Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—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.

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

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

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[edit]

Protocol Wars[edit]

Nominator(s): Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... a long-running debate in computer science which occurred from the 1970s to the 1990s, when engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which communication protocol would result in the best and most robust computer networks. This culminated in the Internet–OSI Standards War in the 1980s and early 1990s, which was ultimately "won" by the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) by the mid-1990s and has since resulted in most of the competing protocols disappearing. Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Captions need editing for MOS compliance (and would suggest checking the article text as well)
  • File:Donald_Davies.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • File:Bob_Kahn_1969.jpg: why is this believed to be public domain?
  • File:Battle_For_Access_Standards.png has an inadequate FUR. Ditto File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War.jpg, File:Vint_Cerf_IP_on_Everything.jpeg
  • File:First_Internet_Demonstration,_1977.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1912 suspension of Ty Cobb[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... Baseball player Ty Cobb's suspension for going into the stands and beating up a fan. His teammates took his part and refused to play, which resulted in one of the great mismatches of all time, a group of replacement players and the manager and coaches against baseball's World Champions, which went about as you'd expect.Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Can you find a way to work the bit about Cobb being the CF of the Tigers into the first sentence? Currently the very perfunctory first sentence "During the 1912 season (what sort of season?), Ty Cobb (who's he?) was suspended for ten days" reads very oddly without any prior context.
  • "Aided by Connie Mack, the Philadelphia owner/manager, they did so" - "they" should be "he" (Jennings) per the previous sentence
  • "teams put additional security into their stadium's" => "teams put additional security into their stadiums'" (the teams did not all share one stadium)
  • "to attend all four games of the series between the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees." - no need to relink Tigers
  • "stating they would not play" => "stating that they would not play"
  • "five sandlot baseball players" - what's a "sandlot player"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • "with three hits (two on bunts)" - link bunt
  • "on an of the attempted stolen base" - this seems a bit mangled
  • "tried throwing Home Run Baker a fastball, who" => "tried throwing a fastball to Baker, who"
  • "managed only a walk" - link walk
  • "then Collins bunted a ball" - ah, there's the link for bunt. Move it to the first usage
  • "each of which drive in a run" - wrong tense
  • "urged them got go back to work" - this seems a bit mangled -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a former FA. It is about the monastery in Kyiv, which was rebuilt since its destruction in the 1930s. The article about the monastery and its beautiful cathedral has been extensively expanded. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • As Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama consistent with Wikipedia's definition of freedom, all images of 3D works (including the building itself) will need to include a tag for the original work.
@Nikkimaria: Understood, but there is is discussion here that I think makes the situation with this monastery less clear cut. I have replaced one of the article's images with the one that was discussed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the images of the reconstructed parts of the monastery have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Kyev_Zakrvsky_map_02.png needs an author date of death. Ditto File:Plan_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery_in_Kyiv.jpg
  • File:Kyiv_Pechery_Kalnofoysky_Athanasius_Teraturgema,_1638.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Kyiv-Michael-monastery.jpg
  • File:Київ._Михайлівський_Золотоверхий_собор.jpg: which rationale from the Russian tag is believed to apply? Ditto File:Cathedral_Church_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery.jpg, File:Cossacks_of_Haydamatsky_Kosh_of_Slobid_Ukraine_near_the_St._Michael's_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg
  • File:Румовища_собору_Михайлівського_золотоверхого_монастиря_після_підриву_14_серпня_1937_року.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Michael_of_salonica.jpg
  • File:Carl_Peter_Mazer_-_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Refectory_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg: if this is dated to the 1930s it can't have been published before 1929. Ditto File:Economic_Gate,_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg, File:Ceremonial_kissing_of_the_holy_remains_of_St._Barbara_(St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery,_Kyiv).tif
  • File:Lithograph_of_Mikhailovsky_Golden-Domed_Monastery._Kyiv.jpg needs an author date of death and info on first publication. Ditto File:V._Nikolaev_-_drawings_of_the_iconostasis_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg

Oppose simply due to the volume of issues - happy to revisit if they can be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1914 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the first final to be attended by a reigning monarch. Although both teams struggled with the heat and nerves, the King was treated with a worldie. I've used contemporary and modern sources, and am curious what you think of it. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseudastacus[edit]

Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a fossil crustacean which lived during the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous periods. Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • though the placement of some species remain – "remains"
  • late Cretaceous – here and elsewhere: "Late" and "Early" has to be upper case (except for stages, which are lower case).
  • The carapace is usually uneven, with either small tubercles or pits across the surface. – Could be reformulated with "surface" in the first part of the sentence, otherwise it is not immediately clear what "uneven" refers to when reading.
  • link "invalid"
  • change "et al." to "and colleagues" to make it easier for non-experts to understand
  • Ref 1: pages are missing. Also, could you link to the exact page where the genus is named in the BHL?
  • A year later, Münster described several fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone he believed to represent isopods, and erected the genus Alvis to contain the single species A. octopus, naming it after the dwarf Alvíss from Norse mythology. – Why is this relevant here? What is the point?
  • The name Pseudastacus means "false Astacus" – from which language? If possible, provide the original word from which it is derived ("pseudo").
  • and that P. muensteri is a junior synonym of P. pustulosus – you could directly state here that they suggested they were female specimens of P. pustulosus, which would me more reader-friendly.
  • synonyms of Pseudastacus – (in the taxonbox): Why is "synonyms" in lower case, but the heading of the section in upper case?
  • Link Oppel in the taxonbox?
  • more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Overlook (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC(talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1999 was a good year for Alexander McQueen. No. 13, his Spring/Summer 1999 collection, was an incredible work of romanticism whose finale - Shalom Harlow being spray-painted by robots - is a famous work of art in its own right. No one expected him to match the success of No. 13 with his Autumn/Winter show, but he managed to exceed expectations with The Overlook, a staggering work of heartbreaking genius in which McQueen channeled the wintery isolation of The Shining into a fashion collection. Famously, one model wore a corset made from coiled aluminium, and another, a bustier covered in raw rock crystal. Although some critics complained of the theatrics and the use of real fur, it is widely regarded as one of McQueen's best works. ♠PMC(talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Blackburne[edit]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about one of the earliest woman naturalists in England, a notable collector of specimens who corresponded with Linnaeus and Pennant, among others. —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Family image is missing alt text
    Added
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
    Moved all to the right, which has other downsides. (I use large images, where it is normal to have left and right images on the same height; I do not understand the "no sandwiching" thing as that is very much dependant on settings, and often less bad than other options). Happy to hear furtrher feedback, especially from people using standard settings.
  • File:Eurasian_wren,_raspberry,_wood_lice_and_pupa_from_the_Natural_History_Cabinet_of_Anna_Blackburne_(1768)_painting_in_high_resolution_by_James_Bolton._(51927517051).jpg: the description indicates this work is PD, but the tag used is CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, the work is PD as indicated by the Yale library holding it, for example. The version in the article is cleaned up and watermarked by some company that then put a CC-2.0 on it, possibly in the belief that their cleanup work entitles them to it? I am not sure what the best thing to do is here; I could just download a non-watermarked version from Yale and upload it if you think that's better.
    I do - we should be avoiding watermarks anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria for the image review! —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

  • While she called herself "Mrs", I don't think it counts as an honorific prefix as Wikipedia understands it.
  • Remove the disambiguation from her father's name in the infobox
  • Should be birth name rather than other name
  • I assume at the time of her birth Orford Hall was not in fact inside Warrington, so perhaps add the full link in the infobox
    All done. I'm not an infobox person so I'm terrible with them :)
  • Suggest beginning the first section with her full name rather than just the surname
  • I thought I'd have a look for any portraits of her. Didn't find any, but have added them for John, John, and John.
    I don't think there is anything except for the lost painting by Hamlet Winstanley that shows her "aged 15", the sources say. The painting is from 1741 after her mother died in 1740, but Winstanley had a technique of painting just the heads from life, then sending them to London to be put together on a large canvas. [1]. For the botanist, you may enjoy the ghost pineapple, see [2].
  • There's a slightly confusing tendency to swap between calling her "Anna", "Blackburne", or "Anna Blackburne". I understand that we want to keep readers from being confused about which Blackburne is being referenced, but for example in the "Johann Reinhold Forster" section all three names are used, making me at least more confused about who exactly I'm reading about.
    Tried to make it better
  • "Anna Blackburne eventually became the mistress of the manor" do we know when?
    From Wystrach, it is only clear to me that it was after her mother's death, which is in 1740. moved to a different place because we don't know the "Mrs" for sure before the 1771 letter to Linnaeus.
  • Priestley is only mentioned in the article as being replaced by someone else. I don't quite see why he needs mentioning at all if this is the extent of his contribution.
    Name dropping removed.
  • "On 29 June 1771..." try not to start paragraphs with dates
    Rearranged.
  • Was Fairfield Hall a new-build specifically for Blackburne, or was it an existing house adapted for her use?
    New build.
  • I think the caption for the warbler image could be expanded slightly
    Longer now, but I'm not sure what to write
  • Did she learn Latin in order to read Systema Naturae or did she learn Latin and then also read it? The lede and main text differ on this wording
    The lede has it right: the motivation was botany.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • In both the lead and the main article "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens". Is is known how this came about. Eg, did she assemble it herself, inherit it, receive it as a gift or series of gifts or what? For the lead I would suggest replacing "had" with 'assembled'.
    Changed in the lead, need to do more about this in the body.
Are we still waiting for the "need to do more about this in the body"? If so, could you ping me once it is done? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'm done with this in the body after adding some "bartering". —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "corresponded with several notable naturalists of her era." I gather from the absence of 'other' that she is not herself considered a notable naturalists of her era? Indeed, I note that the article avoids describing her as a "naturalist". Is that a reflection of the sources' view?
    Hm. She is often described as a naturalist, or as an amateur botanist. Wystrach says "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance."
The lead now describes her as a naturalist, but the main body doesn't.[?]
I used "botanist" in the lead now. I think "naturalist" fits better, but that's not what the sources say. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "where Anne likely studied botany". Is there a reason for the USvar English in an article about an Englishwoman? ("likely" rather than 'probably'.)
    My personal biography (English as second language, two years in the US, a decade in the UK) tends to make me mix varieties.
No worries. I do it myself. And get picked up at FAC for it. My excuse is too much reading of US light fiction.
  • " Thomas Pennant studied these birds in Blackburne's collection". Pennant needs introducing.
    done
  • The lead is long in relation to the article and would benefit from condensing.
    Dropped Pallas and reduced to two sections.
  • "and her museum". What museum?
    Introduced earlier
  • "produced salt in Cheshire and at Salthouse Dock in Liverpool". Did they "produce" salt in Liverpool?
    Fixed.
  • "following her mother's death". Is it known when this occurred?
    Fixed.
  • "Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall". Are their number and sexes known?
    I think all were men, but it is a bit unclear. In the footnote to the claim that Anna was the fifth child in Wystrach's paper, he mentions six sons and three daughters, with Anna the fourth child. From [3] I gather people cared little about two of the other daughters (not even their names are given). This is another source mentioning eight children and naming seven. I changed the "fifth child" to "fourth or fifth".
So little is known about those who survived her? Ok.
  • Could "natural history" be both defined and Wikilinked.
    Wikilinked yes. A definition would need to explain that at the time, it mostly meant geology and biology, but I haven't got a citation for that right now.
Page 2 of Allen (1994) would give something like 'Natural history was not a precisely defined term but was understood to include the study of natural objects and organisms'. What do you think?
The coded source would be Allen, David Elliston (1994), The Naturalist in Britain: a social history, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 270, ISBN 0-691-03632-2
Thanks. I use p. xviii, is that what you had in mind?
  • "she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members." I am absolutely ORing here, but it seems highly likely that merchant captains who worked for or contracted with the family on business realised that gifts of exotic organisms brought back from their journeys would ingratiate them. Anything in the sources to suggest this sort of thing.
    • When I was a kid, my father had a client who was a seafarer. Every so often, my father would come home in the evening with a pocket full of coins from exotic places. I have no idea how it affected their business relationship, but I've kept them to this day for the memories. I just went and poked through the pile and found 5 Spanish Pesetas, 50 Philipine Centavos, 50 Mexican Pesos, and 100 Milimes (not sure if I read that right) from someplace Arabic. Thank you for reminding me of this. Sadly, I suspect the gifts of exotic organisms also included exotic microorganisms causing exotic diseases which were previously unable to cross oceans. An early example of the unintended consequences of modern technology. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roy, SusunW recently took me down memory lane on my talk page. I am unsure what this says about our mental functioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nothing to suggest this. I know she used the family's merchant captains to help her trade specimens with Pallas in Russia, but that is all I know about them.
A shame, but can't be helped. The bit about merchant captains and Pallas is, IMO, worth mentioning.
  • "presented his lectures on entomology to her". I am unsure what is meant by this. Presented her with the transcripts? Gave her private lessons? Something else?
    Private lessons where he read the content to her, I think.
  • What is a folio copy?
    Explained more and linked.
  • "Forster dedicated one genus to Blackburne and her father". Is it known what it was a genus of?
    Plants.
  • "including a young musk deer". Dead or alive?
    I strongly suspect it was dead, but the source doesn't say (neither Wystrach nor the Pallas-Pennant correspondence see a need to specify).
  • "She had a herbarium". A brief in line explanation would be helpful.
    done.
  • "After her father's death". Perhaps insert 'in 1786'?
    added
  • "She also had plans for a botanical garden, but was unable to carry these plans out due to health issues." Suggest deleting the second mention of "plans".
  • Interestingly, St Oswald's Church, Winwick featured in one of my recent FAs.
    Neat!
  • "Her collection was inherited by her nephew". Which of her siblings was he the son of?
    Thomas. [4] (but I can't figure out how to cite that, so I cite something else).
  • Is it known what happened to her collection - both the part taken by John and that not. Is any extant?
    Very little is known and very little seems to be extant (some specimens in a herbarium in Liverpool, and the Bolton watercolours in Yale). Added.
  • Hoare needs a publisher location. As do Urness and Williams.
  • The titles of books should be in title case. Eg Shtier.
    Done the ref issues.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you! A lot of things fixed, some still need to be done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a skim, it looks good so far. Could you ping me when you have finished responding to my comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild, thanks again. I have finished responding, and also added a mention of Blackburne's cousin Ashton Lever. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly there. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I think I have addressed the remaining points. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith (support)[edit]

For now, just a few random comments.

  • In the lead, you refer to her family as merchants. I tend to think of that as meaning a shopkeeper, not somebody who "owned merchant ships". Maybe there's a better word that could be used here?
    Haven't found one :( Even for Jakob Fugger the Rich, the word is "merchant".
  • My first big thought upon reading this was, "Why is this only talking about who she corresponded with, and not about what she did herself?" Reading the Wystrach paper, I see the reason: "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance". It might be worth mentioning her lack of authorship so as to head off the same question that our readers might be wondering about.
    You are right, I added something.
  • On the topic of the Wystrach paper, Figure 1 is a contemporary drawing of the Blackburnian Warbler. I assume this is out of copyright; maybe it would make a more interesting illustration than the 2010 photograph?
    I was thinking of using File:Robert Havell after John James Audubon, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and Mourning Warbler, 1837, NGA 32540.jpg, but that raises the question of the history of the scientific name of the warbler, which I would prefer to avoid.
  • You mention that she learned latin. Wystrach says, "Anna Blackburne discloses that she was essentially self-taught in Latin, but admittedly not very fluent" which is worth mentioning.
    Mentioned "self-taught".

OK, going through the whole article this time:

  • "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens" I'd make it clear that she did the collecting as opposed to having been the passive recipient of the collection as a gift.
    Not sure where this was, but I tried to clarify at some point.
  • I kept mis-reading "Orford" as "Oxford", leading me to be particularly confused when I got to "Occasionally, Blackburne visited London and Oxford", i.e. if she lived there, why did she only visit it occasionally? I don't know that there's anything useful that can be done to make the distinction more obvious to the reader, but if you can think of something...
    Not really. Something like "the southern cities of London and Oxford" also sounds awkward.
  • "Blackburne collected insects, shells, minerals and birds", Clarify whether you're talking about Anna or John here.
    Done.
  • You've got Ashton Blackburne redlinked. Is there reason to believe he's notable on his own and thus the link might turn blue at some point?
    After looking through Wystrach again, there is probably currently not enough known about him for a separate article.
  • "Thomas Pennant studied these birds" When somebody says they "study birds", I tend to think of live birds. If you're studying their dead bodies in a naturalist collection, I think "specimens" is a better word, although I can see the desire not to be overly repetitious with the word. I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll leave that up to you.
    Tried with extra "specimens".
  • "After her father's death, Blackburne and her museum moved to nearby Fairfield Hall." This is the first time you mention a museum. I'm guessing that's just another way of saying "her collection", but it's a little confusing.
    There's a lot more "museum" now.
  • "and the Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", I'd tell the reader what this is, i.e. "and the flowing plant Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", just like you did with "the beetle Geotrupes blackburnii"
    Is "plants" enough?
  • "the fifth of nine children of John Blackburne ..." I would have written "... to John Blackburne" instead of "of John Blackburne". Maybe it depends on what that phrase is suppsosed to be modifying. I read it as modiying "was born", i.e. "Anna Blackburne was born (in 1726 at Orford Hall, Warrington, as the fifth of nine children) to John Blackburne (1693–1786) and ..." Not a big deal either way.
    Rearranged. I am not sure anymore that she was the fifth, as Wystrach is contradicting himself in the footnotes.
  • "exotic plants including pineapples and cotton." To me, cotton is not an exotic plant, but I guess it could have been in 18th century England. Maybe it's worth saying something like, "he grew pineapples and cotton, neither of which were native to England" Or maybe just link "exotic" to Introduced species#Introduced plants, and that'll be enough.
    Linked. Cotton is exotic in Europe, and has always been imported.
  • " In the years following her mother's 1740 death, Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall; eventually, only Anna, who became the mistress of the manor, and her father remained" Many of those commas could go away. Also, I'd link "mistress of the manor" to Mistress (form of address), lest somebody think you're talking about Mistress (lover).
    I love commas. Reduced a bit and linked as suggested.
  • "surprised the bystanders with the extent of her botanical knowledge" It would be interesting if you could give some specific examples of what she knew that the gardeners didn't.
    Unfortunately not much other than it was about the geranium; I think this episode is only known through the exchange of letters between Blackburne and Linnaeus.
  • "She collected various natural history specimens", no need to say "various"; that's implied by the list of things she collected.
    done
  • " In the early years of her collection, she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members" This comes back to my earlier comment about being the actual collector vs being the passive recipient of the collection. Was she ever out in the field getting her hands dirty digging up plants and bugs and picking up dead birds? I'm guessing a high class lady from a wealthy 18th century family never got her hands dirty doing anything, but if she did, that would be the most interesting part of her story. In that respect, this reminds me of Margaret Sibella Brown.
    She did no field work. I assume that also the botanical gardens were tended to by others for her. No un-ladylike dirty hands seem to have been reported.
  • "The claims in her obituary that Blackburne was a "friend and constant correspondent of Linnaeus" or that he named a plant after her are inaccurate." That seems like a strong statement to say in wiki voice. It should be attributed, something along the lines of "biographer V. P. Wystrach argued that..."
    I've gone for "exaggerated". None of the newer literature repeats such a claim (it would be in the excellent ODNB article [5] if there was any basis for it).
  • "Her collection was inherited by her nephew John Blackburne, who moved selected parts of the collection to his seat at Hale Hall" I don't know what "seat" means in this context.
    WP:ELVAR, tried to avoid saying "residence" as in the source, replaced by "manor".
  • "she bequeathed a total of more than", just say "she bequeathed more than"
    done.

Looking through JSTOR, I see a bunch of sources you don't use that at least mention Blackburne (although most don't say much). Just want to make sure you've seen these.

Green Languages? Women Poets as Naturalists in 1653 and 1807 Author(s): Donna Landry Source: Huntington Library Quarterly , 2000, Vol. 63, No. 4, Forging Connections: Women's Poetry from the Renaissance to Romanticism (2000), pp. 467-489 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3817613

Gender, Science and Physical Geography in Nineteenth-Century Britain Author(s): Cheryl McEwan Source: Area , Sep., 1998, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 215-223 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20003898

Making Natural History: Doing the Enlightenment Author(s): Bettina Dietz Source: Central European History, Vol. 43, No. 1 (MARCH 2010), pp. 25-46 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Central European History Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40601018

WOMEN TRAVELLERS, ROMANTIC-ERA SCIENCE AND THE BANKSIAN EMPIRE Author(s): Carl Thompson Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London , 20 December 2019, Vol. 73, No. 4, Special issue: Rethinking Joseph Banks (20 December 2019), pp. 431-455 Published by: Royal Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26858986

  • Thank you for the review! These JSTOR sources are like many of the mentions of Blackbourne in books, where she is mentioned as an example, but without any usable details. I have dealt with some of your comments already, and will respond to all of them after some more sleep :) —Kusma (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @User:RoySmith, all done I think. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All your changes look good. I have no strong opinion on replacing the 2010 photo, so do what you feel is best there. Nice job! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by SusunW[edit]

Gog pinged me about walking him down memory lane, I got intrigued and thus here I am. It will take me a bit to peruse, but I will add comments as I see needed.

  • Info box shouldn't contain anything not cited in text and I was curious about that "Baptised 3 January 1726". Wystrach p. 164 says her birth is commonly shown as 1740 but that calculating from age 67 at death she was "actually born in 1726" and that he was unable to find records in the archives of Warrington or Winwick churches. Thankfully, we have digitized records. Per p 44 (Sorry about the ancestry link with proxy, but I don't know how else to show it.) of the Church of England Register of Christenings, Marriages, or Burials for Warrington, Lancashire 25 February 1720-27 March 1727, we have under the heading "January 1725" 3rd line: "Anne Daughter of John Blackborne of Orford Esqr. and Catherine his wife 3rd" I think the year is likely in error, as January 1725 follows December 1725, which if one is listing things as they occurred in a registry book is illogical. However, Christenings: Warrington, Lancashire, England, March 1701—March 25, 1760 (from the Norman Collection, Salford, England) (1961) Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, p. 65, Microfilm 823699 image 72 also has it listed in 1725, and a couple of pages further (68, image 75) on the page labeled 1726, I found on 12 February the christening of William son of John esq and Catherine. So maybe 1725 is correct? I also note that the ancestry record says it is a "bishop's transcript" so I am wondering if that means that it is a master list of the various individual priest/vicar's registration books, which would then make sense of the date duplicates? SusunW (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The year was known as 1725 when this was written, as it is an Old Style date (so "March 1724" is followed by "April 1725" in the record). January 1725 is indeed the month after December 1725 :) I decided to follow the ODNB, who apparently use the New Style year together with the Julian date. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, right, forgot that bit about when the year started. Perhaps you need to mark it as New Style if you are using 1726? SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Edmondson gives no dates or places of birth for Anna – consider removing it here. Wystrach p. 150 gives only 1726 and calls her 5th of 9. Shteir (ODNB) should be added. States born at Orford Hall, Warrington, Lancashire 5th of 9 kids and gives baptism date of 3 January 1726 in Warrington. (Were it me, methinks I'd clip/upload the registry page to avoid confusion of what year.)
    Should be "Edmondson and Rowley 1998", sorry. Wystrach's footnote has her as fourth child, with very confusing information on how many children.
  • Text reads "fourth of fifth of nine children", 1st of should be or. If you are going to list her as or 4th, you need a source. Your Hale Hall given above shows on p. 34: Thomas 1720, Jonathan 1721, John 1723, William, Ann, Mary, Asheton, infant with no dates on the last 5, but we know from the baptismal records above that William was younger than Anna/e. Were it me, I'd make 4th or 5th a separate statement so it can be cited and explained.
    Footnote of Wystrach is cited for "fourth".
  • Edmondson and Shteir (ODNB) and the baptismal records show mother's name as Catherine, Wystrach p. 150 says Katharine. Perhaps show Catherine and change parenthetical to (Katharine Assheton)?
    Done. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How do we know the hothouse was "coal-fired"? Shteir (ODNB) says he grew pineapples in a hothouse. Blake p. 37 says it had lead-glass windows, was a "wonder of Lancashire" and grew pineapples and cotton.
  • "Little is known about Anna's formal education" ... Rosove p. 617 says Forster tutored her in "biology, entomology, minerology, and other sciences", between 1767 and 1770. Easterby-Smith p. 87-88 also states that she may have attended classes at Warrington Academy which unusually allowed women to attend classes (but not enroll), and notes that even if she didn't attend classes, she benefited from the close relationship of her father to its instructors and students.
  • Pennant obtaining shells is not on Wystrach p. 157, but is on p. 158
  • Characteres generum plantarum in the source is in title case, which per the MOS is how English works should be cited. Looking through ref section in general, case seems to vary and is not standardized, nor is title case used consistently. This is a handy tool.
  • "publish his work.[31][28]" flip refs
  • "it is instructive."[44][19]" flip refs

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond novels (and a favourite among many of the other Bond cognoscenti too). It's got a ridiculous plot, a semi-cliched bad-guy with an overblown mission to destroy Britain, and Bond beating all the odds and getting the girl - until the stomach punch at the end. All well-written and enjoyable tosh. Both Phlsph7 and Tim riley were good enough to provide constructive criticism at the PR, but any further comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

Driving by for now, expecting to expand to a full review later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Much better! Thanks for that - and I look forward to your comments, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PMC[edit]

Nice to see this as a bluelink. Comments to come within the week, hopefully. ♠PMC(talk) 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ian[edit]

I'd like to have reviewed The Spy Who Loved Me, as I've read it and felt it was rather better than just an honourable failure, but time was against me. OTOH, OHMSS is one of the best books (and films), so I'll recuse coord duties and try to copyedit and offer a few comments shortly, and revisit as and when I can... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I find the two sentences beginning In common with Fleming's other Bond stories... a bit too much for the lead. The previous sentence is important but I'd have thought it could be incorporated into one of the other paragraphs.
  • Fleming thought his script was the best book he had written up to that point. -- Can we say "draft" rather than "script"? The latter term has filmic connotations that I think would confuse...
  • Check if you’ve linked on first use all the Bond villains you mention under Characters.
  • I have now, although only the major ones with their own article. The rest (Draco, Bunt, etc) all go to a list page, so I've not bothered with those. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Successive sentences: Black sees... Hale sees... -- Can we vary?
  • For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is able to help Bond attack Piz Gloria because of his own and Bond's individualism allows the two men to help each other for a good common cause. -- Aside from the "of" being ungrammatical and two "helps", I'm unsure from this just how their individualism helps them make common cause...
  • The artist Richard Chopping once again undertook the cover art for the first edition. -- "Once again" might not be so helpful for the uninitiated, perhaps describe him as Fleming's usual first edition cover artist or some such?

That's it on a first run through -- great to see the Bond books' journey from GA to FA being resumed. I'll hold off support until a few others have had their say and we see how the prose settles down, and the image and source reviews occur (which I could undertake time permitting, we'll see) -- anyway well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cheers Ian. I didn't think you'd be able to miss out on two Bond reviews on the trot! Your comments all sorted in these edits. Happy to work on them again or discuss the above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No prob, and your changes all look good although I wonder if we can still improve the Black/individualism bit. How does this work for you: For Black, the individualism is also present in Bond's allies, particularly Draco, who is prepared to help Bond attack Piz Gloria in part because of their shared rejection of authority. To explain, I thought the last bit of the previous version was a bit repetitive, and I chucked in "in part" because I think Draco would do almost anything to help Bond in return for effectively saving Tracy (up to that point!), not just because of their shared "values" -- of course if Black doesn't support "in part" we'd have to lose it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I think that's within the constraints of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

Airship[edit]

My favourite film, and a great read too. Will comment in the next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanamonde[edit]

I haven't read this one, but I look forward to reviewing it. Comments to follow, feel free to disagree with any copyedits I make as I read.

  • "After changing the formula and structure of the previous novel" I suspect what you mean is that the previous novel differed from its predecessors in the series, but as written it sounds like Fleming revised the structure of the novel while writing.
    Yep, agreed: reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You mention the film series before where it's first linked and glossed, I suggest moving the link and gloss up
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "suicidal" as an adjective without further explanation sticks out a little; also "While returning to Britain ... while driving" in the same sentence. Given the later mention of a suicide attempt, you could shorten, I think.
    Yep. Struck 'suicidal' and reworked a little. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "coup de deshonneur" I don't know if this is a common enough expression to leave without translation. I might be wrong.
    I've added a translation, but it's not a literal one, which would be a "blow of dishonour" which doesn't really work. The French use coup + noun for a number of sayings, all with a slightly different meaning for 'coup', from the violent to the mundane 'un coup de téléphone' for a telephone call. I'll think about whether it is worth taking out the phrase entirely to avoid the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the experimental change in format in The Spy Who Loved Me" I think it wouldn't hurt to explain, if possible in a few words, what the change and what the usual format were.
    OK, added in the major change at the start of this, which makes it much clearer.
    Thanks for your thoughts so far, Vanamonde93. I'll be glad to hear any others you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turabay dynasty[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the Turabay dynasty, a family of Bedouin emirs that governed northern Palestine in the 15th–16th centuries under the Ottoman Empire. Their territory, formalized first as the 'Iqta of Turabay' then as the Sanjak of Lajjun, spanned the area between Jenin and Haifa. The long reign of the Turabays was owed to the strength of their tribe, their largely consistent loyalty to the sultan, and their success in administering and securing their sanjak. Backed by their close allies, the Ridwan and Farrukh dynasties of Gaza and Nablus, they prevented Fakhr al-Din II, the powerful Druze emir who had reduced Ottoman rule in the Levant "to a mere shadow", from conquering Palestine. These three local dynasties treated Palestine as their own dominion and, ironically, with Fakhr al-Din out of the way, the Ottomans were freed up to gradually eliminate these dynasties' power. Turabay governance finally ended in 1677. Their descendants still live in northern Palestine and Israel. Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FM[edit]

  • Sanjak is linked twice in the intro.
  • Add date in captions of images that lack it for context?
  • Link Mamluk.
  • I don't think the common term soldier needs to be linked.
  • "were in the coastal plain of Palestine" it seems a bit odd that Palestine is only mentioned and linked this far down, shouldn't it be already in the first paragraph of the article body?
  • "according to Sharon" You haven't presented any Sharon before this point.
  • Link Arabian horses?
  • Link Transjordan.
  • "to avoid a future a Ma'nid takeover" Second a seems redundant.
  • You use both Laurent d'Arvieux and Chevalier d'Arvieux, probably best to be consistent.
  • Do we know anything about the women of the family?
  • Unfortunately, no, at least not from the modern, secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see you added a map, but unfortunately it creates some WP:image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad. Are there other ways the images can be placed to prevent this?
  • The copyright info of the new map also needs to be the same as the original, as it is still the same authorship and public domain though it has been modified
  • "and the use of a band composed of tambourines, oboes, drums and trumpets" For what purpose?
  • "The building was the only grave of the Turabays to have survived into the 20th century and no longer exists today" Do we know what happened to it?
  • The mausoleum image could be right aligned to precent it clashing with the section title beneath it.
  • "Sharon attributes the decline of the Turabays to the eastward migration of the Banu Haritha to the Jordan Valley and the Ajlun region in the late 17th century" How would this have affected them? It was their power base that moved away, or?
  • "The family remained in the area, with members living in Jenin at the close of the century and in Tulkarm." But the article body indicates they still exist?

Borsoka[edit]

  • Are Bakhit (February 1972) and Rhode (1979) reliable sources?
  • Yes. I replaced Bakhit's 1972 thesis with the version published in 1982. He is one of the leading authorities of Ottoman history of the Levant and this work in particular is widely cited by scholars in the field. Rhode's work is well-cited in academia about the subject of his work—16th-century Ottoman Safed and its sanjak. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Introduce Deir al-Balah as a Palestinian town/city in footnote "a".
  • Is this suggested because Deir al-Balah is relatively obscure? (we are not treating other cities mentioned in the article this way). Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Their power was dealt a serious blow in a Mamluk campaign in 1253. Unclear: were they fought for or against the Mamluks?
  • ...tradition claims that their ancestors "migrated to Palestine during the Early Islamic period." Do we know from where they migrated to Palestine?
  • Rmv; this was added later and without a page number or way for me to verify, but more importantly the article already offers more elaboration on the family's origins. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning Mamlakat Safad. I would also mention that it was a Mamluk province to introduce the reference to the Mamluks in the next sentence.
  • Mamlakat Safad is a proper noun, so not sure it should be presented that way, but please correct me if I am wrong. Mamluk-era Palestine is mentioned as the context in the sentences preceding and following this mention. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do we know why Turabay was executed and why allowed the Mamluks his son to succeede him?
  • Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources on hand provide any explanation. Abu-Husayn mentions that Bakhit elaborates about the possible reason in his Arabic-language article in Al-Abhath vol. 28, but I have zero access to it (and cannot read Arabic in any case!) Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Qaraja's son is Turabay or Turabay II?
  • Turabay II but the sources do not denote any of the emirs of the same name as the first or second, etc., so not sure we should either. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I understant Qaraja was still alive when his son joined the Ottomans. This fact should be mentioned because Qaraja's execution in 1519 surprised me in the next paragraph.
  • Qaraja's activities are mentioned in the preceding and following sentences so this should be sufficient for a reader to conclude he was still alive. I will take another look to see if I can make this clearer. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A link to the conquest of Mamluk Egypt?
  • Delink soldier.
  • Done!
  • Why Constantinople instead of Istanbul?
  • Introduce Via Maris.
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning iqta?
  • A sentence about the iqta system?
  • ...three chiefs... Bedouin chiefs?
  • Turabay was already introduced as Qaraja's son.
  • A link to akce?
  • Some general remarks about the administration of Palestine under Ottomans? Perhaps: extensive taxation, employment of local chieftains in state administration, appointment of rival chiefs to offices, ( I am only guessing). Do we know why the Turabays were frequently conspiring against the Ottomans?
  • The Iqta of Turabay became its own sanjak... Perhaps, "The Iqta of Turabay was transformed into a sanjak..."? Do we know why?
  • Revised wording. I can only guess why at this point, so will look into this further. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do we know the relationship between Ali and Assaf?
  • Was Assaf exiled to Rhodes and pardoned in the same year?
  • Why is Sinan Pasha linked in the name of his son?
  • Ahmad's rule over Lajjun was soon followed with the appointment of the Druze chieftain Fakhr al-Din Ma'n to... I assume Ahmad's ascension was followed by Fakhr al-Din's appointment, because Ahmad will be mentioned in subsequent sentences.
  • Overall commander? Perhaps supreme?
  • ... he ignored summons... Who?
  • In the picture's caption: Ahmad Turabay sounds a little bit strange.
  • Explain the terms "kethuda" and "sekban" with one or two words.
  • Introduce Ali Janbulad.
  • A link to piaster? What is the exchange rate between piaster and akce?

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comments and suggestions Borsoka. I addressed most of the points you’ve raised but there are a few more I need to tackle. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Midnights[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the tenth studio album by Taylor Swift, an American singer-songwriter. This album garnered monstrous sales and was a #1 hit in many countries, and its Album of the Year win at the 2024 Grammy Awards received some contrarian commentary, although I personally find this album a pleasant listening experience. I believe this article is comprehensive, has depth, and is reliably sourced. I look forward to any and all comments. Regards, Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well he would, wouldn't he?[edit]

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions), Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tim O'Doherty and I would nominate this article, wouldn't we? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_Profumo.jpg: per the UK tag the image description needs to include details of research to attempt to identify author, and the US tag needs sorting
  • File:Harold_Macmillan.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria - I think I've done the first following the template documentation: not sure about the second. It looks like it was created in December 1959, but there isn't any information about when it was first published. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the US tag on the first indicates that tag cannot be used for post-2012 uploads at all?
On the second, what is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's strange. I've removed it for now, but assume it'll need to be replaced with something similar at some point.
I'm not sure. Any way to find this out? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could try seeing whether appears/credited in sources, or using a reverse image search. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried running a search and couldn't find anything. Can we upload these here with fair use rationales? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

I will review this (won't I) when I get a moment. Placeholder for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Should we bold and redirect MRDA?
Right, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start an RM for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why is Mandy Rice-Davies Welsh but Stephen Ward British (as opposed to English)?
Changed to "English". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • secretary of state for war, John Profumo: if we phrase this as "John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War}}, we could avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE. On another note, I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES wants the capitals here.
Done both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Profumo had had an extramarital affair with Rice-Davies's friend, the model Christine Keeler, lied about that affair to Parliament, and then publicly admitted that he had misled the House. : I think this is clearer if we cut one had.
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since its widespread adoption following the Ward trial: how immediate was this widespread adoption? We hint at "very" but don't actually say as muhc.
The phrase first appeared in the ODQ in 1979. Any interpretation of the age of some of the sources might be clipping into OR I think, but happy to be given an explicit source saying how quickly / slowly it was absorbed into the public consciousness. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • who beginning in July 1961 had an extramarital affair: this would read more idiomatically to me with beginning in July 1961 after an extramarital affair, but I can believe it's in line for a slightly mid-century BrE.
  • when Keeler's private life became public: what about her private life?
  • who in October 1963 resigned for reasons of ill health.: we might clarify that M. was in hospital after an operation for what he believed to be terminal cancer at the time: as written, the ill health sounds like a pretext, which it wasn't (or at least wasn't entirely).
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov, a naval attaché at the Soviet embassy, which meant a possible national security risk: I think this needs spelling out a little: Keeler was a model, so is the suggestion that she was sharing secrets about Profumo and his work with Ivanov?
  • Given that we've linked osteopath, I would also link socialite.
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the barrister Geoffrey Robertson stated that the Macmillan government had her arrested to coerce her testimony: I think this would be clearer as a more verb-y phrase: something like to coerce her into testifying. I'm a little uncomfortable with the authority of this source versus the gravity of the accusation: has anyone else given this view any credence? What makes Robertson an expert here?
Done the first. To your second, Robertson wrote a book on it: Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK. I'd say his including his view is relevant (and fairly authoritative) here, especially on such a niche subject. He seems to be the expert for the Ward trial (living, at least). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That book doesn't seem to be cited: it should be, surely? We don't seem to have any book cited which is explicitly or entirely about the trial, or MRD. Are there any (more)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is at Internet Archive. I'll take a look. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • and is described as such: I'm not sure who is being described as what by whose biographer here.
Fixed, hopefully. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What are committal proceedings?
Linked. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • in his book on the chronology of the Profumo affair: was it strictly on the chronology (the order in which stuff happened)? The quoted paragraph seems at odds with this.
Removed "chronology" (it's written in timeline-ish fashion). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rice-Davies is reported to have replied: "Well he would, wouldn't he?", which was met with laughter: for grammar, we need to rephrase which was to keep it within the "reported" framing: perhaps "It is reported that Rice-Davies replied "[MRDA]" to widespread laughter"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure I've fully grasped the significance of the other reported exchange: the Guardian article gives it as an example of MRD's prickly style and use of rhetorical questions, and I'm not sure how relevant that is here (as opposed to in her biography). Very happy to be convinced here.
  • I don't think we bold redirects in the body when they've already been bolded in the lead.
Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It has been interpreted in political, rhetorical, and linguistic terms as representing a counter to political elites, an ironic response to self-interested criticism, and a means of dismissing a person's opinion.: can we cite this?
Isn't it just summarising the cited info in the following paras? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:NOTCITE, section leads generally don't need citations, like the article lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they don't need them: it just read oddly to have a single uncited sentence after a series of cited ones, and I suggest that it would be fairly trivial to double the citation to avoid this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rice-Davies had exposed that people in positions of power are willing to cover up their misdeeds and put their own interests above national security: this is an opinion, but is presented as a statement of fact (I'm not saying I disagree!) I'm also not totally sure I understand the direct connection to national security.
Rephrased and note added. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • undermined the authority of elite attorneys: lawyers in England, I think: attorneys is generally either American or Scottish.
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • if–then statement should have an endash, I think.
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rice-Davies's statement should be evaluated from ... an objective statement of reality: something has gone a bit wrong grammatically here.
Fixed? Per Gog's comments yesterday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • which, according to her biographer Richard Davenport-Hines, "delighted" Rice-Davies.: not totally clear (what exactly is the antecedent of which: the quote, the abbreviation or the dictionary?)
Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dictionaries are books, and therefore should either be a subset of Books and journal articles or simply rolled into that section. I'm not sure I'd call the ODNB a dictionary in the strict sense.
OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seems odd to be sniffy about separating a book chapter as its own thing, when we'd be happy to treat it alongside the other books if it were published in a journal.
Done? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Guardian article seems to suggest that there's a little bit of doubt as to a) whether the quote is fully authentic and b) as to whether it truly was followed by laughter. We allude to this with the verb "reported" but don't really go into it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-added an old note. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might come along later and do the image review. I hope the above it useful: it's a nice little article, and please do come back and quibble where necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment by Eddie891[edit]

  • Just a drive-by. This article is, quite frankly, not that long.I find myself asking after reading this article why it couldn't be merged somewhere (ie to Mandy Rice-Davies herself). The few sentences of literary analysis that might not fit there are, in my opinion, literary scholars over-reading into her commentary and I'm not convinced anything would be lost if it wasn't retained. This is not to say anything about the work you have done here (it's good work), but is it enough for a stand-alone article? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think there's definitely enough in the sources (and enough of them) to establish notability: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not saying that I don't think there's notability here. Stand-alone notability is a different thing. I am not clear why this article couldn't be merged with Mandy Rice-Davies. Clearly there would be no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT the two, and there's really just not that much discussing the quote by itself, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The FAC at Sagan standard had similar issues raised, if I recall correctly. Obviously these two articles are different kettles of fish, but not incomparably. I think this article has stand-alone notability, but then again... does the joke really need to be repeated? ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It would need to be repeated, wouldn't it?
    Acknowledging that I was the reviewer who approved this article's earlier DYK nomination, my two cents are that the coverage of specifically the phrase is sufficient to warrant standalone notability. The psychologists, linguists, historians, philosophers, etc. cited on this page for analysis of specifically the phrase (multiple of them in peer-reviewed academic periodicals) are, by all available guidelines and measures for Wikipedia, WP:RS and know what they're doing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, they're reliable, but even what they have to say is just not terribly substantive, is it? Sagan is a different case because there's just so much else to say in his article that a merge wouldn't make sense. For me, it's more analogous to the situation with Elizabeth Willing Powel, where "A republic... if you can keep it" is discussed as part of the same article. I'm not sure why we couldn't do the same here, and why it is better to have the two articles separate. The quote would arguably be better contextualized through inclusion in Davies' article. But, I'm not super invested in this, and this was just a drive-by thought, as advertised. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think what's been said about this phrase is any less substantive than what has been written about the Sagan standard; both have been analyzed in philosophical and political terms and both are used to describe particular truisms about self-interest and the scientific method, respectively. SIZESPLIT only applies when the article itself is getting too long; it doesn't speak to whether an independently notable topic should be merged back into an article on a related topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd echo voorts here: there's no converse of WP:SIZESPLIT to say that we should merge two articles, each of which would independently pass WP:GNG, simply because the resulting article would be of a manageable length. Indeed, WP:FRANKENSTEIN would flag up some potential dangers of doing so. Honestly, I think the Elizabeth Willing Powel example shows the difference: that article has been very careful to keep the focus on Powel and so not to discuss the afterlife of the "if you can keep it" quotation, except to discuss Powel's progressive removal from its story. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure how WP:FRANKENSTEIN is related to this? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry: I was going for WP:COATRACK, I think. The article on (say) Mandy Rice-Davies is about a person. If we merge with that an article about a quotation, there is a strong likelihood that we will find some information that's due more weight in an article about the latter than the former, and so we'll either include it and create a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem for our coverage of the person, or exclude it and create a comprehensiveness problem for our coverage of the quotation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just have two thoughts, and probably won't return to drag this out any further: 1) there is a converse of SIZESPLIT, it's MERGE. 2) the difference between Sagan's quote and this is that the quote is MRD's primary source of notoriety. It wouldn't, imo, be undue to cover it (and even its reception/legacy) fairly extensively in her biography. And a lot of the linguistic analysis is just linguists being unnecessarily convoluted-- you can only interpret something someone said in passing so much. But clearly opinions differ on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Background: Could we establish that we are talking about the UK? Perhaps 'The Profumo affair concerned John Profumo, the British Secretary of State for War ...'?
    • It says "British political phrase" in the first sentence.
Er, I started the sentence with "Background" because I wanted to talk about - no, no, you guess. ;-)
Oops, my bad. Done.
  • In the "Profumo affair" section two dates are to the month, one only to the year. Any chance of giving the month at least of Profumo's lie?
    • Done.
  • "Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov". Is the nature of this "involvement" known:?
    • Sexual; added.
  • "Edwards and Potter contended that Rice-Davies's response rebutted (through use of the modal verb "would")[28] an implied criticism from Lord Astor (that Rice-Davies was lying) by ironically suggesting that he was known as a self-interested person." I would personally replace the parentheses with commas, but that's your call.
    • I decided to let loose and changed it to an em dash.
You rash impetuous devil you.
  • "rather than from an objective statement of reality". Should that be 'rather than as an objective statement of reality'?
    • The word should be standpoint rather than statement; fixed.
  • If you follow the link doffed their caps I think you will find that the definition isn't the one you want. You are after something more like wikt:tug one's forelock.
    • Done (but tug one's forelock sounds like something you probably shouldn't do in front of a playground).
I wasn't suggesting it (smutty pun intended), just indicating that I understood what sort of link you wanted.
  • Martin and Thorpe need publisher locations.
    • Martin is University of Toronto Press, and per {{cite book}}, "Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place, for example, The Boston Globe, The Times of India." For Thorpe, according to commented out text from Tim: "Kindle edition, no ISBN or publisher location"
The latter is London - [6].
Done.

What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild: Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lovely, well written little article. A pleasure to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nasutoceratops[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This aticle is about a ceratopsian dinosaur which is unusual for its large snout and similarity to a Texas Longhorn. This is perhaps also why it has gained a bit of fame recently by being featured in the Jurassic World franchise. Everything published about it should be summarised here, and luckily there are a lot of nice, free images available. Note that a Master's thesis (Ridgwell) that was also used in the FA Kosmoceratops is included here for comprehensiveness, as it does not present controversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HF

Will review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Specimens were discovered in Utah in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from 2006 onwards," - it seems odd to put this in the past tense, as there's nothing that would prevent new specimens from being collected in the future
Changed to "The first known specimens". FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls. In 2013, the adult was made the holotype of the new genus" - I'm assuming "the adult" is one of the two partial skulls, but it might not hurt to clean up the phrasing here a bit
Well-spotted, it refers to the same subadult as the former sentence, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, associated, and nearly complete skull that preserves most of the skull roof. The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." - but the lead says the holotype is an adult specimen
Yep, fixed per above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is an epiparietal a type of epiossification?
Yes, I've now presented the different types of epiossifications by name in the first paragraph under description. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move the link for neoceraptosians up to the first mention
Done. Unfortunately it doesn't have a separate article from Ceratopsia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Since the holotype was not fully grown, it is possible such hooks would have developed as it matured, but this is considered unlikely due to the fusion of its epiparietals on the frill and fusion of other bones related to maturity" - does the descriptions of the adult skulls shed any light on this matter?
Unfortunately they don't preserve that part (what they do preserve is listed under discovery). FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2018, Dalman and colleagues found the specimen from New Mexico" - for reader clarity, I would recommend mentioning upfront that this is the Menefeeceratpos specimen
Good idea, I changed to "the specimen that was later named Menefeeceratops" to make clear it wasn't named by the time the statement was made. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AryKun
  • "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.
Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[7] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.
Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After surprising many by simply being competitive the year prior, the football team from tiny Centre College returned to Boston for a rematch with football giants Harvard in October 1921. Led by star quarterback Bo McMillin, the "Praying Colonels" shocked the sports world by winning 6–0, a victory considered by many to be one of the greatest in college football history. After the game, a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by the organic compound "C6H0", giving the game a name that has stuck to this day. This article was super fun to rewrite and I look forward to any and all comments it receives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Wikilink "rushed" and "touchdown" in the lead
  • Wikilink American football on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink Harvard on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink shutout on first use
  • Wikilink rushing and passing on first uses in body
  • "Centre was [singular] praised for its [singular] resiliency and for their [plural] unwillingness" - some grammatical disagreement here
  • "also an umpire for the National League" => "also an umpire for baseball's National League" for clarity
  • Link all the positions in the sentence starting "The starting offensive line" and the ones thereafter. I personally don't have a clue what any of them mean so links would be beneficial
  • What are a "varsity squad" and a "freshmen team"? Are there suitable links?
  • Daily Messenger image caption does not need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
  • "and all around Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula"," - I think "and Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula", all around" would read more elegantly
    • the intended meaning was "students painted the formula all around Danville", not "Danville students" - never occurred to me that this was a confusing way to word that. Fixed so it's clear what I'm trying to say here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A third game had been proposed" - a third game between Harvard and Centre? The sentence isn't completely clear
  • That's what I got Great work! I know basically nothing about American football and I was able to follow the article well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the time and comments as always Chris! Everything above has been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tufted jay[edit]

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tufted jay is an member of the crow family and is endemic to a small region of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. It has been of particular interest to some in regards to its origin due to it's limited range and distance from other members of its genus. There is limited literature on it, but I have made the best use of what is available. grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jens[edit]

First comments now, more later.

  • was first described by Robert Thomas Moore in 1935 based on a type locality – Descriptions are based on type specimens, not localities
    • Fixed
  • Moore gave them – you switch from singular to plural here. Also elsewhere in the article.
    • Switched all to singular (I think)
  • binomial name – since we are writing for a general readership (and especially with birds, we want that as many folks as possible can appreciate them, right?), we should avoid technical terms whenever possible. Here, you could use "scientific name" instead, and link that to Binomial nomenclature.
    • Fixed
  • Cyanocorax dickeyi, with the species name being in honour of – The species name is the whole binomen. What you mean is the specific name.
    • Fixed
  • The tufted jay is monotypic. – Again, avoid technical terms; just write that no subspecies are recognized.
    • Fixed
  • For the first paragraph of "Taxonomy and systematics", the first description has some interesting details that could be added; e.g. that this species was not encountered in extensive collection efforts not far away, demonstrating its limited range. Maybe such info would make the article a bit more interesting to read, instead of just listing the standard information point by point. But this is just an idea, it is up to you.
    • I like it! I tried adding it in, I'm not convinced I worded it well so if you have suggestions on rewording I'm happy to hear.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jays' range.[1] In 1944, it was proposed that they were most closely related to the white-tailed jay – this is saying that other members were most closely related to the white-tailed jay, which does not make sense.
    • Fixed, called out tufted jay
  • Several theories were proposed for why this was, – "hypotheses", not "theories"? Also, "why this was" is very unspecific; why what was, exactly?
    • Changed, and swapped it to "for why this relation might exist despite the geographical separation"
  • link cladogram
    • Done
  • The IUCN page has much more details on threats that could be added (click there on "threats in detail")
    • Expanded
  • State the size (length, weight); you say "medium sized bird" but that is relative.
    • Added
  • It seems that the article could be even more comprehensive; for example, I see several aspects in the Birds of the World page that are not mentioned here (e.g., flight; that the young are fed cooperatively; how long do the juveniles remain in the group, and more). I would suggest to have another close look at the sources to improve coverage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've done another pass. I'll admit this is a bit of a blind spot for me—I'm realizing I tend to lean too much into a summary and miss out on details, so if there's anything obviously missing please let me know! Also, I'm not sure where to put flight without it standing out odd, any suggestions? grungaloo (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Maybe an introductory paragraph in Behaviour and ecology? That's usually what I've done so far and I think it works okay. AryKun (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • also known as the painted jay – information does not appear in the cited source?
    • Added source to Haemig who uses that name. It's the Spanish translation of the name "Urraca Pinta".
  • The tufted jay, also known as the painted jay – according to Avibase [8], there is another synonym (Dickey's Jay). No need to bold any of them in the lead imo.
    • Added and de-bolded
  • based on a type specimen from Mexico – the wording is still not good. A type specimen was not found somewhere, it was selected when erecting the species. Actually, the description used 7 specimens?
    • Tried a rewrite, let me know what you think
  • A more commonly held theory – hypothesis
    • Change, dropped "more commonly" too.
  • was relict of a common ancestor – What does "relict" mean here precisely? Is the tufted jay identical with this ancestral taxon?
    • Rewrote, it's presumed to have descended from a common ancestor so not identical.
  • A more commonly held theory was – With past tense, you are implying that this (and the other) hypothesis is now outdated, but you do not state what the current hypothesis is.
    • I've changed these tenses. There's no meta-discussion I could find on which is right, so presumably they're all still open. No source seems to expressly deny any other too. The closest is Haemig who introduced the pre-Columbian trade theory, but even that doesn't go as far as to outright deny the others.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jay's range – This does not seem to be the case. What about the Purplish-backed jay, for example?
    • I've changed this to reference Amadon, who specifies that the tufted and white-tailed jay are 3000 miles apart. The other cite was from Haemig who was comparing it to the northern-most range of "South American" cyanocoraxes, which I think confused things.
  • caption: A juvenile tufted jay with a smaller crest and lacking the white spot above the eye. – But the shown bird has a small white spot above the eye?
    • Yeah on second look I can't explain that, and I'm not convinced it's a juvenile. I've replaced the image with another available one from Flickr that shows and adult. I also found an image of a flock of them and added it to the socialization section.
  • The inside of their beak is flesh-coloured, but this fades after a few months. – I don't understand this. You mean the color when looking into their open mouth? Fading to what color? A few months after what? After hatching?
    • Crossin says "the basal portions of the mandibles are flesh color", I've tried to make it more clear in the article what it refers to without using that technical language. I also added the timing and what it fades to.
  • This call can be heard when feeding, by nesting females – This literally means "Nesting females can hear the call", which makes no sense.
    • Rewrote, hopefully clearer
  • endemic – link
    • Added
  • In the breeding season, they can be found in ravines and nearer water sources. – "near water sources"?
    • Changed
  • During the breeding season, flocks will work cooperatively to feed the nesting female. – Does this mean there is only one breeding female per flock? (the nesting female seems to imply that).
    • Added a line to clarify this, but yes there's a single breeding pair per flock.
  • The tufted jay is possibly descended from a population of white-tailed jays which were brought Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies. – I think that, this hypothesis as you describe it cannot be true, alone for the reason that speciation does not work that fast. Are you possibly misreading the source?
  • If you are looking for modern discussions on the old hypothesis, it might be worth a try to 1) search for the article that proposed the hypothesis in Google Scholar, 2) click on "cited by", 3) and see through the list of papers cites (and possibly discusses) it. This way, the book "Avian invasions" turned up, which briefly describes Haemig's hypothesis and suggested that a genetic analysis would prove or disprove him. We now have this analysis (your cladogram). So I think the most sensible way to do it would be to present these different hypotheses in a historical context, making clear that they were based on the assumption that the tufted and the white-tailed were closely related, which is now questioned by the genetic analyses (I mean, give the genetic analysis more room, it is the by far most solid evidence available to date; but I wouldn't go as far as to state that the old hypothesis is now disproved, for this we would need another source that makes this interpretation).
  • a study of the morphological characteristics of the tufted jay and white-tailed jay demonstrated – "demonstrated" is a bit strong a word, no? "Suggested" would be more suitable; you cannot have certainty with morphological characters.
  • I am still not quite through, but we have to sort out the taxonomy section first, as I am not convinced here yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've done a rewrite of this section based on your three suggestions above. I've also rewritten a portion of the lead to better reflect this. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks. But I think there is a mistake. You write In 1979, Paul Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay had been brought to Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies, and that the tufted jay was derived from that population, although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years. – This suggests that Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay and the tufted jay are sister species. However, he did not say this as far as I can see. Instead, he seems to be of the opinion that the white-tailed and the tufted are the same species (even though he is not sure whether they can still interbreed or not). The book "avian invasions" also states that Haemig (1979) proposes that these two are actually the same species. In this light, your addition although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years does not make sense; if we assume that they are the same species, it is not problematic at all. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I've reworded it to call out the same-species theory. I was using the BotW source which doesn't say that expressly. grungaloo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I wanted to check your source "Bonaccorso et al. (2010), p. 27." to understand this a bit better, but that source does not have a page 27? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Fixed grungaloo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomy looks much better now, but I think some more minor tweaks to the writing should be done:

  • The tufted jay's relation to other members of the Cyanocorax genus has been a subject of interest since its initial description – I am not sure what the information here is; is there any bird whose relationships have not been a subject of interest? Maybe cut this part.
    • Removed
  • In 1935, Moore noted some difficulties with its placement in Cyanocorax, – again not well-enough written imo. You have "difficulties" in plural but only mention one difficulty later. Also, it is not clear what "its placement" refers to. That it belongs to Cyanocorax should not be fraught with difficulties; it rather seems you are hinting at its close affinities to the white-tailed jay that is problematic, but this has not been mentioned yet. Maybe cut this part, too.
    • Removed
  • due to a widely distributed ancestor that had gone extinct. – Since the Tufted jay still lives, its ancestor didn't really went extinct.
    • Removed, I think I was misreading what it meant. Now it just mentions the ancestor.

For the remainder of the article:

  • although a tufted jay may dive at a Steller's jay if it approaches a nest site or during foraging. – The "during foraging" is a bit unclear to me. When tufted jays are foraging, they will dive on the Steller's jays?
    • Rewrote, called out that its the tufted jay that's foraging.
  • and each flock contains only a single breeding pair. – Already mentioned earlier (sorry for my earlier comment where I asked to add this information, I was not aware that it was already mentioned).
    • Actually I think I rewrote after your mention to make it clearer, so no worries!
  • That's all from me now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two more regarding the taxonomy, after a last check there:

  • and that tufted jay was more closely related to other South American jays – not sure if this is correct. The paper instead says that it is sister to a clade formed by the white-naped, Cayenne, plush-crested, azure-naped, and black-chested jays. I recommend to replace with a sentence like this.
    • Added
  • elaborated on a hypothesis by Jean Théodore Delacour – can you add the year when this hypothesis was published?
    • Added
  • I did some more smaller changes myself, feel free to revert if you disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – looks good to me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Wow, this must be the first time in years we have a constant stream of bird FACs! Marking my spot until Jens' review is done so I don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • White-tailed jay is WP:duplinked (not counting the cladigram).
  • The images are kind of samey, especially since the one in the taxobox is the same that is used in the compilation image right below it. Can anything be done to avoid this repetition? There are other free photos of the bird on Flickr that might replace one of the duplicates.
  • Likewise, all photos show similar poses, and while not a great image, this one shows a flying individual and how the wings look when spread:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've done what I can to bring in different looking pictures, and done another search for any public domain ones that I've missed. Unfortunately there's just not much out there. Let me know what you think of the changes. grungaloo (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • People mentioned could be presented by occupation, for example it seems odd to state who it was named for with no context at all.
    • Added. I saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC so wasn't sure which was correct. They're all ornithologists so it might be a bit repetitive.
  • "with the specific name being named after" Name named sounds clunky.
    • Reworded - "being in honour of". I also saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC, but in this case I think it's ok because Moore explicitly says that the naming is in "tribute" to Dickey's work.
  • Link Cyanocorax at first mention.
    • Done
  • Link white-tailed jay at first mention under taxonomy. Now it is linked first time under description (not counting the cladogram).
    • Done
  • "white-tailed jay (Cyanocorax mysticalis)" You give the scientific name in parenthesis for this species at first mention, but not others, should be consistent.
    • Dropped the scientific name
  • "The white-tailed jay (pictured) is visually similar to the tufted jay" Could add to the caption that the two have incorrectly been considered the same species?
    • Tried a different caption, thoughts?
  • Seems odd they were considered the same species when the other doesn't seem to have a crest? What was the rationale behind that?
    • I've added a footnote explaining Haemig's rational, but basically he figures the colouration is due to Gloger's rule, and the crest is something he considers a "very plastic" characteristic in jays. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering how much text is devoted to the issue in the main text, I think it would even be worth to incorporate the footnote into it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link molt.
    • Done
  • Also, since this appears to be UK English (you say "colour"), it should be "moult". There may be other UK/US English inconsistencies, which should be checked throughout.
    • Canadian English actually, which afaik doesn't have a preference, but I changed it to moult anyway.
I think that's more or less the same as UK spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link mobbing.
    • Done
  • Modern countries are usually not linked, so links to Mexico should probably be removed.
  • You link flock only long after its first mention.
    • Moved up
  • "Juvenile males who do disperse from the flock do so at around 13–18 months of age." I don't think the first "do" is necessary.
    • Removed
  • "namely the Steller's jay" The is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • Breeding pairs is also only linked long aftr first mention.
    • Moved up
  • Altricial could be explained in parenthesis.
    • Added
  • Missing "is".
    • I'm not sure where?
Oops, fixed it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "notably by those involved in the narcotic cultivation" Why?
    • Reworded
  • An article this length probably only needs a three paragraph intro. I think you could merge the two last short paragraphs.
    • Combined the last two
  • Usually the intro should have the same order of info as the article body, but now you describe the bird before talking about its relationships. Perhaps not a big deal, but I've seen others bring it up.
    • Personally I think having description first makes sense even if it doesn't match the order. In my experience a lot of people looking up birds are most interested in what they look like, so makes sense to open with that to me. I'll change it though if it's a sticking point.
  • Breeding pair and other terms not linked in the intro should be linked if they are linked in the article body.
  • Support - changes look good, I fixed the last issue I hadn't reported properly myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aa77zz[edit]

  • The article heavily cites a 1965 master's thesis by Richard Crossin. Theses are not considered as reliable sources. The cites should be replaced by peer reviewed articles.
One possible source is the Birds of the World which is available from the Internet Archive (registration required) here: https://archive.org/details/handbookofbirdso0014unse/page/582/mode/1up

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. According to Google Scholar, this thesis has been cited 44 times, including by major bird resources such as handbooks. Given how narrow this topic is, I would argue this counts as "significant scholarly influence" (in fact, it seems to be the most cited publication that is specifically dealing with this species). Another point to consider is whether or not the cited information is uncontroversial; mere observations (for which this source seems to be used for) are generally uncontroversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was basically my reasoning (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Crossin is the go-to for any detailed description on this bird. Other sources also cite Crossin quite a bit, including Birds of the World. My usage of it mostly reflects what other sources were already citing to it, but I used Crossin in these cases so I could pull more detail. Excising Crossin would be possible, but the article would lose some detail. If that's what's needed though I'll give it a go! grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • Also known as the painted jay and Dickey's jay. Painted jay and Dickey's jay should probably be bold in introduction per WP:BOLDTITLE since they are alternative names for this bird. Other than that I don't see any issues. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, Jens Lallensack pointed out that these shouldn't be bolded actually. "And significant alternative names" - the argument is that these are not significant names at all. In fact, I only found one source each that uses each of these names. They definitely quality as alternative names, but probably not significant. grungaloo (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just see that the WP:WikiProject Birds has this guideline: Alternative common names should be mentioned where appropriate; with bold type in the opening line of the article if they are in wide use, elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type) if they are less-used. This is usually a matter for individual judgement. So I guess it is up to you if you like to bold or not. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd prefer to not bold here. From what I've seen they're not in wide use. grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "A mtDNA study". When did this happen?
    • Added year (2010)
  • "A mtDNA study". Could we have this in full at first mention? mitochondrial DNA. And in the main article.
    • Changed for both mentions
"The following cladogram (simplified from the 2010 mtDNA study)". Either this also needs to be in full or the abbreviation needs to be in brackets after the first mention a little earlier in the paragraph.
Oops, changed to be in full
  • "It is likely descended from an ancestral jay which ranged throughout Central and South America." Perhaps "It" → 'they'?
    • Fixed
  • Link canopy, range
    • Linked
  • "This indicated that the tufted jay and white-tailed jay descended from a common ancestor that once lived throughout Central and South America, and that the visual similarities were the result of convergent evolution." I don't understand. If they "descended from a common ancestor", then that would explain "the visual similarities" and there is no need to assume convergent evolution".
    • I've removed the line about convergent evolution since yeah, it doesn't make sense. I think the author meant that all Central/South American Cyanocorax's descended from a common ancestor, and the tufted and white-tailed jay converged, but that's not expressly stated so I've opted to remove it instead.
  • "This is a commonly held hypothesis by others who have studied the tufted jay." "is" or was?
    • Is, and the mtDNA study supports it so I've left it as is. I did change hypothesis to theory though since it is an official theory, especially with the dna study.
  • "Because of the visual similarities between the tufted jay and the white-tailed jay, some researchers thought that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest." Is this not repeating much of the previous paragraph?
    • I've cut it down: "These similarities led some researchers to hypothesize that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest."
  • "that the tufted jay had descended from a flock that had accidentally been brought to Mexico by a storm". Would that be a flock of white-tailed jays?
    • Added white-tailed jay to the sentence to make it clear
  • "the tufted jay is sister to a clade formed by ..." Define clade in line.
    • Added
  • "due to a widely distributed ancestor." Optional: → 'due to a widely distributed common ancestor.'
    • Changed.
  • "The tufted jay has several calls, with the most common call being a rapid ..." This may flow better without the repetition of "call".
    • Changed, dropped the second "call"
  • "woodland forests". Are there non-woodland forests?
    • Removed "woodland"
  • "they can be found in ravines near water sources." Commonly, rarely, exclusively?
    • Added - commonly
  • Do we have any idea of their life expectancy?
    • Nothing concrete. Birds of the World says "There is no information related to topics such as age at first breeding, life span and survivorship, dispersal, or population regulation for Tufted Jay.", and I couldn't find anything from another source.
I find that information on the lack of information on "age at first breeding, life span and survivorship" interesting. Perhaps include it in the article?
I've added it, I put breeding age in the breeding section, and lifespan in the description
  • "and are 41 cm (16 in) in diameter and 6 cm (2.4 in) deep." Should there be am 'approximately' in there?
    • Added
  • "measure between roughly 36–38 mm (1.4–1.5 in) long and 24–25.4 mm (0.94–1.00 in) wide"; "with between 10,000–20,000 mature individuals." See MOS:RANGES "Do not mix en dashes with between or from."
    • Removed "between" and "roughly"
  • "the primary threats to its survival are habitat destruction through agricultural expansion, deforestation due to logging and narcotic cultivation, or through forest fires." There needs to be an 'and' somewhere in that list.
    • Reworded
  • "Climate change is likely to result in future prolonged droughts, which could result in a significant decrease in the tufted jay's population." Is it possible to avoid having "result" twice in a single sentence?
    • Reworded
  • Lammertink et al needs an OCLC. (906999994)
    • Added
  • Like wise Miller et al. (4638340178)
    • Added

Nice work. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I enjoyed writing it! grungaloo (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great stuff. A couple of minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addressed! grungaloo (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A cracking article, especially impressive for a first-time FAC nomination. Have you done this before? Either on or off Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that means a lot! I did some writing in university but nothing since. I appreciate the feedback. grungaloo (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006[edit]

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, Gog the Mild, Elli, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and ZKang123: Thank you for your participation at the previous FAC for City of Champaign v. Madigan. Since this article covers similar subject matter and uses many of the same sources, I invite you to participate in this FAC as well. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your comment. I don't think this photo is purely decorative because it illustrates a widespread phenomenon of public employees using their personal devices while carrying out their official duties. See also City of Champaign v. Madigan and Illinois Freedom of Information Act#Records on private electronic devices, where we show a photo of Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his cell phone, even though that specific phone call was unlikely to be the subject of any relevant FOIA requests.
    Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk - Source review

Happy to review! Also, are you aware that you're eligible for another Four Awards for City of Champaign? Anyway, the review:

Thanks for the reminder! I've just nominated Champaign for the Four Award. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no concerns about the prose, so I'll do a source review

  • Ref 5 is missing a website/publisher
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing volume/issue parameters
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Put dead in ref 14's active parameter
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources
    The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's all good here, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotcheck:

  • Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something
    Ah, good catch. Long ago, I copied and paraphrased text from Murder of Laquan McDonald without checking source-to-text integrity. I've revised that sentence now. Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 2: all three uses good
  • Ref 5: good
  • Ref 10: good
  • Ref 14: all three uses good
  • Ref 17: good

Edge3, all done- great work on this and on getting the last article promoted! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support and pass source review- wonderful job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elli[edit]

Claiming a spot here to do a review later (sometime this week hopefully). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elli Just pinging you for a quick reminder. :-) Edge3 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks -- will try to get to it soon. Sorry for the wait. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! Edge3 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background
  • First paragraph is fine and supported by source.
  • "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts." not sure what part of the source is supporting this but I'm probably missing something. I don't like "reportedly" as it's a bit of a weasel word so I'd rather be clear about who was stating this and why they thought it was the case.
    The source says: "police officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices". The information is attributed to Ben Schuster, an attorney who had been interviewed for that article, but I'm not sure if he should be cited directly. Happy to hear your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request." Page 2 of the report doesn't explicitly say this.
    I've updated the citation to include pages 2–4. Edge3 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would be ideal to use a secondary source for the parts currently only backed by the opinion itself, though I'd understand if no such sources exist.
    I'm mainly using the opinion as a primary source for the procedural history of the case, and also key dates. (e.g. the dates of the FOIA request, the request for review, the AG's decision, etc.) Since I'm using the opinion only to support basic facts rather than interpretation, it's appropriate under WP:PRIMARY. Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are my only concerns in this section. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change UK[edit]

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a break away centrist political party in the UK which had a lot of hype to begin with but soon disbanded. Article meets the FAC criteria Lankyant (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • What's the benefit of so many slightly different logo images?
  • Don't use fixed px size

Daniel Case[edit]

Printing out a hard copy to take a look at and lightly copyedit if needed ... Will be back in a few days or so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

  • The article is inconsistent as to whether Change UK is singular ("its eleven MPs") or plural ("appointed former Conservative MP Heidi Allen as their leader").
  • A couple of typos stick out: Rather than forming a party, they referring to themselves; the centre-keft Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats leader, the Lib Demis
  • In the sources, we're inconsistent about whether to use sentence or title case for article titles.
  • Some terms need explaining for a non-UK audience: e.g. Brexit, Remainers.
  • We've used the abbreviation "Lib Dems" without spelling out that it's the Liberal Democrats. I would generally avoid it except in quotation, per WP:NOTPAPER.
  • During the period when it's formally "Change UK – The Independent Group", we sometimes refer to it simply as "Change UK", and elsewhere spell out the whole name. I'd suggest abbreviating consistently after first mention, but we need to pick a lane.
  • There's an unresolved CN tag, and a Who? tag.
  • On sourcing: practically everything seems to be sourced to news articles from the time. It's surely been long enough that at least some of this whole debacle has been covered in retrospective articles, books etc?
  • stand a full slate of candidates: this is an example (though not the only one) of political jargon that should be expressed more concretely for a general audience. See, for example, the top one for the Scottish constituency. Later, we have the amendment fell, which I'm not sure is even the usual jargon (I'd expect failed, but better as was voted down, was rejected or similar).
  • There are a couple of long run-on sentences: see e.g. The Muslim Council of Great Britain and anti-racism charity Tell MAMA condemned the selection of a third candidate, Nora Mulready, who they said had conflated Islam with terrorism and legitimised the far right; this was dismissed by Mulready and Change UK as a "smear campaign"
  • We've got Rachel Johnson's interview in The Times cited to the Mirror. The Mirror isn't generally viewed as a WP:HQRS: why not track down the original to be sure that it hasn't quoted her out of context?
  • Some of the tenses are a bit unclear, especially when talking about events which were then in the future (but no longer are): see e.g. A week later, interim leader Heidi Allen suggested that the party might not exist at the next general election and hinted at the formation of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats., Between the European Parliament polling day and the count, with the Liberal Democrats expected to have done much better in the vote than Change UK, Umunna said that he thought a pact between Change UK and the Liberal Democrats at the next election "would be sensible"
  • Even separate from the concern about in-cycle news coverage, there are some primary sources cited (e.g. the application to the electoral commission), which don't appear to add much and seem at odds with WP:PRIMARY.
  • False titles are generally considered journalistic in UK English: there are several in use here, particularly and most strikingly Prime Minister and Conservative leader Theresa May.
  • In April, an unverified internal Change UK memo leaked: we need to think about the phrasing here: if it wasn't real, it can't leak, and yet by saying "unverified" we're refusing to confirm that it was real.
  • Quite a few examples where MOS:IDIOM needs to apply for cliché or everyday metaphors: see e.g. Change UK had thrown away opportunities in the European elections by not pooling their strength
  • There are a few points where readers might need reminding of the dates, in particular that everything happened in 2019: see for instance the "Funding" section.
  • There's quite a lot of repetition: for instance, we learn at least twice that Gavin Shuker was convenor and Chuka Umunna was spokesperson.
  • We're inconsistent as to whether the the in The Independent Group for Change is capitalised.
  • Labour councillors in over ten councils: how many, exactly?
  • There were further resignations from Labour ... and by Conservative councillors ... It is unknown how many of these councillors supported TIG/Change UK. Given the last part of this sentence, I must question what all of these resignations are doing in an article on Change UK: it sounds as if we're adopting the party's own (generally rejected) narrative that it represented the only way of saying "none of the above".
  • European People's Party-: use an endash after multi-word prefixes, per MOS:DASH.
  • There's an interesting-looking article cited in Further Reading: could that be integrated into the body text as a whole? It doesn't really cite any other academic treatments of Change UK, but it might be a good starting point to find out if there have been any more.

I'm going to oppose at the moment: I think the article could certainly be brought up to FA standard, but it isn't there yet. Unresolved maintenance tags, in particular, tell me that the requisite preparation hasn't been done before nominating. I am very happy to revisit this vote if and when changes are made.

Ben&Ben[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After tackling a Filipino actor BLP, back again with another musician bio. This time, I decided to start working on a band, instead of the usual solo artist BLP. Ben&Ben started as a duo formed by twin brothers Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. They later expanded into a nine-member ensemble and have released an extended play and two studio albums. Their music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on theater. Regarded as prolific songwriters, they are also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time on Spotify. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placeholder[edit]

I will hopefully get time to look at this in the next couple of days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "percussions" should be "percussion"
Fixed
  • In the lead you have both "Ben&Ben are" and "Ben&Ben has". I'm not sure whether the norm in Filipino English is for band names to be considered singular or plural, but whichever it is should be used consistently
I missed this. I've changed it now so that it is consistent with the plural form throughout the article.
  • "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers led" => "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers, led"
Done
  • "They had been interested at a career in music" => "They had been interested in a career in music"
Done
  • "which infused folk music and its lyrics rooted from kundiman" => "which infused folk music and featured lyrics rooted in kundiman"
  • "the duo invited a small group musicians" => "the duo invited a small group of musicians"
Can't believe I missed this. Fixed
  • "Favorite Album of the Year at 2020 Awit Awards" => "Favorite Album of the Year at the 2020 Awit Awards"
And this...also fixed. Thanks for catching.
  • "experimenting with different narrative standpoints" - I don't really understand this and how it relates to the title, which is what the first half of the sentence was about
I have tweaked this so that the latter statement is specific to the production of the album. Hopefully that provides clarity, happy to revise if needed.
  • "regarded its sound a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry" => "regarded its sound as a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry"
Done
  • "all of whom appeared in the album" => "all of whom appeared on the album"
Done
  • The group photo caption isn't a full sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
Removed full stop
  • "Ben&Ben are active supporters of recycling and single-use products" - surely they are opposed to single-use products, rather than supporting them.....?
Totally my bad. You're right. Revised the sentence as well.
  • "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Spotify has named Ben&Ben" => "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Ben&Ben were named by Spotify"
Done
  • The concerts section is unsourced, plus is there great value in listing just the names of three tours, with no additional context?
I believe, from another review, that if the concerts are mentioned in the prose, it would be okay to list them without inline citations (I could be wrong). Having said that, I do agree that listing it is unnecessary, so this section has now been removed.
Thanks for your time in reviewing ChrisTheDude! I have actioned all your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your support and edit as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

Figured I should leave some comments here after coming to the article from your related FLC and seeing it was nominated for FAC. I also have an open FAC if you have time or interest in leaving comments. I hope to get more comments added soon, but here are a couple to start.

  • Is there a reason the instruments aren't linked in the lead?
My guess would be because the instruments are generally simple and easy to understand. I've referenced other FAs of bands such as U2, Pink Floyd, and Pearl Jam, and they all seem to not link the instruments in enclosures. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does high-school need the dash? If that's how it is done when related to Philippine English or something, then never mind.
I believe you're right, I've dropped the dash. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments part 2
  • Flip ref orders unless the later footnote has to be first. Example: They graduated from De La Salle in 2016 and formed The Benjamins,[4][1] and released their first effort, an eponymous extended play (EP), on December 17, 2016.[8][7] - Honestly, I'm not sure if it's just a personal preference or if it's even something worth worrying about at FAC/FLC, but mentioning it anyway.
In my experience, I think it's not an absolute rule, I do however tend to cite my references in the order where the primary citation comes first then the secondary citation(s) that support the sentence. If that makes sense.
  • Remove the kundiman link in the Musical style and themes section as it is marked as a DUPLINK.
Removed
  • There's a few instances of long quotes. Is it possible to cut some of them down a little? There's long ones for example in "Formation and early years" and "Breakthrough and success". To be fair, they're not long enough to cause issues with earwig or anything, so if they have to remain, there's no copyvio at least.
I have paraphrased the longer quote in the "Formation" section. I did keep that shorter one, which was a review. Hopefully that's fine and not a cause of concern.
  • Filipino musicians Chito Miranda, KZ Tandingan, Moira Dela Torre, Juan Karlos Labajo and Zild - Comma after Labajo to be consistent with similar instances in the article.
Added
  • "It usually starts with a song idea from a single songwriter ... It could be as bare as a single line, or a fully written piece ... After everyone hears it, if the songwriter doesn’t really have any specific ideas for how it’ll be arranged, each person brings in their own ideas to the table. - Missing a second quotation mark.
Added
  • being the most-streamed Filipino artist in 2020, 2021 and 2023 - Add a comma after 2021
Added. Thanks for catching all those punctuation lapses.
  • There is one more instance of high-school towards the beginning of the history section.
Missed that. Should be fixed now.

Image review from ZooBlazer - Passes[edit]

I've change the alt text description. Hopefully that reads better. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to add more prose comments soon. The image review just has one issue with the second image's alt text. -- ZooBlazer 19:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments and the image review ZooBlazer. All actioned and responses provided. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image review passes and I left a few more comments above. -- ZooBlazer 21:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the additional comments ZooBlazer. I've provided my response and have actioned them. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an FYI, the pings didn't work since you were pinging my talk page. With that said though, I'm happy with the changes, so support. -- ZooBlazer 22:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that, I might have copied it by mistake. I really appreciate how quickly you responded and also for doing the review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCat[edit]

Two albums and they're already "the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time on Spotify"? That is extremely impressive- let's see how this came to be

  • During this time, the duo worked with several different sound engineers and songwriters, including tribal leaders - including tribal leaders? To my knowledge, tribal leaders aren't engineers or songwriters- clarify their role here
Clarified that the tribe leaders were sources of inspiration. Added another source to support that as well.
  • The wordmark logo image should be moved down a paragraph, since the paragraph it's currently linked to details the time that they were still called The Benjamins
Thanks for catching. I've moved it to the next paragraph
  • Six of them have formally studied music - clarify "them": "Six of the additions had previously studied..."
Revised as suggested
  • Meanwhile, Cabugao is the only one - I don't think meanwhile is quite the right word here- "on the other hand" or "conversely" make more sense
Agreed and revised.
  • "Leaves", the EP's single - what EP? I know it's the one mentioned earlier, but it's so many sentence back that it's worth clarifying
Revised it as Ben&Ben EP (as it was self-titled)
  • which signaled that they had attracted a range of audiences - does this need to be said? To me, getting lots of streams sort of insinuates this...
Makes perfect sense. I've removed it.
  • They admire how the group have diversified their sound and explored many musical styles throughout their career: "From the breadth of themes they tackle in their songs, to the contrasts of their musical palette, all the way to making the most of music as a holistic experience" - because it quote isn't a complete sentence, it should not be linked with a colon: perhaps, "They admire how the group have diversified their sound and explored many musical styles throughout their career, including 'the breadth of themes...'"
Thanks for this, done per your suggestion.
  • The full names of the band members aren't needed here since they've been stated before- just using last names is cleaner and declutters the number of names. If anything, it may be helpful to restate their instruments
Done and used their last names instead.
  • Juan Karlos Labajo from the namesake band, - from his namesake band
Done
  • Subsequently, this led to the release of their EP which reflected a similar style - the musical style led to their EP's release? Weird phrasing- rework to make it more about the style, perhaps, "A similar style was implemented into their first EP..."
Now that I just read it, you're right. I've revised this line as suggested.
  • In solidarity, the band dedicated their 2018 single "Maybe the Night", which was - dedicated the single to whom?
Had a hard time trying not to use the term "LGBT Community" again, since it was dedicated to them. So I did a bit of tweaking, hopefully that reads better.
  • They have been known to advocate - why "have been known to"?
Revised this, in the present.

Pseud 14, that's all from me- excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and for providing your feedback MyCatIsAChonk. All comments actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - got everything! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your support and taking the time to review. Much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorothy Olsen[edit]

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Dorothy Olsen, who flew military planes during World War II as a civilian member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots, ferrying newly built fighters and bombers from their factories where they were built to their embarkation points to Europe or Russia. I am grateful to UndercoverClassicist for their extensive comments at Talk:Dorothy Olsen and Wikipedia:Peer review/Dorothy Olsen/archive1. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Did you see this source? There are a few nice anecdotes in there that are not yet in the article.
    • I did see that. It's more about WASPs in general; was there some specific item that you think would be useful to add?
      • I'm not sure. It is mostly cute anecdotes:
        • "At the state fair in Salem during the Great Depression, she saw a biplane and spent every cent of the money she had earned picking hops to pay for a ride."
        • "Her daredevil stunts once caused damage to a plane’s front-wheel cowling." because she had been "hanging upside down at the time".
      • Including some of that would add further colour, but certainly isn't necessary.
  • Lead: clarify that she preferred the P-51 to the P-38 even if she preferred that one over bombers.
  • 40hp Taylorcraft: is that a Taylorcraft B?
    • I don't believe I've seen anything which specified the exact model.
      • I think the "40hp" was supposed to specify it; not sure whether that uniquely identifies the model.
  • WASPs: "Her training began in February 1943, at Houston Municipal Field [..] along with half of her class". Not a fan of the "along" here. Maybe "She begain training in February 1943. Half of her class trained at Houston Municipal Field, the other half ..."?
  • "Olsen initially hated her training" do we know why?
  • "She encountered difficulties when her fiancé died" do we know anything at all about him or how long they had been engaged? (Did he do anything other than inconvenience her by dying at an inopportune moment?)
    • Nothing that I've found.
  • "civilian aviation was grounded during World War II" really? Maybe general aviation was, but I think Delta and a few other airlines were operating scheduled civilian flights during WWII.
    • Hmmm, I'm unsure what to do here. You're probably right, but the source doesn't say that specifically. I've made it "civilian general aviation", which I think is reasonable even if not strictly supported by the source.
      • The Chinook Observer perhaps isn't the greatest source for the history of general aviation during WW2, so it may be better to cite this from elsewhere.
        • I've done a bit of hunting and haven't found anything definitive about general aviation being grounded during WW-II. The best I've found is a vague and unsourced statement in History of the Civil Air Patrol#World War II: On 8 December 1941, all civil aircraft, with the exception of airliners, were grounded. This ban was lifted two days later (with the exception of the entire United States West Coast) and things went more or less back to normal I'll keep looking, but for now I've put a more generic statement in the article.
  • "delivering brand new planes from the factory and was one of only 12 women certified for night flight" maybe better not to connect these separate facts in one sentence.
  • There is a slight abundance of "woulds" in this section.
    • I got rid of some of them.

Nice article overall, and she seems cool (I like the photo of her as an old lady with sunglasses). I guess her life outside the WASP episode is so unremarkable that its short treatment does not indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Other than as noted, I think I've addressed all of your comments. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed you have. My remaining comments are not showstoppers, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • She grew up on her family's farm in Oregon. Link Oregon?
  • After training in Texas. Link Texas?
  • After the war, Olsen retired from flying and moved to Washington state. Washington state can be changed to Washington by linking it to Washington (state).
  • Dorothy Eleanor Olsen was born in Woodburn, near Portland, Oregon. Link Portland?
  • Floyd Gibbons's biography of World War I. Link World War I?
  • In a 2022 interview, she recollected crowded housing, insects, and poor weather. The interview was done in 2010 not 2022; Olsen died in 2019.
  • Opportunity to keep women pilots flying during World War II. World War II should be linked in introduction first.

That's it for now. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 19:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed all those, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Volcanoguy, is there any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No there isn't unfortunately. I was going to review more and eventually support this article but after RoySmith's withdrawal on my own FAC I've decided to not support or oppose this on either. Volcanoguy 22:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grungaloo[edit]

Marking my spot, will post comments shortly. grungaloo (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review

  • Ref 1 - all uses good
  • Ref 2/3 - No access so not checked
    • There's links in the refs to Internet Archive if you want to look at those.
      • Ooh, thanks!
  • Ref 2- all uses good
  • Ref 3 - all uses good
  • Ref 4 - good
  • Ref 5 - One issue
    • [b] - I don't see where "Woodburn Flying Club " is mentioned, I only see a vague "club" reference. Also, it seems that this sentence is actually a quote from her so I'd make sure that's clear in the prose.
      • fixed.
  • Ref 6 - all uses good
  • Ref 7 - good
  • Ref 8 - You cite page 99 inline at one point, but the citation at the bottom only lists pages 102-103. usage is good otherwise
  • Ref 9 - good
  • Ref 10 - Small issue
    • [B] - It's called the Sixth Ferrying Group personnel book in the text, but the source says it's a yearbook, I'd suggest to use yearbook.
      • Fixed
  • Ref 11 - good
  • Ref 12 - good
  • Ref 13 - good
  • Ref 14 - good
  • Ref 15 - Issue
    • [A] - I can't find anything in this sentence that this source verifies. I wasn't able to access the WaPo article, but if it covers this off then I'd remove Ref 15 on this sentence.
  • Ref 16 - good, it's only sourcing Jennings' title right?
    • Yeah. I messed up the ref mapping when I inserted that. Fixed now.
  • Ref 17 - Can't validate, AGF that the WaPo article covers this.
  • Ref 18 - good
  • Ref 19 - good

The sources mostly appear to be from good WP:RS (WaPo, NYT, other recognized news outlets). For those I couldn't access, I'm AGF that they check out considering everything else does (minus some nitpicks). The only ones that stuck out to me are the few that are mostly interviews, namely Ref 6. Wikipedia:Interviews is the closest guidance I found, but even if considered a primary source I think it's still good to use. It's mostly her recollections of her life, so pretty uncontroversial stuff. Overall I'd say the source are good minus those few issues I point out above. grungaloo (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose comments

  • A petite woman - Ref 1 lists her starting weight (92 lbs), I'd consider replacing this with the actual numbers.
    • If you believe the source, she managed to put on 8 lbs to get form 92 to 100 in a week. I doubt that's physically possible, so I'm inclined to think the 92 isn't correct, so safer going with the vaguer "petite", I think.
      • Fair rationale. I'd maybe consider a word other than "petite" though. IMO it feels a bit sexist although I'm sure this is not the intent - we don't use this term to describe men so why use it with women? Maybe try something more factual like "Olsen did not meet the 100lb minimum weight upon entry to the program, so she under embarked on..." or something like that.
        • I changed it to "small", which is guess is more gender neutral.
  • There were more than 25,000 applicants to the program, of which 1,879 were accepted and 1,074 graduated; Olsen was one of 152 students in class 43-4. - This is missing a source. It seems like Ref 8 and Ref 1 cover it though.
    • Hmmm, unless I'm missing something, this sentence and the next few are all cited to ref 8.
      • Ok yeah, I think I got confused during the read. On second look it checks out.
  • Dorothy Eleanor Olsen was born in Woodburn, near Portland, Oregon, on July 10, 1916, to Ralph and Frances (Zimmering) Kocher, and grew up on the family's small farm.[ - there's a lot of commas here, stylistically I think it would look better broken up into two sentences - one for where/when she was born, another about parents/farm?
    • Done (not in exactly that way, but split into two sentences).
  • She encountered difficulties when her fiancé died; taking time off to attend his funeral put her behind the rest of her class. - I think this semicolon should be a comma since the second clause isn't a complete sentence on its own.
    • What comes after is taking time off to attend his funeral put her behind the rest of her class. That seems like a sentence to me, but if you feel strongly about this, I'll change it.
      • On a re-read you're right, the semicolon is good.
  • a practice shared by other WASPs. - This isn't sourced as far as I can tell.
    • The WaPo article (ref 2) says, "Sometimes, before sending a plane off to combat, a WASP would leave a note for its next pilot"
      • I guess it's a stylistic preference of mine then, so not something that would prevent support. IMO having a citation near the end of the sentence but leaving the tail end without one makes it seem like that tail is uncited. Even though the next cite does cover it, it's not immediately evident that that cite covers the tail end of the previous sentence as well. You could consider moving the tail into the next sentence instead, or maybe putting ref 2/3 at the end of the first sentence instead. Again, this is a stylistic preference so no need to change it if you'd prefer not to.
        • I think you're right. This is probably one of those things that's "technically correct, but could be better", so I did that.

That's all I've got. Looks pretty good! grungaloo (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - changes look good. grungaloo (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pendright[edit]

Placeholder - back soon! Pendright (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "When the war began". For many readers this will mean 1939, while I suspect you mean 1941. And did she join before the end of the year or was it 1942. It may be easier to mention Pearl Harbour and then give a specific date.
  • "of which 1,879 were accepted". "of which" or 'of whom'?
  • "her fiancé died". Any more detail on this? Ie, was he killed in combat?
  • Consider moving "Olsen never flew commercially after the war, and not at all after having children. She is quoted as saying, "Why would I want to fly a Cessna when I've flown a P-51?"[1][3]" to immediately after "... and a son, Kim."
  • After the war feels thin. Ie, was Olsen a full-time mother - would that be 'home maker' in modern American - prior to working with antiques? When did she marry, when were her children born? What did her husband do for a living, what did he do during the war, how did they meet?
  • Link "flyover". (To flypast.)
  • "Alta Thomas, Betty Dybbro, and Mary Jean Sturdevant." Do any of these have articles? If not, are any notable enough to merit a red link?
  • References: article titles - not book titles - should consistently be in sentence case. Regardless of how the original appears.

A smashing article - great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I think I've made all the changes, please ping me if I missed anything. I didn't spot any refs I had mis-cased; was there one (or more!) in particular that you had in mind?

The question about Alta Thomas, Betty Dybbro, and Mary Jean Sturdevant is a tricky one. If you search for them and "WASP", you'll find some material. Largely the same kind of material I found for Olsen, but with a different name. Modulo some personal details, they all have pretty much the same story, as I suppose do the 1,070 other WASPs as well. If you were a woman with a pilot's license in the early 1940s, you were likely to be of the same personality type. So why did I pick Olsen to write about? Only because I saw her obituary in the New York Times and got hooked. If it's OK with you, I'm inclined to skip the redlinks.

Thanks again for the review and the kind words. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cataract surgery[edit]

Nominator(s): · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about one of the most common elective surgical procedures of all time, the only effective treatment for a disability that affects almost all people who live long enough, that is highly effective with a very high success rate, and has a hitory going back to antiquity, but is very variable in accessibility and cost depending on where one is. The sort of thing a lot of people will look for on Wikipedia. I think I have covered all the most important aspects, and most of the more interesting aspects, but more eyes will find more errors and omissions. I am less concerned with FA status than with improving the article, so I may debate or request clarification for changes that I do not understand or do not agree with. Please feel free to make small changes that are likely to be uncontroversial if it will be less work than explaining them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source age[edit]

Peter, you probably don't have any idea how much I admire your results here. This is am impressive achievement and much needed. I point this out because I'm planning to complain that some of these sources are a bit elderly compared to the ideal. I suggest specifically:

  • Faust (1984) could be removed (unless it's there as a historically important paper?).
    • but Altman et al. (1985) is a historical paper supporting a historical statement, so it's okay.
  • Toczolowski (1993) should probably be replaced (for the definition) and is probably unimportant for the history.
  • Mathey (1994) should probably be replaced.
  • Thim (1993) could be removed.

From the present century, about 20% of the sources are 15+ years old. Without reviewing each one individually, this is unlikely to be ideal. We are usually hoping for sources from the last five years and willing to settle for sources within the last 10. The problem with older sources is that it's never easy to tell whether they're just "older" or if they're also "outdated". For example, "The pupil is checked for dilation using eyedrops; if pharmacologic pupil dilation is insufficient, procedures for mechanical pupil dilatation may be needed during the surgery" cites a 20-year-old (primary) source. Has anything changed since then? Maybe there's a new second-line drug available? Or maybe not? A 20-year-old source leaves me wondering; a recent source would help me trust that the information is up to date.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Faust(1984) mentions the origin of the term hydrodissection, at least in this context, so of some historical interest, but probably not important enough to keep if it bothers people. The term seems to be in general use, including in other applications, and the procedure appears to remain basically the same for this application, though there may be slight variations in technique outside the current scope of this article. I have found a more recent primary source mentioning importance and describing a variation of the technique which I have added (Tas 2018). Yanoff and Duker (2009) remains a better general description. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Toczolowski (1993) gives the best description of the technique that I was able to find, and as it is not generally used for cataract surgery any more, recent articles may not exist. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thim et al (1993) removed as redundant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are alternatives to eyedrops for dilation of the pupil, which I have now mentioned with a reasonably recent reference. I don't think this is often needed, but worth mentioning. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mathey (1994) has been replaced by Han (2019) and Biswas and Batra (2020).· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For several citations I have used a combination of a reference to a relatively old medical textbook as a high quality secondary source and a more recent journal article mentioning the matter as background information as a more current source. I think this is a reasonably practicable method of managing the problem when I have do not have access to more recent textbooks. Currency and completeness will always be difficult to establish in a developing field, and are among the reasons for the FAC process which hopefully make it worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaks needed[edit]

The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report (the figure is the number of moss code hits):

  • 8 - Cataract surgery - "procedure,anterior", "cararact", "epinucleus", "hydroexpression", "advanved", "phacosandwich", "phacosection", "faciitated"

Some seem to be technical terms; there are a few typos, but I don't think a full copyedit is required. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Miniapolis, Thanks for the list, It seems like all the actual typos have already been fixed (thanks to those who did that), and thanks for your good wishes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Dhtwiki fixed them; I was in the middle of a huge copyedit, and couldn't get to it. All the best, Miniapolis 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1907–08 New Brompton F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here's the deal, everyone. I tried really really hard to come up with a different type of article to bring to FAC, honest I did, but for whatever reason I just couldn't get enthused, so I am afraid you get yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. In this particular season the team (still under the original club name of New Brompton) started the campaign with the heaviest defeat in the club's history to this point, recovered to be roughly in the middle of the league table at the midpoint of the season, and then collapsed utterly in the second half, losing almost every game and finishing dead last, after which almost every player left the club. Along the way a player had to be restrained by the police from attacking fans who threw mud at him. Oh, and somehow in the FA Cup they managed to achieve the club's greatest victory to date. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • winning 11, drawing 8 and losing 23 -- I see you've used the serial comma in the body. Might need adding here for consistency.
  • the match finished 9–1 to the home team, the highest number of goals New Brompton had conceded in a competitive match in the club's history. -- I think this is better as a separate sentence.
  • Against Swindon Town in the first match of October a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin -- comma after October
  • I recently learned this from another review, I noticed that the reporter mentioned at least five times, if there is no name that can be attributed, I believe we should not use a definite article, so it should be a reporter from. Also to avoid being repetitive, perhaps use some variation i.e. a writer or a journalist from...
  • The final game of the season was took place on 25 April -- the final game of the season took place
  • At this stage of the competition they were drawn to play -- comma after competition
  • and forced to leave the game inside the first ten minutes -- Perhaps it should be: in the first ten minutes or ten minutes into the game
  • Optional: Perhaps equaliser should be wikilinked
  • Martin made, the most, -- I think the first comma should be dropped
  • In the case of the former player it was his only appearance for the New Brompton first team. -- comma after player
  • That's all from me. Great works as ever. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: - many thanks for taking the time to review the article. All points addressed, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks good. Support on prose. Also, if you happen to have the luxury of time and interest, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Teratix[edit]

  • the heaviest defeat in the club's history to date this reads like it's the heaviest defeat Gillingham has ever suffered, but I think all you mean is that it was the heaviest defeat suffered up to that time? I'd replace "to date" with something less ambiguous.
  • the team were in 6th place out of 20 teams in the league table in mid-November is there a particular significance to this point in the season? I understand highlighting the team's standing at the end of December, as that's the end of the year and around the season's halfway point, but this is a bit more cryptic to me. Was 6th perhaps their peak placing for the season?
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • As far as I can work out it was their peak position, but short of ref-bombing it with their position after every single game I don't know how to address this. I do feel that it's worth noting that they climbed as high as 6th before falling away by Christmas, but not sure how to proceed. Take it out of the lead altogether but leave it mentioned at the appropriate point in the body (i.e. after the third of the three straight wins).......?
        • No, if it's there because you've worked out it was their peak position, that's OK, you don't need to take it out. I was just wondering why it was there in the first place, because the mid-November timeframe seemed a bit arbitrary.
  • which was seen as the greatest win in the club's history to date "to date" is not as ambiguous as it is in that first instance, but it's still not ideal
  • In the preceding eight seasons I'd split this sentence in two
  • Simmons of The Sporting Life wrote that New Brompton "always appear[ed] to be struggling against an adverse fate" is this a general reflection on the club or a particular reflection on last season?
    • The wording is quite vague but it doesn't seem to refer solely to the previous season
  • all left after a single season anything known about why all three left at once? Was this unusual or normal for the time?
    • I don't have any sources that say anything specific on this. At the time players were only contracted to a club for one season at a time so three players leaving at once was not unusual and it was probably just coincidence that they has all only been there for a year
      • Fair enough, just inquiring.
  • had to continue with a reduced number of players → "fewer players"
  • would tie as the largest in front of which New Brompton played during the season awkwardly worded
    • Still needs some work.
      • Had another go
  • a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin, a half-back who had been a regular in the previous two seasons, made his first appearance this jarred on a first look, it initially reads as if Barker is replacing both Pickering and Mavin before you reach "made".
  • saying that he had given spectators ... that "few wing men in the country could have equalled his placing drop "that" x2
    • I believe the second "that" is needed for the sentence to be grammatically correct
      • Eh, might be a BrE thing. Not terribly important.
  • A week after Marriott scored the team's first hat-trick of the season, McGibbon repeated the feat doesn't make sense to talk of McGibbon repeating the feat if someone else performed it the first time.
  • who were in 20th and last place in the league table why not just "who were in last place"?
  • another team near the foot I think the implied first near-bottom team is Leyton, but they were not "near the foot of the table" – they were at it.
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • I changed it to "a team below them in the table" which I think covers all bases
  • Smith made what would prove to be his final appearance why didn't Smith play any of the remaining matches, especially considering he was the player-manager?
    • I don't have any sources to confirm that. The full-length book about Smith's life mentions that game and then in a very perfunctory manner says something like "it turned out to be the last game he played". He may have been injured, but I can't confirm that
      • OK.
  • Cunliffe, who had left New Brompton at the start of the season, scored both goals ouch!
  • The result meant that New Brompton drop "that"
    • Not sure if you saw this?
      • In British English either is valid and I think the use of "that" would probably be preferred by linguistic purists but I have changed it anyway
  • generated significant interest, resulting in a new record attendance for the ground "generated significant interest" is a bit vague and I'm not sure it really adds any information to the article. Why not just "drew a record attendance for the ground" (not "new record", redundant) and let readers infer the match must have generated a lot of interest?
  • The Daily Telegraph noted that New Brompton were of "very ordinary ability" and that they would need drop "that" x2
  • set another new attendance record drop "new"
  • and late in the game the First Division team scored a second goal I think your inner Gillingham fan slips out a little bit here, highlighting City's First Division status feels a little bit defensive – the subtext seems to be "sure, we lost, but they were in another league to us and we'd done well to hold them off for this long!"
  • Is there some reason the "Results" header in cup matches is not a table caption, like every other table in the article has?
  • 21 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton → "21 players appeared for New Brompton"
  • fewer than five appearances of whom two comma after appearances?
  • In the case of the latter player, it was his only appearance → "it was McLachlan's only appearance"
    • Follow-up: "McLachlan's one appearance" → "McLachlan's appearance"
  • Eleven players scored at least one goal for the team → "Eleven players scored for the team"
  • The Aftermath section feels a bit thin – I would expect people to have more to say about the team's worst season in its history to that point. Any insights into why the team was so weak?
    • I searched all available newspaper sources and didn't really find any commentary on why the team had been so bloody awful in the second half of the season
      • Hmm, OK.
  • New Brompton were reprieved from relegation to Division Two why?
    • Relegation was not automatic but voted on by the other clubs
      • Was it unusual for teams to be reprieved? Was there a particular reason they were saved in this case?
  • Smith left the club, choosing to retire from professional football For sheer age or another reason?
    • Sources don't say. Presumably age, as he was 34 and that was old for a footballer in that era, but no source explicitly confirms it
      • Alright
  • the playing squad was almost completely overhauled Because they'd performed so badly or were there other reasons?
    • Sources don't explicitly say, I'm afraid. The closest I could find was an article stating that "it is not surprising that the directors decided to make extensive changes to the New Brompton team", which wouldn't really add anything to the article IMO
      • Fair enough!
  • That's all from me. – Teratix 14:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Teratix: - thanks for your review. All points addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have to say this article left me with more questions than answers at times – but I totally understand that when we're talking about a football season from more than a century ago, some things are just going to be lost to history, and there's only so much you can do when the sources you're relying on aren't talking. Just had a last follow-up on relegation but that's about it. – Teratix 15:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Teratix: - I added a chunk more which hopefully explains the situation..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The relegation chunk is all good and very helpful for explanation – I just had a last look-over and there were a couple of points from the original review you might have missed, and a couple you've had a pass at addressing but need just a little more work in my view. – Teratix 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • OK, all looks good: support, for real this time! – Teratix 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SC

Empire of the Sultans[edit]

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

  • You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
    • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
  • I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
    • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
    • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
  • Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
    • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
  • The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
    • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.
FAC doesn't do "breezy generalistion[s]". Perhaps "Many of the empire's rulers, the sultans, were ..."? Assuming that the sources will support this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
    • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
  • other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
    • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.

For Content:

  • The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
    • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
  • More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
    • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
  • These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
    • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
    • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
  • The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
    • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
  • Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
    • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
    • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Very grateful for your feedback and happy to give the article more useful context. I've made some changes straight away; others require more thought and poring through sources. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note to apologise for delay with the last remaining point. I've had a celebratory last few days. Also, my search for references about Aniconism in Islam led to discovering problems with the sourcing of that article and Muslim world that I have spent some time digging into. I will come back to the background section of this article this week. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SC
  • I thoroughly enjoyed your Hajj article, so I'm looking forward to this one too. Comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lead
  • "from 2000 to 2004: a period" A colon is wrong here – a comma would suffice
Content
  • Image caption: link horse chestnut? (Only a mild suggestion – your call entirely)
Venues
  • Image caption: "c. 1560-80" should be "c. 1560–1580", per the MOS
Books, paintings
  • "some following a standard pattern": is it possible to explain what the "standard pattern" is, or is that too complex to achieve in a few words?
Venues
  • I'm not sure we need a whole subsection for the US tour, do we? Just making it part of the wider section would be better (and doesn't give excess weight to one of the four countries)

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cross-site leaks[edit]

Nominator(s): Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Say you clicked on that sketchy link that you shouldn't have clicked on, what's the worst that could happen ? This article seeks to answer that exact question by providing a technical introduction to an age old attack that has recently drawn some interest in the academic web security community.

A product of 4 months of almost-continual effort, this article has recieved a extensive GA review from RoySmith and has subsequently been peer reviewed by TechnoSquirrel69. This is my first time nominating an article for the featured star, and I would love to hear any feedback comments that y'all might have -- Sohom (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JimKillock[edit]

I think it is great to be making articles like this of a good standard. I am sure it is well researched and accurate given the review you have done. However, technical matters like this are very hard to make accessible to an average reader, and I have to say, I really struggle reading this, although I consider that I have a basic lay knowledge of how some of these things might fit together. that said, it also seems a particularly challenging topic to convey in simple terms.

The introductory (lead) section is what really matters here. If this can explain the basic concept well enough, then the other sections may be comprehensible. You might want to see if you can try explaining it in reply here, in an over simplified manner, to see if that gives a guide to the edits needed make this sufficiently readable by a general reader. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimKillock Thank you for taking the time to review the article :) As you mentioned, the topic is pretty technical which limits how simple some parts of the article can be. I've done some reworking of the prose of the lede at User:Sohom_Datta/csl, let me know if this makes it any better (I can try and simplify it further if you want). Sohom (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta Better, especially the first paragraph, but further simplification is needed. Your lede audience is someone who knows nothing about the topic, for instance perhaps your grandparents, or aunts and uncles. (Apologies if they are in fact all software engineers!) (See WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD which seem to guide towards "do simple first, then complicated after". These also give links to text simplicity checker tools, which rate the new text as within the 20% most complicated on Wikipedia, or as "PhD" level texts.) For instance:
To perform a cross-site leak attack, the attacker must find at least one URL in a victim website that provides at least two different responses based on the website's previous interactions with a user and identify at least one way in which they can distinguish between the two responses.
This is a lot to take in, if you are new to it. There are around five or six different ideas to comprehend within it. Perhaps it would be better to step through the process, with one concept per sentence?
An alternative way of presenting the information might reduce the technical explanation in the lead to a very basic statement, and give a noddy-level step through for people like me as the first section. (Post script: this is suggested in the MOS links above.)Jim Killock (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Is the latest version of User:Sohom_Datta/csl better? I've broken down the second paragraph, added a inline example and broken a few more of the longer sentences up. :) Sohom (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta Definitely getting there. I'll ask questions until I can readily understand it perhaps.
  • What do you mean by "response" in this sentence? For instance, on a search page, an attacker might find one response when a search yields results and another when there are no results. (A lay reader would assume the "response" was the search result.)
  • Then in the following sentence, what causes an information leakage issue or "side channel"?
  • Why does information leakage aid an attack, or how does it?
Jim Killock (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Sure, no problems, feel free to ask any questions :)
- In this case response should mean the HTTP responses sent to the browser, however mentioning that requires that we go of on a tangent explaining "HTTP". Since the "search result" abstraction is not incorrect, I'm not too keen on doing anything here.
But a "search result" is naturally going to give a different "response" if it is for a different search term, which is what you imply here. However the http response seems to be different for another reason? This is why it seems confusing. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The HTTP responses are different because the search results are different. Imagine a attacker is trying to attack your Gmail account using this technique, the attacker would analyze gmail and find that the website has a search endpoint. They would then pick two queries (say "dog" and "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj"). They know that "ggdkjsvkjfdsgfdjkgjfdsdj" will always return a empty response. Given this, the attacker will then identify a information leak by which they can differentiate a empty response from a non-empty response. Once they do that, they are able to make the two queries, and if both responses are empty, they know that you don't own dogs, else they now know that you own/talk about dogs. Hope that cleared up the confusion. Sohom (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is more difficult, and a good question. There is no particular cause for these information leakages, they are inherent to the way the web works and are a result of design choices that were made during the early years. This is touched upon in some detail in the "Background" and "Mechanism" section of the article.
IIRC, they are things like, http responses and JS etc allow the website to ask (or is told by dewfault?) things like what browser version, plug ins, language, fonts, etc are being used. Are there other relevant examples? An example or two would help. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are confusing Browser fingerprinting with Cross-site leaks. The most common example of a information leakage issues in a cross-site leak context would be the leakage of cache information across websites (a different website caches images and then you check if a specific image is cached). Another example I like to give is that of a website timing how long another website (say Wikipedia) takes to return a login page. If it takes particularly long, you can infer that the login page redirect somewhere else, and so make the inference that the user is logged into Wikipedia. Sohom (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Again, this is another really good question, I've struggled to explain this in a succient way in the lede, but these information leakages are necessary since they bypass the Same-origin policy (there is some discussion about this in the "Background" section). Under normal circumstances, browsers will block attempts by websites to query information about other websites rendering this attack ineffective.
Let me know if the changes work :) Sohom (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improvements for sure. Perhaps it would be helpful to draft a simple explanation as not being part of the lede as a first step, so we don't conflate the parameters of a lede with the need of the average reader to be given a simple overvew? And then it can aid the lede draft as you would have the basic level guide ready? --Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimKillock Sure, I've answered your questions above, let me know if you need further clarification. Sohom (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will re-read your background section and see if I can understand better. Jim Killock (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current draft is better, but it is still hard to follow; your explanations here are very helpful, but I think it will take a long time to answer my questions in this way to the point I understand it sufficiently to be able to suggest edits or improvements to the text.
So I'm doing a bit of background reading elsewhere to see if I can get an overview into my mind.
Another step you could take is to read WP:TECHNICAL and WP:EXPLAINLEAD and produce a simple explanation based on those for the "general reader" audience, without regard to where it goes for now. Jim Killock (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]