

Lead

• ...increase driver security... suggest safety instead of security

Done.

Team changes

• ...their L4 turbo... I think it better to state inline four-cylinder turbo engine, I can't say I've seen L4 used to describe them.

Done.

• ...would only be using the new BMW engine... suggest "were committing to the use of the new BMW engine throughout the season..."

Done.

• The phrase BMW engine is used twice in close succession, suggest rephrasing to avoid this.

Done.

Driver changes

• who was then removed from the squad seems a little vague, can we say dismissed or fired? Also suggest replacing squad with team.

Just wrote "fired", should work.

• the car went to Henton suggest replacing car with seat.

Done.

• Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell, but was forced to leave the team suggest "Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell in the off season, but was forced to leave the team after only three races..."

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Calendar changes

• I thought the Falklands War played a part in the cancellation of the Argentine GP?

The problem is that I cannot really find a reliable source that clearly states this. Hilton only writes about the monetary issues. It appears that the race was originally postponed but then cancelled altogether, in which the war might have played a part, but there's no source which says that particularly. The two sources given in the Argentine Grand Prix article on this are GrandPrix.com, which is really vague and The Guardian which mentions the race being cancelled, then calls it postponed, and then never picks up the thought again... I am trying to find another source, and if I do, will expand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Denis Jenkinson in Motor Sport called the race definitely cancelled in March, so before the war even started, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Politics

• "Formula 1 Constructors Association (F1CA)": no need for the abbreviation if it isn't used in the abbreviated form. Ditto "Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI)"

Done.

• The FISA was running the sporting regulations side of Formula One, delegated by the FIA: suggest rephrasing to "The FIA delegated the running of the sporting regulations governing Formula One to FISA." For some reason "The FISA..." doesn't sound right.

Done.

• ...of the majorly British constructor teams... suggest "of the majority of the British constructor teams"

Well, not all of the constructor teams are British, that's why it is phrased that way.

Sporting regulations

• You mention only 11 races counted for the Driver's Championship but perhaps should explicitly state all points finishes count for the Constructors.

Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Technology

• Suggest moving the discussion on turbo lag to follow the discussion on their speed and reliability. That then makes the mention of Toleman a little more logical since it will now follow the discussion on Ferrari. Perhaps also say. "As well as Brabham, Toleman also used turbo engines..."

Done.

• By 1979, Renault had shown that races could be won with this formula, and in 1981, Ferrari had followed them by introducing their own turbo engine.: suggest "In 1979, Renault won its first race with a turbo-powered car and in 1981, Ferrari introduced their own version of the technology."

Rephrased.

• ...but did not race with it until the next season. The technology section jumps around chronologically so suggest specifying the 1983 season here for sake of clarity.

Done.

• But maybe more importantly,... suggest deleting this phrase as possibly editorialising?

Removed.

• Watson's uninjured escape from a severe accident... suggest "Watson's lack of injuries from a severe accident..."

Rephrased.

• In other regulation changes, ... shouldn't this paragraph be in the regulations section?

Hmm, but then again, it's a technological change, and since the regulation changes for ground effect and engines are also dealt with in this section, I think it's the place to be?

Preseason

• going into race week itself,... suggest deleting this phrase, don't think it adds anything

I think I removed this when dealing with the comments above.

• Surer broke his feet during the testing sessions and was due to be replaced by Tambay at the Arrows team. suggest "Surer, driving for the Arrows team, broke his feet in an accident and had to be replaced by Tambay."

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening rounds

• On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session, for clarity, suggest "On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session of the South African Grand Prix,..."

Done.

• during a meeting of the Formula One Commission no context for the Formula One Commission, this is its first mention.

I have added a footnote.

• Brabham abandoned their turbo-charged BT50 for now... probably need to mention why (reliability is alluded to team changes section but worth mentioning again I think).

Done.

• The case was taken to the FISA in Paris,... grammatically, I don't think the needs to be there.

Now that I read it, I agree. Which is strange, because if it were the FIA, I would add the article... strange.

• FIA International Court of Appeal sided with Ferrari and Renault... the mention of the FIA is inconsistent with the case being taken to FISA.

But I think it's correct in this case. While FISA was in change of Formula One for the FIA, the Court was still a body of the FIA, the main organisation.

• I agree with the previous reviewer that the "First European Rounds" be moved to begin the paragraph where the San Marino GP is first mentioned.

Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: I am horribly sorry for how long this has taken. It's always a gamble when you enter an article for review, you never know when the comments come and how much time you have then to address them. I am looking forward to more and pledge to be turbo-charged next time around! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: No problem, I have been neglectful in not coming back to this sooner. I will do some more over the next few days with the aim of finishing it off at the weekend. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

First European Rounds

• Pironi however attacked him and took the lead on lap 46...: suggest rephrasing: Pironi appeared to disregard the signals from the pitwall and too the lead on lap 46...

Done.

• I was coasting those last 15 laps."; Pironi... grammatically, I don't think that the fullstop should be there given the construction of the sentence, with the semi-colon following the quote mark.

Removed the semi-colon.

• before falling off in performance. suggest: "before their performance became compromised."

Done.

• even the only turboengined finisher, you seem to use turbo-charged elsewhere so suggest changing for consistency. Also perhaps mention this marked the return of the BT50 to competition.

Done.

• Renault teammate Prost. Prost... close repetition of Prost. Suggest: "Renault teammate Prost. He in turn..."

Done.

• Should mention here Patrese was running the BT49D, not the BT50. It will provide context for the related comment in the second para of the North American section.

Done.

• Perhaps also mention Ferrari only running a single entry for Pironi.

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

North American Rounds

• During the shortened qualifying,... suggest "During the shortened qualifying session,". Also need to explain why it was shortened. If you can't I suggest just deleting "shortened".

I felt that the reasoned for the shortened session was clear from the preceeding sentence? Have added the word "session".

• who qualified just 17th on the grid: the use of "just" comes across as editorialising.

Done.

• had his Michelin tyres perform very well... suggest: got his Michelin tyres working well on the Detroit circuit

Done.

• Riccardo Paletti, who competed in... suggest: "Riccardo Paletti, who was competing in..."

Done.

Back to Europe

• It has been quite some time since Tambay was first mentioned so suggest providing his full name here.

Done.

• For the next race at Brands Hatch, the British Grand Prix, Brabham had devised what they referred to as "The Ploy". suggest mentioning the team was now running BT50s for both drivers.

Will need to get back to that once I find a source, I am currently not at home.

How are you getting on with that source? I have Henry's Brabham book, I could look it up to see if it is mentioned there if necessary. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• ...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary. suggest: "...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary on the grid while the other cars got underway."

Done.

• ...the accident left no one dead or even seriously injured Not crazy about this wording. Suggest: the accident did not result in any fatalities or serious injuries.

Done.

• Tambay went on to win the race for Ferrari,... suggest reminding readers that this was his first win.

Done.

• Arnoux on lap 73 of 80 Rather than mentioning the length of the race at this point, I suggest amending the first sentence of the paragraph to read: "...the Swiss Grand Prix, held at the Dijon-Prenois circuit and scheduled for 80 laps."

Done.

• ...winning the title, in case he won the last race of the season and Rosberg failed to score. not crazy about this wording. Suggest: "...winning the title; this would require him to win the last race of the season with Rosberg failing to score."

Done.

Last Round and Title Decision

• While Arnoux retired,... This leaps from qualifying to the race, so suggest: "While Arnoux retired from the race itself,"

Done.

• Suggest breaking the paragraph into two at this point: "The 1982 season was the last for Lotus team owner..."

Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• No author for note 13?

Motor Sport does list an author for this article.

• Notes 25, 40, and 42: Is F1fanatic a reliable source? For notes 40 and 42 at least, you may be able to use Nye.

This has been discussed several times in the WikiProject and each time, F1Fanatic, which has since been renamed to "RaceFans", was considered a reliable source.

Happy with that. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note 36 (Trzesniowski) - this is a book source, so should be listed in the bibliography and sfn format used instead (as per your other book sources). Ditto Notes 48 (Pritchard) and 120 (Higham)

My thought here was, as I learned in my studies, to only include works in the bibliography if they are used more than once. I am unsure if there is a MOS policy on this? But I can surely change it if necessary.

I'm not sure of a specific policy on this but I have not heard of this approach for sources only used once. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• No author for notes 64, 83, and 112 (it looks like Jenks did all the race reports for Motor Sport?)

When I wrote the article 2 years ago, Motor Sport did not give the author names on the website, which made it hard to find out who wrote them. It has since been amended, at least partly, so I have filled the authors in where possible. Unfortunately, this was only the case for the first one of the three.

• Towards the end, I notice you switch from using Motor Sport race reports as a source to Grandprix.com race reports. I wonder for sake of consistency whether you could continue to use the Motor Sport race reports throughout (not a biggie though, won't affect my support)

I added some GrandPrix.com reports on the behest of the GA reviewer, who preferred an online source without a paywall. I personally prefer the Motor Sport articles as well. I have added the Las Vegas GP race report from Motor Sport alongside the Grandprix.com source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

All good, my support won't hinge on this. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

• The titles of some works are in title case while others are in sentence case. Consistency needed.

Done.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough review! I guess one or two things are still left to do, I hope I'll get to them later today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a few replies above, very close to confirming my support here. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Add a WP:Short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• It featured the 1982 Formula One World Championship - well, it didn't feature them, it was the two championships. I'd reword to say "There were two competitions/tournaments/championships/insert your word here held over the season, a Constructors' Championship and a Drivers' Championship for individual racers", or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• The next sentence can then say that the Championship was held over 16 races between January and September. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Motorsport journalist Nigel Roebuck later wrote that the 1982 season was "an ugly year, pock-marked by tragedy, by dissension, by greed, and yet, paradoxically, it produced some of the most memorable racing ever seen".[1] - I don't think this should be before the info on the season, probably better afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• lost their lives - I prefer actually saying they died. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• " increase driver safety for 1983." - for the 1983 championships/season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Rosberg won only one race all season - perhaps define that he was champion in the sentence, say "Eventual champion Rosbery won one race..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Its a bit odd to have two images and an infobox in the lede. We want a main image (probably of Keke), and then the remaining image can go in the body Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bit odd to have a table before any prose on a non-list article. Perhaps put it after the "team changes" section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• A few links to ATS (wheels), but the article is at ATS Wheels Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• A few paras are quite long and could be split Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Zwerg Nase: It's been well over two weeks since Lee Vilenski posted comments—where are we with addressing them? This will need to be archived if we don't see some significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the development and growth of telegraphy in the UK. Much of the early technical work occured in the UK, the country was the first to have commercial telegraph companies, and the country was central to the creation of the first worldwide telecommunications networks. The page was long overdue for creation on Wikipedia.

The page has been through an extensive peer review here as well as a very thorough GA review here. Pinging all the editors who took part in those reviews and talk page discussions in the hope they can support the FA too. @Scope creep, TedColes, Andy Dingley, and Binksternet: SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Catslash: who got missed off the ping list. SpinningSpark 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: and another. SpinningSpark 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I have replaced my previous "drive-by" nomination. I would like to nominate for FA status. I undertook the original GA review. It was what I would consider a fairly rigorous review. I wanted to examine every aspect of the article, to ensure it was as close to perfection as possible, which it was. It also underwent a fairly comprehensive peer review, which found some minor fixes.scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet comments

• Kieve's recently released PDF highlights a social aspect of telegraphy that may or may not be appropriate for this article about the UK system: remote representatives in distant locations "were never again to be free from central control and direction." The telegraph in general reduced the autonomy of local officers and agents who were now expected to deliver more frequent reports and to follow instructions emanating from London or other headquarters. Of course, that is a characteristic of telegraphy in general, but its effects would have been felt first and most strongly in the pioneering UK system. Is it worth talking about this aspect? Kieve says, "The telegraph became the nervous system of industry and commerce, and influenced every aspect of life of the nation." Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Public take-up" section is perhaps the place where an expansion of this sort could occur. The section's heading is rather opaque to an international audience. You might replace it with "Social effects", "Public reaction", "Public realisation", etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The quotes you provided are from the publisher's blurb, not the book itself, so should not be used as a source. Nevertheless, the desire to exert central control over the empire was undoubtedly a driver for the British Government. I will look into adding something if sources are available and it's not there already. But, the "Public take up" section is not the right place to do that. It's more connected with the All Red Line or the desperate need to connect to India. Edit: I've now added a couple of sentences, and a new source, to the "Ocean cables" section.
    • I've retitled "Public take up" to "Spread of public use". Is take up not understood in this sense in the US? It's not marked as specifically British in wikt:take-up sense #3. I've added a sentence to the section.
    • Sweeping, inflated claims like "influenced every aspect of life of the nation" are to be avoided, or at least treated with caution (and remember, this is publisher's blurb). Although this is long after Kieve, ever since the publication of The Victorian Internet there has been a tendency to exaggerate the telegraph with the Internet's characteristics. That analogy only goes so far. The telegraph brought important changes for business and government, but its social use by the public never reached the level of daily social chit-chat as seen on the internet. It was just too expensive for that. Somewhere in Kieve he gives booking opera tickets as an example of the spread of "everyday" use of the telegraph. That pretty much tells you that casual use of the telegraph did not penetrate down to the lower tiers of society. Ordinary people did use it, but only occassionally, for instance for special occassion greetings or to arrange visits. SpinningSpark 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Frankly, a sweeping statement is exactly what I think is proper. A general statement about the drastic reduction of local autonomy. You added the sentence "Colonial officials necessarily had a great deal of latitude for independent action due to the communication delay" but you did not emphasize the fact that the telegraph was putting an end to the "latitude". The wording you used was opaque in meaning. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
        • @Binksternet: Thanks for responding. I've had another go at this which I hope you might like better. I've still qualified the statement somewhat, as does the source:- "...these hopes (of the government) were not entirely fulfilled..." Nickles' book is entirely on the subject of the effect of the telegraph on diplomacy so it would be hard to find a more authoritative source. I read Kieve's book from cover to cover while I was writing this article. Happy to be shown wrong, but I don't remember him saying anything like the statement in the publisher's blurb you referred to. SpinningSpark 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Y I approve the article for FA status. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the All Red Line map
  • I don't agree that this needs scaling up. The representation is a crude simplification and the Red Line is heavily bolded. It is perfectly clear at the current size, and expanding will not reveal any further information.SpinningSpark 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• The current alt texts are not useful
  • One of the purposes of the alt text is to prevent screenreaders reading out the filename. If the image caption is sufficiently descriptive, then according to WP:ALT One solution is to provide something at least minimally useful such as |alt=photograph , |alt=painting, or |alt=sculpture. Please be specific on which images are deficient, if any. SpinningSpark 10:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That guidance is specifically for purely decorative images; I don't think any of the images here fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "purely decorative". For instance, the Childers image could be removed from the article without losing any relevant information. The caption already says who it is and when. There is no real need to add anything else. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• File:PSM_V03_D418_Single_needle_instrument.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Foster_magneto-electric_telegraph.png, File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg, File:Jacob_Brett.jpg, File:All_Red_Line_(retouched).jpg, File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg
  • Done, although I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. SpinningSpark 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Both Commons and en.wp require images hosted as free to be free in the US; Commons additionally requires they be free in their country of origin. When and where was File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg first published? Same with File:Jacob_Brett.jpg. Why is File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg believed to be free in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I can't say when these were first published, but an image of Jacob Brett that appears to be a head and shoulders crop of this image was published in Bright, The Life Story of the late Sir Charles Tilston Bright, 1899,[26] and in Bright, The Story of the Atlantic Cable, 1903,[27]. These were not my uploads, so the best I can do is write to the site the images were taken from. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Both images were donated to the IET archive by Latimer Clark in 1898 and I've added that information on their pages. SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • On the telegram form is it not automatically PD in US if it has gone out of copyright in the country of origin through PD-70? By what mechanism could it still be in copyright? For this date, to be protected by copyright in the US the first place it would have to have been registered, renewed 28 years later, and (I think) marked as copyright (which this form isn't. In all probability it was never copyright in the US. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • See WP:NUSC. Had it gone out of copyright before the URAA date it most likely would be PD in the US, but 1944+70 would be after that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • It's a ridiculous situation when an obsolete, out of copyright, British telegram form from the 1930s is still in copyright in a country where it was never used. So what's to be done about this one? SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I've replaced the image. SpinningSpark 13:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• File:Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg: an image taken in the 1900s could very well have been taken by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago, plus this also needs a US PD tag
  • According to the Smithsonian information page for the image (now linked on the image page) it is copyright free. That page also says it was first published in Berlin, so I really don't see why PD-US is needed here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • As above, Commons requires images be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've added it, but I still don't really get the point. Yes, it has to be PD in the US, but for images of this age that is already covered by PD-Old. SpinningSpark 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
          • As I said above, the Smithsonian say it was first published in Berlin. They don't give a date, but they do declare it "No Copyright - United States". I've added that information in a PD-Because template. If a declaration from the Smithsonian isn't good enough, I don't see how I can be expected to do any better. SpinningSpark 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• File:William_Henry_Preece_-_Page's_Magazine.png: as previous, the photographer could well have died less than 70 years ago
  • The photographer was Ernest Walter Histed, died 1947, so out of copyright 2017 (assuming copyright wasn't assigned to the magazine, in which case it out of copyright 1972). SpinningSpark 12:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• File:Hugh_Childers,_Lock_%26_Whitfield_woodburytype,_1876-83_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • According to the National Portrait Gallery link, it was published by Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington in 1878. According to the J. Cosmas site, it was publihsed in Men Of Mark-A Gallery Of Contemporary Portraits, "a series of volumes issued between 1876-1883 of prominent British men". SpinningSpark 13:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get some reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Hi Spinningspark, I began to review this today but didn't make it past the lead. Unfortunately I find the writing to be relatively dense and awkward in many places, and appearing to need a good round of revision with an eye toward cohesiveness and smoother narrative. Some random examples are below:

• I can't parse the first sentence in the lead at all. What are you trying to convey? It reads as if "Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom" is the subject of the sentence and it had... what? I don't understand.

I don't quite understand what the problem is you are having with the lead sentence. It is explaining the importance of the topic, which goes beyond parochial concerns. Perhaps you could elaborate on the issue. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "It is distinct from the optical telegraphy" - I'm unsure what "it" is referring to here. Telegraphy or electrical telegraphy?

When the subject of a sentence is a pronoun, it is normally expected that it represents the subject of the previous sentence. The subject of that sentence is electrical telegrahy so the meaning is grammatically unambiguous. It is also logically unambiguous; optical telegraphy is a subset of telegraphy so the sentence could not possibly mean that telegraphy was distinct from optical telegraphy. We could write "electrical telegraphy" explicitly, but really, don't you think that is unnecessary repetition? And by the way, that kind of repetition was a big complaint of an earlier review, which led to these early sentences being structured the way they are. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Cooke formed a company to exploit it" I'm curious about the word choice here. By exploit to you mean monetize? The word carries negative connotations.

This is a perfectly normal (and common) usage of exploit. The OED gives "[t]o make full use of; to derive benefit from" for this meaning. No negative connotation is meant, which would normally be applied to people (or possibly the environment), not ideas and inventions. SpinningSpark 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've now removed the passage altogether in response to the comment two down from here. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Important components were the needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy." This could be written in active voice to convey the message much more effectively.

I don't see how that can be put in active voice; there is no action verb to activate. "A component was the battery" is no more active than "the battery was a component". SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking something like "The needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy were important components [possibly because...]" I don't really understand your resistance—it's better writing especially for ESL readers. I don't say "Red were the apple and the wagon" generally either. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much resistance as failure to understand what you wanted. perhaps I don't properly understand what active voice is. Still not sure how this is an improvement, but done anyway. SpinningSpark 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1846 the Electric Telegraph Company (the Electric) was formed by Cooke" - same company referenced in the last para? Why repeat it (the lead is already long)?

Agreed and done, which incidentally removes the word exploit which you didn't like. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The company initially supplied telegraph systems to railway companies, but soon branched out into other businesses" - "Industries" is surely a better work than "businesses" here

I don't think so. I find it hard to think of the financial sector or newspapers as industries. They were rarely referred to as such historically, that's a modern contrivance. In any case, I don't see why "businesses" is problematic. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Most telegraph companies were unprofitable except for the Electric and Magnetic." Awkward writing

Rephrased. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Once the cables were laid, these disparate companies were merged into the Eastern Telegraph Company, first established in 1872." Writing can be simplified by replacing phrases like "first established in" with just "in".

No, it can't be stated that way because it would not be true. The Eastern TC was formed in 1872, but the other companies were merged in at various dates as they completed their specific projects. The idea was that if a project failed to deliver its cable, then the company running it could be thrown to the wolves without bringing down the rest of the organisation. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The inland telegraph companies were nationalised in 1870 and then run" By run do you mean operated? Perhaps too colloquial.

Done, although I don't think run is colloquial in this context. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the estimated costs failed to take into account" The costs didn't fail to do anything... a person surely did.

I think this needs considerable improvement before it's ready to meet 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed "estimated costs" to "cost estimates". SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I have responded to the specific points you raised. I hope you can see your way to continue reviewing. It would be greatly appreciated. SpinningSpark 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the responses—it doesn't sound like anything is a showstopper. I'll plan to continue leaving some notes in the next day or so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've just completed a readthrough and I have some minor notes that I'll post today or tomorrow, but there's hardly anything worth fussing over. I've changed to tentative support, as I'd like to read through one more time for cohesiveness. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving to support after another readthrough and some minor tweaks. --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

More notes below. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I began looking at the sources today. I focused on checking instances where a single citation is provided at the end of a paragraph to ensure it covers all of the text. Just checking a couple:

• Fn 83 - close paraphrasing
  • Our text: "The Electric had tested the Hughes printing telegraph in 1858 but decided against using it."
  • Source text: "The Electric also tried the Hughes Type Printer in 1858 but did not use it."
    • I've rephrased it, but there are a limited number of ways such a short statement can be made, so it's inevitable that there will be some similarity. SpinningSpark 17:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Fn 85 - fails verification. This whole para cites p. 64 of Kieve but I don't see that it supports the text.
  • There is an error in the page number. It should be page 69. SpinningSpark 17:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Fn 86 - OK
• Fn 87 - fails verification. The cited pages cover the profitability statement but I don't see anything about "a troublesome rooftop system to maintain".
  • I've removed the passage. The troublesomeness of the system is discussed elsewhere in the article. It was more susceptible to storm damage and malicious or accidental damage by the public. However, it's not worth finding cites, and you are right, Kieve does not discuss the financial impact of this. SpinningSpark 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Fn 92 - fails verification. The cited page covers increased use but not "public started to use the telegraph for mundane everyday messages".
  • I've added an additional cite to cover that: "Telegraphic communcication of a domestic character steadily increased." (Kieve, p. 59). SpinningSpark 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately because of these spot-checks I'm revising my support above as this is a troubling sample. A lot more thorough inspection of the citations will be needed before this could be considered ready. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, in a situation like this I'd expect the nominator to re-check all referencing in the article for possible issues such as those noted above, after which Andy or another reviewer can make another spotcheck and if that comes up clean then we're probably right to promote -- but given the time this has been open, the nominator's ref check would have to take place in fairly short order or else we'd be better off archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I think that's a bit harsh. None of the comments raised are real killers. Of the five cites checked one is marked ok (#86), one is due to a simple typo in the cite (#85), one alleges close paraphrasing (#83) which I don't really agree with as its just a short statement of fact (but I changed it anyway), one is a repeat of a claim that was already made (and cited) earlier in the article (was #92, now #93) and was just used as an introduction to another point. The final one (#87) is a true statement and is also cited elsewhere in the article, but was perhaps used in an inappropriate place. To my mind that was the only one that amounted to a substantive complaint. I'm doing my own random checks, but I know for sure that I have not written anything that is not in the sources (because I don't know anything that is not in the sources). SpinningSpark 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss everything except one as not being substantive. They are citation errors, and they are not in line with the FA criteria. I don't allege that anything you've written is false or fabricated. But they have to be verifiable by the random reader and not just with your assistance. I don't have time to do a comprehensive review of all of your citations, so I would expect you do review your own work at this point and let me know when you believe it's ready for another spot-check. Pinging Ian Rose just for visibility. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship

• I realise this is a long article, but WP:LEDE says the lead should be a maximum of four paragraphs, can we condense this a bit? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• The guideline says this is a general rule of thumb, not a hard rule. That indicates that exceptions can be made, and the great length of this article is surely grounds for an exception if anything ever was. A "paragraph" does not have a definite length, so reducing to four paragraphs does not in itself change the length of the lead. I'm happy to try and shorten it, but you need to say what you think has too much coverage. Five paragraphs works well with the structure of the article, covering the five major periods/developments. These are (1) early development, (2) commercial companies period, (3) nationalised industry period, (4) international submarine network, and (5) decline and rise of other technologies. I don't think any of those five should be removed entirely from the lead.

An alternative solution here is to split the article across two pages. It will divide fairly neatly into pre- and post-nationalisation. This will automatically result in a much reduced lead for both pages. But I would only be willing to do that if the FA coordinators were willing to continue with this nomination in that state. I don't want to have to start over with a new nomination. SpinningSpark 09:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not expecting a split, but obviously we want to keep the lede as condensed as possible; maybe something to think abut rather than something to worry about 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the lede sentence is either a candidate for removal of bold as the "Electrical telegraphy in United Kingdom had the world's first commerical..." doesn't read particularly well. The United Kingdom did. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Done SpinningSpark

• I always think captions should be relatively readable without reading the whole article "Eastern Telegraph Company submarine cables, 1901" could be reworded to say exactly what the picture is of (a map of submarine cables from 1901 for the Eastern Telegraph Company) or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Done SpinningSpark 10:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• decline. Decline - can we reword to avoid sentences ending and starting with the same word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• This comes up so often in reviews that I usually just comply with it. But in this case I could not immediately see a way of doing it without butchering one sentence or the other, so I am just going to ask why is this considered a bad thing? Does our MoS (or anybody's MoS) prescribe it? It is a literary device called anadiplosis and I'm not seeing any writing guides saying not to use it. Just the opposite in fact,[28][29][30] they say it is used for emphasis and linking two clauses for logical flow. It has been used by such titans of literature as Shakespeare and Byron. SpinningSpark 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but they weren't writing an encylopedia in 2020. :P. I'm not sure we have a MOS about it, but I've never found it to be particularly easy to read. What about "The introduction of special greetings telegrams for birthdays and similar events in 1935 proved highly popular also countered the decline."? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, although I still say this is a made up rule circulating amongst wikignomes which has no real basis. Even though I've changed it, I would still argue that it was superior before. Putting "decline" at the beginning of the second sentence immediately tells the reader what point the sentence is going to make and that it follows on from the previous sentence. Nothing needs to be held in temporary storage in order to parse what is going on. Your way the reader has to get all the way to the end of the second sentence before finding out what it is about and then has to refer back to the first sentence to make the connection. SpinningSpark 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Other than the above I've had a look through the article and I can't see too much else worth not supporting, so I'm happy.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Restoration spectacular

Notified: User:Finnusertop, User:Bishonen, User:Geogre, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Rjensen, Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, Wikipedia:WikiProject England.

Nominating due to unresolved problems with tone and flowery language. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

This writing is just atrocious for an encyclopedia article. Leaving aside neutrality, I could barely understand what was being discussed from the lead, and to the extent that I could this is more an essay. Restoration comedy, while not an FA, is much better written in that I could more easily deduce that a type of play is the subject of the article. While I don't entirely oppose flowery language in an FA, there's a way to do it (Chartwell) and a way not to do it (this). Notwithstanding all that, the last two paragraphs are completely uncited. Overall, this needs work to even be a Good Article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm

Oh goodness, this is just a mess. Large quantities of uncited text, there's some points where statements don't seem to be supported by the citation (see reference 9), the whole thing is written like an essay. This is far from even a GA. 2005 promotion where no significant comments other than categorization were brought up. Definitely not an FA under modern standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Shielded metal arc welding

Notified: User talk:Spangineer, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking

I am nominating this featured article for review because 7 months after Beland flagged non-cited information in the article, significant parts of the article are still missing citations. This 2006 promotion has other deficiencies, such as an inconsistent ref style and not following MOS in some areas, such as external links in text. (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Earth

Notified: Femke Nijsse, Graham Beards, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Science, WikiProject Solar System

The talk page discussions initiated in August 2020 should have been linked here, both for compliance with FAR instructions, and for a list of issues. See here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is not well-written and not well-researched, as raised by Femke Nijsse and Graham Beards. RJHall nominated this article for FA status in April Fools' 2007 (13 years ago). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Not well-written and not well-researched" is rather nonspecific. Can you offer some specific criticisms that might help in this review? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse pointed out the following issues:

• Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
  • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
  • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
  • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.
• Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
  • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
  • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
  • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
  • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
  • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993
• Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)
• I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.

I had resolved some of them, but since I am underexperienced (a 16-year old dole), I have to leave it for someone else. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced this was a good example of talk page discussion with identification of issues, but scanning the page, one easily finds indications of deterioration since RJHall retired, including being crammed full of sandwiched images, some uncited text, and some repetition in the lead. A tune-up might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unfortunately relatively busy both on Wikipedia and finishing my thesis, but I will try to improve the under-sourced parts of the atmosphere and climate section over the next two weeks. There are a few sections that need either expert attention or quite a big time investment to update I think, for instance the future section, but possibly also the geological history and early life sections. Do we know any geologists that might be willing to help?

(@SandyGeorgia: what would be a better example of a talk page discussion?) Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Because a number had been resolved, and Graham Beards questioned others, it might have been better to ping involved editors to talk, or ask for help from WikiProjects, and to give it more time ... but here we are, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: thank you very much for your help with this (although I have no idea what a "dole" is) - hope you are enjoying your return to education. I could fix this article but I would rather spend the considerable time needed on some more specialist articles which there is no chance of others updating. All I can suggest is that if anyone does fix it they ask an intelligent 16 year old such as Soumya-8974 to read through it once they have finished to make sure it is understandable.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "dole" is – "Dole" is a clipping of adolescent. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

• I'll note that this is a Level 1 Vital Article, so I'm going to be stricter in my interpretations of the FACR with this than I would an FAC of a "normal" article (or even anything that's not our Top 10 most important subjects).
• Sourcing is of the utmost importance, especially here. From a brief inspection of the references list, I see a citation to The Alcalde (an alumni magazine) and Live Science. While I'm sure that Live Science is an adequate source, it is by no means the top-notch source in discussing something as scientifically commonplace as winds. Speaking of winds, that Live Science citation (Ref #157 as I type this) is part of a bulleted list whose other constituents are uncited without adequate excuse. There are also a few journal articles from the 1960s. Already these issues would severely compromise if not sink an FAC, IMO.

Y Partly done: the wind paragraph is now fully cited to a HQRS. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Nijsse that the lead, while understandable to me as a Geology graduate, is inappropriately dense, not to mention disjointed. I would put About 29% of Earth's surface is land consisting of continents and islands. The remaining 71% is covered with water, mostly by oceans but also lakes, rivers and other fresh water, which all together constitute the hydrosphere. The majority of Earth's polar regions are covered in ice, including the Antarctic ice sheet and the sea ice of the Arctic ice pack. Earth's interior remains active with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates Earth's magnetic field, and a convecting mantle that drives plate tectonics. right after the first sentence, as the first paragraph.
• In the "Etymology" section, the Beowulf image and notes, while cool, are ultimately "cruft" that should be removed to streamline the article, IMO.
• "Billion years ago" should be clarified to refer to the short-scale "billion" (10⁹, not 10¹²); very ideally (though this is admittedly just my preference) "Ga" would be substituted for "BYA".

We could use "Billion years ago (10⁹ years or Ga)" at the first mention in the lede, and Ga thereafter, but I'll go with what the consensus is on this. Whichever we go with, there needs to be consistency - the lede and the "Origin of life and evolution" both use billion (although the latter switches to Ma in its second paragraph).Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• to form linking to Phase transition (in "Geological History") should either be dropped or have the link be reduced to simply form.

 Done: part of a rewrite of that paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a non-exhaustive run-through. Overall this is salvageable but needs attention. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse

• in addition to previous comments, I've now added 11 citation needed and six update needed tags in the article. Most of those are beyond my sphere of knowledge. Mikenorton, you seem to be knowledgeable about geology. Do you think you might have time to further help out here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy to take a look at the tagged statements in the geological parts of the article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Partly done:I've rewritten the paragraphs on continental growth and tweaked the bit on supercontinents - I hope that's clearer now. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Partly done:I have attempted to clarify how the age of the Jack Hills zircons matches with the Acasta Gneiss being the oldest known continental crust. Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've also reworded the bit about mass extinctions. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Notified: Seloloving, Pentagon 2057, Robertksy, TheGreatSG'rean, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Singapore

Review section

This article was nominated and promoted to GA status long ago in 2006. Since then, there has been many scattered and non specific edits as the network expanded over time. As of January 2020, a collective effort was made to clean up the article, especially the history section (which was appropriately summarised) and reformatted the rolling stock section to make the article less complex. However, there are still other outstanding issues, such as uncited fragments, and outdated information, and formatting issues at some sections.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Compared to the reviewed revision in 2006, it can be said without doubt that the article has expanded and improved a lot. Although there are certain sections (whole of section 4) in the current revision that may not meet the FA criteria (2b and maybe 1a), this does not compromise the core integrity of the article, and hence does not warrant a delist. I suggest creating a new spinoff page called 'Future of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)' for the chunky section 4 of the article to keep it inline with section 2b or moving it to History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) under a new section. In addition to that the article could do with a fresh copyedit to weed out the smaller problems with grammar or structure. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 08:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pentagon 2057, are you willing to do that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: It is exam season now where I live and consequently my editing activity has declined sharply. However I have no doubt that there will be another editor willing to take on the work (or myself if still not done after my examinations conclude). Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 09:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2005, and it's now not up to FA standards. There are many unsourced sentences and paragraphs (for example the last paragraph of the Modern historians section doesn't have any proper source). There are also no uniformed source formatting. Then, the article relies too much on primary sources (Cassius Dio and Herodian), even the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (see for instance the section "Sexuality and gender controversy"; there are 9 citations to primary sources and only one to a RS (Grant)), despite the article saying this book is unreliable. I am not saying that these sources shouldn't be included in the articles*, but only with modern sources to back or criticise them. Therefore, the article patently violates 1.c (reliable sources) and 2.c (consistant formatting). T8612 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

T8612 I cannot see where you gave talk page notification, per the FAR instructions, nor have you notified relevant participants or WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Here. I didn't use the template, perhaps that's why. Original author retired in 2006. T8612 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, so Mr rnddude’s 2016 post can serve as talk page notification. I guess. T8612 could you please use the template to notify all of the WikiProjects tagged on talk? The goal is to find someone who might be interested in improving the article, and the template explains how the process works. It would have helped to notify Paul August because the tools show he has a 15-year history on the article, which he edited this year. SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Paul August and Llywrch who contributed on the nomination in 2005 are active on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't want to add to their busy talk pages. T8612 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Done what? I don't see where you've notified me? Paul August ☎ 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, I didn't notified you. As I know you read the Wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a note for future reference: our goals with the notification are to cast a wide net to hopefully find someone to update the article, and give a brief idea of how the process works to people before they pop in here to immediately register a Keep or Delist. It is best to notify everyone even if you think they are following an article or a talk page because we can't assume anyone is aware or sees the nomination, and by posting to talk pages of editors, we may pick up some of their talk page stalkers, who tend to have similar editing interests. Another reason for being sure to notify is so the process is not slowed down. This nomination was ten days ago: should Llywrch or Paul August decide to work on improvements, we would now need to slow down the initial two-week period because they just found out about the nomination. And a final reason is that it can be offputting for editors to realize a FAR is going on that they weren't aware of ... short story: please always broadly notify using the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks. Paul August ☎ 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a comment to this effect in 2016: Talk:Elagabalus/Archive_1#Featured Article, serious concers (sic). I didn't take any action in regards to it at the time because I had limited experience with FA and its processes, though I knew there was a delisting process, and eventually it just slipped away. To summarize my comments then: 1) multiple unsourced passages; 2) over-reliance on primary sources; 3) use of unreliable sources (Historia Augusta in particular). Those comments are still applicable, particularly the last two. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that ancient historians use "primary sources" to mean "sources published in ancient languages". By their standard, a book published today on Shakespeare would be a primary source, since he lived just four centuries ago and we're also writing in English. Needless to say, this is not the definition of "primary" that modern historians or Wikipedia use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dio and Herodian are Elagabalus' contemporaries. They both lived during his reign. I have serious doubts you lived through Shakespearean times. The HA is plain unreliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Close discussion
I'll take this as a warning from you not to touch the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Huh? The article needs work. Contribute away. Your comparison to modern writers discussing Shakespeare just isn't applicable here, that's all. I'm not sure what part of my comment is warning you not to edit the article? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that ancient sources should be avoided because they don't necessarily follow WP:RS practices. Arguably there are some that have a reputation for accuracy (e.g. Polybius), but still, if it's true and due it has probably been mentioned in at least one source in the last 200 years. Anyway the HA does not have a reputation for factualness or accuracy, quite the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• At least some of these issues seem relatively easy to resolve. For example, I just went through and updated the section on Elagabalus's sexuality/marriages to replace the ancient sources with modern ones which provide more details (and which look to additional evidence for e.g. the timeline of the marriages and divorces, which I added based on those modern sources). In turn, I'll try to standardize the article to consistently use a single citation format and sfn templates later if I have time (or is there a gadget/script for this, like reFill?). -sche (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to easily save the article, unless you want to rewrite it entirely. As I pointed out, several sections rely on primary sources, and once you dig a bit in secondary sources, you see that there are often many different interpretations among modern historians. Elagabalus was vilified in ancient sources and they make it especially difficult to tell what really happened. If you want to rewrite the article, the first step is to include information from Martijn Icks, The crimes of Elagabalus : the life and legacy of Rome’s decadent boy emperor, published in 2012 (seven years after this article became FA), and Andrew G. Scott, Emperors and Usurpers should be cited throughout the article [Icks and Scott seem to be the two main modern sources]. Imo, the section on religion should be expanded; there must be one on his "black legend", and another on the role of women (his mother and grandmother). I also don't think you should remove all the primary sources, but put them in context. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I've now also revised and ref'ed the Family and Priesthood stuff, so it's supported by modern sources (including modern sources evaluating the ancient sources), removing a few things I couldn't find sources for, and adding some info where there's uncertainty among modern historians, e.g. over precise birth year. (I agree it wouldn't be appropriate to remove all mention of the ancient sources, but replacing the direct citations of them as <ref>s with citations of e.g. Scott's and others' summaries of them seems appropriate. In the section on marriage, I left in-text attributions i.e. "Cassius Dio states that...") -sche (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, (it's reasonable no-one notified me, since I had not previously done major work on the article that I recall, but) as far as the mention above of slowing down timelines: after I chanced to notice the FAR on the 14th, I've been revising the article, having at this point reworked the "Family" section, rewritten the first half of the "Rise" section, and revised the "Marriages" section, to cite modern sources and note places where there's uncertainty/disagreement among or noted in them. I'll probably make another pass later and trim a thing or two for which I was only able to find a single not-as-high-quality modern source to replace or compliment the period source it had been sourced to. -sche (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The FAR Coordinators will always relax time constraints when work is underway; please keep this page informed of progress ... thanks for digging in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've almost finished revising the "Rose to power" section (I just need to update the last paragraph to follow and cite modern sources). I substantially rewrote the first paragraph of the "Emperor" section, which had simply parroted the loaded (unencyclopedic) language of the ancient primary sources, but now gives an overview based on Scott (who evaluates/discusses a lot of other literature). (The rest of the section will indeed need rewriting, as others noted above, which I will work on.) I also started to edit the section on Dio-as-a-source, to mention places where modern biographers like Scott and Icks note that Dio's accounts are wrong or internally inconsistent. -sche (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I will look in when you are closer to finished; thanks for the work and the update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if he has time, but pinging Attar-Aram syria, who is knowledgeable Syrian/Roman figures. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Progress update, I rewrote more of the section on Elagabalus' emperorship (about half of the first subsection, having previously done the "Marriages" subsection). User Julia Domna Ba'al expanded the modern history section and added a bit to the section on the Augustan History, and replaced many of the primary source citations with Icks and other secondary souces. :) User Avis has made various improvements. The other half of first subsection on emperorship, the "Religious controversy" section and the "Fall" section remain to be redone (I am getting to them, or other editors are obviously welcome to beat me to it). (Once the body has been rewritten, I figure the lead can be revised at that point.) -sche (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hold in FAR, good progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Paul August and Llywrch: as others have been at work here, and progress has been made, might you be interested now in engaging or have time for a glance? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this review because I disagree with one of the criticisms of this article: I have no problem with citing primary sources in history & biographical articles, as long as it is done properly. (And example of "properly" would be to present what the primary source says, then secondary sources to explain what needs interpretation or correction. Another would be to discuss the issues with the primary sources: not only their accuracy, but how thoroughly they cover the period; quality & quantity both need to be addressed.) After all, people access these articles to aid their research, which we can help by providing pointers to these primary sources.

And as I read this article, I see that this is not the direction this article is going, & from other comments believe that it would be a needless conflict to try to push this article in the direction I prefer. (After all, I am not a FA regular, & Wikipedia is not finished; there will be a time when I can prove that I am right on this with minimal conflict, & I am content to wait.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't ask for the removal of ancient sources though, just the addition of modern sources to comment on them. Typically, I would prefer to see something like this: "The Historia Augusta tells Elagabalus did that, but modern historians have rejected this.(ref HA) Smith thinks Elagabalus did this instead, while Brown suggests it was that.(ref Smith)(ref Brown)." That said, it's just my preference too. T8612 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The HA cannot be cited for 'modern historians have rejected this'. When modern historians state what the HA says, there is no need to rely on the (unreliable) HA. If modern historians don't state what the HA says, then it should not be cited, as it does not meet WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. This is simplistic reasoning. For one thing, the primary sources for Elagabalus include more than than the Historia Augusta. There is Dio Cassius, whose fragments is the principal authority for this period; he is augmented by Herodian, who is not as sound as Dio, but his text helps to fill in the gaps; & there is the evidence of coinage & inscriptions -- a quick glance at the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae alone shows six addressed to Elagabalus, & a more careful survey of the corpora would doubtlessly reveal many more relevant items.

Another matter is that, despite modern research, the statements in the Historia Augusta continue to haunt the non-specialist conception of his reign. Edward Gibbon cites from the HA in his monumental work -- who recounts the emperor's hetrosexual promiscuity while keeping his homosexual activities to a passing mention in a footnote. (I have to wonder how much it influenced similar accounts in such popular accounts such as H.G. Wells' The Outline of History or the Durant's The Story of Civilization.) And the HA provided much of the material for Elagabalus' legacy.

Lastly, one cannot lightly dismiss the Historia Augusta with one word & ignore it. Students of this period of ancient Rome are faced with a deficit of materials, & are forced to look wherever possible to make up the difference: whether wise or not, they plumb its fantasies in hope of uncovering some fragments of information that might cast more light on the subject. Which is why the HA remains a controversial primary source, & not one on which judgment has been passed, found wanting, & condemned to the darkness. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I don't think I'm able to contribute much here. Paul August ☎ 12:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Cell nucleus

Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest in the template. More than six months ago, Graham Beards stated on the talk:

the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.

Sadly, these issues have not been fixed in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As a start, I have marked the journal citations as either "Review" or "Primary" (based on the PubMed "publication type" classification) by adding a |department=Review/Primary parameter to all the {{cite journal}} templates. It appears that the only paragraphs that are without supporting citations are in the lead and a few short introductory sections whereas the subordinate subsections all contain cites. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have also deleted an obscure section on the "Fougaro System" that was only supported by primary sources. There may be a few more like this that could/should be removed. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your tagging, but I don't think that all the information in the article is sourced. I've added "citation needed" tags (17 of them) wherever the source of information is not obvious. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. More than a dozen citation needed tags. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2

Notified: Ryu Kaze, Deckiller, Square Enix WikiProject, Video games WikiProject

Review section

There was a call for an FAR back in January and I agree with that. There is information that is not cited in the article as well as this being a very old Featured Article has it not meeting the current criteria. It just needs an overhaul. GamerPro64 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64: I've reorganised and cited the gameplay section and done some rewriting and rearranging in other areas. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Off-topic content moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Final Fantasy X-2/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64:@SandyGeorgia: I am a huge fan of this game and have a pretty extensive amount of knowledge about it so I will try my best to help. Aside from the uncited portions, what else requires improvement? I have noticed the citations use an inconsistent date format with some using Y/M/D and others using M/D/Y. I am uncertain about what variation of English would be used for a Japanese game so I am unsure which way to correct that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Upon doing a brief read-through, I do notice a lot of issues with the prose, and I would reckon that sections like the "Reception" one would benefit from an overhaul. I will try to get to the article this weekend or next week if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah sure. FAR isnt supposed to be about removing article status. It can at least have the page have some fighting chance. GamerPro64 14:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response, and apologies for the long message. I have never participated in a FAR before, but I figured I should try to at least help somewhat given my knowledge of the game. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Aoba47, if you can do what you can for now, I will re-engage in a few days when I have more time to list anything else I see. User:Deckiller did a lot of work to help other editors at FAR in his day, so if you can help save this star, it would be grand! Do what you can for now, and ping this page when you need more feedback. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64: Apologies for my delay in looking at the article. I think the "Reception" section is the major area that should be overhauled. It does not address reviews for the remasters or any retrospective reviews. The structure as a whole could also use more focus, and I think the second paragraph on sales would work better as its own subsection. I'd be curious on your opinion on this section. I have never worked on something this popular so I am uncertain of how to balance length.

• However, I will work on other issues first. I will get to the final paragraph for the "Versions and merchandise" section and "Music" subsection over the next few days, and check around for uncited material in the overall article. I am holding on the "Reception" section for the moment because frankly it will require the most work and I wanted to get your feedback on this first. Apologies for the ping. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Have you thought about asking the Video Game or Square Enix WikiProject for help? GamerPro64 20:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• That is a good point. I will post a message on both talk pages in the next day or two. I have not really worked on projects with active WikiProjects so it is not something I think of right away. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Aoba47: WP:RECEPTION gives excellent advice for that section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the resource. The reception section should be completely rewritten. I have already said this, but my biggest concern is the gaps (i.e. retrospective reviews and re-release reviews). I have attempted to copy-edit this section, but I am not particularly satisfied with my first pass-through. While the rest of the article is in much better shape, this section alone would take in my opinion a substantial amount of work and time to bring to a FA level. I am sorry to say this, but this is the point where I have to stop. Hopefully, my edits were not harmful (and they can be reverted of course) and apologies again. This is just way too much for me right now. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for trying; there is only so much any of us can do, and any improvement is worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to take a stab at the article before delisting. Can I get the weekend to do what I can? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure. GamerPro64 00:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - It can probably become a Good Article with some polish but not a Featured Article in its current form. GamerPro64 03:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delist as it requires a lot of work to meet the FA criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

Notified: :Doc James, Anthonyhcole, Jfdwolff, WPMED, WP Psych, WP Disability

Review section

Parkinson's disease is one of dozens of medical FAs that have fallen out of compliance, mostly because their main authors are no longer editing, and no one has carefully kept the FAs up to snuff. Parkinson's was promoted in 2011, and its main editor has not edited since 2013. Almost all of the sources used in the article date to Garrondo's editing, and there has been almost no attempt to keep the article updated, although it averages about 5,000 pageviews daily (one of the highest for the Medicine project). There has been no response to updates needed since February. Problems are throughout but are particularly noticeable in the Research section, which contains numerous statements about current research that are dated; if these items were significant, they would be mentioned in secondary reviews by now. (That section should also be considerably trimmed, and has become a dumping ground.) Other problems that are easily noticeable is content in the lead that is out of sync with or not present in the body of the article. For example, 117,400 global deaths, life expectancy. Subtypes are not mentioned. Parkinson's research has advanced considerably since this article was written, but the article has stagnated. It is also highly cited to the NINDS rather than relying on the underlying more authoritative literature. Page numbers or section headings are needed on lengthy journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC needs some serious updating, no one has (yet) stepped up. (t · c) buidhe 06:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hold on, PainProf has just indicated they may be willing and able to help with improvements.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Update, PainProf has started working, so I will join the effort (soon) and try to encourage others to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf:, I am not going to be able to take the lead on this; I have more on my plate than I can handle, and other medical editors don't seem to have stepped up or taken an interest. Could we get your opinion on where the article stands after the work you've done? I am concerned that you and I alone are not enough to salvage the star here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to look at this in more depth, I have to submit a big grant this week but will look over it again at the weekend PainProf (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

PainProf, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Let’s Move to FARC; there has been no other interest from the Medicine Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Edward VIII

Notified: DrKay, Politics, WT:MILHIST, WT:UK

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues versus the FA criteria, including uncited text and MOS problems (image sandwiching, among others). Furthermore, recent scholarly sources including the latest biography (Powell, Ted (2018). King Edward VIII: An American Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-251457-8.) are not cited, meaning the article is under-researched. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The couple of image sandwichesw look fine to me, even at 400px default. Powell's book is not exactly a full biography, but a treatment of what he says is a major theme in the Duke's life - but however much he liked aspects of America, he never lived there, & I don't see the omission as fatal. It should go in a further reading section though. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, reviews indicate that the book is a significant work which advances new ideas about the article subject. Without incorporating new scholarship the article cannot be considered either comprehensive ("it neglects no major facts or details") or well-researched ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the same link twice. It sounds as though the author is just winding up to give the book a good kicking when the preview stops. I must say i don't remember seeing British reviews. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I made a mistake with copy pasting links, but there are other reviews, such as an academic one stating "The book offers acompelling and highly readable analysis of Edward’s life and fateful decision, one that offers enlightenment and diversion to all audiences. The Wallis Simpson story is thus no longer the linchpin of a monarch’s unprecedented abdication; instead, it is but one element in a long process of cultural estrangement." (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm more worried about the use of primary sources. We should not be relying so heavily on The London Gazette, contemporary newspapers, and even newsreels. Given the depth in which the subject has been covered, there is no justification for this. Equally, a significant amount of the material under "Titles, styles, honours and arms" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (who cares whether he had a medal from San Marino?) and should be removed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing; need some additional perspectives on the article's status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 164 footnotes including many sources from the 21st century. It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm afraid at this time I don't see any compelling arguments that the new source needs to be cited. If the nominator can provide evidence that leaving this source out affects the articles comprehensiveness (ie the new book contains new research) I'd reconsider. Otherwise, there are many topics where you can achieve comprehensiveness by cited selected sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think the absence of Powell's book is remotely fatal. I'd suggest however that the absence of material from Alan Lascelles' diaries is an issue. I appreciate that they are a primary source, but he worked for Edward for a decade, and knew him exceptionally well. Lascelles' insights into Edward's character are exceptionally revealing, and probably unique. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov

Notified: Qp10qp, WikiProject Russia/Performing arts in Russia task force, WikiProject Theatre

Review section

I was very reluctant to put this article in FAR, since it is very well sourced and written. I originally left some comments on the talk page yesterday and was planning to wait a week before nominating the article for review. However, after going through the archives and past comments on the talk page I see that the concerns I expressed have been brought up for at least 13 years, but still not addressed and that the main contributor, has not edited in WP since 2012. (Although I will notify them of this FAR nonetheless) Please see this comment from 2007 and this comment from 2011.

I will relay my comments from the talk page here that basically this article suffers from minor issues and major ones. Minor ones include inconsistent sourcing and overuse of images – after posting this FAR I'll fix the sourcing. The major ones however are more concerning, in that this article almost solely focuses on biographical information and a legacy section that I would argue is still lacking – especially in terms of Chekhov's direct influence on modernism in theater and literature in Russia. There is quite literally no section on his works, style or thematic material, making this article look empty in comparison to others, like William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway or Franz Kafka. Basically the article fails 1b and 2c. I am more than willing to work on the article, but would be very hesitant to do it alone, since I am not really familiar with Chekhov past his reputation. - Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you made the right call; it definitely needs work. Looking through the images, while many of them are likely free due to their age, the tagging of the files doesn't meet the current expectations for FA. I'll work on those over the next several days to at least resolve that from your "minor issues". The major ones need someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can offer. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further issues upon looking further, these issues have come up as well:

1. There are 10 block quotes for some reason; definitely too many
2. There a substantial amount of WP:LEADCITE, and the lead in general seems far too short, especially when compared with the articles of the playwrights and writers above I had compared this article to
3. A lot of the references don't seem to be references, but rather notes (16, 66, 67) - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Another comment: If this article doesn't end up receiving the inclusion of a themes/works/style section then I still think it would meet GA standards, just not FA. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Atom

Notified: WT Physics, WT Chemistry, WT Elements

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was featured in 2008. Back then, this article was substantially different, and Wikipedia's standards for featured articles were also different. I think this article should undergo a second review to see if it meets modern standards. This is not to say this article is bad, I think it has improved over the years, but it should be reviewed under current standards, because our standards have risen. Kurzon (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference, this is the article as it was just before becoming FA (July 2008): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=224375262 Kurzon (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon, could you please do the notifications? See step 6 of the nomination instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon did not do the notifications, so I am doing them now. This may mean the review time needs to be extended by a week. The talk page was notified on 1 April, but no deficiencies were specified. In fact, the nominator specified no deficiencies in the nomination either :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Physics isn't my area at all, but I'm seeing significant uncited text and MOS:IMAGELOC violations with sandwiching. Overall it definitely looks salvageable but someone will have to check the sourcing as well. buidhe 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I removed two images that were creating text-sandwiching, and replaced another in that area with one that included more-text-relevant illustration (as well as encompasing several of the removed-images' ideas). DMacks (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overuse of however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Make sure any uses first are in accord with MOS:HOWEVER. DMacks (talk)

  I've done a pass through the article, and removed violations of WP:HOWEVER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There has been some edit-warring to insert an "Indeed" clause, which seems to fall into both WP:HOWEVER and WP:EDITORIALIZING, aside from implying a falsehood. I've lost patience with explaining, though. —Quondum 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• The third graf of the lede ends with these sentences: All electrons, nucleons, and nuclei alike are subatomic particles. The behavior of electrons in atoms is closer to a wave than a particle. The former seems out of place; it might belong better in the second paragraph, where electrons, nuclei and neucleons are introduced. The second seems unclear to me. That is, I only know what it means because I already know about the topic and I can guess what it's trying to say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's unclear, but you understand what it is saying? How would you express it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I might cut it completely; it's redundant with the statements about the necessity of quantum mechanics in the first paragraph, and it's both loaded and vague. In quantum physics, we calculate the probabilities of events using equations that involve abstract "waves", and the events themselves look like the detection of particles. Neither aspect can be neglected; in what way is the behavior of subatomic particles within atoms "closer" to one aspect than the other? Is it helpful to lead the reader into imagining water waves when the waves we're talking about are oscillations in complex-valued probability amplitudes? The passage leading into it talks about radioactive decay: In this case, the nucleus shatters and leaves behind different elements. Do waves "shatter"? On top of that, the pictures [31][32] show clouds, not waves. Any reader who doesn't already know the material is being presented with disjointed statements, metaphors and imagery that they must try to fit together. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: could you please update whether this needs to "Move to FARC", or if you are satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Further reading needs cleanup, citations should be formatted ( oxford dictionary – valency), and several of the sources are red-linked by Headbomb's script, please check them, eg Ted Talk. Can we not improve on "current state" as a section heading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing

I fixed the oxford-dictionary ref (actually I replaced it with a different ref), and I see no other refs that are missing substantial details. There are currently no redlinks in the references. I did some CS1 cleanup. A few Further Reading entries were removed since the original discussion here began, and I just removed a few more. @SandyGeorgia:, could you clarify what "Further reading needs cleanup" is needed (format, inclusion criteria, annotations, etc.)? DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Featured articles should be comprehensive; why are 14 additional listings needed in Further reading? What do they add that is not already in the article, and if they add something not already there, why isn't it there? What are the criteria for these listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional detail. I easily removed a third of them. I think more can also go (many are more about history of science which is its own article apart from mainly about atoms). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The overwhelming citation style is full ref format in the footnote. However, there are four that are WP:SFN (two each are the only use of their respective Bibliography and two are to different pages of one Bibliography entry). Should they all become standardized as full biblio in the footnotes themselves? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Back when first promoted, all references were full biblio inline AGRL or WP:SFN. Now we are down to 3–4 that use that latter style, so I'll convert those over soon. But now we also have many refs that are WP:LDR. It seems like we get a unified list in the References section, but is this something we should unify as far as being the "best we can" to avoid mixed WP:CITEVAR? DMacks (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Organization

I think this refers to the concern of XOR'easter regarding a few sentences' meaning and location? They seem to have been massively overhauled or removed altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• References

Headbomb's reliability script is returning a red link for:

• Ghosh, D.C.; Biswas, R. (2002). "Theoretical calculation of Absolute Radii of Atoms and Ions. Part 1. The Atomic Radii". Int. J. Mol. Sci. 3 (11): 87–113. doi:10.3390/i3020087

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, Headbomb's script is returning multiple redlinks:

• Crawford, E.; Sime, Ruth Lewin; Walker, Mark (1997). "A Nobel tale of postwar injustice". Physics Today. 50 (9): 26–32. Bibcode:1997PhT....50i..26C. doi:10.1063/1.88193
• Langmuir, Irving (1919). "The Arrangement of Electrons in Atoms and Molecules". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 41 (6): 868–934. doi:10.1021/ja02227a002. Archived from the original on 21 June 2019. Retrieved 27 June 2019.
• Chad Orzel (16 September 2014). "What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?". TED-Ed. Archived from the original on 13 September 2015. Retrieved 26 October 2015 – via YouTube.

• Who is Chad Orzel? And right there is an example of the citation formatting issues ... what is the author style used in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What "red links" are there? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the Ted Talk, Chad Orzel isn't a quack. There are better sources for this than a pop science talk however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And the link is helpful :) The four I listed above are flagged as pink by your script. Is there a difference between red and pink in your script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The script must be interacting with something, because only references being touched by the script is 10.3390/i3020087 (yellow, because MDPI) and ResearchGate/Zenodo (also in yellow, because those are general repositories and unvetted). The Chad Orzel link in the article is in red, for YouTube, but here it's plain since there is no actual link to YouTube. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to leave it to Headbomb and SandyGeorgia here, since possibly nobody else knows what script you are talking about, what the criteria are for "reliability", etc. But whatever it is, it's flagging a Journal of the American Chemical Society article as unreliable? DMacks (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb perhaps it's me, but I cannot locate anywhere on your userpage a link to or information about how I downloaded your script or instructions for installing it, so perhaps you can provide that info here and there? It appears to me that the problem here that is causing the sources to be flagged is that URLs are added (unnecessarily) to other sites that provide (only sometimes) the full text, and it's not clear to me if those are copyright violations. I remain confused about why they show as yellow links on some browsers, and pink on others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:UPSD? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I just inspected your User:SandyGeorgia/common.js page and you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js installed. So I suspect what you're seeing is red/pink/whatever for duplicate links, rather than unreliable ones. I can't reproduce the issue however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, darnit. I will have to try to deal with this after I finish dealing with that copyvio issue elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Formatting

The article uses three different kinds of dashes: spaced WP:ENDASHes, unspaced WP:EMDASHes (pick one or the other), and even spaced WP:EMDASHes, a no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Shiloh

Notified: Tirronan, WikiProject Military History, Wikiproject Tennessee

Review section

This 2007 FA just doesn't meet the FA requirements, at least note anymore. Honestly, there'd be a number of things with this article that I'd require fixing before passing this through a GA review. A number of statements and paragraphs lack citations, such as "Grant's career suffered temporarily in the aftermath of Shiloh; Halleck combined and reorganized his armies, relegating Grant to the powerless position of second-in-command. Beauregard remained in command of the Army of Mississippi and led it back to Corinth. In late April and May, the Union armies, under Halleck advanced slowly toward Corinth and took it in the Siege of Corinth, while an amphibious force on the Mississippi River destroyed the Confederate River Defense Fleet and captured Memphis, Tennessee. Halleck was promoted to be general in chief of all the Union armies and with his departure to the East, Grant was restored to command. The Union forces eventually pushed down the Mississippi River to besiege Vicksburg, Mississippi. After the surrender of Vicksburg and the fall of Port Hudson in the summer of 1863, the Mississippi River came under Union control and the Confederacy was cut in two.", which needs a citation for verification, "For the remainder of the war, the Confederate armies in the West would go through a long string of commanders, much like the Union in the east, as Davis searched for a leader who was the caliber of Robert E. Lee.", and claims of which leaders were killed. There's many of these, I'll try and mark them all with CN tags later. The entire notable veterans section is uncited. 12 external links for a FA probably isn't appropriate, and some of the references are unreliable. A blogspot page is cited here, as are gems such as "lyricsinterpretation.com". There's several self-referencing popular culture things, such as the games. Additionally, there a major reference formatting issues. In the version that exists while I'm writing this, references 1, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 60, 129, and 130 are just URLS, nothing else. Other bad refs include "waymarkings.com" and "Essential Civil War Curriculum". Between the formatting, lack of citations, and bad refs, this isn't an FA, and isn't close, either. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Part of footnote 125 reads, "The other references to this article do not make this claim, perhaps due to the uncertainties of the actual casualty figures in the earlier wars," which smacks of WP:OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed up the formatting a bit, but the article clearly needs a huge amount of work to make FA status for reasons explained by Hog Farm above. For instance, the popular culture section should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. buidhe 17:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The problems with this article would be easier to fix than delist. Most of the cns are to uncontroversial statements, for example, Johnston's shrugging off of his wound is easily reliably sourced (and I've done that). essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com is the site of historian Timothy B. Smith, who has written several academic treatments of the battle. Yes, the statements should have been referenced to one of his books, but the nominator should have at least examined the link before referring to the site as a "bad source." Having gone through the concerns raised by the nominator, it appears most of them could simply being resolved by being bold, for example the external links may be excessive but they can simply be removed if necessary and are not a reason for delisting. Several of the uncited paragraphs are mere chronological recitations of subsequent events, such as Lew Wallace's lack of further military advancement and the summary of the Mississippi River campaign up to the fall of Vicksburg - these can be easily cited from the books found at their main articles. As for notable veterans, while the section may be unreferenced now, its claims can easily be verified and referenced. The popular culture section was cluttered with non-notable mentions that were rightly removed, but given the quick fix the problems mentioned do not justify the extreme remedy of delisting. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (EDIT: All of the citation needed tags have been resolved in some way, and the flagged unreliable sources removed.)

• Kges1901, keep/delist isn't declared at this stage, but if you feel the problems are easily resolvable please do go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and citation

The first citation is unformatted, and this doesn't look reliable.[33] (Quick glance only, not a comprehensive list of sourcing or citation issues, but indications that a check is needed.) And many citation formatting issues, samples:

• [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018.
• "The Battle of Shiloh Summary & Facts". Civilwar.org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Orphan Brigade having received a few Enfields is cited to an 1898 brigade history, but I have removed the specific mention as there were also other Confederate regiments with Enfields, and there is no reason to single out the Orphan Brigade in this case. There is secondary discussion of the weapons, however, and I have added the relevant citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There's some other sourcing issues, too. I just noticed that Ref 135 seems to be citing another Wikipedia article. That's yikes in a FA. Hog Farm (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Have removed the statement in question as it is based on official casualty figures which have been questioned and it basically states that the war intensified and continued which is already known to those familiar with the Civil War, and implied later. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, numerous issues. External link and Further reading farms suggest the article may not be comprehensive or updated; multiple cite ref errors and incomplete or poorly formatted citations (samples: "The Battle of Shiloh". and [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018); MOS issues (markup in section headings which are also poorly named, missing converst and NBSPs); deficient prose (as a sample, see this section); text hidden in a template; one entire paragraph is a single quote in the "Battle" April 7 section. "In his memoirs, Grant intimated that ... " followed by a direct quote ?? It looks like this was once a fine article, as the bones are there, but the disrepair is everywhere. The version that passed FAC in 2007 did not have some of these glaring issues, and was 4,500 words; the current version, at 7,900 words, has been damaged and the content should be re-reviewed by MILHIST. I doubt it would pass GA, and do not believe this article can be repaired in the course of a FAR. Sad when the original writer moves on and once fine work deteriorates. Perhaps a rewrite will involve a revert and starting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, style and sourcing. 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm could you please update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: My computer is in the shop, I'll give this a close combat through once I get it back. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues

Background and plans

Given that this level two heading only contains a level three heading, there's some structure issues here. Some background information before February 1862 would also be helpful, it picks up rather abruptly a year in as is.

• I have removed the level three heading as I don't think we need a non-military context for this as Shiloh is a battle not the war in general. Thoughts on my summary of the Western Theater situation? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Looks great. Thanks

Throughout the article there's some minor copy edit issues, especially with current MILHIST MOS (for instance "Shiloh Campaign" vs. "Shiloh campaign"), but these would be rather easy fixes.

File:Shiloh Battle Apr6pm.png is made by a Wikipedia user, but it's unclear what sources User:Hlj used to create the map, so the accuracy of the map is undetermined.

Several of the other maps are also Hlj creations without any sourcing where Jesperson got the information. The user seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, but the maps are still user-generated without clear sourcing.

• The argument you make about Jespersen is repeatedly made and honestly I think that his credentials should be added to map descriptions in order to clear this up so that the following does not need to be stated again. Jespersen is a professional cartographer who makes these maps for a living, unlike most other users creating maps. Jespersen created new maps that were used in William Glenn Robertson's River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign, published in 2018 by University of North Carolina Press. In Slaughter at the Chapel: The Battle of Ezra Church, 1864 by Gary Ecelbarger (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), Jespersen is described as a "professional cartographer" in acknowledgements for creating maps used in the book. Other works include for which he created the maps included David Powell, All Hell Can't Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga-Missionary Ridge and Ringgold, November 24-27, 1863 (Savas Beatie, 2018), Sean Michael Chick, The Battle of Petersburg (U of Nebraska Press, 2015), Mellott and Snell, Seventh West Virginia (UP of Kansas, 2019), Jones et al., Gateway to the Confederacy (LSU Press, 2014), Dunham, Allegany to Appomattox (Syracuse UP, 2013), Faust, Conspicuous Gallantry (Kent State UP, 2015). I think these are pretty impeccable credentials that go above the normal standard in WP. Kges1901 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Aftermath section relies very heavily on Grant's personal memoirs, which is not really independent and is a touch biased towards Grant's viewpoint.

The Significance section could use expansion, this was a very important battle.

More structure issues: the level two sections Honors and commemoration and In popular culture are too brief to be stand-alone level two sections.

References

A total mess. Formatting is way off. A mixture of short and long citations, no real consistency. Most of the web citations are missing key things such as authors, publishers, dates, etc. A mixture of SFNs and other citation styles, no consistency whatsoever.

Not sure that "erenow.com examination prep materials" is particularly reliable, especially with the plethora of reliable sources on this topic.

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that master's thesis is far from the best source available.

Can't tell how reliable greatamericanhistory.net is, unsure of "by Gordon Leidner of Great American History" credentials. Again, far better sources can be found for this topic.

Unsure about Scout.com, looks to be different than Scout.com

• Removed as redundant. Most of the material added with said reference duplicated the more concise summary in the preceding sentences. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The 7th Arkansas Infantry.com is not a good source.

Waymarking is not reliable.

• Removed as redundant. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grant's memoirs are cited in multiple different ways

Further reading is a formatting mess.

Several periodicals such as the Blue and Grey are cited, but need ISSN numbers.

Nevin, the Time-Life books author, is cited 8 times. Time-Life isn't a terrible source, but there are far better scholarly works to choose from. Looking at the further reading bloat, it seems pretty clear this article uses lower-quality print and online sources in several places, ignoring better available scholarship.

There's a lot of work yet here to be done. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: You make some crucial points. I'll take a crack at the formatting and information of the sources and then come back to discuss reliability and the other issues further. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: The formatting of sources and references should be good now, although I couldn't find ISSN numbers for the two Blue and Grey articles. Some things that perhaps Tirronan could clarify: I'm confused what the "Official Records, Series I, Volume X, Part 1" refers to, is it in reference to the "U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901." – because the link for that is here rather than a specific article/book. I'm also unsure which edition of Grant's memoirs is used for citations like 28 and 112, is this the book cited in ref 106 or 94? Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Link's wrong for the ORs. The citation looks to be reasonably correct, I'll try to find the correct link over the next couple days. Basically, the ORs are original military reports organized into large books. There's fifty or sixty some volumes. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Wondering if you might have a chance soon to look through the correct link? Also, for you and Kges1901 any thoughts on removing the In popular culture section completely? At the moment it's a just an essay about Shiloh, a poem that depicts Shiloh (but also most of the Civil war...) and a movie that depicts Shiloh but among many other events. Seems mostly trivial and containing things that are not particularly notable. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ultimately, the references to the battle in the pop culture section are tangential to the battle itself and they do not receive coverage in secondary sources about the battle itself. As a result, I would agree with removing the section as it is thus inevitably a magnet for trivia. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Kges. Nix it. I forgot about that OR link, I'll hunt it down tonight. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Removed - Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Aza24: - I believe the correct link is [34]. In order to fit the source consistency requirement, the OR citations should probably be something like "Official Records 1884 p. xxx" with a full citation in the sources section. I'm getting 1884 for this volume from [35]. 1884 should be used, instead of the range, because a specific volume is being cited. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)