Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

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]

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).

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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).......?
  • 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]

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?
  • 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.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
  • 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.
  • 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"?
  • 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?
  • 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.

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?
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the 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..."
  • 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?
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 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.
  • 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]

Cross Temple, Fangshan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generalissima's comments[edit]

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edict of Expulsion[edit]

Nominator(s): Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the 1290 edict of expulsion that led to the departure of the Jews from England, and the reasons why it was issued; and the consequences and importance of the edict since then. It would be good for it to be featured as it is an important facet of English and Jewish social history, with an international significance. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placeholder[edit]

I'll take a look at this one over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted" => "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties that he wanted"
  • "then adopted in England at the Synod of Oxford in 1222." - this doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. I would separate it into a separate sentence
  • "King Henry III backed allegations" - link him
  • "this was however an unrealistic expectation" - this either needs to be a separate sentence of else the comma before it needs to be a semi-colon
  • "Edward also attempted" - who's Edward? This is the first mention in the body of him
  • "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80 foot fall" => "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80-foot fall"
  • "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told" => "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told"
  • "Perhaps more dangerous than the risk of piracy was the condition of the sea in Autumn" - autumn doesn't need a capital A
  • "the most valuable of which was houses in London" - while probably grammatically correct, this reads a little oddly, so I would suggest maybe "the most valuable of which consisted of houses in London"
  • "Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family" - whose family?
  • "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £100 of this was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey" => "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised, £100 of which was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey"
  • Check for overlinking. Queen Eleanor is certainly linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • "it appears to be a deliberate attempt to associate himself and Eleanor with the cult." - this should be its own sentence
  • "for instance in the canonization evidence" => "for instance in the canonisation evidence" (British English spelling)
  • There's quite a bit of sandwiching going on with images, especially in the significance section. Maybe lose a couple of images
  • If kept, the Edward I image caption needs a full stop
  • Note c - "See Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, pp. 364–5" - this could just be a reference in the same format as all the others
  • Note d needs a full stop
  • Note f - "See Morris 2009, p. 226" - same as with note c
  • Same with notes j and h
  • Note l does not need a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great - those look very sensible. I'll work through them probably tomorrow. Jim Killock (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. Those are all done, bar removing an image. I've cut the image captions down, but left them for now, until I've had a think. On overlinking I checked Edward I, Queen Eleanor and Little St Hugh as the most likely candidates for overlinking with several mentions.Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sam Manekshaw[edit]

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only two people promoted to the Field Marshal rank in India. I believe I have addressed all the concerns raised in the last FAR and look forward to going through the process once again, hopefully for the final time for this article. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: For reviewers who find the Assessment section too short and lacking on comprehensiveness, please note that I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library and thus cannot access a lot of sources fully & instead have to rely on snippets.

RoySmith (support)[edit]

slightly off-topic discussion about TWL access

I'm not going to go so far as to formally oppose, but I think this should not go forward on procedural grounds. The nominator has identified a shortcoming in their own ability to properly research this article; lack of access to WP:WPL. Looking at the requirements, the only thing they're missing is "6+ months editing". I can see two trivial ways to handle that. One would be to write to the WPL folks (who I have found to be exceptionally eager to help), explain the problem with the old account and request that the 6 month requirement be considered met based on that old account. Two would be to wait another three weeks, at which point your new account will meet the 6 month requirement and apply that way. In the meantime, my suggestion is to withdraw this submission and resubmit after you have gotten access and been able to complete your research. Considering that this article has been submitted three previous times over the past six years, with all three submissions being unsuccessful, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that you wait another three weeks to be able to avail yourself of the sources you say you need to complete your research. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roy, thanks for your thoughtful and considerate reply. The only source I don't have full access to is the Indian Arms Bazaar 1994 artice, source #141. I don't believe this one can br accessed through TWL too. I have full access to the rest of the sources used in the article, and do think I can research the article properly.
The reason I put the note though, is because most FA reviewers have TWL access and expect sources from catalogues there, like Newspapers.com. I don't have access to those yet, but I don't think TWL access is a prerequisite for FA status, is it?
I did try to get TWL access over at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library, but got my application rejected within a day. How else would you suggest I write to them? Are there other forums for that? I understand your suggestion to wait, but I don't want to, because I don't think TWL sources are better than open access ones. Also, having two failed FARs for the same article feels really bad, it's not the end of the world but is off putting.
But if the TWL thing is a negative qualifier for you, then I will consider withdrawing the nomination once again. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just entered "Sam Manekshaw" into TWL's search box and got a page full of sources. I see you've used at least some of them (The obituary in The Economist, for example), but quite a number of other sources that you don't mention. Raghavan S. Soldiers, Statesmen, and India’s Security Policy. India Review. 2012;11(2):116-133. doi:10.1080/14736489.2012.674829 has several pages about Manekshaw. I don't see that mentioned in your sources, but they do cite Interview with Manekshaw in Quarterdeck (1996) reproduced in Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation (New Delhi: Manohar, 1997), pp. 18183 as one of its sources, which I see you do use, so perhaps you've already got that covered.
My point is that WP:FACR requires a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and I don't see how you can say you've done that without at least having run a TWL search to see if there's anything you've missed.
Samwalton9 (WMF) I see you processed Matarisvan's TWL application and rejected it based on failing the 6 month's tenure requirement. What wasn't mentioned in his application was that he previously edited as PunishedRottweilerAppreciator but lost access to that account because of a technology failure. Between the two accounts, he meets both the time and edit count requirements. Is there any way the rules could be bent to get him access now, so he doesn't have to wait another 3 weeks to hit the 6-month mark on his current account? RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this, I didn't know SW9 could be requested like that upfront. I did forget to mention the old account in my plea, maybe if I had, then perhaps I wouldn't have struggled in the last FA. I will incorporate the 2 sources you mention, and if I do get access to TWL then cite all the other sources available there as well. Thank you once again, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matarisvan: I missed your followup note last time about having a previous account. Usually we would ask for some proof of ownership for your previous account, but in this case since you've only got a couple of weeks to go anyway I've enabled Wikipedia Library access for your account. On a broader note @RoySmith I'm wondering about this procedural decline on the basis of not having access to The Wikipedia Library - I would feel uneasy about us being a bottleneck to future FACs. There are a wide range of venues for doing research besides TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Samwalton9 (WMF) I agree that TWL should not be a bottleneck per-se to FAC. However in this case, @Matarisvan specifically identified their lack of TWL access as the reason why they couldn't get a source they needed. It just seemed like a problem that could be easily solved, so I pushed a bit on that. FA requires "professional standards of ... sourcing". In a professional setting, if you submitted something for review with a note, "I know my paper/code/project/whatever is deficient, but I lost my library card so I can't fix it", it wouldn't go over very well, and that's really the point I was trying to make. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Now, I've got a review I need to do... RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Roy, I'm glad to share that I got access to the Indian Arms Bazaar Source through the Open Library/archive.org. Now there are no sources left which I don't have full access to. Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, Wikipedia:Resource request should be utilised. If an article is not comprehensive, it is not FA status, no matter the nominator's personal position. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, great idea! I was almost done posting my request there when somehow I thought of using the resources which are part of the ISBN template. As a result, I was able to access the only source I did not have full access to, thanks to the Open Library. As for the comprehensiveness, I should have phrased my words better. I did not mean to say 'I think' or 'I believe' in the first reply, but inadvertently did so, it was absent minded filler. What I meant to say was that I have gone through multiple reliable source catalogues. I have gone through the entire search results for 'Sam Manekshaw' on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and NYT, and cited all the unique content I could find there. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Chief of the Army Staff" : be consistent about capitalization. Also see MOS:DUPLINK, "a link ... may be repeated ... at the first occurrence in a major section". I think it should be linked both in the lead and the first time it's used in the body (i.e. under Indian Military Academy).
    • Changed all to lower case.
  • "His active military career spanned ... five wars" is in the lead, but I'd repeat that statement in the body along with an explicit list of the five wars so the reader doesn't need to go hunting to find them all.
    • Wouldn't that mess up the chronological order? Also, all 5 wars & 1 skirmish he was part of are mentioned in the infobox; 4 of the 5 wars are also discussed in the body. I had written up a section for the 1962 war, which was deleted on the advice of Undercover Classicist in FAR #3, because there were only 2 sources and not much detail.
      • Well, as it stands now, I can't tell which 5 wars you're talking about. I see two top-level sections that talk about wars ("Word War II" and "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971"), so the obvious question is "what were the other three?" The infobox should summarize what's in the article, not include material that isn't otherwise there.
        • Hi Roy, I removed the 5 wars mention, is that alright? We know for sure that Sam was involved in these wars but don't have any further details, most of these are yet to be declassified.
  • "Manekshaw was selected as part of the first batch of cadets at the IMA" -> "Manekshaw was in the first batch of cadets ..." Also, "batch" seems like an odd choice of word. Maybe "class"?
    • Hmm, I see you use "batch" a lot, as in "batchmates". Maybe that's just standard Indian English usage, in which case it's fine?
      • I was gonna change this to cohort. Yes indeed, batch and batchmates are common words used for academic cohorts and colleagues.
        • Cohort works, but I found this stack exchange article which verifies that "batch" is the accepted term in Indian English, so I'd leave it as batch.
  • "In World War II, he was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry." is in the lead but not the body.
    • These exact words aren't repeated, but the details of and citation for the award are there in the body.
  • "partition of India" is sometimes in upper case, sometimes in lower case.
    • Fixed.
  • "Manekshaw was seconded to a planning role ... Hyderabad crisis" a military buff might know what "seconded" means, but I don't. Either explain it, or at least link to what I assume is the right target, Secondment. Also, "Hyderabad crisis" isn't mentioned in the body.
    • Added the link. It is not discussed much, but 'annexation of Hyderabad' is there in the body.
  • "167 Infantry Brigade" in other places, you write unit numbers as ordinals, i.e. "12th Frontier Force Regiment". Be consistent.
    • I had changed these to 167th earlier, but for this particular unit, that is just the way they are written by the army, without the suffix. I can still change all these to 167th, what would you suggest?
      • If the army calls it "167 Infantry Brigade", then that's what we should call it as well. It's possibly worth a footnote explaining that, but I'll leave that to you.
        • I was not sure about this. I haven't put in one, I hope that is ok.
  • As a general comment, you are inconsistent about capitalization of job titles. For example, "Chief of the Army Staff" vs "director of military training". I'll leave it to you to find all the other places.
    • I believe I have fixed these. The only time when the ranks are capitalised are when they appear next to a rank holder, as per the suggestions in the 2nd peer review.
  • "Army Headquarters" not clear if that should be capitalized. Maybe that's an Indian English vs. American English thing?
    • Yeah, I also guess it's a military thing.
  • In the lead you say "After completing the higher command course at the Imperial Defence College,", but in the body it's "... to attend a higher command course for one year". I assume the course is one year long and he completed it, but that's a little ambiguous. It sounds like maybe it was supposed to be a multi-year course and he only completed the first year.
    • Specified that the course was 1 year long.

(that takes me to the end of the lead, I'll pick this up again later)

  • "Hilla found it impossible to travel any further due to her advanced pregnancy.[9] After Hilla had recovered," This sounds like she was having morning sickness or something and got over that. But looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive1, I see that what she recovered from was giving birth, which seems like a significant detail to leave out.
    • Added.
  • "During World War II, Hormizd had served", I think just "... Hormizd served", but maybe a grammar expert should weigh in on this.
    • I was also stuck up on this, the latter phrasing seemed to be present participle so I changed it to past participle. Is that alright?
  • "Manekshaw's younger brother Jami also served in the Indian Armed Forces." This is mostly repeated in the next sentence. I'd combine and condense them: " Manekshaw's younger brother Jami became a doctor and served in the Royal Indian Air Force as a medical officer".
    • Combined.
  • "Jami was the first Indian to be awarded air surgeon's wings from Naval Air Station Pensacola in the United States." I'm curious how it came that an Indian officer was serving at a US air station. That deserves some explanation. It's also unclear what "first" applies to. The first Indian to get air surgeon's wings, or the first Indian to do that at Pensacola? Also, what year did this happen?
    • Added the year and clarified that he was not serving, but training there. He was not the first one to get air surgeon's wings, but he was the first one to get them at Pensacola.
  • "Jami joined his elder brother" I assume the elder brother we're talking about here was Sam, but with four sons, it's worth being explicit.
    • Done.
  • "passing with a third division in science" I suspect "third division" would be understood by somebody who had gone through the Indian education system, but I (an American), have no idea what it means. Is there some article that could be linked to which would give an explanation?
    • Added the equivalent grade (C).
  • "enrol" Is that a typo for "enroll", or is that just how it's spelled in Indian English?
    • Was a typo, fixed.
      • "Enrol" is also UK English; generally Indian spellings have followed UK usages AIUI but perhaps this is now changing. But the article should stick to Indian usages, I would have thought, whatever that standard is. Does or could the page specify this with a template? --Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {{Indian English|small=yes}} can be included if not already. There isn't information about exact preferences at Wikipedia, but Indian English mentions that generally follows British English spellings. So I would guess that enrol would be preferred. Jim Killock (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The {{Use Indian English}} template is there, so I think the spelling needs another check. Jim Killock (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already made the changes, considering that in the next few lines, the spelling used is 'enrollment'. Would it be prudent to revise both? Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't say for certain what Indian English uses, but the English spellings would be enrol and enrolment. I would expect these from what I've understood of Indian spellings. Jim Killock (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will make these changes. Matarisvan (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "You've got "batch mates" in one place and "batchmates" in another. Be consistent about it being one word or two.
    • Done.
  • "a holiday with Maharaja Kumar Jit Singh of Kapurthala and Haji Iftikhar Ahmed" Who are these two people? Is the first one, "Kumar Jit Singh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala"?
    • Changed as suggested.
  • "Of the 40 cadets inducted, only 22 completed the course." It's not immediately clear which course you're talking about here. I assume you mean "The cadet course at the IMA", but you have to go back to the previous paragraph to understnad that, so a little context here would help.
    • Changed to 'inducted into the IMA'.
  • "They were commissioned as second lieutenants" I'd end the previous sentence with a semicolon and combine it with this one: "... completed the course; they were commissioned ...". That makes it clear who "They" refers to.
    • Done.
  • "Many of Manekshaw's batchmates were captured by Japan during World War II and would fight in the Indian National Army" This is confusing. How did their being captured lead to them being in the Indian National Army?
    • Added a clarification. The INA was a rebel force formed and staffed by Indian POWs in Axis camps.
  • "was a junior by five years" it's not clear what this means.
    • Clarified, hope the rephrasing is clear and not confusing.
  • What does "antedated seniority" mean?
    • Backdated entry into ranks. Irrelevant bureaucratic detail, don't know why I put it in, removed.
  • "he was appointed the quartermaster of his company", this might just be an Indian vs. American English thing, but I'd leave out "the", i.e. "appointed the quartermaster" -> appointed quartermaster"
    • Done.
  • What does "substantive captain" mean? I'm guessing this is kind of like Brevet (military)?, but it should be explained.
    • It is indeed like the brevet system, added a link to the relevant page.

(I'll pick up with Battle of Pagoda Hill the next time)

  • "He saw action in Burma during the 1942 campaign", For starting a new paragraph (and especially a new section), I'd use "Manekshaw" instead of "He"; you can call him "he" after that in the same paragraph. I don't know if that's actual rule or anything, but to me it sounds better.
    • Done.
  • "While observing the battle, Major General David Cowan, ..." I'd run this together with the previous paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "The citation (which was not made public), reads as follows" This is confusing. If it wasn't made public, how do we know what it said?
    • Rephrased. It was not made public then, but released way later. Should this be removed?
      • The chronology is still confusing. I would do something like "While observing the battle on (insert date), Major General David Cowan ...." and then something like, "The citation (which was only made public on (insert date) reads:" I'd also leave off "as follows"; that's implied by the colon.
        • I have trimmed this sentence a lot now, the chronology should be clearer. We don't know what date the citation was made public, so I thought removing this detail would be better as it doesn't seem so significant.
  • "part of General William Slim's 14th Army." See if you can rephrase this to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Likewise with "general officer commanding, 20th Indian Infantry Division" in the next sentence.
    • For the first one, done. For the second one, could only come up with a rather makeshift solution, hope it is alright?
  • "he received the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel" then later, "He was promoted to acting lieutenant colonel". You should explain how "temporary" and "acting" differ.
    • Added a link to the relevant pages. Should I explain these ranks in a footnote the first time they appear?
  • "promoted to the substantive rank of major" as above, the reader will be wondering what "substantive" means.
  • " Manekshaw's unit, the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment, became part of the Pakistan Army.". You link 12th Frontier Force Regiment; it should be linked (only) the first time it's used in the body.
  • "3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF))." defining the short form here is convenient, but why not do the same for other units with similarly long names, such as 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment?
    • Done. Didn't do so for 9th Battalion, 12th FF, because it appears only once. Is that alright?
  • "lieutenant general equivalent" as with "temporary", "substantive", "acting", etc, what does "equivalent" mean? There's a lot of military jargon that many people won't understand. A little bit later, you've got "As an acting brigadier (substantive colonel)" which is similarly confusing.
    • Changed equivalent to status. Removed the second rank bureaucratese.
  • "he told Manekshaw that if he wanted to, he could sack Thimayya", "sack" seems like slang to me, but maybe that's another Indian/American English thing?
    • Changed to fire, is that ok?
      • Yeah, I think fire works better. But, again, that's based on my American ear. If "sack" is the correct word in the Indian dialect, then by all means use it.
        • Again I can't speak for Indian English, but UK English would regard "sack" and "fire" as informal usage, and prefer "dismiss" or "terminate employment". But this is reported speech? What word did Manekshaw use? If he said "sack", then that's better, I would have thought. Jim Killock (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The source says sack, so I have reverted to that. I hope that is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "These posts were very strategic as they oversaw the Chicken's Neck,", Almost all uses of "very" can be deleted. This seems like one of them.
    • Done.

(I'm up to Honours and post-retirement, where I'll pick up next time)

Hi Roy, thanks for your comments, I'll be incorporating them soon. I have to deal with a problem with the last 2 sections, as soon as that's over, I will make these changes. Hope that's not a problem. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "For his service to India, the President of India awarded Manekshaw the Padma Vibhushan in 1972": give the president's name. I assume we have articles about all the presidents of India, so link to that.
    • Done.
  • " He moved with his wife Silloo to Coonoor" It seems odd to say that he moved with his wife since that's what everybody would assume. This is also the first time Silloo is mentioned; it seems like his marriage should be mentioned under "Early life and family" Also, in some places you have "Siloo", in others, "Silloo".
    • Oh, I see this is covered later under "Personal life and death". So I would just leave it out of the "Honours and post-retirement" section completely.
      • Done.
  • "independent director on the board of several companies ... as the chairman" I think it would make sense to include a list of them.
    • Done.
  • "Sherry had a daughter named Brandy, and Maya had two sons named Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam.[117] Manekshaw's home is named Stavka, as a reference to the Russian military headquarters Stavka, which his daughter Sherry had read about in War and Peace.[108]" The details of his daughter's children doesn't seem necessary, I'd drop that part.
    • Removed.
  • "Reportedly, his last words were "I'm okay!"." per MOS:LQUOTE, drop the final period.
  • Done.
  • "the Army's apex meet to formulate policy," not sure what this means.
  • Removed, this was filler.
  • "The Republic Day celebrations in Karnataka are held at this ground every year" connect to the previous sentence with a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • Link Think tank
    • Done.
  • "General André Beaufre, a French military theorist, had been invited by Manekshaw in 1971 to analyse the war" Which war? I think you're talking about "the 1971 war", but you need to go back two paragraphs to find that. Actually, the previous paragraph ("... noted that the speed of the campaign") has the same problem; it's not clear which campaign you are talking about.
    • Specified that 1971 is being discussed.

OK, that's a full read-through for me. I'll let you work on this and then I'll come back at some point and take another look.

Thanks for these pointers, I have made all the changes you recommended, looking forward to the next round of comments. Matarisvan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support based on my prose review. I am not familiar with military matters (and especially not the Indian military), but I assume some of the other reviewers will be SMEs who can cover that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Roy. I will ask some military history contributors if they would like to chip in. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Killock[edit]

resolved comments

Firstly I would like to say I support the efforts to get Manekshaw listed, I think it is important that Wikipedia features a more representative selection of topics so great to see efforts made to address these gaps.

The four paragraphs about his family background and early education seems excessive to me. Most of this detail doesn't pertain to his later contributions. Of course, that he came from a middling social background is important, as is the fact his family had to struggle. I would appreciate other people's views on this however, and I also recognise there may be some cultural bias here; what an Indian audience or source feels is notable may differ from a European or American one.

I was a bit concerned when I reviewed this article at peer review on two points: firstly Sam Manekshaw must have a reputation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I have no idea from this article what that is. For instance, regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: Concerned about maintaining discipline in the aftermath of the conflict, Manekshaw issued strict instructions forbidding looting and rape and stressed the need to respect and stay away from women. As a result, according to Singh, cases of looting and rape were negligible. The tone is somewhat self-congratulatory in the subtext; but decent treatment of civilians is what normal ought to be. His contribution seems to be that he ensured professional standards in a very difficult situation, but this isn't wholly clear given its presentation. Perhaps a counterpoint is needed? It seems there were reasons to be worried that the Indian army might not be disciplined for instance. In any case it feels like there may be another story or point of view which is not discussed here. Some more sources, preferably at a greater distance than a biographer would help. At the moment this passage is supported by one biography.

The second area of concern for me is the clear tensions between Manekshaw and the Indian government. Or, perhaps the indian government and the military. Why wasn't he honoured properly, or even paid his pension in full for 20-odd years? He was not given a national day of mourning. While this was not a breach of protocol, this would have been customary for a leader of national importance A casual reader will conclude that there was a dispute and ill-feeling, but given the reasons are absent, may believe that this omission is deliberate and non-neutral. Assuming that isn't the case, the reasons should be stated. Jim Killock (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim, great to have you here. On the first four paragraphs, I would want to hear other opinions, because people get defensive when too much information is removed. You can see this in the recent edit history.
On the first point you raised, addressing it will be difficult. On one hand, it is true that no war crimes should be the norm, but that is almost always not the case. I have not found any cases of such indiscipline in wars, but they are there in insurgencies. Adding them in as counterpoints, however, will be risky. I think the best course of action will be to add a neutral source which supports the assertion of no such indiscipline, say a researcher. Would you agree?
On the second point, I have added a brief explanation for the tensions, see the text before the 'national day of mourning'. I hope that is enough. Matarisvan (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the specifics of this incident - a neutral source would help, as would an explanation of the underlying concern.
On the tensions: the amount of information in the article should reflect the prevalence of information in "reliable sources" - eg news reports. If these were extensive, then a brief explanation would not suffice.
The wider issue is Manekshaw's reputation with those he opposed at war. At a minimum, I would hope to see mention of his reputation as to his dealings with Pakistani POWs, if relevant, anything relating to the handover to Bangladeshi authorities or interim authorities, and his reputation as a soldier with the Pakistani military. They would for instance have an opinion as to whether he was a successful or lucky opponent, someone to fear or otherwise. Often soldiers in former wars talk about each other. (And even meet each other. This was frequent with WWII veterans in Europe for instance. I can understand this may never have happened in these cases, but equally that would speak volumes.) However, I would find it hard to believe that there is no commentary on him at all from Pakistani sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, apologies for my delayed response. I will make the edits you suggest, there is an editor trying to do an edit war on a minor issue right now, so I will have to get that sorted out first. I think I can get this done in a day max, maybe through the Arbitration project. Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some further thoughts
  • There doesn't seem to be any mention of the biopic, or its portayal of him. This is surely of interest. Many articles have an "In popular culture" section, with mentions of any portrayals. I imagine there are others, where he might feature. The biopic probably needs to be mentioned in the lead as well, as an important fact.
  • Removed as advised by Ian Rose in the second PR.
  • Reading Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam Manekshaw/archive2, this seems to be an admonition not to have a bullet point list, but to rewrite and possibly incorporate into "legacy" rather than an instruction to delete to content wholesale.
  • (On a general point, the Peer reviews are not linked from the talk page which makes it hard to find them.) --Jim Killock (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting the exact edit will be a little tough because I tend to club edits. We could ask Roy, who is a part of this FAR, about what he thinks of the need for a pop culture section. It was never a part of the lead. Ian's words, verbatim, were: "I'd consider ... dropping the popular culture section entirely". Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he meant remove the "section" rather than "remove all the content": See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which advises on the pitfalls of these and gives advice on how they can work well. (Spoiler alert: bullet point lists fare badly; prose much better) … Agree with Schro -- as well as putting in prose, I'd consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. So not "delete", but "move".
As for inclusion in the lead, that's a judgement call, but it's just a fact that it will be in people's minds right now, but to my mind gives context to his perceived importance. Jim Killock (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections. I do note, however, that George S. Patton does include a list of (the many) movies about him, without going into detail about any of them. I have no strong opinion either way. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sections is less important than what's notable and included. Fictional depictions are an indication of cultural significance beyond his actions within his lifetime, and issuing a biopic in particular gives him additional cultural valance. Of course, if they were low budget flops, that would be a different matter. Jim Killock (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we wait for Ian's final opinion? If he sees the mention, he will reply soon enough. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up to you, @Ian Rose was pretty clear: consider moving this info to the legacy section and dropping the popular culture section entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024. Nobody has recommended deleting it. Where you put it tho is a matter of preference. The recommendation was to incorporate it in the legacy section. Jim Killock (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reincorporated. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi guys, Jim had it right, my intent was that the content of the In popular culture section could be incorporated in the Legacy section, not necessarily removed entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Manekshaw's standing with the Indian government seems to be mixed in with their hollowing out of the independence of the Indian military and suggestions of graft at high levels. As Manekshaw was quite vocal about bad practice, and his reputation lies on his challenging the political powers of the time over how to intervene miltarily, it seems he was not looked on favourably. If this is the case, and there are sources that explain this, it should be stated in the later life section.
  • Don't think there are reliable sources for this, adding would be original research. In India, such issues don't tend to be discussed and are swept under the carpet. I've added the only instance I could find, which is the Karan Thapar article.
  • The Wire.in Why the Narrative on Manekshaw – India’s Uncrowned CDS – Is Captivating Military Veterans Now also gives interest from the current military ranks, and context to the relationships between state and military, eg, since his departure "operational objectivity had steadily degenerated, to the point of vanishing, replaced regrettably, by a services-politician nexus guaranteeing reciprocal benefit" and cites an essay "Roots of moral decline in the armed forces" by Admiral Prakash explaining the situation in some detail. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are similar points made at India Today: He was infamous with the country’s bureaucracy and held no high opinion of the politicians. He made his dislike public and was often quoted as disapproving of the political elite. At a public function, he declared politicians as being illiterate. He said, “I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla— although a great many in the past have resembled the latter.” Not surprisingly, there was little love lost between Sam and the political bosses, who ultimately had their revenge. And A thorough gentleman, Manekshaw made it a point to never offend the leaders, instead choosing humour to coat his obvious dislike. The sarcasm, however, never escaped the politicians, especially Indira Gandhi. Naturally, he received a cold shoulder from the bureaucracy post his retirement. These seem to explain the tension pretty adequately, from reliable sources. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • yes but the points about using sarcasm to manage Indira Ghandi and others, and her particular distate for it, has not been incorporated. What was your reason for that? --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor are the points about operational issues after his departure incorporated, and the current interest in Manekshaw from the POV of military reform is also still absent. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the current moment, where is the interest coming from? There is some suggestion that it is linked to a general rise in Indian nationalism or national feeling, but I haven't made a detailed investigation.
  • The reason you mention + more Indians getting internet services + the biopic.
  • From English langage mentions of Manekshaw that I could find from Pakistani writers, they were quite positive about him. They were not the best sources tho, eg Quora, but if better sources could be found, this would be useful information to include.
  • I have used some Pakistani sources, the most notable one being RM Hussain for the doctrine subsection. I am adding one more for the reasons you suggest. Bangladeshis don't discuss him much, because, I shouldn't say this, but they are ungrateful.
  • This is pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that there is bitterness that the Indian intervention came quite late, on Manekshaw's advice that it was militarily unwise. Meantime there were mass murders of the Bangladeshi elite. So it would be understandable if, from a Bangladeshi perspective, Manekshaw was not seen as an altogether positive figure. Again, if sources exist to enunciate Bangladeshi perspectives on events or his role, this would be helpful to reach FA status.
  • What I can find so far is the opposite of what I speculated: Bangaldesh did honour him at his death, according to the Economist. That would be worth a mention. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim Killock (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more observations from the international obituaries (Guardian, NY Times, Economist):
  • One or two mention that he was a "Parsi over-achiever"; this would be worth mentioning (presumably the minority group is associated with focus on success)
  • This does feel a little embarrassing as a Brit in post-Imperial Brexit Island to raise, but several draw attention to his adoption of British habits like drinking whiskey and his handlebar moustache "as was common in his generation"; it does seem to have been part of the personality he projected so probably needs a mention
  • I wonder if a "character" section in the legacy / assessment section would help regarding some of the questions I've raised and can be found in the obituaries linked? eg, his sarcasm, his disrespect for politicians, etc.:::::Jim Killock (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if we should have such a section. I have thought about it and it seems to be polarising. Some reviewers want such a section but others are irked by even a sentence of such qualitative details which cannot be conclusively confirmed. I would like to hear from @RoySmith on this, we could then make a decision on consensus if that is ok with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Structure is not the issue; it can be included in Legacy if preferred. the point is that his personality is not much discussed, it has to be inferred, but from the obituaries his very strong personality and personal skills in dealing with very difficult politicians etc come across loud and clear. I can't see how FA could be reached without this information, it seems central to who he was and why he succeeded.
I suspect the reason that reviewers are "irked" is because of the tone or presentation of the remarks. It is easy for these to come across as fawning, or hero-worship, so they have dealt with it as a style rather than content issue. But if the sources are clear and in consensus about certain things in his character, then FA criteria require neutrally presented descriptions, AFAICT. Happy to have opinions tho. For ease of discussion, this is the kind of thing what I would expect from my reading and could easily be referenced:
Manekshaw was charismatic, and known to be capable of charm. He was often described as a gentleman. Like others of his generation, his background in the British army gave him a fondness for some English habits, such as drinking whiskey and wearing his handlebar moustache. His background as a Parsi is sometimes attributed as a factor in his ambition and success. He commanded great loyalty from his troops, due to his reputation for personal bravery, fairness and his avoidance of punishments. He came into conflict with politicians, however, because he stood up to their often unreasonable or unethical demands. They also disliked his popularity as they feared the possibility of a military coup. He dealt with politicians' demands through sarcasm, which however was recognised by figures such as Indira Ghandi. (I know bits of this are now mentioned.)
Jim Killock (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added, though rather verbatim, except for the Parsi line, which I couldn't find a source for. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Print.in mentions that Manekshaw was disliked for his humane treatment of the Pakistani soldiers, and was told off in cabinet for treating them like "sons in law". This seems worth a mention, and further shows the tensions between him and the political elite. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is still missing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also important context on this point, the Pakistani POWs remained in captivity for several years. See Willem va Schendel 2009, A History of Bangladesh, p. 172.
  • It seems the Pakistani POWs were kept as prisoners as a bargaining chip by Indira Ghandi's government until Pakistan had recognised Bangladeshi independence. That is also important context regard why pressure to treat them badly could have existed, and why it was important and exemplary behaviour from Manekshaw to resist these calls. See The History of Pakistan, I. H. Malik (2008) p163-4
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ThePrint.in article links to a Youtube interview of Manekshaw by his grandson which seems particularly helpful for the external links section.
  • This is still missing, but not essential. If it's not being included, please indicate why. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The same video gives his account of his welcome by Pakistani military authorities and soldiers who seemed to hold him in high regard given the way he organised facilities for them as POWs. More on this would be helpful from secondary sources if possible. Although it may be surprising for a reader that these are so positive, it is important to get non-Indian perspectives on him in, as they will exist, whatever the contents of those assessments may be.
  • This is missing. I imagine it may be hard to get a source for this but please let us know if you have tried to find one. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found one but it barely references the POWs and mostly talks about Tikka Khan. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to reiterate, assessment of all available sources is the key to FA status. Omitting information is possible at GA, but FA as you know requires that is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; and well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
This is IMO the trickiest part of an FA review, especially where the reviewers are not experts on the subject matter, and why I'm taking a bit of time to get my head around what is out there. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the detention of the POWs to the article. Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several of the background points are missing tho, so full context is missing. I'm happy to make some light edits so you can see what I think is needed, if that is easier. Jim Killock (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, I am afk for some time, but I will make these edits in the evening. I had come across these sources but was not sure if I should include them, I will do so now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. What I would be looking for is that the conflict between Manekshaw and the Indian bureaucracy and Indira Ghandi is well described, as this is clear in the sources, and that this is linked to his later treatment. Likewise, a better description of his character and personality (charismatic, principled, using sarcasm and humour to get around those with authority over him). he's clearly a very powerful figure who is also getting a lot of hero worship as a victor at war, but to me the real thread that runs through his career is that his heroism standing up to people making bad, immoral, unethical or self-interested decisions was rewarded by snubs from the government - which he equally didn't really care about, compared to sticking to his principles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the conflict with the bureaucracy to the article. I will add the personality part too, perhaps later today. Matarisvan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JK: Reflection so far: better transparency and communication needed[edit]

I'm a bit concerned that a lot of the points I've raised have been either partially dealt with, rather than wholly dealt with, and the reasons for this aren't being made transparent. For example:

  • I asked for the "culture" items to be restored; see the previous mentions, and I was told this was done. The film was added back, but the mention of Salman Rushdhie / Midnight's Children's chapter on Manekshaw was not. There was a third mention of a documentary, which I can't judge the relevance of. I added Rushdie back onto the page. It's not great to have to check on the quality of the changes in this way. It would be better if the editors could explain what they had / had not included and why.
  • Indira Ghandi's cabinet appear to have suggested to Manekshaw that he treat Pakistani POWs worse, to hasten Pakistan towards signing a peace agreement, accusing him of treating them like "sons in law"; which Manekshaw rightly and courageously resisted. While other adjustments to mention the episode were added, these details haven't been actioned, and there isn't explanation for which bits around this episode have been omitted and which kept.

This is making the work and progress on this FAR a lot slower than it needs to be. There's naturally some to and fro and differences of opinion on what is or is not included, but it's important we are transparent with each other about our reasoning for edits and omissions. At the moment, I am having to check the page itself to find out what has been done out of a suggestion, and then come back to ask why certain items were omitted.

If the reason is that inclusion of certain material relating to Manekshaw's controversies will cause future edit wars, then I think we need to think about a strategy around that, rather than omit the material. The article cannot reach FA status without being a comprehensive account based on all sources. If this is the issue and is currently unsaid, then we are not helping each other.

If it's simply difficult to understand my suggestions, or how to action them, then I'm also really happy to help, including by directly editing the page.

All that said, I don't think that the work to get this to FA is impossible and I think objectively Manekshaw deserves that attention from WP's editors, and I would like for the page editors to get to that point. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the omissions were not intended, I must have skipped over them, I have added them now. My apologies that you had to get to it yourself. I believe all of the issues are now sorted. Would you agree? Matarisvan (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you, but we do need to take care over this. I'll go through and make copy edits to the changes and see where we are. Jim Killock (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making those changes, I've made some light edits around them, mostly for style and to avoid some repetitions.
JK New comments[edit]

Some other things I've picked up:

  • is it the case that army personnel were diverted to building projects in the lead up to the China war? If so this feels like important context regarding the army's poor performance.
    • Would this be relevant here? (Sorry if this question comes across as rude). Sam could not participate in the war anyways so would we not just be adding important but unnecessary detail?
  • is it the case that underfunding of the military before the Bangladeshi intervention added to unpreparedness? If so that would be important context.
    • I have alluded to this but specific references are not available because this is kind of an unspeakable well known secret.

The allusion is in the Procurement sub section, "urgently procure equipment".

  • "During this period, there were suspicions that Manekshaw would lead a coup and impose martial law." Was it just the Americans who held this suspicion? Who within the Indian government felt this? If we know, we should name them.
    • Done.
  • Note my comment above re "fire" and "sack".
    • Sources say sack, which I have reverted to.

After that, I think it would be helpful to have someone look at the article from a copyediting and structure perspective. Although perhaps you have some checking to do with new sources. At some point the lead should be looked at and some of the points about his personal qualities and conflict with the bureaucracy and politicians mentioned. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree on all points except including the personality in the leading. I apologise if this comes across as whataboutery, but the Douglas MacArthur artice we used as a reference here has multiple paragraphs on his personality but doesn't mention any of these details in the lead. We have a relatively smaller paragraph in this article on Sam's personality.

Thomas Carlyle[edit]

Nominator(s): Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the most influential English prose writer of the 19th century. Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • File:Thomas_Carlyle_lm.jpg: missing US tag, source link is dead. Ditto File:Crayon_portrait_of_Thomas_Carlyle_by_Samuel_Laurence,_circa_1838.png
  • File:Signature_of_Thomas_Carlyle.svg is mistagged
  • File:Silhouettes_of_Thomas_Carlyle's_father_and_mother_made_by_Jane_Welsh_Carlyle_with_captions_in_Carlyle's_hand_2.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Jane_Baillie_Welsh,_Mrs_Thomas_Carlyle,_1801_-_1866._Wife_of_the_historian_Thomas_Carlyle.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Carlyle_Maclise_Original.jpg, File:Thomas_Carlyle_Reading.jpg
  • File:Dr_John_Carlyle,_Thomas_Carlyle,_Miss_Mary_Aitken,_Provost_Swan_(Crop).jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Mr._Carlyle_delivering_the_address_on_his_installation_as_Lord_Rector_of_Edinburgh_University,_April_2,_1866.jpg needs a UK tag. Ditto File:Carlyle's_Seal.png, File:Froude_besmirching_Carlyle.jpg
  • File:Commemoration_Medal_for_Thomas_Carlyle_LACMA_79.4.41_(2_of_5).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Thomas_Carlyle_in_1851._Medallion_modeled_by_Thomas_Woolner.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

I may stop in and do a full review, but a few points:

  • Per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I would excise or paraphrase the many short quotations, which read as scare quotes. See in particular In the summer of 1818, following a "Tour" with Irving through "Peebles-Moffat moor country", Carlyle made his first attempt at publishing, forwarding an article "of a descriptive Tourist kind" to "some Magazine Editor in Edinburgh", which reads as if Carlyle was up to something sordid.
  • Per MOS:BIRTHDATE, generally don't include people's dates of birth and death after they are mentioned in the text.
  • Terar dum prosim is translated here as "May I be wasted so that I be of use". A better translation would be something like "May I be worn away, as long as I may be of use": terar means "wasted" in the sense of "worn away to nothing" (related to our word attrition), and dum means "so long as" rather than "so that" (which would be ut).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ffranc[edit]

I'm going to oppose right away because the article needs quite a lot of work. It's definitely salvageable, but I don't think it can be done within the normal time frame of a FAC.

  • First of all, the article is unbalanced. There are separate articles about Carlyle's philosophy and prose style, which is a good way to keep the article size under control, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an appropriate amount of coverage of those things in this article too. The article has a lot of detail, probably too much, about meetings, letters, the publications of individual essays etc in the biography section, and then quickly checks off the main things Carlyle is known for, such as the great man theory, his approach to history, his impact on major novelists etc. Try to find a better balance where you don't remove actually important content to give room for more trivial details.
  • The article relies too much on illustrative quotations rather than straightforward information.
  • The Works section lacks sources for some statements.
  • The Legacy section contains a lot of quotations and name-dropping but little useful information. We get a long list of writers Carlyle influenced, but we learn almost nothing about what his influence consisted of.
  • There is a massive controversy section that needs to be removed. The content is relevant, but needs to be restructured per WP:CSECTION.
  • The bibliography is largely unsourced and has a lot of external links, which is not recommended per WP:ELBODY.
  • Some of the sources are very old, especially the ones that cover minor details that probably are irrelevant anyway. It should be possible to find more recent sources for almost everything that's relevant.

You've done a lot of good work with this and other Carlyle-related articles. I definitely think you can bring it to FA, but as I said, I don't think it's possible within the typical time frame of a nomination. Ffranc (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raynald of Châtillon[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[1] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Link Venetian?
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Link Genoa.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Link Latakia.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • This[2] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • Link leprosy?
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Link Beirut.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Link Medina.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!

Yugoslav submarine Mališan[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a dinky little midget sub that was built by the Italians for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks in WWII, but was incomplete at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943, and ended up being handed over to the Italian Social Republic (rump fascist Italy) by the Germans after capture and completion. Captured by the Yugolavs at the end of the war, they repaired and commissioned her for use as a training boat. In 1953 she became a museum boat (a long way from the sea in Zagreb), and she was recently refurbished. There has been some controversy about returning her to her Italian colours and markings rather than retaining her Yugoslav ones. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

RoySmith[edit]

  • The lead says "Malisan ... was a CB-class midget submarine", but that's only hinted at in the body. It should be stated explicitly somewhere, probably as the first sentence of Design and construction"
  • Given that you use "harbour", I assume you want {{Use British English}} up top.
  • "The inner pressure hull contained..." that makes it sound like there's an inner pressure hull and an outer pressure hull, which I don't think is what you intended.
  • "the steel used for the outer hull was not of high quality and highly prone to rust." how about, "the steel used for the outer hull was poor quality and prone to rust"
  • " Early boats of the class were deployed to the Black Sea in mid-1942 where they had some successes against submarines of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet." This is out of place in a paragraph that talks about the construction details.
  • "the Caproni company in Milan[2] – better known as an aircraft manufacturer": This sounds like Milan was an aircraft manufacturer; rephrase to make it clear you're talking about Caproni.
  • "The boat measures 15 m (49 ft 3 in) in length", simplify to "The boat is 15 m (49 ft 3 in) long"
  • Related to the previous, be consistent about past vs present tense, generally throughout the article.
  • "powered by a total of 308 batteries" -> "powered by 308 batteries"
  • "which were located under the control room and were charged by" -> "which were located under the control room and charged by"
  • "The maximum speed achieved by the boat was" -> "The maximum speed was", I think everybody can figure out that it's the boat's speed that's being referred to.
  • "surfaced and 6 kn (11 km/h; 6.9 mph) when underwater", drop the "when"
  • "When surfaced, at a speed of 7.5 kn (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) the boat had a range of only 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi), at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) her range was 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)" I'd suggest rewording this as "Running at full speed on the surface, the boat had a range of 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi); at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) this increased to 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi)"
  • "When submerged, at a speed of 3 kn (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) the boat had a range of 60 nmi (110 km; 69 mi)." Likewise, I'd say "Submerged, at 3kn (...), the range was 60 nmi (...)"
  • For all of these specifications, it would be useful to provide comparisons to other contemporary designs.
  • "She was completed in Milan by March 1944", did Caproni complete the work, or did another builder take over?
  • "it was forced to return" Return to where?
  • " Her crew surrendered but were later killed by the JA along with other members of the Xª MAS.[7]" It's not clear what "along with" is joining. Are you saying "the crew and other members of the X MAS were killed" or "The JA and other members of the X MAS did the killing"?
  • "Mališan was commissioned into the JRM in 1953, and they used the submarine for training ..." -> "In 1953, Mališan was commissioned into the JRM, who used it for training ..."

I'll probably make another pass later, but that's what I see on a first read. RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, I would add that you need MOS:ALT texts for all images, but I see that Nikkimaria already said that, so I'll just say that you should listen to her :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other thing I noticed; reading over the MilHist assessment the question was brought up about how the batteries were charged. While "batteries ... were charged by running the diesel engine on the surface" isn't wrong, it would be more correct to say they were charged by (for example) an alternator driven from the diesel engine. Diesel engines don't produce electricity, but they can (and almost always do) drive an alternator, dynamo, or some other kind of generator. In fact, given that there's an electric motor on the same shaft, I wouldn't be surprised if that motor doubled as a generator when the diesel was running, and maybe even served as the starter motor for the diesel. If there's a WP:RS which speaks to this, it would be useful to go into some detail. If not, then what you've got now is fine.
If you can find it, relevant details would be the battery voltage, capacity in AH (amp-hours), and how long it took to recharge. If you can find something that says what the battery chemistry was, include that; I'd be astounded if it was anything other than wet cell lead-acid, but if not, then even more interesting to include. RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/italy/pages/submarines/cb_20_data.htm claims Malisan had the 100 HP electric motor you say was only on previous boats of this class. That site also has different numbers from you for submerged speed and submerged range. Any idea why the discrepancy? RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horned sungem[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguably one of the most beautiful birds on earth – and a notorious nectar robber. I was lucky enough to find some of them a few weeks ago in Brazil, and even made a nice video, which is included in this article. The species is poorly known, but I did an extensive literature review, and now think that the article is as comprehensive as it could be. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Grungaloo[edit]

I reviewed and promoted this to GAN just a few days ago, so no comments on prose or sources from me. Just two things:

  • Some images are missing alts
added.
  • Distribution map needs a label
added.

grungaloo (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both added; thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support! grungaloo (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "only few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range" => "few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range"
fixed.
  • "Even though this mistake has been pointed out in 1999" => "Even though this mistake was pointed out in 1999"
fixed.
  • "The female is somewhat similar to the female black-eared fairy" - link the latter
Already linked earlier, but since it appears for the first time in a major section, I linked it again now.
  • "in the east from southern Maranhão south to São Paulo (state) " - showing the disambiguator in the article title looks wrong. Try "the state of Sao Paulo"
Right, fixed.
  • "and its range extends into northern state of São Paulo" => "and its range extends into the northern part of the state of São Paulo" (also no need to link the state again)
I removed the second mention of São Paulo to avoid being repetitive.
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The external links seem a bit random, like leftovers from the early days of the Internet?
I had already sorted out a few … now removed entirely. They do not really add anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps binomials could be given in parenthesis after the common names in the cladogram?
Added.
  • Do those genera mentioned under taxonomy and the cladogram have articles to link?
Linked.
  • "The species is considered to be uncommon,[1] though other sources have described it" This sentence seems a bit odd, as you don't initially mention a source.
Indicated source.
Linked.
  • "The horned sungem has recently expanded into Espírito Santo" When is "recently?
No information. The source really only has a single sentence on this, I can't be more specific unfortunately.
  • Not a big deal, but the intro strikes me as quite long for an article of this length. Usually it would be two rather than three paragraph for this length, and the included text is almost as detailed as that in the article body.
I condensed the lead, and yes, I think it's much better this way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks fine comprehensiveness and prose-wise..only slight quibble for me is the lead but a non-dealbreaker as some prefer the flow of the lead contents to mirror the article subheading order - namely sentence 2 in lead is slightly jarring after the first sentence and I'd slot the description material after the range materal (and also allow melding of sentence 1 into where it is found in south america). But this is minor really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I reworked the lead accordingly, hope it is better now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Esculenta[edit]

Lead

  • "The sexes differ markedly in appearance" link to sexual dimorphism?
Done.
  • possible useful links: crest, buff; if savanna is linked why not also grassland?; nomadic, migrate, Amazonia directs to "Amazon rainforest" – is that intended? (same link later in Dist + hab)
All done, except for "nomadic", since the article is only about humans, but I explained in-text now. Link to Amazonia was incorrect, thanks for the hint!
  • since the page is also about the genus, Heliactin should also be bolded in the lead
Done

Taxonomy

  • there's no explanation in the text about what lapsis means in the synonym list
That's legacy from the old article version. I don't actually think these are spelling mistakes; they instead are suggested emandations. Removed.
  • shouldn't the basionym be in the synonym list?
Added.
  • since Temminck's original publication had an image but no description, I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to unlink the piped link from "named" and instead link it a couple of sentence later ("In the description of the new species that followed a few years later…")
Done.
Done, thanks.
  • please include non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to avoid unsightly line breaks
Done.
Done.
  • shouldn't all of those bird common names be lower case?
Yes, done.
  • what type of information is the cladogram based on?
Molecular. Added.

Description

  • "1.6 centimetres" the abbreviated "cm" was already used earlier
Done.

Distribution and habitat

  • following the example of our own articles on the topics, it seems that Cerrado and Caatinga don't need italicization
Done.

Ecology and behavior

  • link breeding season, lichen
Done
  • the idea of "subordinate species" is interesting; is this an established biological phenonemon? Are they subordinate just because they are physically smaller?
Apparently, size is not the only criterion. In many hummingbird species, the male is dominant and the female is subordinate – unless they form a pair, when the female is granted access to the flowers guarded by the male, which allows her to brood and raise the chicks.

Status

  • CITES is spelled out for the reader, who I guess already knows IUCN (in the lead too)?
Spelled out IUCN as well.
  • link protected area
Done.
  • "The horned sungem has recently expanded into" any timeframe for "recently"?
Unfortunately not. I don't have any more information on this.

References

  • link author "BirdLife International"
Done.
  • page # and link to page for Wied-Neuwied, M. 1821? trans-title?
Done.
  • make isbn hyphenation consistent throuhgout
Done
  • FN#11 "pp. 187, 72" unusual to give the page order this way, no?
Done
  • FN#15 this one has title case for a book title, but some other book titles are sentence case
Done
  • "p. 40, 167." -> pp.
Done.
  • FN#22 Machado 2014 actually has a Portuguese title, so that should be given along with the English translation. Here's a link to a PDF of the article
Done.

Thank you for the review, especially all those wiki-link suggestions I would never have thought of. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source and prose review from AK[edit]

Thanks, added.
  • "Heliactin bilophus (Horned Sungem) - Avibase". Avibase is already the publisher, so you don't need it in the title.
removed.
  • The Temminck and van der Mije refs need a more specific page range.
Done.
  • The BOW ref needs the retrieval date updated.
Done.
  • Update the IOC and BirdLife checklist refs, they're both several versions out of date. Also applies to their archives and retrieval dates.
Done.
  • The Vitorino ref link and doi both lead to a Brazilian casino website?
Very ugly, apparently the doi has been usurped; I already removed it once but citation boot keeps adding it back. I have now added a comment that should keep the bot from adding it in the future.
  • Shouldn't the titles of books be in title case?
Puh, done.
Glad to hear.
  • The Marini et. al. link is broken (SORA link) and it also has a Spanish title (maybe subtitle translation?).
I added the "dead url" parameter, but the archive link is still working. I don't think it has a Spanish title; that is just the translation of the abstract.
  • In the Wied-Neuwied ref, either expand "Frankfurt a.M.: H.L. Brönner." to Frankfurt am Main or just put Frankfurt.
Spelled out (since there is another Frankfurt in Germany …).
  • "female will build the nest, incubate the eggs, and rear the chicks" to "female builds the nest, incubates the eggs, and rears the chicks"?
Done.
  • "classified as least concern" to "classified as being of least concern"?
Sure? Google Scholar gives me 3,280 hits for the former but only 104 for your suggestion.
  • Don't need the IUCN's initialism in the lead since you don't use it there.
removed.
  • Maybe link species, Suriname, and nomadic in the lead.
Linked species. Suriname is a country and we are not supposed to link them. For nomadic, I can't find an appropriate article (see also the same point by the reviewer above).
  • The way you've linked the Colibri and Anthracothorax groups makes it seem like they're the only genera in those groups; any way to make it clearer that they include others?
I didn't link them originally for this reason, but FunkMonk above requested the links. But the text states that there are 12 genera, not only 3, and the cladogram also shows that a group has multiple genera. I will think about a solution, but at the moment nothing comes to mind.
  • "upper side" Single word (has slightly different implication than just entire upper side of the bird) and link to birdgloss using the template.
Changed, but the birdgloss does not have this entry (it lacks so many terms …).
  • "can be identified based on its yellow-green" to "can be identified by its yellow-green"?
Done.
  • You use "female" to start two successive sentences here; maybe reword one of them to avoid the repetition.
Changed.
  • "nectavivorous" typo.
Corrected.
  • "usually feeds singly" to "usually feeds alone"
Done.
  • "blossoms from close to the ground" to either "blossoms that are close to the ground" or "blossoms from plants close to the ground"
Changed.
  • "studied Cerrado area" cerrado should be italicized.
I had them italicized but the reviewer above asked me to un-italicize them (not that I have any issue with both ways).
Done.
  • "swallow-tailed hummingbird where this species" "This" feels kind of ambiguous here in terms of what it's supposed to refer to.
Added "in areas".
  • An external link to the Macaulay Library would be useful; their photos are much better than the ones we have on Commons. I'd recommend distinct links for a couple of these photos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which I think illustrate several important stages of the hummingbird's lifecycle very well.
In an "external links" section? Done.
@AryKun: Many thanks for the detailed review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cool, excellent work otherwise, support on prose and Pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vitamin C[edit]

Nominator(s): David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Vitamin C. I raised it to Good Article in 2017. I nominated it for Featured Article on 20 December 2023. That nomination was canceled as premature. I have done a lot of editing since then, including resolving all requests for citations. I requested a Peer review on 9 January, but closed that on 8 February because it was unanswered. I have raised a total of 19 articles to GA. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest copy-editing captions
    • copy-editing completed
  • Some images are missing alt text
    • alt text added
  • File:Linus_Pauling.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • According to Wikimedia Commons this is a cropped image of a photograph published in The Big T (yearbook of California Institute of Technology) in 1955. It is identified as in the Public Domain. An uncropped version is used in Linus Pauling.
      • Where is the Swedish tag coming from, if this is a US image? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:NIH_citrus.jpg: source link is dead
    • Replaced
  • File:James_Lind_by_Chalmers.jpg needs a US tag
    • An editor provided a US tag
  • File:GyorgyiNIH.jpg: this image doesn't appear at the source link provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • image deleted (Gyorgy extracted ascorbic acid from paprika, not from bell peppers, and it was for research purposes, not manufacture of dietary supplement vitamin C.

WP:MEDSAY

  • A request was made at Talk:Vitamin C to comply with WP:MEDSAY
    • The Medical uses section was revised to remove the MEDSAY-type wording ("A meta-analysis reported..." or "Reviews concluded..." )

Reference quality

  • A comment was made at Talk:vitamin C to consider WP:MEDDATE and use of MDPI journals, especially Nutrients, when reviewing reference quality toward deciding if some references should be removed, and if no better quality references available, the content removed. The sections most affected are Deficiency, Medical uses and Adverse effects (refs 19-81). I will leave a note here when I have completed my references review, but ask that FA reviewers also look at this issue of reference quality. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Generally, avoid references in the lead. This is because the lead is only a summary; every information should be cited in the body in any case.
    • Ref use in Lead in process of being reduced. I do not agree with no refs in Lead
  • The first sentence of the lead is way to long and goes into detail (such as "wrinkles on the face") that clearly don't belong there.
    • Sentence shortened, and all mention of topical treatment deleted
  • The section "Definition" does not contain a single definition. I am not sure what this section is for, actually.
    • This section has been deleted. the content (if not already duplicating content existing and referenced elsewhere) will be incorporated elsewhere.
  • You start the article with sentences like "The term vitamin C encompasses several vitamers that have vitamin C activity in animals", but those do not explain and are not helpful for a general reader who wants to understand the topic. What are vitamers? What is vitamin c activity? This article is relevant for a very broad, general audience, and should be written accordingly.
  • The next section is "deficiency", but first I would expect something about its occurrence, functions, chemistry, etc. The associated diseases should come at the end.
    • I intend to leave the diseases section near the beginnings of the article unless more reviewers criticize this placement. My thinking is that a majority of viewers come to this article because of a curiosity about a health condition, and so should find that information where it is now.
      • Given second reviewer also suggested the diseases section moved to later - done. Also, there was scurvy content in deficiency and in diseases - now combined in diseases.
      • As a second reviewer also challenged the order of section, in process of rearranging.
  • All of these molecules have vitamin C activity and thus are used synonymously with vitamin C, unless otherwise specified – Which "molecules"? None are mentioned.
    • Deleted
  • The section on chemistry should be much more extensive. Sections on physical properties and molecular properties are missing entirely.
  • The article should also have an extensive section on physiology (how vitamin C works in the body), seems to be missing entirely.
  • Sorry, but I have to oppose this article, it is nowhere close to FA level in my opinion. It is very unfortunate that the article did not get any feedback at the peer review. To improve the article, I would recommend to have a look at the German Wikipedia's article [3], which seems to have a good and logical structure; that might be a solid starting point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I will work on addressing your comments even though your conclusion is that the article is not of sufficient content and structure to warrant approval for FA. I point out here that the sections and order of section is similar across the other vitamin articles in English Wikipedia (with the understanding that this may be a criticism of all of those rather than a justification of this one). David notMD (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think that the article Vitamin A could be a pretty good model in terms of structure and content. It has everything I was asking about above (except for the chemical, molecular, and physical properties). Also note the position of the "Deficiency" section (it makes sense to have that section further down: We first need to cover what Vitamin C is and what it does in the body, and from what food it comes from; this is the foundation, we need that before we can understand the deficiencies). Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esculenta[edit]

  • I also agree with the deficiencies pointed out by Jens above, and would oppose if pressed. Here's some additional specific comments that I hope will be helpful in your improvements efforts. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the Albert Szent-Györgyi image has a quotation, but no source
    • Ref used in text added for quotation in the image caption
  • "Society and culture" - one-sentence sections aren't a good look.
    • Deleted (trivia; anyway, ref no longer worked)
  • "Pharmacopoeias" what is this two-word section even for?
    • Deleted (this was years-old content that I had neglected to look at)
  • there seem to be several instances of poor citation practices; for example this sentence: "In humans and in animals that cannot synthesize vitamin C, the enzyme l-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step in the biosynthesis, is highly mutated and non-functional.[128][129][130][131]" These four citations are to papers all 20 years old or more, some of them primary sources. If the statement made is true and important, then it should be citable to a recent MEDRS-compliant source.
  • "Limes, lemons and oranges" image needs MOS:CAPFRAG check
    • Period added to image caption because the caption is a sentence
  • The "References" section needs some attention to detail:
  • FN#7 is multiply cited to a page range of 90 pages; this should be broken up into specific page cites
    • page numbers provide for each use of FN#7
  • inconsistency with page numbering format: compare e.g. "pp. 155–70." vs. "pp. 260–275"
    • All ref pagination now consistent, using the former system
  • inconsistency with sentence case/title case in article titles
    • All changed to sentence case

TompaDompa[edit]

I'll also oppose this nomination as premature. A quick look at the article reveals (non-exhaustively):

  • Several unsourced passages. The entire first paragraph after the lead in the current version, for instance.
  • As noted above, a rather counterintuitive structure. For instance: surely the role vitamin C plays normally should be mentioned ahead of deficiency and medical uses, no?
    • Although I have voiced that I oppose this (above), it is "not a hill to die on." I will deal with other criticisms, then get to this.
      • Per your and another reviewer's comments, Medical uses moved to later in article.
  • Some apparent self-contradiction: "Ascorbate and ascorbic acid are both naturally present in the body, since the forms interconvert according to pH." versus "In biological systems, ascorbic acid can be found only at low pH, but in solutions above pH 5 is predominantly found in the ionized form, ascorbate."
  • The sentence "However, a lack of conclusive evidence has not stopped individual physicians from prescribing intravenous ascorbic acid to people with cancer.", which really has no business appearing in an article going through WP:FAC.
    • Deleted.
  • A bunch of repetition and redundancy. The relationship between vitamin C, collagen, and scurvy appears repeatedly ("In humans, vitamin C deficiency leads to impaired collagen synthesis, contributing to the more severe symptoms of scurvy." and "Scurvy is a disease resulting from a deficiency of vitamin C. Without this vitamin, collagen made by the body is too unstable to perform its function" and "Vitamin C has a definitive role in treating scurvy, which is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency." and "The disease scurvy is caused by vitamin C deficiency and can be treated with vitamin C-containing foods or dietary supplements or injection."), for instance.

I would suggest closing this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to opposition to date[edit]

The editors who have voiced oppose were kind enough to leave specific criticism, which I have been addressing, and will continue to. I hope that a final decision of accept can be reached. If this is closed before I have had the time to address the critical comments to date (and any more that new editors may add), I will not try again. I believe that an article which Wikipedia considers a Level 5 Vital Article and which gets more than 500,000 views per year deserves patience. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section deletion question[edit]

On 8 October 2018 an editor moved content from Chemistry of ascorbic acid to the Vitamin C article, where it now exists as subsection "As food preservation additives" within section "Sources." In the opinion of FA reviewers, does this content belong in the article? David notMD (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That section seems relevant to me, and does not fit within the scope of Chemistry of ascorbic acid. However, maybe it should be combined with the "medical uses" into a general "uses" section (which then discusses medical uses, uses in the food industry, and some other uses that are not yet mentioned in the article). Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved out of Sources, as this use (food preservative additive) is non-nutrient. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Beaulieu[edit]

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Beaulieu was a Royal Navy frigate that served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. She was not a particularly well-thought of vessel, and saw much of her service away from major combat theatres. Nonetheless, in her relatively short career she managed to participate in campaigns in the West Indies, have two mutinies, fight in one major battle, and take part in a celebrated cutting out expedition. This article has gone through GA and A-class reviews and I believe it is now ready to run the gauntlet of FAC. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith (image review pass)[edit]

I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of comments

  • I know quite a bit about ships, so terms like "fifth-rate", "full-rigged ship", "keel", "beam", "hold", "draught", "fitted out" "laid down", "ballast", "quarterdeck", "forecastle", and so on are all familiar to me, but I suspect somebody who doesn't know anything about ships would find this tough reading. All those words are linked, so somebody can click through to find more details, but see the recent thread at WT:Manual of Style/Linking#A change to NOFORCELINK for an (unresolved) discussion on how much should be explained in-line and how much to rely on click-throughs. There's a bunch of other terms like "tons burthen", "ordinary", and "cutting out" that leave even me mystified.
  • I'm currently following the precedent set by HMS Emerald (1795), HMS Bellerophon (1786), HMS Roebuck (1774), and HMS Temeraire (1798), etc, in linking but not going in to too much detail about those aspects. This is an article about one particular ship rather than the anatomy of the ship in general, so I would prefer not to intersperse the article with semi-frequent explanations for what is already linked. That said, this is not a hill I will die on if reviewers deem it necessary.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think this will interrupt the flow excessively - 122 feet 10+5⁄8 inches (37.5 m) at the keel, the first structural element laid in ship construction which runs the length of the ship, with a beam, the widest part of the vessel, of 39 feet 6 inches (12 m) and a depth in the hold, the distance between the underside of the main deck and the top of the limber boards, of 15 feet 2+5⁄8 inches (4.6 m) - seems even more confusing to me. Commonly books/sources overcome the issue with either a glossary or footnotes. I don't mind footnotes but then isn't scrolling to the bottom of the page as disruptive as clicking on a link? --Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fifth-rate says a fifth rate was the second-smallest class of warships, yet you call her a A well-armed and large ship, which seems inconsistent.
  • Have removed and reworded to avoid confusion.
  • The infobox image is captioned as a "plan". In my experience, "plan" means a view looking down at something, i.e. a deck plan, so it's confusing to see that word used for this drawing.
  • Changed to "diagram" but happy to hear any other suggestions.
  • Comment from Ykraps - I think it is most commonly referred to as the sheer plan but as I imagine that to be more confusing, I tend to use profile plan which is also the term Lavery uses the most. I am not convinced that plan is a common term for plan view, except among draughtsmen, but Gardiner often uses the terms drawing or draught.--Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, you're missing MOS:ALT on your images.
  • Added.
@RoySmith: Hi, thanks for having a look. I've replied above, and would be happy to further discuss your first point. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed, added a cropped version.

Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]

lede/lead

Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to recuperate, - makes it sound like the ship herself needed to recuperate. What about, Later in the year the ship's crew was beset by yellow fever and much depleted. Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to allow them to recuperate, or similar?

  • Done.

"...boats of that squadron completed a hard-fought cutting out expedition against the French corvette La Chevrette in Camaret Bay" - I imagine most cutting out expeditions were hard fought. In what respect was this particularly so?

  • Agreed and removed.
  • Just to clarify, if the boats had come under prolonged fire or the crews were massively outnumbered, it would be fine to say so.

Design and construction

"Her draught was 9 feet 5+1⁄2 inches (2.9 m) forward" - not sure how the layman would interpret for'ad. I usually use bow and stern simply because a link is available for each but perhaps I'm over thinking here.

  • Added links.

"...allowing her to take on around double the amount of water and ballast". - Presumably this is drinking water? (taking on water puts me in mind of sinking). Consider store instead of take on. Also, not sure about 'allowing her to take on more ballast', which would have been more of a requirement.

  • Reworded.

In what respect was she a bad sailer? Presumably, with a greater depth in hold, she would have had an increased propensity to drift to leeward. Does Gardiner say anything like that?

  • He doesn't. Full quote: "No sailing quality reports on the ship survive, but it is unlikely that she was much of a sailer"
  • Shame. I suppose it would be possible to add a bit about how deep ships in general sailed but I don't think it's absolutely necessary here.

The frigate was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274) - I suspect this was due to the change in armament. Is there anything that says so or gives another explanation?

  • The Admiralty changed all frigate complements in 1794 in reaction to the creation of carronade establishments (274 for 38s, 254 for 36s, and 244 for 32s). Added.
  • Do you also have something that says carronades were lighter and therefore required fewer men to operate them?
  • I've checked all my relevant sources and can't find anything.
  • Page 17 of Henry, Chris (2004). Napoleonic Naval Armaments 1792-1815. Botley, Oxford.: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-635-5. says this. I often also add that the carronade could fire a very heavy shot but had a much shorter range than the long gun (page 13).
  • Thanks, added.

Where does the £2,200,000 figure come from and what's it based on, RPI?

  • I think a footnote explaining how the figure is calculated using the consumer price index is needed.
  • Added.

Service

"...as part of an expedition containing 6,100 troops for the capture of Martinique" insinuates to me that the expedition was to capture only Martinique. Later you say Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia. Was the plan to always attack Martinique, Saint Lucia and Guadeloupe?

  • Yes, a wider campaign against French-held islands.

It wouldn't hurt to mention how important these islands were to France's economy and how, in capturing them, she would be deprived of the wealth generated by the sugar. Howard has a bit on this in his book.

  • Have used Brown for this as couldn't immediately find the work in Howard.
  • Brown's fine but just for your info, Death Before Glory p. 30.
  • Thanks, added a sentence.

Nore mutiny

Despite this her crew went into a state of mutiny – Shouldn’t there be a comma after 'this'?

  • Added.

Any idea what happened to Mr Redhead?

  • John Redhead was stripped of his warrant by a court martial on 4 December and sent back to the navy as a "common seaman".
  • As he is mentioned prominently in the previous paragraph, I think it would be good to mention his fate.
Had already done so, should have made clearer here.

Might be a good idea to add a Spithead and Nore mutinies main template here.

  • Done.

Camperdown

I see you have a link to the battle but I would still be inclined to add a main article template.

  • Done.

English Channel

"...she was sailing in company with the 18-gun sloop HMS Sylph" – I would use sloop of war here (and link), to differentiate between Sylph and a sloop

  • Added.

La Chevrette action

I am surprised there isn't an article for this action. Perhaps one of us will write it sometime.

Link Plymouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • Plymouth in this instance refers to Plymouth Dockyard, which is already linked.

Later service

Link Portsmouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)

  • As above.


I'll take another look later --Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ykraps: Thanks for the comments so far, have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's all I've got but I'll pass over it one more time when I get a few minutes. --Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ykraps: That should be everything now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another great article; comprehensive and well researched. --Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledge[edit]

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knowledge is one of those everyday phenomena that seems relatively straightforward to grasp but is very difficult to precisely define. It is the main topic of epistemology and plays a key role in many fields, including the sciences. Thanks a lot to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, to Z1720, GuineaPigC77, and Tom B for their peer reviews, and to Biogeographist for all the improvement ideas and talk-page discussions. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Generalissima[edit]

Reserving a spot to review this later! Generalissima (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh gosh dang it I have been slow to get back to this. Dearest apologies! I will try my hardest to do a prose review over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This looks an impressive article, but as I am to abstract concepts what walruses are to needlework I can't venture to comment on its balance or comprehensiveness. I have only three comments on the prose:

  • "Sources of knowledge are ways how people come to know things" – "ways how" is awkward. Something like "ways in which" or "ways by which", perhaps?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "an infinite amount of reasons" – can one have an amount of reasons? One might expect "number of reasons" here.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Johanes Gutenburg" – forename and surname both misspelled.
    I fixed the image alt-text and the description on the image page. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck with the FAC, and I hope someone better equipped than I am to comment meaningfully shows up soon. – Tim riley talk 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a leap to venture into this difficult territory and for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would really love to add my support for promoting the article to FA, which I am fairly sure it deserves, and I shall watch this page to see if editors more competent than I on such topics give it the thumbs-up, in which case I'll be happy to add my support. Bonne chance! Tim riley talk 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

Pass Sohom (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the image review and for taking care of the source link. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pass for a prose review. Rather like Tim, above, I have limited knowledge (both in the subject and more generally), so I'll hold off a full support until someone more qualified than me comes along to support, at which point I will happily follow suit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for doing the prose review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Jens[edit]

This is an excellently written article. I like the many examples that really help with understanding. Only a few nitpicks, and questions that came to me while reading the article:

  • Introspection allows people to learn about their internal mental states and processes. Other sources of knowledge include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony. – What about the knowledge how to ride a bicycle? Where does this knowledge come from? Is it perception?
    Experience is required to learn how to ride a bicycle but I'm not sure about the details. I would assume that various different sources are involved with perception probably playing a key part in that experience to get familiar with all the sensory information involved in the process. Generally speaking, knowledge-how can depend on various sources, including testimony. For example, if someone gives you an accurate description of how to walk from A to B then you know how to walk from A to B based on that testimony. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Testimony – In the lead, maybe add examples, to make clear that this includes books etc.
    I added an explanatory footnote to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is knowledge restricted to humans? Can plants have knowledge? Is genetic information knowledge? Can we say that anything that is able to learn has knowledge?
    That depends on whom you ask and how they define knowledge. The example with the ant knowing how to walk in the subsection "Non-propositional" is taken from Pritchard 2013. This source also suggests that some sophisticated creatures other than humans may have propositional knowledge. I don't think the term "know" is usually applied to plants. For example, saying that a plant "knows how to grow" sounds strange. The overview sources that I'm aware of give very little attention to animal knowledge and do not mention plant knowledge. Genetic information could be responsible for some forms of a priori knowledge, for example, by structuring our brains in a way that we automatically know basic arithmetic truths. I'm not sure about whether being able to learn implies knowledge. Computer programs and websites can learn things about users by gathering information. Is storing this information in a databank sufficient to say that they know things? The answer to that question probably depends mostly on how one defines learn and know. Some epistemologists hold that there is innate knowledge, that is, knowledge that is inborn and does not need to be learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, in some way trees can learn from mistakes, so I would say they "know" things [4]; that's where I am coming from. I am not asking to add that to the article, of course. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article states that knowledge is a justified belief, and that knowing how to ride a bicycle is knowledge. What exactly is the belief when riding a bicycle?
    There are different views on the details. According to one view, the belief concerns the procedure of riding a bicycle, i.e., the different steps involved in the process. But not everyone accepts the traditional characterization of knowledge as justified belief and it is controversial to what extent this characterization fits knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For example, an ant knows how to walk – I am not sure about this example. It is like saying that humans know how to breath – but this is a reflex and not learned, so it it really knowledge?
    The example is taken from Pritchard 2013 and a similar example involving ants is found in Pavese 2022. I added a footnote to include this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge, and are more common in the animal kingdom. – Why restricting this to the animal kingdom and not life in general?
    I answered this in part in the earlier response: this is how the academic sources deal with the issue and it also seems to reflect how ordinary language mostly uses the term know. A more interesting answer might be that knowledge is related to mind or higher cognition and that animals have it while plants don't. But it is controversial where mind starts and ends so we would have to be careful about including this type of claim in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • to understand the claim in which the term is expressed – I don't understand this wording. Wouldn't just "to understand the claim" enough? What is the "in which the term is expressed" adding?
    You are right, the original formulation was unclear so I reformulated it. If we wanted to have a shorter version, your suggestion would also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some conscious phenomena are excluded in this context, like rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem – I first thought that "this context" refers to a priori/a posteriori, i.e., that some claims are neither a posteriori nor a priori. Maybe replace "this context" with "relevant experience" for clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: Thanks for the review and the thought-provoking questions. I tried to answer them as best as I could. I fear that at least some responses raise more questions than they answer, which is often the case with philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your replies! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boundary Fire (2017)[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shepherds: ♠PMC(talk) & Guerillero Parlez Moi

This article is about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note

As Vami has passed away, Guerillero and I will be taking over this nomination. I don't want to replace Vami as nominator, so I've put our names down as shepherds instead. ♠PMC(talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Will try to do a full review later. For the moment, just one question: why is it called "Boundary fire"? —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot recall a reason being given in the sources I read. If I were to guess, it was because the mountain on which the fire began is on the boundary between the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. —Kusma (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [5] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guerillero, very nice. I made it display slightly larger by removing the fixed px width in Template:Infobox wildfire. A scale on the map or some information in the caption on how large the area is that we are looking at would be helpful, but other than that this works nicely. Further context is probably only really feasible via something like an interactive map, which is already accessible in the coordinates template. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of review comments:

  • Background: perhaps explain here that the city of Flagstaff is nearby? In the "Fire" section we have that "Smoke [...] drifted into communities such as Flagstaff, 17 mi (27 km) west of the fire." Looking at a map, Flagstaff appears to be to the southeast?
  • "expected a typical season in the state's northern forests" I know zilch about Arizona; are these two forests "northern forests"?
  • Fire: how far away is the Grand Canyon?
  • Is "decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area" really the same concept as the source's "allow the fire to burn out from within a 15,000-acre planning area"?
  • Aftermath: "was closed in July 2018 again" I'm not a native speaker, but isn't "was closed again in July 2018" more natural?
  • Potential sources seemingly not used but worth checking out:

Overall a nice little article; perhaps it is worth out checking a few more sources, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it over the line. —Kusma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from ZKang123[edit]

A rather short article to review! Some grammar nitpicks:

  • "have been increased in" – do you mean "have been increasing"?
    • Fixed
  • For the sentence beginning with "Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney" – I would also mention the date of the Forester's report (April 2017 would do).
    • Fixed
  • "on the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within the Kaibab" – remove comma
    • Fixed
  • Wouldn't it be more succinct to just mention boundary fire in the first sentence of the fire section? (e.g. ...and started the Boundary Fire on the northeast slope...)
    • Revised sentence
  • "US 180 was closed overnight as firefighters monitored the fire's spread,[13] then was remained until further notice along with the vicinity of the fire on June 9." – I'm a bit unsure about how the latter clause is necessary; I mean, was it planned to reopen the highway on June 9? Something is also rather awkward about the sentence. Maybe like: "As firefighters monitored the fire's spread, US 180 was closed on that night until further notice."
    • Revised sentence, removing the redundant clause
  • "drifted into communities such as Flagstaff" – are there also other reportings from other towns?
    • Yes, but there's enough of them that it's better to sum up, and Flagstaff works as a representative as it's the largest/most significant town in the area
  • "Again fanned" – "Further fanned"
    • Left it as "fanned" instead
  • "was being managed by 261 firefighters." – I'm unsure if "managed" is the proper verb for this sentence. Also would just say "was managed"
    • Managed works as a verb here. I think "being managed" sounds smoother so I'm going to leave it
  • "because of a civilian drone flown over the fire." – "because a civilian drone flew over the fire"
    • Same as above I think the original is better
      • I still think it's still rather clunky and unnaturally worded.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire." – curious, was it said about where the civilians from? Like are they residents or rangers?
    • The report doesn't say
  • "said in a statement that the closure" – "in a statement" is unnecessary
    • Trimmed
  • "because of the potential for landslides" – "due to risks of landslides"
    • Revised

The lead is rather short, though understandably the article is also short itself.

    • Expanded slightly including aftermath
  • "leftovers from a previous wildfire" – there's this mention in the lead, but where else in the body?
    • "Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000"
  • Maybe I would also briefly mention the aftermath in the lead as well.
  • Is this fire also part of the general 2017 Arizona wildfires?
    • Yes

I think that's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ZKang123, responses above, let me know how you're feeling. ♠PMC(talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Made a few ces on the article itself. Happy to support. Also saluting to the late Vami.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The sole image in the infobox is free-use, with alt-text. No other outstanding issues. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Image reReply[reply]

Do you think File:Boundary Fire 2017 (34583638403).jpg should be PD? The author seems to have been an employee of the Forest Service when he took the photo, and seems to still be one today. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

I will review this. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having some trouble reviewing this at the moment... the loss of Vami hasn't really hit until now. I will circle back here, hopefully by the weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work
Take all the time you need. ♠PMC(talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires." I get the intention to link the wildfire season, but this feels awkward to me-- of course a wildfire in 2017 in Arizona was part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires. Could the link be placed in some other sentence?
  • This was added in a copyedit by another editor; I've moved it so the lead reads "The Boundary Fire was a 2017 wildfire in Arizona" instead
  • "Damage to the areas's foliage increased the risk of landslides for the next few years." In the article, you only establish this in the following year.
  • Tweaked
  • "Between The Boundary Fire was one" something doesn't flow quite right in this sentence, also T probably should be uncapitalized
  • Looks like that was a typo
  • " and was being managed by 261 firefighters" Do we generally describe fires as being 'managed' rather than 'fought'?
  • "block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread" is that what containment means? I thought it was just the percentage of the perimeter that had been stopped -- which isn't necessarily the same as the sentence in the article.
  • Yeah, I think Vami misread this source, I've revised this bit entirely
  • "Aerial firefighting assets were temporarily grounded on June 25 because a civilian drone flew over the fire" why would this have led to the grounding?
  • Risk of accidents. When you have some jackwagon flying his unregistered drone around inside your airspace, not coordinating with you and your assets, it causes a huge risk for collision. You see it at airports and stuff too, if you have a drone sighting at an airport, that airport is gonna lock down for a bit until the drone is gone.

That's a first pass here. Nothing crazy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Eddie, I've responded above. ♠PMC(talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serial[edit]

Placeholder for review. ——Serial 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


NightWolf1223[edit]

Placeholder. I hope to get around to this by the weekend, ping me if I haven't. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

My path and Vami's never really crossed, but he is clearly a huge loss to the project. Thank you to PMC and Guerillero for taking this one on.

  • Suggest getting the year of the fire into the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST. I would also suggest getting in the words "United States" from a more WP:POPE angle.
  • This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires: not sure about the tense here, and I suspect there's a more elegant way to get it in (as we have in the Background) section
  • I would consider adding an inflation-adjusted equivalent to the dollar amounts per WP:ENDURE: as time goes on, people's instinct for how much money those represent is going to be increasingly out of whack.
  • human-induced climate change has caused them to increase in number, destructiveness, duration, and frequency: does the cited source give a sense of "since...", and if so, could we bring that in?
  • In a report released April 2017: suggest making explicit that this was a month or so before the fire. Possibly an EngVar thing, but in April to me.
  • at about 2:02 pm (MT) : my understanding is that we don't usually specify the time zone when it's local time.
  • {{green|That night, fire managers closed US 180 until further notice}}: I would cut until further notice, as that notice was eventually given.
  • By June 9, the Boundary Fire had grown to 1,550 acres (630 ha) and was burning along US 180 and within both National Forests: perhaps I've missed something, but my understanding from the preceding paragraph was that it was always burning within both national forests?
    • My understanding of this map is that the fire was only in Coconino NF until the 9th. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In that case, we need to adjust The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        To me, "within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests" modifies Kendrick Peak, not the place of ignition. However, I see your point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can we link and explain aerial ignition?
  • soil burn severity: this might be a good candidate to rephrase in plain language.
  • Low wind speeds allowed ground crews and aerial assets to continue with controlled burns from June 15 to June 19: are all four citations really needed for this?
  • The next day brought light precipitation: I'd go with light rain as clearer (it was nearly 50 degrees C: clearly not snowing!)
  • to reopen the road to the public : would cut to the public as implied.
  • firefighters raised containment of the Boundary Fire to 42 percent: I'm not sure exactly what this means, nor, earlier, for allowed firefighters to block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread (does that mean it only affected 70% of the area it would have without human intervention?)
  • ($11.2 million, adjusted for inflation: needs a date.
  • three percent suffered total foliage mortality: could this be linked or explained?
  • Kaibab National Forest Supervisor stated that: I think we're missing a The or A at the start here.
  • In the bibliography, I think Williams-Grand Canyon News should have an endash, not a hyphen.
  • Newspaper titles are inconsistent between title case and sentence case.
  • Area burnt by the Boundary Fire according to the National Interagency Fire Center: I would put a comma before according to.

As usual, a parade of nitpicks: I hope at least some are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all sound reasonable to me. I will talk a look tomorrow. Thank you, UC, for your review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SC

Placeholder. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much from me; all minor stuff.

Progression
  • "Fanned by strong winds on June 10 and June 11": Just "June 10 and 11" would be fine
  • "secure fire lines": is a fire line the same as a fire break? If so, it would be better to call it that, given you've used and linked it above
  • "reopen the road to the public with": -> "reopen the road with"
  • "On June 23 the USFS": comma after 23 for consistency?
Aftermath
  • "Kaibab National Forest Supervisor": Needs an article (either definite or indefinite)
  • "at risk for landslides": is this correct in AmEng? (I'm more used to seeing "at risk of landslides").

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshlink line[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Couple of iterations of 'political importance' / 'significance' in the lead. Definitely investing in popcorn futures though  ;) ——Serial 14:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HF[edit]

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?
It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time
  • I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source
This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.
  • From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?
I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now
  • Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated
I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".
  • "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?
Copy edited
  • I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1
I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
  • Doleham image caption needs a full stop
  • Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
  • "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
  • "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
  • "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
  • Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
  • "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
  • "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
  • "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
  • "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
  • "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harry[edit]

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

  • East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?
Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".
  • Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.
I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)
  • and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.
Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)
  • painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense
Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."
  • The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?
Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."
  • Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?
Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.
  • freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?
According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.
I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.
  • On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
  • complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.
Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)
  • was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
  • numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun
Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context
  • On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.
I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.
  • In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking
Done
  • taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above
Reworded
  • The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted
Should be "single-track" with a dash
  • However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.
  • Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above
Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".
  • The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".
Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.
  • would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).
Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.
A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.
  • Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.
Done
  • Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?
Done
  • In November 2017, it was suggested [by whom?]
Clarified
  • Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?
No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).
  • Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)
Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned
  • This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?
What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.
  • That October, a proposal was chaired [by whom?] and what does "chair" a proposal mean?
The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.
  • Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.
Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.
  • If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.
No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Day Before the Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a 1974 short story from American writer Ursula Le Guin, some of whose other works I have brought to FAC before. I rewrote this page entirely some months ago, and it's since had been reviewed at GAN by Grnrchst and had a pre-FAC review from Mike Christie. I've done my best to dig deep into the sources, and I feel it to be comprehensive, but all feedback is welcome. I'm aware I haven't kept up with reviewing at FAC as I should, but I hope to remedy that somewhat in the coming days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Having reviewed this on the article's talk page I don't have much to add here.

  • The first link to anarchy is in the body, though there are a couple of opportunities to link it in the lead. I see you link separately to "anarchy" and "anarchism"; what's the thinking there?
    I've added a link in the lead now (though to anarchism). The two articles are, theoretically at least, about an anarchist society and about anarchy as philosophy; lots of overlap, of course, but I've tried to use the link appropriate to the usage in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The experience of death, grief and sexuality in older age are major themes ...": I found myself parsing this as "The experience of <death, grief and sexuality in older age>" which I don't think is intended. (If it is, I'd make it "experiences" instead.) How about "Grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of death are major themes ..."? The similar phrasing at the start of the "Themes" section might be rephrased too. Any reason the lead only lists three of the four themes mentioned at the start of "Themes"? For the "Themes" section how about "The short story explores grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of aging and death, themes that were largely absent from The Dispossessed, which has a younger protagonist"?
    This took me a little while...I've come to the conclusion that "experience" is actually somewhat superfluous for the lead; I've written simply "Aging, death, grief..." How does that look? For the body I've implemented your suggestion. There was no reason to omit aging in the lead, I've added it now. Strike that last: I see why I omitted it, it was to avoid the repetition of "aging" with the rest of the sentence. If the meaning isn't clear I can try to reword.
  • It's a pity that the first mention in the body of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is not the natural place to explain the meaning of that story; you give the meaning right at the end of the article. I can't think of a good way to finesse this. Maybe a footnote giving a sentence or two of explanation of that story, so that the reader has a sense at this first mention what Le Guin means by calling Odo "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas"?
    I'm open to ideas on wording, but I can't think of a good way to do this that isn't confusing, even in a footnote: because the links are philosophical, rather than plot-related. Odo doesn't live in anything like Omelas. The sentence that follows I think provides more context than a summary of "Omelas" would; because, despite the similarities, one has to get fairly deep into that story ("there are some people who choose to walk away from the idealized society...") for it to connect meaningfully to Odo.
  • Looking at ways to get rid of some more "wrote that"s, which I think sound awkward. Could we do "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies" for the last paragraph? And maybe change "Scholar Jane Donawerth wrote that" to "In scholar Jane Donawerth's view"?
    Done as suggested, thank you.

These are all minor, and I'll certainly be supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done: these are all your comments, Mike, but perhaps you'll want to have another read through once I've handled the others below? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'll wait for the outcome of UC's review, just in case I have anything to contribute to those points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

Hey Vanamonde! This seems like an interesting subject, and I might as well jump in with a quid pro quo, right? ;) I'll be back with some comments later this week. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Review time! Citation numbers from this revision. I'll put the quality concerns at the top.

  • What makes citation 12 reliable and high-quality? The database appears to curated by a single person without editorial oversight.
    I would consider him an expert in the field, but please also note I'm using him for strictly bibliographic information which isn't otherwise easily available. See a previous discussion about the website at FAC.
    Works for me. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What makes citation 15 reliable and high-quality? The article has a "blog" tag at the top and the writing style is candid to the point of being unprofessional.
    I see that the original url redirects to a different one, which I would agree wouldn't be reliable by itself. The piece was first published, AFAICS, on Tor.com, which has editorial oversight and is comparable to any SF mag review, I'd say. See the archive url, which has no indicator that it's different from other material they publish.
    Ah, I hadn't seen that Tor.com had gone through some restructuring. Worth noting here that even before the switch to Reactor, the magazine had open submissions for contributions. However, since the author seems to be recognized for their SFF reviews based on their site bio, taken together with the editorial review this source should be good to go. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Less important gnome-y suggestions are below.

  • In citation 4: link Extrapolation.
  • In citation 9: "Only in Dying, Life"'Only in Dying, Life'
  • In citation 14: add |author-link=Pamela Sargent, consider switching the title to title case.
  • In citation 15: italicize The Wind's Twelve Quarters, link Tor.com.
  • In citations 17, 18, and 20, consider adding |publisher=''[[Locus (magazine)|Locus]]''.
    Done but without the italics, the template gets upset. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In citation 19: |publisher=Wildside Press LLC|publisher=[[Wildside Press]]
  • In citations 22–26: use {{cite magazine}} instead of {{cite journal}}.
    Given that I'm using the same parameters, this is cosmetic, no? But I've no objection, so okay.
  • In citations 22 and 23: link Publishers Weekly.
  • In citation 24: italicize The Wind's Twelve Quarters, link Locus, add |author-link=Susan Wood (literary scholar).
  • In citation 25: link Fantasy and Science Fiction. Also, I wouldn't consider an access date necessary here since it's a courtesy link to the Internet Archive.
  • In citation 26: link Galaxy.
  • In citation 28 and Slusser 1976: link Borgo Press.
  • In citation 31: |work=Sydney Morning Herald|work=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
  • Related to the above, make sure the formatting of the name in the prose matches.
  • In citation 32: link St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
  • In citations 35 and 39: link Science Fiction Studies.
  • In citation 35: italicize The Dispossessed.
  • In citation 37: add |author-link=Robin Anne Reid, link Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • In citation 38: add |author-link=Kenneth Roemer, link Utopian Studies.
  • Only some of the citations in § Sources have locations. I'd prefer to remove them for consistency with the others. (I also consider locations an extremely dated feature of citations in the age of the Internet.)
    Agreed, removed (also per Gog below).
  • In Cummins 1990: link University of South Carolina Press.
  • In Harris-Fain 2005: 1970-20001970–2000 (with an en dash)
  • In Le Guin 2017: link HarperCollins, consider adding |author-link=Ursula K. Le Guin if you're feeling superfluous.
    Linking UKLG would be superfluous, I think.
  • In Spivack 1984a: link Twayne Publishers.
  • In White 1999: link Camden House.
    All done with a couple of exceptions noted above, thanks for your diligence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your work on this article! I made a couple of minor fixes not mentioned here while finishing up the review. Source review passed. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image review passed. The Day Before the Revolution.jpg is a non-free file with an appropriate use rationale and resolution. Ursula Le Guin (3551195631) (cropped).jpg is a free image and is captioned appropriately.

Let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC[edit]

Saving a space -- I've just started to dip my toes into Le Guin's short stories. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Set in the fictional Hainish universe created by Le Guin: more concise as Le Guin's fictional Hainish universe.
    Done
  • wl "anarchist" to anarchism in lead.
    Done
  • The strike is implied to be the beginning of the revolution that leads to the establishment of the idealized anarchist society based on Odo's teachings that is depicted in The Dispossessed: per MOS:LEAD, better if repeated in the body and cited there, with the lead clear of citations (MOS:LQ)
    I hope you don't mind, but I'm rather attached to lead citations when it's possible to cite individual sentences. I waste far too much of my time on-wiki reverting people who remove lead content claiming it's uncited: and I've also seen cases where our guideline is abused to add original research to the lead. As to the quote, I assume you're referring to "general strike", which i've unquoted per below.
    MOS:LQ allows rather than requiring citations to be omitted, so as long as all is cited in the body as well, this is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would echo the comments above about death, grief and sexuality in old age, and about the virtue of a footnote to explain "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas".
    See my replies above.
    I can think on this, but I think it's possible to get the point in a sentence or so: perhaps something like In Le Guin's short story, Omelas is a utopian society whose prosperity depends on the suffering of a single child. When its residents learn this, most accept it and continue their lives, but some choose to leave, preferring to venture into the unknown rather than be complicit in the child's suffering". My general principle would be that if a line like this is important enough to include in the article (and it is), it's important enough to spend a minute making sure the reader understands it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've added a shortened version of that, with a couple of sources.
    Another thought: has Le Guin ever, perhaps in an interview, said (hopefully in a pithy and quotable way) what she imagines the ones who walk away to be, or represent? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not unlikely that she did, but off the top of my head I'm unaware of such: in those that I've seen (and I looked again just now) she mostly refers to it's popularity, and ambiguity.
  • Odo is described as exemplifying the ideal of that story: someone who "cannot enjoy a prosperity dependent on the suffering of others": if this is a quote from Le Guin's foreword, shouldn't it be cited to that, rather than a secondary source?
    No, the quote is from a secondary source directly; do you feel that requires clarification?
    Yes: as written, it reads as a Le Guin quote. I would always make sure it's clear in the text who said what. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • which uses vivid imagery to depict the experience of aging: this is a bit fluffy for me, at least in the lead: even in the body, we don't actually talk about any imagery ("looks down at her feet with loathing" is not really that). If we must talk about something like this, I'd be much happier with e.g. "critics have drawn attention to the vivid imagery Le Guin uses..." or similar.
    Reworked slightly.
  • best short story: I would capitalise (see the FA Academy Award for Best Actor), as this is the specific title, not simply a description.
    Done as suggested.
  • away from "romantic quests": if this is a quote, it should be attributed (did they all use those words?): if scare quotes, it would be good to think if we can say what we mean a little more directly. Later it seems that these are specifically White's words.
    I'm without access to Erlich at the moment, but should get my hands on the book (again) in a few days: I'll work on this then.
  • in which human beings did not evolve on Earth, but on Hain: Hain will not be familiar to most readers, so something like "evolved on the planet Hain, rather than on Earth", would be clearer. Is Hain an earthlike planet, or materially different? Perhaps worth an adjective.
    Hain features in several works, but as far as I'm aware it's ecology isn't analyzed in secondary sources, so I'd rather not get into OR...but I've added "the planet", as you suggestion.
  • The people of Hain colonized many neighboring planetary systems possibly a million years before the setting of the stories: This sentence wasn't totally clear to me; I'd put a comma after systems, as a start. Possibly threw me off a little: do we mean that they definitely colonized them, but nobody remembers exactly how long ago it was?
    Yes, that's the intended meaning; "million or a half-million" is what the source says. I could say "hundreds of thousands" instead, it's a little wordy but perhaps clearer?
  • It depicts the last day in the life: it's usual practice, I think, not to cite plot details from a work of fiction, as the work itself is considered the source. Is this (or any of the other similar details here) not obvious from the text itself? If so, it would be wise to explain how we get to it.
    This is my attempt to finesse a few different matters without confusing the crap out of the reader: Odo's name, her death at the end of the story, and the fact that these are not covered by the same source in the same way. Also, it is my practice to cite the primary text outside the plot summary, because otherwise it isn't clear what parts I'm getting from the primary text and what parts are from elsewhere.
  • without private property ownership: I'd cut ownership as tautological: private property is, by definition, owned.
    Done
  • the historical figure "Odo", but in this story, told from her point of view, she is called Laia: why quotes only for Odo?
    Removed; it felt natural, I suppose, but I see the asymmetry
  • The protagonist Laia is introduced: commas around Laia, as there's only one protagonist.
    Done
  • Awake, she is shown to be an elderly woman: reads slightly stilted to me: When she wakes is more natural, I think.
    Done.
  • the death of one of her parents: do we find out which one?
    We do not; they are referred to separately (they don't both die), but with no indicators of gender.
  • they express surprise that a revolution occurred there first: rather than in A-lo?
    Yes; is it ambiguous? I don't believe I've introduced any other territory.
  • The ambiguity is that first is superlative: it's not clear whether they're surprised that Thu was the first place (out of anywhere) to have a revolution, or whether they're surprised that A-lo didn't have a revolution before Thu did. It's not massively important for comprehension: more a matter of good prose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • feeling trapped by her obligations: as we've presented her so far, I'm surprised to hear that she has obligations. What are they?
    She's required to speak with the visiting students, and answer some letters..."obligations" seems the most concise description
  • a "general strike": why the quote marks -- could we simply link to general strike, or is it a cover for something else?
    No conscious reason; changed as suggested
  • called it Le Guin's "best short story",: reads as scare quotes to me: would remove per MOS:QUOTEPOV
    Not intended as such, just quoting from source, but I suppose it's a common enough expression, so quotes removed.
  • I think the middle paragraph of "Publication and reception" is going the right way in terms of imposing order upon a busy critical field, but I still find myself losing my way in it a little: I think there's still more than can be done here to pull out the threads and patterns and to guide the reader through this dizzying number of voices. I'd like a bit more explanation on a turning point in Le Guin's writing toward works infused with feminism: what is feminist about this story?
  • Le Guin's science fiction often subverted stereotypes: fiction is in the eternal present, so subverts.
    It reads a little odd to me with the use of past tense for Spivack, but I cannot dispute the grammar with you, so changed.
  • Yoke concluded that Le Guin had gone beyond writing a story, and had created art.: Might be subjective, but I find this simultaneously pompous and patronising: is everyone else's fiction writing not art?
    I'd agree it's both of those :) But it's the reviewer's opinion, no? They're known to be pompous. But I may omit it if need to include more material per Czar's comments below.
    We are always judging what to include based on its value to the article: the reader might also have had a strong opinion about coffee, but we don't need to include that simply because they did. I wonder whether a paraphrase might be kinder to this reviewer: something like "wrote that Le Guin had elevated The Day Before the Revolution to a higher artistic level than a typical story"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Odo's character is defined by "dynamic ambivalence" as she struggles between contradictory impulses, toward "defiance and resignation, action and inertia": I would always, at least where possible, attribute quotations like this in text (I think it's in the MoS to do so when the quotation is an opinion, as here). On another note, I'm a little wary of the straight line we've joined between the two, that the ambivalence is between these four things: it's a kind of WP:SYNTH, since each quote comes from a totally different source.
  • but also resents it: being a monument, or the movement?
    The former; wording adjusted
  • she recognizes she has already become part of history: this could be clearer: as in, she feels that she is being treated as a historical artefact by them? She is upset by the reverence with which they treat her? She is upset that they no longer consider her relevant?
  • in the activities she is responsible for: responsible is slightly ambiguous: did she make them come into being, or is she charged with ensuring that they go well?
    Neither, really, it's just the things she has to do (see above re: obligations). Gone with "tasks", perhaps better?
  • Her role in the period of time described in the title: any reason not to cut after "her role"? Lots of quotes in this section: some are clearly from the text, and others from scholars, but it's not totally clear which.
  • Her waking periods are interspersed with recollections of her past: interspersed with implies that this only happens when she's not awake; if this is so, I'd make recollections of into dreams recalling or similar.
    The issue is with "waking periods" rather than "recollections": she's awake, and getting lost in her memories. I've reworked, but please feel free to suggest something different.
  • the traditional trope: I'm not sure about the word traditional here: suggest cutting (a trope is, by definition, established in the cultural firmament, and I don't think we need the moral connotations of traditional here).
    Agreed. Omitted.
  • she exemplifies the titular individual of the short story: there is no single titular individual of that story.
    Tweaked to "individuals": look okay?
  • My usual question on Further Reading: what would a reader gain from Elrich, and would any of it be of value in the article? In general, if it's useful, we should cite it; if it's not, we shouldn't waste readers' time with it.
    An oversight; Erlich is already in the sources, section removed. FWIW, I do think such a section can have a role when there's more material than can reasonably be cited in the article, but which could benefit someone wanting to go deep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Czar[edit]

I had these additional sources in my citation manager for this title, in case you haven't seen them:

Also this story is dedicated to Paul Goodman and I happen to have an FAC open about one of his works (The Structure of Literature), in case you're interested. czar 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would gladly review that when I have a moment; it had caught my eye already when looking through the list for places where I could usefully comment. Thank you for your sources. I own Bucknall, but IMHO there is nothing to be added from that source; she doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Walton looks good, not sure how I missed it: I will work it in. Are you able to access the other two? If not, I can ask at RX. I'm quite open to adding more material as it is found, but I will say that there's a lot of sources that make brief mention of this story, thanks to its proximity to The Dispossessed; few of these have any unique material to add. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • A lead of four paragraphs for a short article seems to clash with MOS:LEADLENGTH.
    I don't love paragraphs as a metric; I could easily combine them into four longer paragraphs. It's currently at 13 sentences, which is in the middle of what the MOS has to say about FA lead size...I do think this hinges a little on your next comment, though; if I removed those, it'd be a lot shorter.
    Now shortened, per below.
  • The last two sentences of the third paragraph of the lead seem over detailed, or even completely out of place, the lead being a summary.
    I take your point, but I'm hesitant only because of how often that introduction of Le Guin's is mentioned by the sources. I seem to recall multiple sources (that I probably didn't use) that say nothing of the story besides Le Guin's introduction. Mike Christie, can I bother you for another opinion here? Would it detract greatly to omit this fragment from the lead? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's fine as is, but I also don't think it would be a problem to remove it. Having it in the lead requires a bit of inline explanation which makes it a touch clumsy, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. Trimmed.
  • "the setting of the stories". The plural, as you have not introduced any stories other than TDBTR this jars. Perhaps make singular?
    It's a reference to "Hainish cycle", but I suppose that's ambiguous, and it's not inaccurate to say it about DBR alone. So amended.
  • "her younger self and her lover". Maybe 'her younger self and her then lover'?
    Done.
  • "Publication and reception", second paragraph: consider a paragraph break before "Conversely".
  • "Multiple scholars commented that it represented a tonal and thematic shift in Le Guin's writing away from "romantic quests" and toward works infused with feminism." "Multiple": only one such scholar is mentioned in the article.
  • "and said that the thorough character development in "The Day Before the Revolution" made it one of the stories that demonstrated the literary worth of science fiction." I suspect a typo somewhere in there.
    I'm not sure I see the grammatical problem, but I agree it's a little mealy-mouthed; I've shortened it; how does it read now?
  • "dynamic ambivalence"' "defiance and resignation, action and inertia", "tension of opposites" etc. The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies the titular individuals of the short story". Which short story?
    Omelas. Adjusted.
  • In Sources three works don't have publisher locations.
    Omitted.

Lovely stuff, I expected no less.