Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2025

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2025 [1].

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A vicious episode from a vicious war fought 2,266 years ago. War to the knife indeed. This went through GAN in 2020 and ACR in 2021. I have recently done a little tightening up and hope that it will not be too embarrassing at FAC. All and any constructive comments will be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, Iazyges Pinging the ACR and GAN reviewers; it's been a while but it would be great if either of you felt like picking at the flaws I am sure still remain. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A clear exposition of the topic, and plainly, to my thinking, of FA standard. A few very minor quibbles about the prose:

  • "Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno" – a false title we could do without.
Cast out.
  • "Initial manouevres" – spelling.
Picky.
  • "squeezing taxes out of the newly conquered territory in order to pay for both the war with Rome and his own campaigns" – I'm not one of those reviewers who have to get their smelling salts out at the sight of the phrase "in order to", but I really don't see what "in order to" has got here that plain "to" wouldn't have.
You are completely right. Sloppy proof reading I reckon.
  • "decided to wait until all of the troops had arrived" – Unclear what the superfluous "of" is adding to the sentence other than an unnecessary word.
The surplus of has been declared redundant.
  • "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa" – this is Plain Words on "Majority": The major part or the majority ought not to be used when a plain most would meet the case. They should be reserved for occasions when the difference between a majority and a minority is significant. Thus: "Most of the members have been slack in their attendance". "The majority of members are likely to be against the proposal".
Ah. Well, by all means let us be stylish.
  • "Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops who would charge ferociously" – the punctuation has gone awry. Instead of the semicolon you need either a colon or (preferably to my mind) a dash.
Dash inserted.
  • "Initial manouevres" – still misspelled.
I only see it once Tim. Are you referring to the ToC and the section heading?
I was. All now fine. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Utica and Hippo slew their Carthaginian garrisons" – "slew" seems a touch antiquated, and has nowadays a slightly comic Wodehousian air, as in "one of those fiends with hatchet who are always going about slaying six". Wouldn't a plain "killed" do?
Changed.
  • "but despite the siege being lifted ..." – another gerund problem. Grammatically, "being lifted" is serving as a verbal noun and this should be "despite the siege's being lifted". As that doesn't flow well, perhaps "but although the siege was lifted..."?
That doesn't really flow either. I am probably trying to pack too much into the sentence. Does "The supplies seized from the Carthaginian camp relieved the rebels immediate problems, but little further food arrived, despite the siege having been lifted." work?
Almost. "rebels" needs a possessive apostrophe, and there's still the gerund problem: "...despite the lifting of the siege" would work. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim. It is extremely good of you to drop by a mere elephant and sandal saga. I am grateful for your erudition and all of your points above have been addressed. The last issue could do with your eyes on again if you would. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. On rereading I wonder about "envisages" in the image caption in the Siege section. Seems a slightly odd verb. Portrays or depicts might be more usual. Not sure the caption needs a full stop, either. I don't press either point and am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Clear, balanced, well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated (excellent maps) – meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN in 2020 and at ACR in 2021, but I will see if I can find anything else to comment on. Hog Farm Talk 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and Hippo (modern Bizerte)" - the link for Hippo just redirects to the Bizerte article; I don't know if both are useful

Supporting; this is my third time reviewing the article for different content levels and I have nothing further to add. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Reviewed this at GAN in 2021. Although there are no double links or duplicate refs (which I can only view as a perfidious attempt to put me out of a job) I will see if I can find something else to complain about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, that gave me a laugh. You sound upset. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome; I am of course pleased that my disastrous misfortune has brought you joy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you hadn't done such a good job in 2021 you'd be happier now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by from UC
  • Per WP:GNL, we should not use "men" as a synonym for "soldiers", "warriors", "fighters", "troops" etc. See in particular The sources are not clear as to whether they carried towers containing fighting men: we surely don't wish to imply that the sources suggest they may have carried fighting women? There are other examples throughout. In this particular context, it would be a strong assumption to say that none of the Gaulish, North Africa, Iberian etc tribes represented in the Carthaginian forces had any women fighting for them.
A combat force of this time and place is a case "where all referents are of one gender". HQ RSs support this: eg Miles, p 202 "menfolk"; Hoyos (2007), p 4 "twenty thousand and more men", p 36 "the men might refuse to leave their wives and children behind", p 58 quoting Polybius "mutinous men"; Bagnall p 112 "years of hard campaigning during which their carnal appetites had either been unrequited or forcefully satisfied", "asked to move their men"; and numerous other examples.
Regarding your strong assumption point, it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate. Do you have any sources that support the hypothesis of women in a combat role during the Mercenary War? Personally I find it much easier to imagine a boy smuggling themselves into an all-female school, or a student attending one identifying as male, yet "an all-female school" is used by GNL as an example of when "gender-neutral language ... does not apply". There would seem to be an implicit reasonableness test.
Of course, WP:GNL is an essay, one editor's view of how things should be, and as such sits outside the FA criteria.
It is, but MOS:GNL is, well, MoS, and so is part of the FA criteria. In particular, it has Use gender-neutral language ... if this can be done with clarity and precision. I'm not sure we lose any clarity or precision by swapping troops, mercenaries or similar for men. In several cases, the word can simply be cut altogether: for instance, At some point during 240 BC the Carthaginians raised another army, of approximately 10,000 men
On it seems to me to be a strong assumption to be to hypothesize that any women fought in a combat role at a time when gender roles were so separate.: I don't think that's really true, certainly if you go beyond the immediately Greco-Roman world. Our article on the topic has its limitations, but we have plenty of examples of (in particular) queens leading their people in war in or around the C3rd BCE. Indeed, one of the consistent themes of Greco-Roman ethnography is that "other" peoples don't share "our" ideas of the roles of men and women. Again, there's a lot of ifs, buts and caveats there, but I find it difficult to read (for example) Herodotus and Tacitus and then say that it's manifestly obvious that every tribe in North Africa shared the Romans' idea of gender roles. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polybius says that they too "quickly" surrendered: consider a rephrase: did P. say they surrendered more quickly than they should, or that they surrendered, as did the others?
Rephrased. "... a few days ..."
Hi UL and thanks for dropping by. My thoughts on your thoughts above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources are consistently formatted, and seem to come from prominent authors/publishers. Checked some reviews too and nothing questionable cropped up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Why is it the city referred to a Tunis, when was Carthage stop being in common use? And why aren't the Carthaginians referred to as Tunisians? Sorry I have but superficial knowledge about North Africa and Carthage. 185.237.102.58 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and thanks for the input. Briefly: Carthage and Tunis were separate places, about 10 miles (16 km) apart; they are still separate places, see eg Google Maps, and still 10 mi apart. The Carthaginians belonged to Carthage or its empire, insofar as Tunisian meant anything 2,263 years ago it would have been a reference to an inhabitant of the (then) minor town of Tunis. Tunisia as a larger entity which one could be a member of didn't appear until around the year 800, more than 1,000 years after the events in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

I have been meaning to read one of your articles. Heartfox (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF and thanks for that. This one is a bit gorier than usual I'm afraid, but hopefully interesting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Libyans provided close-order infantry" – what is "close-order"?
Oh, good question. The article on Close order formation is ok and the first two sentences is a good summary, so I have Wikilinked to it. Is that sufficient do you think?

This is my only comment :) Heartfox (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Heartfox, it looks like it may be getting close to done then. Your comment addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Boo! Long time, no see, my old friend. You'll have to remind me to update you on my whereabouts: it's been a crazy few months! Now that everything's settled down again, I hope to return to my Wikipedia duties full-time again :) Comments to follow shortly! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh! Gurgle. There may be a delay in responses from this editor while medical assistance is administered. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A gory story made even worse by the usage of British English. Review as follows:
  • "The Carthaginian army, which had served on Sicily...": What's the reason for "on" instead of "in"? I might not be aquainted with the millitary lingo.
Three uses of "in Sicily" and one of "in Sicily"; you're persecuting a linguistic minority. But well spotted. Fixed.
  • "Several soldiers insisted that no deal with Carthage was acceptable, a riot broke out, dissenters were stoned to death, the Carthaginian negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized": This sounds like a list of events; maybe it's better to add a conjunction to end the list.
It is condensed scene setting. Are you suggesting that I have overdone the summary style? Re a conjunction, it ends "... and their treasury was seized". Or have I misunderstood you?
  • "were declared generals": Who declared them?
Ho, hum; yes, well. Added "... by the rebellious soldier".
Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Unlimitedlead, it is good to have you around again ensuring there is no unnecessary brutality against the English language. How you doing? Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to support this nomination. A nice read. I sent an email to you yesterday about my whereabouts. I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, hope you got the medical aid.

Thanks Matarisvan, I appreciate your concern. When last sighted reports indicated that I was still upright and breathing.

My comments:

Good point, done.
  • What is our policy on DOIs? Since we have added one for Eckstein 2017, I think we should one for the others too (namely Hoyos 2007, Hoyos 2015, Koon 2015, Lazenby 1996 and Scullard 2006).
The policy is "Be consistent". I am not a fan, so removed from Eckstein.
  • Consider adding [2] as the URL for Hoyos 2000?
I have no information on the target's legality. It may well breach copyright. Hence I am unenthusiastic about linking.
Again "Be Consistent". As you have supplied the only two missing - thanks - I have added them.
  • Consider removing the "Inc." from Warnington 1993?
Whoops! Removed.

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matarisvan, much appreciated. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I don't think there should be an issue with adding the URL for Hoyos 2000. The URL is from Cologne University, who have open sourced all the issues of the Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (excluding those of the last two years) at this link. Glad to hear you're all right. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan, ok I guess. Linked. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, looks good now, happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Hi @FAC coordinators: This has 5 supports, source and image passes, an ongoing debate with UC, a pending review from Heartfox and has been open for 15 days; may I start another? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead FrB.TG (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2025 [3].

Bæddel and bædling

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a LGBT history and medieval history crossover for you guys. Bæddel and bædling are two obscure Old English nouns found in a couple of old glossaries and penitentials that refer to some sort of sexual or gender variance, but have absolutely no solid idea on what kind! If succesful, this FAC will be used for the WikiCup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will ping Urve and Tenpop421 since they have looked over and given advice on the article previously; no pressure to review, of course! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Thank you as always! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe in FAC, but the racial implication of cariar discussed by Wade (2024) is more involved than our summary of it suggests. Sayers is fairly similar in assigning some kind of racialized/socially stratified inflection of bædling. I haven't poked around but I'd be surprised if scholars haven't discussed these terms' influence on the journal baedan's name (as they acknowledge). I think, too, that there needs to be a more comprehensive discussion of these terms' relationship with pederasty; I know the Online Etymology Dictionary has glossed bædling as pederast, for example, though whether that's a reliable source I'm unfamiliar with. Urve (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I wish I could through in a reference to the journal Baedan but none of the sources mention it so I don't think it'd be DUE. I added more context on cariar, and the stuff about the subaltern groups from Sayer. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I think there is more to say re pederasty and our text's suggestion that only Bell theorizes baedling's connection to it is somewhat misleading. Frantzen, who you already cite, suggests that the suffix -ling may indicate young age. Sarrazin's article should be cited if you can find it (which may require a librarian's help since I can't make sense of the citations to it I've found). Frantzen's argument re: bædling's connection to an oppressed state deserves more mention. I wonder whether any of the 70s-90s pederasty/so-called 'youth liberation' magazines, which are NOT digitized, have any discussion about the term?
    "While in some of the extant sources bædling seems to have denoted a passive partner in gay sexual intercourse, the reference to bædlings having sex with each other complicates this as a strict definition". ... how? The sentence that follows doesn't answer that. In any case, Frantzen argues that bædlings may correspond to intersex person precisely because bædlings could have sex with both men and each other. Frantzen's citation to a TLS article seems worthy of mention, and for that matter, why not discuss other newspapers/magazines (especially the gay press) that seem to have commented on the term?
    Honestly I'd probably lean oppose on comprehensiveness if I believed in this process. Urve (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply by way of example, see for example Davoud-Oghlou. Urve (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, it seems beyond the bounds of DUE to dive into older material, especially 19th century works (which, if they're not being brought up in the modern scholarly literature, are probably not that helpful to begin with) or those 'interesting' periodicals of the 1960s/70s. I have searched for it in modern, more academically rigorous queer publications but have come up short beyond what I've cited. Until niche tumblr discourse gets academic coverage (and from what I have seen so far we're only a few years off from that), I don't think there's going to be room for coverage here beyond Old English philology.
    Now, that being said, I will try to incorporate a bit more from Frantzen. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointing. It's undue to actually quote Sarrazin, cited in Liberman, but it's not undue to cite Wright and Meritt? Anything published in a gay circular is magically undue because it's not a 'modern, more academically rigorous queer publication' - an assertion based on, what, exactly? (I'm not talking about anything relating to tumblr; I have no idea what you're even referencing.) Urve (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's academic history. I have to either use professionally peer-reviewed sources, or self-publications by subject matter experts; and unless they were getting professional historians to write in the 70s underground periodicals I am not really going to be able to use those per WP:V. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

A really interesting article. Brief comments for now:

  • Suggest adding a pronunciation guide to the first sentence.
    • These guides now need to go into (round) brackets. Suggest that a respell would be helpful as well, since a reader who doesn't know how to parse æ in Old English won't be able to parse it in IPA either.
      • Good point, added. - G
  • In the lead image caption, it would be helpful to translate homo delicatus.
  • The body only talks about the OED in relation to its first edition, while the lead seems to imply that the citation and definition remain in the current edition.
  • I think it would be helpful to give a sense of when the different scholars were writing: we variously quote people active today and those who died in the nineteenth century, without any real sense of which is which.
  • Sayers's title defines "Bædling" as "sodomite": that would seem to clash with some of what we've mentioned in the article, and seem to be germane for comprehensiveness?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: There we go, got to all these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

  • Both terms are connected to effeminacy and adultery, although bæddel is glossed as hermaphrodite: it sounds here as if this is always the case, whereas I think from the body this is a particular feature of one such glossary.
  • propose alternate origins: alternative, when there's more than one.
    • Fixed. - G
  • The Paenitentiale Theodori distinguishes men and bædlings: this text needs some kind of introduction in the lead, if only by date and rough geography. Likewise The Antwerp Glossary (many manuscripts/ancient texts are named for where they are rather than where they were made: cf. any number of Codex Oxoniensis manuscripts written in Constantinople).
    • Fair point! Clarified these. - G
  • The term may have included people assigned female at birth who took on masculine social roles or to intersex people: missing the word referred between or and to, I think.
    • Fixed. - G
  • While bæddel is generally associated with intersex people in the attested sources: is this quite right? We say that it's the case for the Antwerp Glossary, but I can't see any other examples here that explicitly link it with intersexuality.
    • Is a 'hermaphrodite' not inherently intersex? I added a cite from Wade about this just to clarify.
    UndercoverClassicist Ohhh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's only in the Antwerp Glossary. Rephrased Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • including molles 'soft person': molles is plural; the singular is mollis.
    • Oops! Thank you. - G
  • During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars such as J. R. C. Hall and Ferdinand Holthausen have argued : needs to be a true past tense, as it's no longer the early C20th.
    • True. - G
  • a 17th century Arthurian ballad in Scots mentions a Badlyng, which the scholar William Sayers identifies as "sodomite" in a 2019 paper: we seem to be talking about the person here, so identifies as a "sodomite" (I would link that term). Alternatively, "a word which the scholar..."
    • Fixed! - G

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you again for looking over this! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that strikes me while doing some pedantic copyedits: we don't actually give any sense of when, or for how long, these terms were used. If nothing else, could we explicitly say when Old English was spoken? I'd be interested to know if these terms cover the whole of OE, or if they pop up/die out at a known time.
    UndercoverClassicist Ope, yes; I added some footnotes since it turns out the specific dating on a lot of these texts is uncertain, and none of them even reckon a guess at when the terms themselves in use. I just put the dates on when Old English in general was spoken. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another read through with a view to supporting:

  • A third gloss from the Harley Glossary, cariar, is difficult to interpret and possibly a reference to the Anatolian region of Caria. ... The reference to Anatolia in the glossary -- we seem to have promoted the Anatolia hypothesis from a guess into a fact in the space of three sentences. Suggest "the putative reference" or similar.
    • Done. -G
  • The penitential also specifies that both adults and children can be bædlings, setting aside different punishments for bædlings of different ages.: can we say what those punishments were? I think it's germane to note whether we mean e.g. death or ten Hail Marys.
    • Clarified. -G
  • Indicated by an association in the Cleopatra Glossaries: introduce this source, as we have the others.
    • Done. - G
  • While bæddel is associated with intersex people in the attested glosses: sorry to keep beating this drum, but why is glosses plural here? Didn't we establish further up that there's only one gloss in play?
  • The term may have also referred to people assigned female at birth who took on masculine social roles, or (as with bæddel) to intersex people: another "promoted" hypothesis that now seems to have taken on the trappings of fact.
    • I'm a bit confused here, doesn't it already just say it's a possibility? -G
      • Ah - now you point it out, I can see that reading, but to me it's not the most natural. The "may have" seems naturally to govern "referred to", but not so naturally to apply to "as with...". Compare "John Smith may have (like Van Gogh) cut off his own ear": that implies that we known Van Gogh did it, and guess that John Smith might have done so. Perhaps amend to something like "as bæddel may also have done"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. - G
  • Sayers has an interesting line: "both OE and OIr ... exhibit a range of meanings from cognitive and mental deficiency to moral deficiency.". I've only got the first page on preview, but does this develop into something (that the word may have something to do with mental weakness/misdevelopment) that we can use?
    • Added. -G
  • It sounds from Sayers like the *baitos hypothesis owes a lot to Xavier Delamarre, rather than being entirely S's idea.
    • Clarified. - G
  • Anatoly Liberman, concurring with Coates on the etymological link to *badde, states that bæddel was formed from bad. While yfel was the standard word for "bad" during the Old English period, bad was established enough by the thirteenth century to become a common nickname (in the form bade).: as we've written it, this doesn't make a lot of sense, since in our formulation bæddel came about 300 years before bad. I think it would help to clarify when bad is first attested.
    • Done. - G
  • The Dictionary of Old English gives no etymology for bædling, only tentatively defining it as "effeminate man" or "homosexual": does this not more naturally belong in the section above, since it doesn't make any connection/reference to "bad"?
    • Good point, moved. - G
  • @UndercoverClassicist: There we go, sorry for the delay! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to keep prodding:
  • Just seen Like other glosses, the Cleopatra Glossaries (dating to the reign of Æthelstan, between 924 and 937) associate the term with effeminacy and softness: I'm not totally sure whether "the term" here is cariar, bæddel or bæddel.
  • Good point, fixed. - G
  • Separately, I wonder whether an EFN to explain the slightly odd name of the Cleopatra Glossaries would be enriching?
  • After quite a bit of searching, I legitimately cannot find a source which mentions why they are named that. The supposed etymology on their Wikipedia page is entirely uncited. - G
  • No, I can't find one either, so we'll have to leave this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • this adjective could have been carried into Old English by the hypothetical form *baed, which would connote physical and moral deficiency, and perhaps shared "characteristics with the subaltern British".: something has gone awry here. Who/what, exactly, shared characteristics with the British? The word can't have done (unless the Britons themselves had four letters and a funny-looking vowel): do we mean that the qualities of physical and moral deficiency were associated with the subaltern British? On which: I might clarify here that "British" here has a very different meaning to what 99% of readers will assume, and explicitly excludes "English". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: There we go, rephrased this sentence. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that one quite got there: we still had the idea that the word was similar to the British, and by changing to "Ancient Britons", it made it sound like we were talking about inhabitants of other times rather than contemporary inhabitants of (especially) Wales, Cornwall and the north of Britain. I've made a fairly bold edit to characteristics perhaps associated by Old English speakers with the native British populations of the rest of the British Isles, and would be very happy to see that edited further. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that works for me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

[edit]
  • 'andreporesis, ie. man of both sexes' - ie. should be i.e.
    • Fixed! - G
  • I'd probably link philologist on first mention
    • Good idea. - G

Honestly, all I've got. Makes sense, though to be fair my educational background is in literature with a dash of linguistics. Happy to support, as neither comment is all that major. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

An interesting and unexpected article. I cannot presume to comment on the substance, but here are a few minor thoughts on the prose:

  • blue links – I think some readers would be glad of links for "philologist" and "patronymic".
    • Added. - G
  • "the exact meaning of the terms (and their distinction, if any) are debated by scholars" – I have never been sure whether to use a singular or a plural verb for a sentence like this with the main subject out of the parenthesis and a subsidiary subject bracketed off. It looks a trifle odd as it is, but would probably look just as odd with a singular verb. I merely mention it and will say no more.
  • "citing German philologist Julius Zupitza" – clunky false title such as you avoid later in the text. (And is his nationality relevant here?)
    • Fixed. - G
  • "alternate origins" (and alternate definition and alternate etymologies later in the text) – wouldn't "alternative" (indicative of a choice between two or more things) rather than "alternate" (of two things, each following and succeeded by the other in a regular pattern) be the appropriate adjective here?
    • Good point, added. - G
  • "Bædling is likely derived from bæddel" – "likely" looks a touch strange here; one might expect "probably".
    • I am always caught offguard by this regional English variation - "probably" sounds pretty informal to my ears, but I've heard "likely" is only used in specific contexts in British English! Anyhow, since British English is def. preferable here, fixed. - G
  • "a connection with eunuchs, which were commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire" – I wonder about "which" here. Eunuchs were people, after all, and might be thought to qualify for "who" rather than "which".
    • Good point. - G
  • "leading philologists such as Herbert Dean Meritt ..." – I had to have two goes at this sentence. I took "leading" to be an adjective rather than a participle until the penny dropped when I clocked the comma rather than a stronger stop. I wonder if "causing" or suchlike might be less susceptible of misreading.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "The 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and the OED Online continue to support Zupitza's etymology, dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as "out of the question", while also suggesting a possible origin from bædan." – I can't comment on the 1989 print version of the OED but I have access to the OED's online version. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place but on the Etymology page for "bad" I can't find anything to justify "dismissing alternate etymologies from Celtic words as 'out of the question'."
    • Oops mistake on my part; that line is only in the 1989 print edition. Rephrased. - G

That's all from me. I hope there's something of use in some of these comments. – Tim riley talk 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All now fine as far as I'm concerned (and some useful late additions too such as the "hermaphrodite" explanatory footnote). More than happy to support promotion of this excellent article to FA. It isn't lavishly illustrated – and I'm sure can't be – but the prose is clear and a pleasure to read; the article seems balanced and is well and widely sourced; it meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 20:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The caption of the first image, you need a cite for "Homo delicatus means a soft or effeminate man."
    • Added. - G
I have problems with this. The actual dictionary definition does not define Homo delicatus as an effeminate man. Instead you have a modern academic writing 350 years after the dictionary was published that when the term was used on a single, specific occasion 1,900 years prior to the dictionary being current it was understood to mean an effeminate man. Why should the dictionary definition mean what the words on the page means. Or change that part of the caption to something like 'It is believed that 1,900 years earlier Homo delicatus meant a soft or effeminate man. When effeminacy meant something rather different.
  • Fair enough. I just removed the image since a) it's from a later time period than we're talking about here, and b) the other sources don't touch on that dictionary's definition for it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more later. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "bæddel is defined as "hermaphrodite" in the two surviving glosses". "the two surviving glosses" implies that they were the only glosses to survive. Is that correct?
    • Yep. - G
  • "The early medieval penitential Paenitentiale Theodori". "penitential" is unlikely to mean much to most modern readers. Could you add a brief in line explanation?
    • Good idea - added. - G
I'm not seeing it. Am I being slow?
Gog the Mild not slow - I just added the definition to the first mention of penitentials in the very first paragraph. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was looking at the "penitential" next to Paenitentiale Theodori. D'oh! And after the first use in the main article?
Gog the Mild Oops, got to that too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early medieval" is a wide range, I understood the Paenitentiale Theodori to be more closely dated than that. And you don't date it at all in the main article.
  • "No reference is made to the word in the late Medieval period". Perhaps insert a "known" or similar?
    • Done. -G

Nicely written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one come back above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MS

[edit]

Lead

  • Fine as it is. Just one minor comment-"philologist" could be delinked but I suppose you consider it to be a non-common occupation (and hence linked it).
    • It's a bit borderline, but I prefer to air on the side of avoiding confusion with links. -G

Definition

  • -

Etymology

  • Writing in 1988, Richard Coates... Coates could be described as "the linguist" here for clarity and concision.
    • Done. -G

That's all from my end Generalissima. MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. Is Anatoly Liberman a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think he counts as a subject matter expert here - his University of Minnesota page says he specializes in Germanic philology, medieval languages, and etymology, and he's recently had a book on etymology published by OUP. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ..outside the norm.. I would make it clear here that we are in early medieval/post-Roman/pre-conquest/... England.
    • Done. - G
  • ...in some of the extant sources... Name one or two.
    • Rephrased this a bit to flow better. - G
  • A link to "emasculated"? Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. - G

@Borsoka: Thank you very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2025 [4].

Tennena Cone

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small subglacial volcano on the southwestern flank of Mount Edziza in British Columbia, Canada, and is a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex series of articles, three of which I have brought to FA class (Mount Edziza, Mount Edziza volcanic complex and Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex) so far. Unlike other volcano articles I have brought to FA, there appears to be no information about volcanic hazards for Tennena Cone. This may be because it's a minor volcanic feature or because the cone is monogenetic (the Wood & Kienle source describes the Mount Edziza volcanic complex as a "group of overlapping basaltic shields, felsic stratovolcanoes, domes, small calderas and monogenetic cones"). Monogenetic volcanoes are typically considered to erupt only once and to be short-lived. Pinging Generalissima since they claimed to have admired my dedication to the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in the last FAC. Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed) and support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA and was impressed already. Happy to support this for FAC on prose. As for media:

History6042's comments

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

That's all I can see to comment on. I have no geological expertise, and I can't say I fully understand some of the technical language, but everything that I think needs to be linked for clarity is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a major caveat

[edit]

Up-front note to coordinators and other reviewers: I was linked to this page on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Licancabur/archive1, which is being reviewed. So it's a bit of a quid-pro-quo review and should be evaluated with this caveat in mind:

@Mike Christie: Sometimes radiometric dating yields dates so inexact that the error bar exceeds the date. I believe that nowadays they are often discarded, but they are technically speaking valid output (and often mean "really young"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked some more things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And did some spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Generalissima

[edit]

I'll do a prose check.

  • Lede is good.
  • Did Souther coin the name or did he have someone else coin this term? (or is this unknown)
    The name was probably coined by Souther, but I couldn't find a source to back that. Volcanoguy 14:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the southern end of the Big Raven Plateau is the Snowshoe Lava Field, of which Tennena Cone is a part I think you can reverse the clauses to make this more clear - "Tennena Cone is a part of the Snowshoe Lava Field, which lies at the southern end of the Big Raven Plateau"
    Yes, but shouldn't the Big Raven Plateau be mentioned first since that part of the article is describing the plateau? Volcanoguy 15:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, fair point! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, great job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And support. :) Good job, as always! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

To follow in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2025 [5].

Black Slave's Cry to Heaven

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a student stage performance that ran for all of two shows. Why is it important? Because one of the performers went on to become one of the PRC's leading drama theorists, and in part due to his influence the play was canonized as the country's first modern drama. The article provides a comprehensive review of the literature, including Ouyang Yuqian's essay that seems to have provided the main source of information for most subsequent studies. Through a friend at Waseda, I was also able to gain access to a contemporary review, which was nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Chris Woodrich, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age and are tagged accordingly. They are placed in appropriate locations in the article. They all have captions and alt texts. I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the worker George is denied recognition" Did you mean George denied his recognition or his recognition was denied by others?
  • "raucous" can you replace that word? as a non-native speaker, I had to do research on what is this.
    • Not done. The source indicates that they escape under the cover of drunkards singing and women going to visit men, and there are few other words that indicate such a wild and disorganized noise briefly. Per WP:DUE, I don't think adding those details would help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but escape" maybe escaped?
  • "able to reach the common person, without the educational requirements of the written word" I think a comma is unnecessary here.
  • I think "thousand" should be with s
    • Not done. As seen at 9000 (number), the standard way of writing the natural number 9,000 is "nine thousand"; since we start with "three", MOS:NUMERAL holds that all parallel measures should be written in the same format (i.e. spelled out). If this were an unspecified number of "thousands", that would make sense. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe add a comma after "thousand in 1903"
  • "Lin drew parallels between the African-American slaves and the experiences of Chinese migrants in the United States" What do you mean by "parallels"?
  • "Also unlike traditional theatre" missing comma
    • Not done. Also unlike traditional theatre is its own subclause. If the article had not discussed diversions from tradition in the immediately preceding sentence, I'd agree. In this case, the entire subclause is continuing the thought of the previous sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The leading character, the slave George Harris," Is the leading character is George Harris also? Because it was written like the leading character and the slave are different person I think?
  • "recalling that it had not lost money," is kinda awkward, maybe reword/rephrase it?
  • What is "packed house"? I apologize for my ignorance
  • "prepared in 1957 by dramatists" comma after this.

I think that's it. Despite that other words are hard for non-native people to understand, I believe that the article is still written very well. Good job! Btw, if you have a moment to review also Ethan Winters, I'll appreciate it. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from LEvalyn -- support

[edit]

In my GA review, I checked cites 5, 19, 24, 29, 36, and 37 with no issues, which covered Liu 2006, Liu 2013 and Qi 2018. For this review, I will check all cites to Yu 2009, Liu 2007, and Liu 2009. The only sources I cannot check are Ouyang 1984 (in Chinese) and Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). Neither of those raises red flags for me, especially since the material cited to Ouyang 1984 is in keeping with how Ouyang is discussed in English-language sources. Any notes/sugestions will be below. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the Asahi Shimbun newspaper article is quite old, it might be a valuable aid to verifiability if the citation included information about a particular archive which contains it, especially if it's been microfilmed or digitized. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a source check question, but I wonder if the beginning of the Legacy section would benefit from a one-sentence explanation of xiqu vs huaju. Something like: "Black Slave's Cry to Heaven has been recognized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama. [Modern Chinese drama, known as huaju, has X traits compared to tradictional opera, or xiqu]. Black Slave's Cry to Heaven gained this recognition based on a history..." In general, I think it's a strength of this article that it minimizes the jargon of theatrical history, so no need if you don't like the idea, but this seemed like a good place to set out that big-picture framing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not a source comment (sorry!), but you need either the comma or the "that" in Shouhua Qi writes, that "none... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LEvalyn,
  • I've added a hidden comment that the item came from the Waseda University Library in a digital format and is available upon request. I don't know if my friend would get in trouble, so I'd rather not put his name if I can help it.
I'm not entirely sure how useful it is, given that we have articles on civilized drama and huaju that go into the differences in detail. I have added a one-sentence summary about the continued emphasis on spoken, rather than sung, dialogue. Aside from MacKerras, Britannica and Oxford Reference both emphasize this point above all others.
Removed the comma.
Thanks for being willing to take another look, LEvalyn!. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden comment is a good idea, that makes sense! Your additions look good to me, and I take your point that the details are well-covered in their respective articles. I'll turn my attention to the actual source review now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "denied recognition for his hard work when his owner Harris takes away his award. When he returns home". Optional: lose one use of "when"?
  • I am not convinced that the block quote complies with MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • Three reasons for the block quote. One, the troupe considered this excerpt from the preface important enough to include on the poster, and thus it speaks to their point of view and emphasis. Two, the sources tend to quote at least part of this quote in discussing the students' political goals in staging the play, showing that it is considered particularly relevant. Three, quoting the text allows for the students' political goals to be cast in their own voice, rather than Wikipedia's voice, which I believe better conforms with NPOV. That being said, I can condense it to one or two paraphrased sentences if truly necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reasoning. That drags it up to borderline IMO. The MoS v IAR; argh! Let me think on't.
  • "Hongō-za theatre". Upper-case T?
  • "Black Slave's Cry to Heaven had two showings". That seems a short run. Is any reason known as to why?
  • Not explicit in the sources, but given their previous production was a single showing and that they had to rent the theatre as an amateur troupe of students in a foreign country (some of them being supported by the RoC government), it's not surprising. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While this adaptation again presented the slaves as freeing themselves, it put greater emphasis on resistance and class struggle while simultaneously decrying ..." Optional again, but "While ... while ..."
  • Any reason for switching citation styles when you get to "Explanatory notes"? I am thinking of WP:PAREN.
That's a novel use of "consensus", but I can be Nelsonian about it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not back to you on the block quote within 48 hours then feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "the Qing dynasty sought to implement reform": suggest linking "reform" to Late Qing reforms.
  • "as it was perceived as being better able to reach the common person without the educational requirements of the written word": how about "as it was perceived as being better able to reach the common person than the written word, since most people could not read"? "Educational requirements" is a bit of a roundabout way to say this. I assume the "most people could not read" is covered by the existing source, but p. 140 of this book would do if you decide to make this change.
  • "began to take their studies in Japan": can we simplify this to "began to study in Japan"?
  • "For this performance, the Spring Willow Society decided to adapt ...": the previous sentence also has "the troupe decided to", so perhaps we can trim this to "... the Spring Willow Society adapted ..."?
  • "The script to this play": should be "The script for this play", shouldn't it? Or is that just a BrEng preference?
  • "In his foreword, Lin likened the slavery of African-American and the experiences of Chinese migrants in the United States": suggest "to" rather than "and".
  • "To advance its mission, the play experienced several modifications during the adaptation process." This seems unnatural phrasing. I assume the mission is the allegory? And it's odd to use the passive to say the play experienced modifications. How about "To bring out the allegory, Zeng Xiaogu made several changes to the play"?
    • I've rephrased to "To bring out the allegory, several modifications were made during the adaptation process." I'm loathe to explicitly attribute these to Zeng Xiaogu when the sources don't, especially given the context of contemporary Chinese drama. Through the 1920s Chinese drama generally used short synopses that were fleshed out by the actors through improvisation. Though Black Slave's Cry to Heaven had a full script, with such a strong cultural leaning toward actor-driven stories it's possible that others in the cast contributed to changes before or during staging. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest giving the date of Yu's comment in the text to make it clearer this was not a contemporary reaction.
  • "has been canonized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama,[35] gaining this recognition based on a history of modern Chinese drama prepared in 1957": would we lose anything by cutting this to "was canonized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama in a history of modern Chinese drama prepared in 1957"? If I understand correctly, this history of drama is the one that identifies the play in this way, and the canonization is accepted still (despite Liu's comment about it being a calculated choice)?
    • Hmm... I feel like the current phrasing makes it clearer that the 1957 canonization is maintained in current sources, rather than being a one-off. Canon can be rewritten, and I know in my own academic background in Indonesian lit that [in said literature] there are ongoing efforts to get certain works incorporated in the canon that had been excluded because of nativist tendencies among earlier writers. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And can we move Liu's remark into the main text? It seems very relevant.

All minor points. I take Gog's point about the blockquote but I think it's OK, given the justifications you cite above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes look good, and I'm fine with your answer to the point you disagreed with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • SC

Comments to follow in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 1 February 2025 [6].

George Washington

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC); Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the founding father George Washington. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the sixth time that this page has been nominated. A previous GA nomination of the article from a decade ago was successful though subsequent FAC nominations did not move forward. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Washington biography which previously had reached about 230Kb in system size, though now condensed to about 160Kb system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this founding father. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cmguy777

[edit]
  • Support: I recommend George Washington pass FA nomination. It is well written. The only issue I noticed is the Introduction does not mention why/when Washington joined the Patriot forces. Maybe something like, "Believing Parliamentary Acts and the King were oppressing American colonists, Washington joined the Patriot forces." Maybe something to that effect. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Would it be good to briefly mention Washington and cherry tree story is just a myth invented by Weems, in the Early life (1732–1752) section? It is an interesting story. Readers might want to know more about it. I know it is mentioned in the article later. Here is the Mount Vernon article: Cherry Tree Myth. Maybe mention the George Washington Cherry Tree Myth has never been verified. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a link for more information on the story in the Legacy section. Since it's a myth, I think that placement is more logical than within the chronology of real events. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The article link I gave mentions the following: "little was known about his relationship with his father, who died when Washington was only eleven years old.3 There is almost no surviving historical evidence about Washington's relationship with his father, and Weems’ claims have never been verified.4" It might be good that the reader knows this in the Early life (1732–1752) section by adding little is known of Washington's relationship with his father, using the source provided. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]

Given the large number of images, I'm only going to highlight any issues:

AirshipJungleman29

[edit]

Alright, let's have another VA3 bio. Comments to follow; as always, they will be suggestions, not demands, so feel free to refuse with justifications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Per MOS:ROLEBIO, the "and planter" bit of the first sentence is relatively non-integral to Washington's importance, and could be removed. The full "Founding Father of the United States" is also a little top-heavy (especially as "of the United States" is duplicated in the first sentence) but I don't quite know how you could slim it.
  • Per MOS:LEADREL, "Washington's first public office was as surveyor of its Culpeper County from 1749 to 1750" is relatively little emphasised in the body (around 75 words) so probably doesn't need a mention in the lead.
  • "In 1752, he became a major in the Virginia Regiment. During the French and Indian War, Washington was promoted to lieutenant colonel and subsequently became head of the Virginia Regiment." is to my eyes, slightly too focused on positions attained, especially considering his role in starting the war. One mention of the Virginia Regiment should do.
  • The lead links "American Revolutionary War" twice (as it does for Patriot (American Revolution)) and doesn't give its start or end dates, which are likely needed per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. In fact, the only event between 1752 and 1787 the lead dates is his 1775 appointment.
  • "His 1796 farewell address became a preeminent statement on republicanism in which he wrote about the importance of national unity and the dangers that regionalism, partisanship, and foreign influence pose to it." is a little clunky grammatically, suggest rephrasing.
  • You could mention Mount Vernon in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AirshipJungleman29, I've done some reworking of the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life - Marriage, civilian and political life
  • "Even though Washington had not served the customary apprenticeship, Thomas Fairfax appointed him surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia" might be undue, but why would Fairfax do that? Also, any relation to William?
  • You might want to give Saint-Pierre's full name at least once.
  • A map of some of the events of the French-Indian war would be handy; there is ample space for images.
Commander in chief of the army - early republic
Presidency - legacy
  • "He was sympathetic to a Federalist form of government and leery of the Republican opposition." this comes before the description of who the Federalists/Republicans were.
Opposition to Jeffersonian Republicanism covered twice in this paragraph. One less now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the planning of a permanent capital" might as well link said capital (I note its history appears as a hatnote above).
The planning phase still did not name city, though linking suggests that it was called D.C. from the start. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be useful to note how the Whiskey Rebellion ended.
Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while removing them from western forts, and also to resolve financial debts remaining from the Revolution" duplicates what comes later in the paragraph, and can probably be removed.
Adapt wording. The actual British abandonment was used to signal border discussions. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson claimed that it angered France...Relations with France deteriorated" seems like the same thing is being said twice very quickly.
Jefferson's claim was verified. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over rumors that Knox had profited from contracts for the construction of U.S. frigates which had been commissioned under the Naval Act of 1794 to combat Barbary pirates" lots of connecting subordinate clauses here, maybe cool it down a little.
Wording shortened. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What papers related to the Jay Treaty?
Washington was siding with Jay is stated earlier in that paragraph, and he is concerned with protecting review of communications associated with his endorsement of Jay. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was dismayed with personal attacks" he should have been a Wikipedian! these personal attacks were the ones referred to in the previous paragraph, correct? in which case a preceding "the" might be useful.
I'm only seeing one 'personal attacks' statement at the start of that section; where is the other one. The Jefferson missives could be expanded if that's what you are mentioning. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what Chernow calls the "glorified façade of wealth and grandeur"" he might call it that but I don't really get what he's on about.
Chernow's phrase is his way a stating that Washington's property looked nice, but that Washington himself was cash poor; for Chernow this is a 'facade of wealth'. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his transition from tobacco to grain crops" surely should be "his plantation's transition" or similar?
'His choice to transition' reads better here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a nationally divisive issue that could undermine the union" the "nationally" is somewhat redundant considering the rest of the sentence.
Washington's public persona was different from his private persona. In this case, he withheld public statement because of the very broad implication of it if uttered publicaly. "National" seems to cover the broad concern, though maybe you have an alternative word to express this. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What petition did the Methodists have?
It was a petition for emancipation to free slaves. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one year after George Washington's death" not necessary
The dating appears to be proper here, since Martha is commemorating her husband's memory precisely one year after his death. I'm not sure what the alternate wording would be here. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth saying that John Augustine Washington was George's younger brother.
Your wording added. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard the phrase "common lore" before.
Its a well used expression which a quick Google search states as: ""Definition: A collection of knowledge or traditions that are passed down orally or in written form." ErnestKrause (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 13, 1978, Washington was officially promoted by the Army" not entirely certain what this is referring to—if it is the General of the Armies position, probably unnecessary detail.
It is in the lede as: "In 1976, Washington was posthumously appointed to the rank of General of the Armies, the highest rank in the U.S. Army." Maybe there are also other accolades, though this one seems quite high. The Army then promoted him in 1978 as a further formal endorsement. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion does not have to be mentioned in the lead. His General of the Armies rank is not a component of his notability; you could say that it was caused by, rather than causing, his notability. The lead is supposed to explain what's notable about him. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those Gilbert Stuart's are already in the article, with a "complete" alternate version by Stuart of the Athenaeum also in use. The Stuart portraits of him are about the best portraits of Washington available. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful article overall. Ping me when the above are attended to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Airship, all responded to - let us know your thoughts. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

Great work on such an epic topic. With the usual caveats of neither being an expert nor a native speaker, I have the following comments:

  • what I miss in the first paragraph are the words independence and Great Britain . It's all too implicit for me. In the second paragraph this is mentioned, but I feel there is too much repetition between first and second paragraph. Not sure how to fix it, but the current first 2 paragraphs don't feel quite right to me. Perhaps the first paragraph should have fewer details and perhaps say something along the lines of "Washington played a central role before and during the American Revolution leading to independece from Britain." And then the 2nd paragraph can talk about leading Patriots etc. Just an idea.
Nikkimaria is reworking the lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Treaty of Paris in 1783 acknowledging --> is there a comma missing after 1783?
The treaty is the noun and acknowledging the verb portion, better without comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with "considerable force" and "precision" --> who are we quoting here?
Chernow's words. Added to article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Valley --> you mean Shenandoah Valley?
Shenandoah added. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • but found undisciplined militia --> just checking if maybe an s is missing? (previous sentence uses militias)
References to "local militias" is distinct from the reference to the Army as a militia. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • above Boston --> north of
Change to north. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Above" is actually correct - the Heights were geographically south of Boston but were above it in elevation, which was a military advantage. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • emboldened his critics --> rephrase so it's clear whose critics
Those who favored Gates as a military leader for the war. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 1779, Arnold began supplying British spymaster John André with sensitive information intended to capture West Point, a key American defensive position on the Hudson River. --> this puzzled me: how could Americans want to capture an American defensive position? Perhaps instead of "intended to capture" spell it out more, something along the lines of "of how the British could capture"
Add emphasis on British as adversary. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to $6.39 million today --> use a specific year as reference point
Chernow's quote was more as a comparison to the Vice President's numbers. Replace with Chernow quote. Inflation is computed from the start date given in the 1700s and may be computed up to the present date. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field" --> does this have to be a quote? If so, who is quoted?
Quote removed since Madison apparently was in the field during the War of 1812 while president: [7].ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see instances of "the US" and "the U.S.". Should there not be a bit of consistency in abbreviation? In any case, per [[MOS:US] "between the US and Spanish territory" should be "between the United States and Spanish territory"
Switching to MOS preference for spelling it out. In other places it seems redundant and could be dropped as an optional adjective. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Slavery section could benefit from a bit of trimming of details
Its trimmed further now by a quarter, as part of the main article link to Wikipedia featured article on Washington and slavery. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Namesakes and monuments: I miss the year in which the federal city was named after Washington, and perhaps by whom, so it doesn't look like he named it himself
The original plans for the city from the 1790s did not include the name of it which might be pointed out or discussed somewhere. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The L'Enfant Plan for the city, developed in 1791
  • Washington protested to "Robert Cary & Co." that the low prices he received for his tobacco and for the inflated prices he was forced to pay on second-rate goods from London --> grammar?
Adjusted grammar. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is an audio file of a version of the article from 5 years ago. A few thousand revisions since. I don't think that can stay.
Its not clear how often this is used, and it is left over as an audio version of the GA article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it - it's quite outdated at this point, it would make sense to create a new one if this is promoted and someone is so inclined. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Infobox, the order of the offices listed puzzles me. The Chancellor of the College of William & Mary seems least significant so I would expect it to come last.
Priority of office seems to be the order being used, with presidency office coming first. Chancellor comes right after presidency. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any guidance in the documentation for Infobox Officeholder about the order. I have seen reverse chronological order used in several infoboxes for U.S. presidents. But that is hard to apply to this case, since his tenure as Chancellor overlapped his presidency.
Our article, Chancellor of the College of William & Mary, states that the position is "ceremonial", which explains how Washington could have held such an important-sounding title while also being the first president of the United States. The workload was not too heavy. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the ordering. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851) caption: can we add name painter? So it doesn't look like crossing took place in 1851
Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwininlondon, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

It'll be a couple days before I can get to this but I want to take a look. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when Gog's done and I'll review. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Born in the Colony of Virginia, Washington joined the Virginia Regiment in 1752 " - this is linked to a regiment which was not formed until 1754. The body states that Washington was assigned to this regiment in 1754, which I suspect is probably what is right; this regiment was only a specific outfit of the Virginia Militia so he could have joined the colony's militia without joining this regiment
  • I've rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington was pictured on the nation's first postage stamp in 1847, and has since appeared on more United States postage stamps than anyone else" - what's the quote from the source on this? I thought the 10c Washington and the 5c Franklin were made available on the same day, although I might be wrong. The Franklin is Scott number 1, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the first. I use to collect stamps a bit but I haven't gotten them out recently for fear that the cats or guinea pigs may find them. My philatelic literature (a 2011 Scott pocket catalog and Griffith's two works on the stamps of 1920s) does not have a direct answer on this
  • "George Washington has appeared on more U.S. postage stamps than any other individual - including this one [referencing the stamp pictured above this text, which is the 1847 10c], the first issued for nationwide use, in 1847". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " so on May 28 Washington commanded an ambush" - I think this is a bit of a MOS:EGG issue. The linking only on ambush looks very much like this is just going to be a link to the article for ambushes, rather than a link to a battle. Would piping the link to "an ambush" be acceptable?
  • A similar thing, although a little less bad, happens with the Battle of Monongahela link later in the section
  • Moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, General Howe blundered, taking his army from New York City south to Philadelphia rather than joining Burgoyne near Albany." - Is "blundered" the best word here? I read Rupert Furneaux's work on the Saratoga campaign a few months ago and got the impression that Howe going the wrong direction was more horrible planning/communication/officers not getting along rather than a simple blunder
    I'm not sure the exact reason is important to the biography of Washington, so I've rephrased to avoid the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Early Republic section, I'll try to finish the rest of the article when I can. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF, looking forward to further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington reactivated his interests in the Great Dismal Swamp and Potomac Canal projects, begun before the war, " - is the Great Dismal Swamp project the Dismal Swamp Canal?
  • The canal was part of a larger project to drain the swamp and put the land to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To that end, he argued against the majestic titles proposed by the Senate, including "His Majesty" and "His Highness the President"." - the lead mentions "Mr. President" but the article body never does; this seems like a good place to put that
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he held title to more than 58,000 acres (23,000 ha) of land across Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and the Northwest Territory" - wasn't Ohio part of the Northwest Territory in 1799?

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF, let me know if anything else is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fromSupport from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
  • Cite 306: "Vicchio 2019, pp. 27" should be p.
  • "He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and opposed the perceived oppression". Merely a suggestion, perhaps 'He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses where he opposed the perceived oppression'.
  • Link Continental Congress?
  • "while sanctioning the Jay Treaty with Great Britain." Perhaps 'approved' or 'ratified' instead of sanctioned. It is not a common usage - I had to look it up - and commonly has negative connotations, as in "imposing sanctions".
  • "the highest rank in the U.S. Army. Washington consistently ranks in both". Mildly unfortunate that rank and ranks appear so close together.
  • A model of a lead. The one thing I would be inclined to change would be to add a sentence or so covering his wartime experience. This is - IMO - the crux of his notability but is covered with less than half a short sentence. This fails to capture the weight given to this period in the article.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note c: This reads as if it were only used this way in the 16th century. Perhaps "The mid-16th-century word "Indian" was used during the 18th century to describe the Indigenous peoples of the Americas'? And link Indigenous peoples?
  • Note e: "Washington protested to "Robert Cary & Co." regarding the low prices he received for his tobacco and for the inflated prices he was forced to pay on second-rate goods from London." Is "for" a typo? Suggest deleting it.
  • " Organization of the Board of War underwent several significant changes after its inception." When was its inception?
  • Some image captions have events linked, eg "the Battle of the Monongahela"; others don't, eg "Map showing key locations in the French and Indian War".

Legacy

  • "In 1976, he was posthumously appointed General of the Armies of the United States ... On March 13, 1978, Washington was militarily promoted to the rank of General of the Armies." I am now confused. And is the word "militarily" needed?
    He was legally appointed in 1976 but actually promoted by the military in 1978. I've rephrased this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to humanize Washington, making him look less stern, and to inspire "patriotism and morality" and to foster "enduring myths" ". "... to ... and to ... and to ..."
  • "Washington appeared on the nation's first postage stamp in 1847, and has since appeared on more United States postage stamps than anyone else." Could a synonym be found for one use of "appeared"?

Personal life

  • "sustained injury during the birth of Patsy, her final child, making additional births impossible". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "though historians dispute his paternity." All of those who have opined, or some?
    Some feel it is likely, others that it is unlikely. Suggestions on wording? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington was a talented equestrian. Jefferson described him as "the best horseman of his age".[335] He collected thoroughbreds at Mount Vernon; his two favorite horses were Blueskin and Nelson. He enjoyed hunting. He was an excellent dancer and frequently attended the theater. He drank alcohol in moderation but was morally opposed to excessive drinking, smoking tobacco, gambling, and profanity." This reads more like a dumping ground for factoids than engaging prose of a professional standard.

Philosophy and views

Post-presidency (1797–1799)

  • "Washington was known to be rich because of the well-known". "known ... well-known". Perhaps switch the first to 'believed' or 'assumed'?
  • "glorified façade of wealth and grandeur". Needs attributing in line, as do several other quotations.
  • "he sold individual lots to middle-income investors rather than multiple lots to large investors, believing they would more likely commit to making improvements." The sentence structure leaves it unclear which group the last clause applies to. (A comma after "middle-income investors" would resolve this.
  • "At the time of his death, his estate was worth an estimated $780,000 in 1799". Isn't one of the first six and last two words redundant? Perhaps not, as 'At the time of his death in 1799, ...' seems fine.
  • "At the time of his death, his estate was worth an estimated $780,000 ... Washington's peak net worth was estimated to be ... Washington held title to ..." It would be helpful if a year or years could be attached to the last two. (By implication they were not in 1799, although the last is especially vague.)
  • Unfortunately the source does not specify a date for peak worth. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next morning, however, he awoke to an inflamed throat and difficulty breathing." I don't think "however" is necessary.
  • "which included multiple doses of calomel, a purgative, and". If "a purgative" refers to calomel rather than a separate treatment could it be separated by dashes rather than commas.
  • "The funeral was held four days after his death on December 18, 1799". 'The funeral was held on December 18, 1799, four days after his death' would remove an ambiguity.
  • "IMO the "Death and burial" section is (quite a bit) too long.
All addressed except as noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early republic (1783–1789)

  • "Potomac canal". No upper-case C?
Upper case, and linked to the preferred Wikipedia Patowmack Canal ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To make his estate profitable again, Washington undertook a new landscaping plan and succeeded in cultivating a range of fast-growing trees and native shrubs"> This may be me, but where is the profit in shrubs?
'Fast-growing' appears to apply both the trees and the shrubs, assumed to be resold for replanting elsewhere by buyers. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "agriculture" really need linking?
Drop link to generic agriculture. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of their biggest efforts was getting Washington to attend." Hmm. Maybe 'They put great effort into persuading Washington to attend.' or similar?
Can add 'persuasion'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though a quorum was not attained until May 25". What was the quorum?
Linking 'quorum' for minimum of required attendance. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Congressional quorum was reached on April 5". And again.
Its now linked. 13 states with each required to provide a minimum number of representatives. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the militia fired a 13-gun salute." Why 13? (Was it by analogy to the 13-gun salute due a representative of a king? (At the time.))
In the cites Cooke describes the salute, but Chernow does not. The rule of thumb, often very exacting as to rank, was that more guns would signify larger associated significance. The wording could be changed here to other accolades of the occasion. For example, Chernow reports that one observer stated that he saw in Washington at this moment a "devout fervency". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this as I don't think it's vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the issues of slavery". Plural?
Its a long list in the 1700s: abolition, manumission, justified, unjustified, cruelty, inhumanity, economic aspects, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington gave a brief address before immediately retiring to the President's House." I don't see what "immediately" adds to the sentence. Or even why a reader would care where Washington retired to after the speech.
It signals the end of the ceremony. Change wording to 'end the ceremony'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he eventually asked French minister to the United States Edmond-Charles Genêt be recalled." something is missing after "asked" ('for the' ?). At the moment Genet is the person being asked. And false title alert.
'That' added before French minister. His title can be abridged, though it is his title. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported by British". Were they supporting the war generally, the White settlers or the Native Americans?
The Battle of Fallen Timbers says the British supported the Native Americans. Wording adjusted. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After earlier failures to end the conflict, in 1794 American troops defeated Native American forces at the Battle of Fallen Timbers." This implies that the Battle of Fallen Timbers ended the war. Did it?
It ended the battle between the White settlers and the Native Americans. Wording adjusted. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Justice John Jay acted as Washington's negotiator". Washington's negotiator or the United States?
Jay acts on Washington's behalf. Wording adjusted. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the United States modified the boundary with Canada". A modification or a clarification? If the former, in whose favour?
Ferling appears to say that the abandoned forts were annexed. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relations with France deteriorated afterward". After what?
French disaffection for the Jay Treaty. Adjust wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared the authority". ! Is there a more felicitous way of expressing this?
Seizing ships was authorized. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relations with the Spanish were more successful". Can relations be successful? (As opposed to relationships.)
"International relations" is the usual phrase used here. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington warned against foreign alliances and their influence in domestic affairs, and bitter partisanship and the dangers of political parties." I am confused. Probably by and being used three times. A comma after alliances would help. A rewrite would help more.
Trying a full rewrite of the sentence to clarify entangling foreign alliances. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "historian Ron Chernow called the "Farewell Address" one of the most influential statements on republicanism." Should republicanism be linked? (Cus I am very shakey as to what is being referred to.)
Link added. He is a historian and he is also Washinton's biographer, if that if preferable. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try it with "Washington's biographer Ron Chernow". ErnestKrause (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed except as noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in chief of the army

  • "The American Revolutionary War broke out on April 19, 1775.[69] Washington hastily departed Mount Vernon on May 4, 1775, to join the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia.[70] On June 14, 1775". There is no need to mention the year at each mention of the date.
  • "By the end of the war, around one-tenth of Washington's army were Black." 1. Why the mention of "Washington's army"? Was this distinct from the Continental Army? 2. Using "were" when referring to a singular army is clumsy. Perhaps 'By the end of the war, around one-tenth of the soldiers in Washington's army were Black'?
  • "As Washington headed for Boston". On his own or commanding any troops?
  • Chernow indicates that he had some personal assistants with him but does not mention troops. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington ordered his officers ... while removing incompetent officers. "Is this right, or was it Washington who did the removing?
  • "New York City, a Loyalist stronghold". This makes it seem that New York was held by the Loyalists, so "He also ordered his occupying forces" jars. Did he fight his way in?
  • "Howe dispatched Washington as "George Washington, Esq." to negotiate peace". What?
  • "Washington declined". Declined what?
  • "and 850 captured with supplies." In need of rephrasing.
  • "disrupted British supply lines and expelled them from parts of New Jersey." Expelled the supply lines?
  • Some of the "Crossing the Delaware, Trenton, and Princeton" section seems over detailed for a biography of Washington. Eg "two died of exposure."

I am going to stop here, having reviewed most of the article, and oppose. Given the number, type and level of my comments above I thing this was under prepared when it was brought to FAC on the prose and MoS front. It seems well on its way to FA level, but needs more work than is appropriate while actually at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed except as noted. I've also made additional edits along these lines to the rest of the article, and invite you to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For you Nikkimaria, sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second run through
[edit]

Lead

  • "for his role in American independence" reads a little oddly. Maybe 'for his role in bringing about American independence'?
Going with your way. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was named a delegate to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, which appointed him commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in 1775. He directed a poorly organized and equipped force against disciplined British troops". The outbreak of war, when, what it was called, and between whom seems to be missing. The amount of information in the lead about what Washington did during the war - close to zero - does not match the weight given to this in the main article.
The Declaration of Independence was taken as the formal statement that a revolution had taken place, although hostilities were present for more than a year before 7-4-1776. Small addition to lede seems useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this section of the lead, open to suggestions on other details that might warrant mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ... achieved an alliance with the French in 1778". The main article does not suggest that it was Washington who "achieved" this alliance.
It was the 13 colonies that made the treaty. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting Treaty of Paris in 1783 acknowledged the independence of the United States." Maybe 'In resulting Treaty of Paris in 1783 the British acknowledged the independence of the United States."
It was the sovereign independence of the United States from Great Britain. Wording adjusted. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "Washington often visited Mount Vernon and Belvoir, the plantation of William Fairfax". Should planation be plural? Ah, reading for what is a fourth time it has clicked. Maybe 'Washington often visited Belvoir, the plantation of William Fairfax, and Mount Vernon ...'?
Adjust to your order of listing the plantations. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Patsy suffered from epileptic attacks from age 12". Suggest deleting "from age 12".
Drop age clause. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He believed the Stamp Act 1765 was an "Act of Oppression" ". Why the upper-case A and O?
Lower case now. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Acts were mostly repealed in 1770." Why the upper-case A?
It is a reference to the Townsend Acts. Added clarification to article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commander in chief of the army
  • "the colonial governor of Virginia issued a proclamation promising freedom to slaves if they joined the British." Should that have 'army' or 'armed forces' on the end?
Specify British forces. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the war, around one-tenth of the soldiers in the Continental Army were Black." Free, enslaved, or a mix?
It appears to be a mix. "Washington gave a cautious response to a 1779 proposal from his young aide John Laurens for the recruitment of 3,000 South Carolinian enslaved workers who would be rewarded with emancipation. He was concerned that such a move would prompt the British to do the same, leading to an arms race in which the Americans would be at a disadvantage, and that it would promote discontent among those who remained enslaved". ErnestKrause (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Siege of Boston" reminds a reader of the year three times. Once is sufficient.
Once is sufficient. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9,000 British troops and Loyalists". In total, or 9,000 soldiers plus an unknown number of Loyalists?
The number of indigenous Loyalists is not specified, though the common ascription is that of the colonists in general, athird were Loyalists, a third were Revolutionary, and a third were neutral. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted another source giving a more precise breakdown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington was responsible for delaying the retreat". Was this a good thing or a bad thing?
Washington yielded the ground, though he would have preferred to theoretically have more support to hold his position. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "Battle of Long Island" probably has too much detail; "Crossing the Delaware, Trenton, and Princeton" almost certainly does.
Too much detail there. Trim by about twenty percent. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadwalader is introduced as the leader of a column. In the next paragraph, suddenly "The forces under Cadwalader and Hugh Mercer were being driven back by the British when Mercer was mortally wounded." A person called Mercer is introduced and dies in the same sentence. Why?
It was a joint command, and it might be inaccurate not to mention this. Cadwalader was not alone in command. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comment above I've trimmed this section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General John Burgoyne led the Saratoga campaign south from Quebec". I suspect that what he actually led was a British army.
Specify Burgoyne and his British troops. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette". As this already an abbrevited version of his address, consider slimming it further to 'Gilbert, Marquis de Lafayette'. And as this is the English language Wickipedia consider 'Gilbert, Marquis of Lafayette'.
This version requires piping which I have done, though du Motier links directly. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was isolated from support and ultimately surrendered." Just a suggestion: → 'was isolated from support and forced to surrender.'?
Now 'forced to surrender'. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gates' victory emboldened his critics". I completely misread this, thinking why? Maybe 'Gates' victory emboldened his critics who favored Gates as a military leader, as Washington suspected it would.'
It looks like it emboldened Washington's critics, after Gates victory. I've adjusted the wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There they lost between 2,000 and 3,000 men as a result of disease and lack of food, clothing, and shelter." "lost" implies that all 2,000 to 3,000 died, while I assume some (most) were invalided out or deserted. Or left when their terms expired?
His army was reduced to below 9,000 men due to harsh winter attrition. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In early 1778, the French entered into a Treaty of Alliance with the Americans.[119] In May 1778 ..." Delete the second "1778".
Deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "West Point espionage" section: most of this seems (to me) irrelevant to an article on Washington.
Washington did take the Benedict Arnold treason seriously and as a personal affront. The West Point section is there to briefly summarize this treason. Is there a suggestion here to delete or to abridge the West Point section? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the peace treaty did not happen for two more years". I am unsure that peace treaties "happen". Maybe 'Although the peace treaty was not signed for two more years' or similar?
That's correct. Treaties are normally negotiated. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$450,000 ... equivalent to $9.53 million in 2023 $25,000 ... equivalent to $6.39 million today", 1. These seem to use wildly different conversion rates. 2. Don't use "today".
Conversion rates look inconsistent. Possibly Nikkimaria can confirm this tonight. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversions over this period of time are notoriously unreliable and vary wildly depending on what method is used for calculation. I've removed the values that are not explicitly included in the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early republic
  • "the Articles of Confederation was". If there are plural articles, "was" should be 'were'.
Plural form now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Constitutional Convention.
Already linked in the Lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linkable words/terms should be linked at their first appearance in the lead and in the main body of the article.
Linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington won the majority of every state's electoral votes". I thought he won every electoral vote, but that not all states participated. Are you sure that Chernow says different?
It was 'unanimous' according to Chernow. Quote added to article. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency
  • "Washington opposed the divisiveness of political parties". I am just musing here, would it be slightly more accurate to say something like 'Washington opposed political parties [or 'party politics'] which he saw as divisive'?
This point is usually termed factionalism. I'll adjust the wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He gave a brief address to end the ceremony and retired to the President's House." Recommend deleting as unnecessary detail. "A newly elected politician made a speech and then left." This is notable?
It notes the conclusion of the ceremony. I'll adjust the wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything ends. Vanishingly few of those endings are worthy of note in a Wikipedia article.
I've removed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extended quote in "Farewell Address" seems to add little, and could and should be boiled down to about one sentence of prose per MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
Shortened quote, and blockquote format deleted. Paragraph structure tighter now. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-presidency
  • "In 1830, a disgruntled ex-employee of the estate attempted to steal what he thought was Washington's skull." Assuming it wasn't Washington's skull, this reads like trivia.
    It was not, but the theft was the impetus to actually follow through on the new tomb. I've reordered this to make that clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy and views
  • "Prior to the Revolutionary War, Washington's views on slavery matched those of most Virginia planters of the time." Er, which was what?
    Essentially, that they were useful for making money. I've added a quote on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • "though historians dispute his paternity." This implies that all historians so dispute, is that the case?
Simplifying wording. This is covered in the Chernow biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Could Henry Lee be introduced.
Now introduced as Virginia's Governor. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 21st century, Washington's reputation has been critically scrutinized." should be in the previous paragraph, not as the opening sentence of a discussion of Washington's treatment of Native Americans.
Repositioned in previous paragraph now. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A startlingly impressive article. I am leaning support. I shall take a couple of days off then go through the responses. Nudge me if I dally. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very classy work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Leverett

[edit]
For this sentence:

Relations with France deteriorated following the treaty being supported by the United States and, two days before Washington's term ended, the French Directory authorized seizure of American ships, and left succeeding president John Adams with prospective war

I propose:

Relations with France deteriorated after the treaty took effect. Two days before Washington's term ended, the French Directory authorized seizure of American ships. Succeeding president John Adams was left with the prospect of war.

Have amended, with slight variation - does that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bruce leverett: Are there any further comments and criticisms which you might think of which could be added to the narrative to help gain your Support for the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the FA process, but it looks like since I left fingerprints here, I am expected to vote yea or nay. Both my questions/comments in this discussion have been answered satisfactorily, so I'm OK with promotion to FA. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Happy to support! Oh boy this is a biggie, I figured I should review it, since I have an FAC of my own.

  • "When the American Revolutionary War against the British began in 1775, Congress appointed Washington commander-in-chief of the Continental Army." - not sure how much this point has been discussed, but when I see "Congress", I think House of Representatives and the Senate, not the "Continental Congress", so I'm not sure if it's worth clarifying here or not. The average person wouldn't be confused, but for such a big important article, you want everyone to understand it. But then I realize you'd have "Continental" twice in the same sentence. I'm guessing the current writing is to avoid that?
  • 1738, added. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lawrence Washington's service as adjutant general of the Virginia militia inspired George to seek a commission." - that's kind of vague, and even having clicked on commission, I barely know what George was "seeking". Did he make an active effort toward his own promotion?
    Yes, but later. I've added "militia" here for clarity. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington said that at this meeting Tanacharison named him Conotocaurius. This name, meaning "devourer of villages", had been given to his great-grandfather John Washington in the late 17th century by the Susquehannock." - I feel like the second sentence needs an "also", if I'm understanding it correctly.
  • Added "previously". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington was suffering from severe dysentery so did not initially travel with the expedition forces." - considering how much this section talks about the rest of the war, I want to know how/when he acquired dysentery. Or was it just common at the time and no surprise?
  • "When he rejoined Braddock at Monongahela" - if you have when Washington acquired dysentery, and then clarify here that he rejoined while he was still sick (instead of finding out a few sentences later)
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the engagement, Washington had two horses shot out from under him" - so just to clarify, two of Washington's horses were shot? I'm pretty sure that's what it says, but the grammar could be even stronger so it's even clearer
  • That's correct - the current wording is to specify that both were shot as he was riding them, as opposed to (eg) while tethered. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though he failed to realize a royal commission" - realize or receive?
  • Both? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he changed Mount Vernon's primary cash crop from tobacco to wheat and expanded operations to include flour milling and hemp farming" - is there a reason you linked flour milling but not hemp farming?
  • The redirect is to a more general term which IMO is not likely to be any more familiar. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, it would be nice to have a non-jargon explanation for "aide-de-camp", even if it's a word or two
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the war, around one-tenth of the soldiers in the Continental Army were Black, with some obtaining freedom." - the last part seems possibly irrelevant to Washington, unless I'm mistaken?
  • This was added in response to Gog's question above about whether these were free or enslaved men. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington had 23,000 men, mostly raw recruits and militia" - is "raw" the best word?
  • Replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington crossed the Delaware River into Pennsylvania" - is this the famous one, or was that the second one, when "Washington returned to New Jersey on January 3, 1777"?
  • The famous one was preceding Trenton. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1778, General Clinton captured Savannah, Georgia, a key port in the American South. The following year, the British repelled an attack on the city by American patriots and French naval forces, which bolstered the British war effort.[129] In January 1780, Clinton attacked Charles Town, South Carolina, defeating General Lincoln. By June, the British had occupied the South Carolina Piedmont.[130] Clinton returned to New York and left 8,000 troops under the command of General Charles Cornwallis.[131] Congress replaced Lincoln with Horatio Gates; after his defeat in the Battle of Camden, Gates was replaced by Nathanael Greene, Washington's initial choice, but the British had firm control of the South." - this article is about George Washington, right? It mentions Washington only once here, so I'm just checking if I'm in the right article :P
  • Streamlined. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington reactivated his interests in the Great Dismal Swamp and Potomac Canal projects, begun before the war, though neither paid him any dividends.[157] He undertook a 34-day, 680-mile (1,090 km) trip to check on his land holdings in the Ohio Country." - this sounds like they're related, but I don't think that's the case?
  • "The final version was voted on and signed by 39 of 55 delegates on September 17, 1787." - this is unsourced
  • Now sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chernow summarizes the results: "all 69 electors voted for Washington, making him the only president in American history to win unanimously." - is this really a quote that's needed? I had to do a search for who Chernow was. You can still cite Chernow, but Washington being the only president to win unanimously is a pretty well-known fact that doesn't need to be a quote.
  • Rephrased
  • "John Adams was elected vice president." - the article talks a lot about the Revolutionary War, but not much about why Adams was picked
  • Adams wasn't picked by Washington, he just got the second-most votes. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh, totally forgot that's how it was back then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He exercised restraint in using his veto power, writing that "I give my Signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance."" - neat quote, but I had to look at the linked article to find out Washington made two vetoes in his presidency. Meaning nine presidents issues fewer vetoes than Washington. Just seemed a bit off
  • Not sure I follow? The article doesn't claim he used it the least, just that he used it judiciously. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh it's ok. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other domestic issues during Washington's first term included the selection and planning of a permanent capital,[194] the passing of the Tariff of 1789, the passage of several constitutional amendments including the Bill of Rights, and continuing debates concerning slavery[195] and expansion into Native American territory." - that's a lot for one sentence, especially having the word "and" three times.
  • Trimmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " At the time of his death in 1799, his estate was worth an estimated $780,000,[244] and he held title to more than 58,000 acres (23,000 ha) of land across Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and the Northwest Territory.[244] Washington's peak net worth was estimated to be $587 million in 2020 dollars." - so the $587 million is basically 200 years of inflation? I don't understand the 2020 part, and why it isn't more recent than that, if it has to be included.
  • Moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "five pints" be converted to metric units?
  • "He may have taken communion regularly prior to the Revolution, but he did not do so afterwards." - seems like an odd thing to include, unless the Revolution changed him and his beliefs?

All in all, a good article. It's a lengthy read, and a few parts I wondered if they were necessary. But then a few other parts I wondered if there should be a bit more info. I know it's a lot to balance for such an important subject, so I appreciate all of the work you have done so far. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support now, thanks Nikkimaria for all of the fixes and tweaks! There's the last part about the Dismal Swamp/Ohio Country that I think could be tweaked a bit, but the article is certainly good enough for me to support its candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Do we need note "a"? Should we always explain the differences between calendars?
  • This kind of footnote is a recommendation of MOS:OSNS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family moved to Little Hunting Creek...Lawrence inherited Little Hunting Creek and renamed it Mount Vernon.. As the wl shows that Little Hunting Creek is a body of water, the sentence does not make sense for me. Perhaps to a manor house, a farm, at ... Creek/named for the nearby creek?
  • Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Ohio Valley: the British were constructing forts along the Ohio River, and the French between the Ohio River and Lake Erie. I would rephrase to avoid a dublink and repetitions: "...the valley of the Ohio River ... along the river ... between the Ohio ..."
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the ensuing battle ended in Washington's surrender....The Virginia Regiment was divided and Washington was offered a captaincy... For me a reference to the fact that he either was not captured or was freed is missing.
  • Added. 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Why is note "d" a note?
This was John Adams' assessment and opinion at that time. The prestige among the larger states like Virginia, as opposed to smaller ones such as Rhode Island, was one of the concerns. Also, there was the added benefit of Washington's fellow dignitaries in Virginia like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Henry who collectively held considerable weight among the founding fathers. The current version of the narrative defers to the opinion of John Adams of Massachusetts on this issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think for somebody whose knowledge of the history of the USA is limited some information is missing here. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note "f", name the author of the quote.
  • I still do not understand. I am sure for people from the USA this is a clear statement but for me sounds like one from a speech at a school celebration: "X's acts paved the way for our country's/city's happy future.." . Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a part of the comprehensive footnote there could be shifted into the main article if you prefer. The current version of that footnote states that: "Thomas Jefferson praised Washington for his "moderation and virtue" in relinquishing command. Reportedly, upon being informed of Washington's plans by painter Benjamin West, King George III remarked: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."" ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, this is an uninformative and bombastic statement but this may be the consequence of my childhood in Communist Hungary: I heard similar statements about Lenin, and other Communist leaders several times in school celebrations.
  • ...; Professor John E. Ferling wrote that he was delighted to be "free of the bustle of a camp and the busy scenes of public life" Is this necessary? Ferling is not an eyewittness.
  • The terms of the treaty did not meet with universal approval - see the Jefferson claim later in the paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Washington's Masonic lodge... Previously, we are not informed that he was a Free Mason.
I've added that he was a Freemason since 1752 was the year he was initiated with cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the controversial European lodges Controversial? Is this neutral?

Although I have reservations about two sentences, they could not prevent me from supporting the promotion of this exceptionally well written, informative and thoroughly researched article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks not done: please let me know if they are required or wanted and I'll sort. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The capitalisation goes a little off in a few places for the book titles, including he following (examples only and there are one or two others you need to sort):
    • Flexner, George Washington: the Forge of Experience: Capital T after the colon
Fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: an: Capital A after the colon

Fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • The American Revolution As Seen: lower case for "as"
Fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ragsdale, Washington at the Plow: the: Capital T after the colon
Fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 58: page number for Gardner?
Online version is not paginated. It is linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 129: page number for Philbrick?
Page 269. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 130 & 131: page number for Palmer?
Nikkimaria, the source code for the notes have the page numbers though they are not displayed on the printed Wikipedia page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 187: page number for Banner?
Nikkimaria, there appears to be a pay wall on this link now. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 212: page number for Estes 2001?
Nikkimaria. Only Estes 2000 has page numbers. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 279: page number for Twohig?
Online version is not paginated. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 329: Kleber: Why is this not listed in with the rest of the journals?
Now added to Journals. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance the sources look reliable and of good quality, but I'll go over it properly tomorrow, as well as checking for any major gaps etc. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've spent time looking through the lists of highly respected biographies on Washington, and while there are one or two gaps in the huge number of works available, it cannot be said that this is not 'a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature'. No sources dominate the references and all appear to be used appropriately (ie. the more specialist works are used to cover their areas of concern, not other aspects of Washington's life, etc). As such, this is a pass of the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi ErnestKrause and Nikkimaria, my comments:

  • Add the inflation-adjusted value for the 1800 pounds of debt either through the Inflation template or the National Archives currency convertor?
The inflation adjuster app has been working with irregularity, and the article has deleted them because of unreliability. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked in Commander section. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We go from "Washington had 23,000 men", then suffered "1,500 Patriot casualties"; but on Washington's retreat to New Jersey, we say he had 5,400 troops. What accounts for the remainder 16,100 troops? What were the casualties and desertions, and could we list them?
Casualties, desertions, POWs, expiring enlistments, etc - but commenters above have noted that details about the war that are not specific to Washington's biography are better left out. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led his men in a surprise attack on the Hessians": Could we clarify that it was successful, even though this is strongly implied?
Add it was successful. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This battle, like many others, was in a previous version before the article was trimmed. It seems better to go with the current trimmed version since the article is still fairly thorough. Removing the link. For example, a previous version of the article had a link to Battle of Quinton's Bridge which is no longer in use like other battles. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention the Battle of Princeton in January 1777, then directly jump to the Battle of Brandywine in September 1777. Could we mention the interim events in brief? The Battle of Princeton article says "With news that Cornwallis was approaching, Washington knew he had to leave Princeton. Washington wanted to push on to New Brunswick and capture a British pay chest of 70,000 pounds, but Major Generals Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene talked him out of it. Instead, Washington moved his army to Somerset Courthouse on the night of January 3, then marched to Pluckemin by January 5, and arrived at Morristown by sunset the next day for winter encampment". Consider incorporating some of that?
We already have the winter encampment at Morristown included? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed that, my apologies. Could you mention how long his army wintered, perhaps in a note? It would help to clarify the 8 month gap between the battles of Princeton and Brandywine. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next major engagement came towards the end of summer. Optionally, its possible to add that "George Washington ordered a bold move on February 6, 1777, to have the entire Continental Army inoculated," if an intermediate date is needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the second link to Benedict Arnold?
Drop second link to Arnold. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington sent Lafayette south to counter Arnold's efforts.": We mention the Southern Theatre combat but not its outcome. Consider mentioning this in some detail, either in the body or as a note?
The paragraphs directly below that sentence which you quote state the progress of the southern theatre operations as leading to: "By late September, Patriot-French forces surrounded Yorktown, trapping the British Army, while the French navy emerged victorious at the Battle of the Chesapeake." ErnestKrause (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the inflation-adjusted value for the $450,000 expenses incurred by Washington?
See note above. Inflation app has been unreliable. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club the two paragraphs of the First presidential election subsection?
Adjust paragraph break. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the inflation-adjusted figures for the presidential and vice-presidential salary?
Wikipedia inflation app not reliable as of late. See note above. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected Madison and Randolph. Not sure about your links for Knox and Hamilton; Knox was Sec of War, and Hamilton was Sec of Treasury. Do you mean the First term? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All three linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the inflation-adjusted value for the $780,000 valuation of his estate?
See above. Inflation app does not appear reliable. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Anglican Church (probably Anglicanism)?
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous editors preferred to link to American Enlightenment as linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is linked in the Return to Mount Vernon section. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
City is linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the biblio, link to Henry Graff, Stuart Banner, Eric McKitrick, Mark J. Rozell, Dumas Malone, Thomas Fleming (historian), Robert K. Murray, Neil Irvin Painter, Don Higginbotham, William B. Willcox, Walter L. Arnstein, Robert K. Wright Jr., François Furstenberg and Philip D. Morgan?
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove author-mask from Lengel 2015? The biblio renders in two columns on PC, and one has to scroll all the way down to Lengel 2005 to see who the masked author is.
This appears to be a screen-size-specific issue - on my screen, Lengel is in the middle of three columns. I think the only way to avoid issues of this type would be to remove all masks? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matarisvan, see responses above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause and @Nikkimaria, I have one response above on the wintering in Morristown. Not adding inflation-adjusted figures is ok for me. My clarification on the "the third links to Henry Knox and Alexander Hamilton": Henry Knox is linked 3 times: first in the "Commander in chief of the army (1775–1783)" section, second in the "Constitutional Convention of 1787" sub-section, third in the "First term" subsection (in the body, not in the cabinet infobox). Alexander Hamilton is similarly linked three times, first in the "Commander in chief of the army (1775–1783)" section, second in the "Constitutional Convention of 1787" sub-section, third in the "First term" subsection (in the body, not in the cabinet infobox). Also, I mistakenly asked you to Neil Irvin Painter in the biblio, when the correct link text was Nell Irvin Painter. Once these three edits are done, I will add my support vote. Matarisvan (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and nice to hear your comments Matarisvan. They should all be in the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, happy to support. Matarisvan (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 February 2025 [8].

Saxophone Sonata (Creston)

[edit]
Nominator(s): UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Creston's music was widely performed during the mid-20th century, but today he is often known for his more unusual instrumentation. His Sonata for E♭ Alto Saxophone and Piano (1939) is a cornerstone of the instrument's classical repertoire and is an example of his efforts to help the musical underdogs. The article underwent a much-appreciated GA review by Aza24 over the holidays, with other pre-FAC suggestions attended to. I now submit it for your consideration. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A few minor points on the prose:

  • "several tonal centres" – as the article is quite rightly in AmE one might expect "centers" here.
  • "benefitted from their provision of accompanists" – is "benefitted" with two t's usual in AmE? Fine if so. (In the King's English we spell it "benefited", but to each his own.)
  • "finalised at a meeting" – not "finalized"?
  • "Unaware to Creston" – odd construction: Creston was no doubt unaware but the fact was unknown rather than unaware to him.
  • Notes b, c and d could do with citations.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Tim, they should now be resolved. I had originally intended to write in BrE but I've switched the regional spellings as AmE does make more sense. I've removed [b] and [c], on second thoughts I don't think they are needed. [d] now has a citation to Slomski 1994. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now, it seems to me. Happy to add my support for promotion to FA. Good prose, well chosen illustration, evidently balanced, and well and widely sourced. – Tim riley talk 21:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Comments

  • " A recipient of a 1938 Guggenheim Fellowship for composition, part of his wide-ranging output was" - this construction indicates that "part of his wide-ranging output" was the recipient of the fellowship, which I presume isn't what you mean.....?
  • "In Spring 1939" - don't think spring needs a capital letter
  • " the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City" => " the LaBudde Special Collections at the University of Missouri–Kansas City"
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the history section - back to do the rest later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this first round of comments, Chris! They should all be dealt with now. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an appropriate link for "pantonality"?
  • "as opposed to his baroque-inspired Suite." - is it correct to have a capital S here where it seems to be being used generically rather than referring to a specific piece?
  • "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata also difficult" => "The piano accompaniment to Creston's sonata is also difficult"
  • "Creston had previously expressed the original tempi were too fast " => "Creston had previously expressed that the original tempi were too fast "
  • Note d needs a full stop
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these should now be done. I've not linked pantonality as I can't seem to find an article on-wiki that fits how Creston uses the word. I have also kept the capitalised "Suite", but made it clearer that it is specifically that piece. Thanks again! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 08:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco and passed media review

[edit]

Responding to a request for non-specialist editors on Discord.

  • Any more recent details on recordings? 1980 was 45 years ago... surely there have been more since?
  • Agree with Chris about the fellowship mention
  • "Cecil Leeson has been the greatest stimulus for the enrichment of the saxophone repertory, and I am most for having been chosen a contributor to the repertory." - Is this missing a word after "most"?
  • aside from the exceptions of Glazunov's - aside from the exception feels redundant
  • In Spring 1939, - Per MOS:SEASONS, this should be "in early 1939"
  • The New Music Group were chosen - I believe in American English "The New Music Group was chosen" is correct.
  • Creston's manuscript is held by the LaBudde Special Collections at University of Missouri–Kansas City as part of a collection donated by his wife, Louise Creston. - Do we need to use Louise's last name here?
  • despite Leeson's tour, he still - Who is "he"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for both reviews, Chris. These should now be done, see below as well. I've added some information on more modern recordings in prose, taking the example of Short Symphony and pointing to the table. I hope this works for you? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly :) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I am interested in any classical composition up for FAC, and especially more recent ones, - thank you for offering one. I am reviewing offline, so things may have changed, - please ignore then.

Title

I wonder if the common name is Saxophone Sonata, in which case the first sentence could be

"The Saxophone Sonata , Op. 19, is a sonata for E♭ alto saxophone and piano composed by Paul Creston in 1939. It was ..."

The title in the infobox should follow then.

Not sure on this, per WP:OFFICIAL: "Where an undisputed official name exists it should always be provided early in an article's introduction". Since WP:COMMONNAME is policy for article titles, I think the use of the official name is fine and has better flow.

Infobox

Thank you for a detailed infobox!

  • In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him. The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied. If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better.
    I'll split this one into a few points:
    "In this case of close collaboration of player and composer/player, I suggest to use the image showing both as a lead image, with links to the player in the caption, saying "(l.)" for him." Per MOS:SECTIONLOC, I think it fits best in background, which discusses their relationship in depth
    "The longish caption should - regardless of position - be integrated in the prose, but a year/range be supplied." Removed and not integrated as redundant the text at the bottom of the section. Range added.
    "If you want to keep the composer alone, I think the range is too broad, - something like c. 1950 would suffice. Any pic closer to composition time would of course be better." This image is from the Creston collection at UMKC and is the earliest I could find. I'm hesitant to change the range: c. 1950 could mean different things to different people, so a more definite range is superior.
  • I'd drop first names when the same people are mentioned as performers.
    I think it's fine, FA examples with repetition of full name include Appalachian Spring, Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) and Short Symphony
  • "13 minutes", and even "3 movements", the latter per my most recent GA review by Kyle Peake, as a number you will want to compare, - and we can probably skip "around" as redundant
    Skipped around, replaced with numerals for consistency with opus no.
  • I'd drop the "official" in the infobox but have it in the prose.
    Used an efn similar to [c] instead
  • I believe that for a piece related to all-American people, you better use their date format.
    Switched to MDY throughout, with regrets ;)

Lead

  • I'll go into detail later - after reading through - but my first impression is that it has too much detail about the composition timing.
    Will await comments

Background

  • "career composers" - it may be just me - not a native speaker of English - but I never heard that phrase.
    I'm using it as a modifier. My edition of the OED gives the entry "(before another noun) working with long-term commitment in a particular profession"
  • I don't think that you have to repeat "American" for the saxophonist.
    Done
  • I'd like to know the age of the two men when they met.
    Both were quite young, around 28 for Creston and 32 for Leeson. Not sure how to integrate this into the text?
  • I don't think the "recently" adds much to "lost".
    Agreed
  • "Leeson was presented with Creston: pleased with his playing, the two began a partnership." - I don't think you can continue with "the two" if what preceeded it is only one, and even unclear who. Sounds like both were pleased with the other's playing ;)
    Switched around a bit
  • "perceived as unsuited to art music and restricted as such to more mainstream musical genres" - I don't need "as such".
    Axed
  • Lawson Lunde - do we know a bit about him?
    I believe he used to have an article, but it was nominated for deletion by another editor. I've at least added a nationality.

Composition and publishing

  • I'd move the first paragraph to background.
    I don't disagree with the idea, but I think it progresses more naturally without a heading break. Open to defer if this is serious
  • In it, avoid repetition of saxophone, and perhaps link "string" because it has several meanings.
    Linked and shuffled to avoid a blue sea
  • In the second para, it remains unclear to me how he can be in the fellowship, and then the sonata be required to achieve it, or what did I miss? If it's the same Guggenheim fellowship, it should have full name and link the first time, and if not that be clarified.
    I'm not sure what you mean, it doesn't say anywhere that the sonata was a requirement for the fellowship. Are you possibly confusing it with the suite?
  • Do we know more about the publishers (planned and actual) than the names? Location? Should one go to the infobox?
    If I recall correctly, Morris (1996) doesn't go into any more detail than name. I've added Shawnee to the infobox as most recent publisher

Performances

  • I suggest to repeat the year 1940 for the first of the tour dates.
    Done
  • "that Creston discovered the truth" - that makes it sound (to me) as if Leeson had lied about it.
    I think this is lying by omission, so discovering the truth would be correct. Thoughts?
  • I'd add at least here if not in lead and infobox that the hall is in (well-known) Carnegie Hall.
    Done. On second thoughts, I've given precedence to the larger venue in lead and infobox.
  • "St. Vincent's Hall, Elkhart, Indiana" - please link at least the town if the hall has no article.
    Town linked
  • the two concerts with Abato: how about getting the name in front and then have the two locations?
    Attempted

Reception

  • "Regardless, Creston, Leeson and their audience were all satisfied with the performance."[- unsure what "regardless" adds.
    True
  • "The sonata's debut recording by Vincent Abato" - I'd mention that it was made, together with a date and possibly label, in the previous section, and also mention this player in the lead.
    I can see the point in a lead mention, but wouldn't this duplicate the information in the recordings section?
  • "Several reviewers saw the sonata as being traditional and lacking some depth." - How about dropping that sentence and let the following reviews speak for themselves?
    I think this sentence helps topic grouping, per the points at WP:CRS
  • I'd bring sooner for whom Melson wrote.
    Sentence inverted
  • "James Lyons wrote negatively of the sonata's styling, criticizing it as incompatible ...", - how about simpler "James Lyons criticizes the sonata's styling as incompatible ..."?
    Probably redundant, yes
  • wl TNYT
    Linked in paragraph above, probably too close?
  • "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote that he considered the sonata underrated in a 1983 article", - how about "Tim Page of The New York Times wrote in 1983 that he considered the sonata underrated"?
    Yes, good catch
  • do we know about Burnet Tuthill?
    Same Tuthill as linked prior, on reflection a duplink is needed

I

Thank you for the musical examples! Perhaps comment on the movement titles in English?

  • perhaps give 4/4 as common time, with a link in prose, and the symbol in the structure overview, for which you may think of a table as for example in Bach cantatas such as BWV 1#Scoring and structure (check throughout)
    Given common time and link, time signatures for all movements are in the list (not tabulated as I think there are two few elements to warrant a table)
  • I would not use "crochet" and "semiquavers" in American context (check throughout)
    Ugh, I only looked for spelling errors when switching to AmE: thank you for catching!
  • "in piano" - I'd say "in the piano", to avoid misunderstanding as a dynamic marking
    Did not think of that, thank you

II

  • Perhaps have opening theme first, then form
    I'd prefer to keep it that way, as this keeps consistency with mentioning features of the movement as a whole first.
  • try to have references in ascending order of numbers (check thoughout)
    Attempted to be tidy: done?

Style

  • Suite should be linked (only) the first time
    Not sure what you mean, it's only linked once
  • I wouldn't expect counterpoint in classical at all - rather Baroque
    That is what the source says, I note that Beethoven and Mozart are listed as examples in our article on the subject
  • Here come the English titles - perhaps a little late? The remark about the missing key signatures would also make more sense before any musical example.
    Wondering if you see benefit in moving the whole style section before movements?

Tempi

  • Perhaps explain that we speak here about metronome figures, not tempo markings?
    Isn't a metronome mark a kind of tempo marking? "Metronome: an apparatus for fixing tempo" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music): my understanding is that tempo is the speed and the metronome mark a measurement of that speed, just a more precise measure than allegro or andante
  • Perhaps repeat the three markings for easier comparison?
    Good idea
  • "for each movement respectively" seems redundant at this point
    True
  • I don't know why the 1976 exclamation is handled before the 1975 letter.
    Shifted
  • The latter has an extra "that".
    Think this was dealt with before

Recordings

  • Better say "movements I and II" right away, after we already know that the first full recording was not with Leeson.
    Done

Thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copious comments, Gerda. I think I've addressed these now: unlike the other reviews, I've replied (in italics) and indented rather than write a long screed here. Several of these are replies to unfinished issues, like your comments on the lead. Thanks again, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for detailed replies, all taken (and next time, you can just indent instead of all the italics). I have two more things to settle before getting back to the lead. (Traveling.) Perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back (postponed one thing to tomorrow. I forgot that I wasn't done with the review when I ran out of power on the plane.

Recordings - part 2

  • Nice to learn about Abato's position, but how about moving that to when he first played the piece?
    Moved
  • In the table: how about saying - instead of Performers - Saxophonist, Pianist, and dropping the brackets from the entries.
    Good call
  • Would there be players who have an entry in a different Wikipedia?
    Added some
  • I've seen Gramophone reviews online, any here?
    I had to use print copies for these ones, sorry!
  • Is there anything in reviews that would enlighten further about interpretations, and thus the music?
    Most are rather short, only remarking briefly on the performance. I've mainly used them to apply some sort of inclusion criteria to the table.

Tempi part 2

  • I suggest to continue the quotation after "fool". I missed that it was irony ;)
    I couldn't find a good way to do this with the quote, but have made it clear that this was self-deprecating

Lead

  • I believe that for the lead, "Collaboration" is enough without details about it.
    Axed
  • similarly about composition history.
    Tried to tighten this up
  • "publication in 1940, although this date was missed due to logistical challenges brought on by World War II." - can we have the year it finally happened in lead and infobox?
    Embarrassing, I somehow completely forgot to put this year anywhere. Added
  • "Altogether, it presents a considerable difficulty for both players." - doesn't leave me happy ;) - The piece is kind of "acting" ("presents"), and what does "Altogether" add? Do we know why the composer made it difficult? ... to show virtuosity of both, perhaps?
    Changed the sentence, presumably the difficulty is for virtuosic display but I can't recall seeing this in sources.
  • I understand by a footnote (that I had overlooked) that the hall was then called Carnegie Chamber Hall, and think that's a good name to use, perhaps giving the later name once. Just Carnegie Hall, as in the present version, seems misleading. (I have great memories of Jessye Norman and a pianist filling the big hall.)
    Good point. I've changed to this name and removed that footnote: this is replaced with a link to the section of Carnegie Hall that discusses the name change.
  • I suggest to sort the last paragraph differently: first the first recording, then the reviews, then further recordings and finally "Today ...". Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reshuffled

Structure

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done

  • The article cites a number of dissertations - how do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Ditto the theses in Further reading
  • It appears that the Umble work is essays authored by Londeix?
  • What makes Pan Pipes a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fanfare should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading entries should use |ref=none
    Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. I've made the changes suggested above: I added Londeix as an author to Umble (2000), Simmons (2008) is now a cite magazine to allow italics, and I added ref=none to further reading items (more on those at the end).
    As for reliability, I've consciously favoured citing doctoral theses and dissertations per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have used these with care and cited them mainly for simple musical analysis (notes are given whenever the analysis presented in one thesis contradicts another). Detailed rationales for each thesis below:
    Frigo (2005) has been cited 17 times according to Scholar, including in the Music Educators Journal and in several doctoral theses. It was supervised by Julie Hubbert (LaDare Robinson Memorial Professor of Music at USC), who lists 20th-century American music as a research/teaching area. Frigo later worked at JMU and UGA.
    Hulsebos (1989) has been cited 12 times according to Scholar, including in a couple of university press-published books (Cottrell (2013), Vermazen (2008)) and in several doctoral theses.
    Leone (1991) is only cited in Gorman (2006), a doctoral dissertation, but this is due more to the specificity of the subject. Leone's major professor was Pamela Mia Paul, a one-time jury chair for the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition (albeit the amateur division) with an interest in 20th-century music. Leone later became the chair of piano studies at SMU.
    Liley (1988) has been cited 10 times according to Scholar, mainly in doctoral dissertations. Liley went on to become state chairman of the North American Saxophone Alliance and editor of their journal, The Saxophone Symposium. He also wrote a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone.
    Morris (1996) has been cited 5 times according to Scholar, again mainly in doctoral dissertations. It was supervised by Shirley Bean, a Creston researcher. Morris is now an associate professor of saxophone at UD.
    Sibbing (1969) has been cited 7 times according to Scholar, predominantly in doctoral dissertations. It was supervised by Charles Leonhard, a member of the NAfME Hall of Fame. Sibbing went on to become professor emeritus in saxophone and jazz at WIU.
    Williams (2011) has been cited in two doctoral theses according to Scholar. Williams went on to become professor of saxophone at BSU, although she doesn't seem to be in this position any more.
    Other concerns on reliability below:
    Newlin (1956) is by Dika Newlin, a renowned musicologist. By the time this review was published, Newlin had received her PhD and taught at WMC, SU, and DU for over a decade. Pan Pipes is the journal of Sigma Alpha Iota, an international, professional music fraternity. Newlin's review is cited in the Slomski (1994) bibliography.
    Eckers (1966) and Sweitzer (2010) are consciously not cited in prose as they are master's theses, but I think it would be a shame if they were removed entirely. Both are cited to some extent (Eckers: 4, Sweitzer: 1), Eckers, in particular, is listed in Slomski (1994). I'd be fine to axe them if it is deemed necessary, though.
    I hope this is comprehensive enough to resolve any questions on sourcing. Thanks again for your review! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, I'm wondering if my ping worked since its been a few days. Here's another as I think my formatting might have broken the first – appologies if this is a duplicate! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 11:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Happy with your edits/responses on all points except the first. On the first: generally speaking, what the author of a thesis/dissertation accomplishes later in their career doesn't speak directly to the reliability of their student work. I'm satisfied with your explanation for Frigo and Hulsebos, but for the others I'm wary of leaning too heavily on who the author became. Is there more to say on those? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP was that doctoral theses/dissertations are fine if used with care. I know FAs require "high-quality" sources; my proxy for this was the later sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." Albeit to varying degrees, I believe all meet the first point. In particular, I think that Liley (cited pretty widely in the literature of saxophone repertoire analysis), Morris (supervised by a Creston specialist), and Sibbing (listed in Slomski's bibliography, supervised by an expert in music education) do meet these additional criteria.
    That leaves Leone and Williams. As I said above, I think Leone's citation count suffers from a highly specialised topic, so unfortunately I can't justify this way. The rhythmic analysis would be missed, as this was the highest quality source I could find on that particular aspect of the sonata. As for Williams, I think this could be removed without pain if you think it isn't high enough quality. For the master's theses in further reading, these could also be removed without pain. Thanks again, Nikkimaria. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You indicated that Liley was primarily cited in other dissertations - what is there beyond that?

Spot-check

[edit]
  • Consistent use of sfn
  • The notelist is also correct
  • Everything that is possible to be wikilinked is wikilinked
  • The sources are correctly and consistently formatted
  • And also in alphabetical order

I'll probably give this a spot-check in a couple hours. You can ping me if I don't. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) It doesn't have many refs, so I'll check 12-[reply]

  • Frigo 2005-3, 12, 16
  • Morris 1996- 6, 18, 25
  • Sibbing 1969- 42, 53, 61 (all kind of technical, but I am mostly sure they check out)
  • Creston 1973- 72, 75 (both very technical, but the parts I understood check out)
  • Billboard 1956- 89 (checks out alongside 88)

UpTheOctave!, can you send the page numbers/supporting prose to me? I can't access any of them? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91, I've shot over an email with transfer links to the sources. Thanks for helping out! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UpTheOctave!, got the sources, and they check out. The formatting is also correct. I also gave it a semi-comprehensive read, and I saw no issues in the prose. A support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your spotchecks, DoctorWhoFan91! I'll get onto your FLC soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 10:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2025&oldid=1273726495"