Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2023

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [1].

Philosophy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy is a systematic, rational, and critical inquiry that discusses general and fundamental topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, and mind. It spans several millennia and historically included the individual sciences. Thanks to PatrickJWelsh for the fruitful collaboration to get this article to GA status, to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, and to Cerebellum for their recent peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK

[edit]
  • I think this is a bit above my pay grade, but I'll try to review this well. At a first glance, excellent article; the list of references alone made my head spin, must have been a ridiculous amount of effort to write all this. AryKun (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But they...the term" I know this is grammatically correct, but it still reads weird to me. Maybe replace with "However"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major branches of philosophy" → "The major branches of philosophy"?
    One difficulty here is that not all philosophers produce exactly this list. For example, a few include aesthetics as a major branch. Without the "The", we leave it open whether there are other major branches besides those listed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Presocratic philosopher" should be Pre-Socratic and would benefit from a link. Also later in the article.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of duplinks and terms linked at second or third instances; for example, most of the major branches are mentioned but not linked in the first section.
    Done. I'm not 100% clear on how to best handle duplinks that occur in different sections. According to my interpretation the current formulation of WP:DUPLINK, one link per section is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et alia" needs a link; also, isn't the form et al. more common?
    This is discussed in SilverTiger's comments. I think "et al." is used in the short citations but I don't know about cases where it is used in the regular text. I'm not sure that it should have a wikilink since this is not a concept discussed in the article but merely an expression used to discuss other things. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sciences" Linked to the wrong term.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influential traditions...African philosophy." → "The most influential traditions in the history of philosophy are Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. Other philosophical traditions include Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy."?
    I wouldn't object to your suggestion. But this was already discussed in Fritz's comments below. The fear was that this type of expression implies a ranking and should better be avoided. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shaped by the encounter with Western thought" → "shaped by encounters with Western thought"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resolve the politically turbulent 6th century BCE" → "resolve political turbulence during the 6th century BCE" Also, the sources seem to place the "political turbulence" in either the 8th or 5th century BCE, depending on whether you're referring to the Spring and Autumn period or just the Warring States.
    Done. The text mentions the 6th century because that is when the Hundred Schools of Thought emerged. I added a source for the date and I reformulated the passage to avoid implying that the date states when the turbulence itself emerged. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced new forms of Buddhism" → bit repetitive, maybe "diversified into new forms"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the ", for example," construction frequently; I feel like the first comma should be a colon.
    I reformulated a few. I think starting the expression with a colon would be possible but is not required. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really nice work, nothing else that I have comments on. This is a really nice overview of the major topics of philosophy; of course, it doesn't go very deep into any topic, but I feel like that's a consequence of the fact that we're trying to fill essentially a library's worth of subject matter into 5,000 or so words. There's nothing factually incorrect that I could see at a first glance, but that's with the caveat that my knowledge of philosophy is limited to the level of an introductory college course. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello AryKun and thanks for taking the time to review the article! I implemented most of your suggestions and left a few comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

[edit]

I have to concur with AryKun, this article must have required a ludicrous amount of time and effort. It's also outside of my wheelhouse and above my paygrade, so here goes nothing.

  • The lede and the first section are fine, though I think you should mention and give a brief explanation of what a school of philosophy is in the lede.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et al." should be italicized.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is mistaken. More to the point, it is standard to use "et al." only when there are more than three authors. (Although not Wikipedia policy, which I cannot find on this question, see here.) If the latter two authors are to be excluded from mention in the body of the article, then I believe it should instead say "and others" per this. Or, if we're going to keep the Latin in the body of the article, it should be spelled out in full (unless it is inside a parenthetical).
    In short, I think the article should either list all three authors or else find some way of avoiding this complicated stylistic issue that has nothing to do with the content or accessibility of the article. I am not sure what the best call is, however, and so I decided against making an edit myself.
    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise a valid point and I'm not sure which guideline to follow here. The guideline MOS:FOREIGNITALIC you cite states that foreign terms require italics but makes an exception for "phrases that have been assimilated". The alternative would be to spell the three names out. Some style guides recommend using "et al." starting with three authors while others require more than three authors. Maybe someone with a better MOS-knowledge can solve the confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if we keep the Latin, it should be spelled out as et alia with the italics. Latin abbreviations such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." and so forth do not receive italics and should not normally be used outside of a footnote or parenthetical when there is a perfectly suitable English equivalent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    et al. is always abbreviated and italicized in formal usage; I do not think this article should deviate from that. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be consensus that the short version is more common. Opinions are a little divided concerning italics but it seems there is a slight preference for having no italics. This is recommended by most style guides. I restored the original version. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tend to use "like" frequently, to the point that it sometimes feels repetitious.
    I was able to cut down the frequency. There are still quite a few left but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no overt issues in History of philosophy.
  • Italicize modus ponens.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial, very slow read-through was (a) informative, and (b) revealed no major issues except that you never really explain what a philosophical school is, when schools are mentioned multiple times in different places. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Thanks for the feedback and the actionable recommendations. I hope I was able to implement them. Please let me know if additional points catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I see no further issues. Support. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

During the peer review I reviewed this article in accordance with the FA criteria and all of my concerns have been addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]
  • Question: I helped Phlsph7 bring this article up to GA status. Am I allowed to weigh in here to support or oppose the FA nomination? My assumption was no, but this suggests it is okay as long as I declare my involvement when I do so. If it is permissible for me to participate in such an official capacity, I will hold off for another week or so to see what other editors have to say—then I will review the FA criteria and read the current article against them in order to weigh in for or against. Otherwise, I am happy to just follow the proceedings and comment as appropriate on what others have to say. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PatrickJWelsh and thanks for offering to review. As I understand it, just writing your own review comments and improvement suggestions should not be a problem. Maybe one of the @FAC coordinators: could clarify whether, in addition to that, you are also allowed to vote. Your comments would be highly appreciated either way, with or without a vote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are certainly allowed to vote, it probably won’t be given much weight considering your extensive involvement in the article's development. On the other hand, if you assisted the nominator in elevating it to GA status (as in if you were a co-nominator), the possibility of being a co-nominator here as well could be considered, but that’s obviously for you two to decide. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @FrB.TG, thanks for clarifying. That makes perfect sense and seems like a good policy. @Phlsph7 did invite me to jointly pursue the FA nomination, but I declined because I was not willing to do my fair share of hunting around for ISBNs and the like. (Another concern was not to sabotage someone else's hard work by taking a hard stand against a reviewer whose requests, in my considered judgment, were misguided—as, for instance, I was basically prepared to do when our GA reviewer seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia to say that it was wrong to discriminate against women. NPOV, give me a break! I don't want that dude's approval.) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 25 days ago. It has 4 supports, it has passed the source review, and there are no unaddressed issues at the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7 Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Wow, this is a great example of a massive topic being successfully compressed into an effective overview article. Here are a few comments, I may come back and add more later too. Shapeyness (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the detailed and thoughtful observations! I've responded to and implemented a few and I'll get back to you once I've addressed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology: No comments here, this is all interesting and on-topic - I like the depiction of Newton's thought process here :)
  • General conceptions: Here I have some worries about due weight. This sub-section seems devoted to particular philosophers' general views on what philosophy is, but I'm not sure how they were chosen. Of course, they are all historical greats, but there are many great historical philosophers and we couldn't give all of their individual views. Do overview sources tend to highlight these particular examples? If not, then I think probably the two subsections here should be merged with some substantial trimming. I'm not sure if there are sources that make these types of links, but perhaps some details on these philosophers' views could be kept to illustrate broader viewpoints. For example, Kant seems to define philosophy in terms of subject matter while Socrates and Russell define it in term of process or an intended outcome. I think framing things in terms of broader trends or ideas and using these as examples is better for due weight, and provides better confidence to the reader that these are examples chosen for a particular reason. Of course, push back if you think there are reasons to keep, or to do things in another way!
    • @Shapeyness, this also came up during the GA review, and I certainly see the point. The problem, to which I could find no better solution than the current section, is that, based on an unscientific survey of popular and textbook introductions to philosophy, authors pretty much just defer the question to the entire book. There is no single definition that adequately captures the practice. Hence my recourse to editorial judgment as to what might best serve the reader.
    • That said, I quite like your distinction between subject matter and process. Anything that counts as philosophy in the sense that is the subject of this article must be a balancing act between the two. (This to exclude, on the one hand, fringe podcasters and lunatics on the subway platform and, on the other, folks engaged in what are now recognized as distinct scientific disciplines.) For FA purposes, though, we would need to find a solid source to back this up.
    • Whatever the solution – if this section is, indeed, agreed to be a problem – I do think it is important to provide a general definition of the subject, distinct from its etymology (love of wisdom is lovely, but uninformative and probably outright misleading) and its various competing academic definitions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your concern is valid and I'm not sure how to best address it. As I see it, the basic gist of this subsection is to give the reader a general idea of some accessible aspects of philosophy without providing a precise definition. One minimally invasive solution would be to make this subsection not so much about these individual philosophers but use them instead as examples. Applied to Kant and Russell, this could be:

    Philosophers ask general and fundamental questions. For example, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant identifies four questions that encompass the task of philosophy: "What can I know?"; "What should I do?"; "What may I hope?"; and "What is the human being?". The active exploration of philosophical questions can help people identify and overcome prejudices. According to Bertrand Russell, "The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason."

    If this type of solution is acceptable then I could see if I can come up with something similar for the paragraph on Socrates. A more invasive solution would be to merge the two subsections, remove the paragraphs on Kant, Socrates, and Russell, and try to reintroduce some of their points as examples in the other paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses PatrickJWelsh, Phlsph7! If there are sources that discuss some general aspects of philosophy like this (subject matter vs process was just an example that came to mind, I agree with PatrickJWelsh we need good sources here!) and some you can use to link those to these examples, or perhaps even just discuss them in the context of conceptions of philosophy, then I would be happy with the less invasive approach. Although I think care should be taken here not to overstress particular viewpoints just to fit these philosophers' ideas, other examples could also be used if they better illustrate what RSes tend to focus on. (Btw, I'm not saying using these examples would do that, I haven't really read any general sources on this, just something to consider!) Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to use a different approach since I am not aware of a good overview source that would link these examples. I tried instead to provide a concise summary of the gist of these paragraphs to give a general conception rather than mention the individual philosophers and their examples. I moved Kant's example to the paragraph where the division by content vs method is discussed. The resulting subsection would have been a little too short so I merged the two subsections. Please let me know if some essential parts were removed so we can explore ways to include them in the new setup. I'm also open to restoring the subsection-structure and some of the examples if they can be linked to good overview sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this change.
It makes the article less accessible to readers, especially those with no background knowledge—and it does so for no other reason than to satisfy Wikipedia criteria intended to serve its readers, almost none of whom are at all aware of the distinction between articles with the plus icon and those with the star icon.
For what it's worth, the mentions of Socrates and Russell both cite to introductory texts, and the Kant material is so famous that such a citation could surely be adduced were this actually somehow helpful. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if we can find a compromise to have both the concrete examples while not giving undue weight to one particular position. I found a way to include the examples of both Socrates and Russell. I also restored the subdivision between of "General conception" and "Academic definitions". Kant's questions are still there but they were moved to another paragraph. If it's important, there may also be a way to move them back to the subsection "General conception". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a lot better to me, I prefer this to removing the section altogether. I have no problem with this if it is also ok with PatrickJWelsh. Shapeyness (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the belatedness in my response, but this version is good with me.
(Background: I was once conscripted to oversee the philosophy table at a sort of informational fair where incoming students could learn about different departments and courses of study. A young woman approached and asked, rather tentatively, "What is it?" I started by saying that this itself is a philosophical question. She literally backed away. I don't think she said a word.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic definitions: Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress seen in other sciences This is true, but some philosophers believe that philosophy does make progress, maybe this can be reworded so that it doesn't state this as fact
    I think there is a minimal consensus that philosophical progress is at least different from the typical progress usually seen in the sciences. I reformulated the sentence to emphasize this point without implying that there is no progress. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also some lone sentences and short paragraphs here that could be combined and perhaps reordered
    I merged the last paragraph into an earlier paragraph. Maybe the paragraph on linguistic therapy could also be merged but there are also advantages to keeping it separate as a distinct position. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shapeyness, this is also mostly my doing. Although I most naturally write in long paragraphs composed of long sentences, I make a conscious effort in the opposite direction for Internet content. Especially considering how many people are reading this stuff on their phones, I think that readers are well-served by shorter paragraphs than would be appropriate for a print publication. If, however, other editors do not find this reasoning compelling, by all means, condense away! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking. This emphasizes its self-critical, reflective nature. This seems to be a repetition of the point at the beginning of the General conceptions section.
    The general thrust is the same. I had the impression that it makes sense to include it here as a separate conception since the precise formulation of "thinking about thinking" as a definition is often mentioned. The text in the subsection "General conception" is weaker and only characterizes the self-critical attitude as one of the features of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: this section in particular is one of the best examples of providing a condensed overview. I can't speak to the other traditions, but the Western philosophy section seems all good to me. Any temptation to add more details would probably snowball so I think this is the right level of detail here. One thing I will mention is that Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy are all mentioned but not discussed - would a short discussion of these be worth adding or do you think that would be undue / add too much extra content?
    Condensing the huge traditions down to a few paragraphs was really the main challenge here. I think adding a sentence or so for each of the addition traditions would be defendable but I'm not sure that this would be an overall improvement since their impact is significantly smaller. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: On the section you added in response to #Fritz, I added a little bit of extra detail. Hopefully that is ok with you and not excessive, feel free to revert or alter any of the changes! Shapeyness (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness: Your addition helps close the temporal gap between the periods. I made slight adjustments to the timeline to reflect how it is presented in the cited sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Branches: This is also a very good section, here are the only nitpicks I could find! This is a very small one but This idea is rejected by foundationalists, is it better to frame this as a response or a proposed solution than a rejection? I'm not sure foundationalists would reject the validity of the problem itself.
    "This idea" was supposed to refer to the idea that all beliefs require justification. But I see now that this is confusing since this idea is mentioned two sentences before. I implemented your suggestion, which avoids this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtue theorists judge actions based on the moral character of the agent who performs them - I'm not sure that this is true. Bad people can do good things according to virtue theorists, my understanding is that the morality of an act is judged based on whether it is (a) in alignment with a particular virtue, i.e. it is the type of thing a virtuous person would do, or relatedly (b) it develops virtue within a person, e.g. if you make a habit of sharing, you will become a more generous person by nature. This idea is correctly described in the following sentence.
    I agree that this sentence could be misleading if read without considering the following sentence. I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between an inner world of experience of an object and the existence of this object in the outer world. This seems confusingly worded to me - do you think this would be better? An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is that there is a distinction between our inner experience of objects and their existence in the external world.
    Yes, that expresses it better. I removed the "our" form your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methods: Some of the earlier paragraphs are quite short and could probably be combined. I also think empirical views such as experimental philosophy or naturalism should probably be mentioned here. For reference, 60% of philosophers accept empirical methods in the most recent philpapers survey and 32% accept experimental philosophy (this is more controversial though with 36% rejecting). In general, my impression is that naturalistic and experimental philosophy is covered in most metaphilosophy or philosophical method textbooks/overviews, I can find examples if useful for assessing due weight.
    • @Shapeyness, "naturalism" is an extremely contested term. Even Hegel, arguably the idealist par excellence, has been labeled a naturalist in recent academic literature. I'm also extremely skeptical of "experimental philosophy", most of which in my experience is just sloppy social science that only demonstrates what only a professional philosopher would ever think to question in the first place. If there is good evidence that the field has developed in the past ten years, however, I would be happy to revise my assessment. So, while I do not wish to diminish the significance of these discussions, I am inclined to keep them out of such a high-level article. (Oh, and thanks for sharing that survey!) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An earlier version of the article had a short passage on this. It's true that methodological naturalism and experimental philosophy don't reflect a typical approach to philosophizing but for the sake of comprehensiveness, I wouldn't be opposed to include a short mention. What do you think of the following:

    Methodological naturalists place great emphasis on the empirical approach and the resulting theories found in the natural sciences in contrast to methods that focus on pure reasoning and introspection. Experimental philosophy follows methodological naturalism and tries to answer philosophical questions by gathering empirical data in ways similar to psychology and the cognitive sciences.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Fischer & Collins 2015, p. 4.
  2. ^ Fisher & Sytsma 2023, Projects and Methods of Experimental Philosophy.
  3. ^ Knobe & Nichols 2017, lead section.
    • Fisher, Eugen; Sytsma, Justin (20 November 2023). "Projects and Methods of Experimental Philosophy". In Bauer, Alexander Max; Kornmesser, Stephan (eds.). The Compact Compendium of Experimental Philosophy. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-071702-0.
    • Fischer, Eugen; Collins, John (24 April 2015). Experimental Philosophy, Rationalism, and Naturalism: Rethinking Philosophical Method. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-50027-8.
    • Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (2017). "Experimental Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
    Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PatrickJWelsh that experimental philosophy is more questionable / contentious than many of the other methods traditionally used in philosophy, but I do think it (and empirical methods more broadly) are an important viewpoint that should be included. This is my own personal view, but more importantly I think it reflects the coverage of RSes. I would support the paragraph proposed by Phlsph7 if other editors don't have any problems with it. Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article implies that philosophers are generally dismissive of empirical data, that is a falsehood that must be addressed. On the fraught nature of "naturalism," however, just follow the Wikilink above. The term is borderline meaningless.
Experimental philosophy is the only approach in the above-linked survey that more respondents than not consider bogus. It is good that this philosophical endeavor has its own article, but I cannot see how there is any reason to bring it up here. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short passage. I removed the part on experimental philosophy and reformulated the contrast to avoid implying that other philosophy is in general dismissive of empirical data. I used the term "methodological naturalism", which has a more specific meaning than the wide term "naturalism". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving out experimental philosophy if empirical methods and methodological naturalism are included to some extent. Shapeyness (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relation to other fields: Historically, philosophy is often considered the "mother of all sciences" since most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines this idea has already been covered a few times by this point in the article.
    I'm not sure how to best handle this since it is important in this context but also a repetition of what was said earlier. For now, I shortened the sentence to the bare minimum. It could be removed altogether but that might mean that readers who skip other sections miss it. C (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more comments, these should probably be the last ones. Once again, feel free to push back on these - I may be quite busy until next week but will try to respond to any comments. Shapeyness (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read through some comments in other sections and agree with PatrickJWelsh that it might be better to expand on the Greek/Roman paragraph in the academic definitions section (and possibly cut the Wittgenstein sentence). It seems strange to mention Foucault and Hadot without talking about eudaimonia as a purpose of philosophy, or movements such as Stoicism.
  • Western history: this might be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think postmodernism is confined to continental philosophy (and depending on how pedantic we want to be, I'm not sure it's really a "movement")
  • Do you think there is room to discuss briefly some of the main views on the analysis of knowledge? This could be a short sentence on e.g. reliabilism, sensitivity to truth, and/or knowledge first epistemology, maybe virtue epistemology. My only worry is that this area of epistemology is introduced but major views are not presented (JTB is not a commonly held view).
  • Two points in favor of mentioning Stoicism: (i) the article is good, and (ii) a superficial version of the doctrine has currency in recent self-help/managerial literature. So let's point readers who might be interested in the direction of something better!
    I added one sentence on Stoicism and eudaimonia. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support the removal of any mention of postmodernism without much stronger sourcing. The primary reason for this is that, to my knowledge, none of the famous philosophers categorized as postmodern accept that designation. (Even if, yes, I do understand that it serves as a useful catch-all for the mostly French philosophers operating under the influence of Nietzsche against a horizon defined by Heidegger—more or less.) The secondary reason (and hence the strongly) is that this term is frequently deployed among anti-democratic conspiracy theorists, some of whom directly or indirectly promote political violence. So why not just go with post-structuralism, which captures much the same group of thinkers without feeding into misrepresentations of academic philosophy that possibly contribute to real harms?
    From Grayling 2019: Continental philosophy ... is associated with ... trends and movements ...: ... postmodernism .... I followed your suggestion to change it to post-structuralism and added a corresponding source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on Shapeyness's other suggestions: on Wittgenstein because I can see both sides of the argument, and on the epistemological schools of thought because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a view.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one sentence on alternative definitions of knowledge. I left the Wittgenstein sentence since without it, we would have a one-sentence paragraph and merging this sentence into another paragraph was rejected before. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less busy than I thought so will finish off the review with some comments on sources for criteria 1c and 2c. Shapeyness (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work addressing my other comments! A few more that I missed before. Shapeyness (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you have. Thanks for helping me out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • There's a significant amount of whitespace in the Etymology section
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Plato_by_Raphael.png is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Nietzsche1882_smaller.jpeg, File:Konfuzius-1770.jpg, File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg, File:Half_Portraits_of_the_Great_Sage_and_Virtuous_Men_of_Old_-_Confucius.jpg, File:JohnStuartMill.jpg, File:Aristotle,_Metaphysics,_Incunabulum.jpg
    Done for all except the image File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg. This image already has the text This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1928.. Is this sufficient or does it additionally require the template "PD-US-expired"? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Phlsph7 and @Nikkimaria, the image of Butler in the final section hangs over into "See also" in a way that looks weird on a full-sized monitor. I tried shrinking the image, but that didn't help so I left it as is. Is there a good solution for this? For I do think that we should keep the image. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I added a clear-tag. This is also not ideal since it creates an empty space for some display devices. An alternative would be to move the image further up but this could separate the image from the relevant paragraph depending on the display device. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems you responded faster than me. I tried moving the image up one paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about using this one instead: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg? We could also probably shave a line off the caption. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Butler_(2011).jpg? I don't like it as much as a photo, but it's landscape oriented, which would almost certainly resolve the issue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the cropped image. It should help since it has less height. It could still cause problems for some display devices but I hope it is managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viewed full-screen on a 27" monitor, there appears to be about one extra line space between the closing text of the section and the beginning of the next. I do not find this distracting, however, and don't consider further tweaks necessary. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Does the article pass the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg is missing evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source-field asserts that the photo was directly provided by Judith Butler. Is that sufficient as evidence of consent? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page refers to personality rights, which is a different issue from copyright. commons:COM:VRT outlines the process for copyright permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original image on which our cropped version is based has evidence of permission. I'm not sure how to handle the cropped image itself so I asked at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the feedback I got from the noticeboard, there seems to be no problem with the permission of our image. Please let me know if any additional tags should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Do you consider the issue concerning File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg solved or are there more points to be addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest linking to the VRT ticket from the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I saw that the edit to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg in which I added the link got reverted by a VRT member. I assume it is because adding permissions is the responsibility of the VRT and because the earlier noticeboard discussion resulted in the conclusion that no additional permission statement is required. Personally, I agree with the argument presented in that discussion. Do you consider this point essential in order for the image review to pass? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'm not convinced that rationale makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You could articulate your concerns at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT and I would be happy to implement your suggestion if there is consensus for it. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed for the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz

[edit]
  • Drive by comment (I may give the article a more in-depth read later): I think that the History section could use an additional subsection, for the mentioned "other influential philosophical traditions". It looks like the claim that Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy are the main tradition derives primarily from Grayling's book, but (while I am absolutely not an expert) I am somewhat dubious of this 'ranking'. I'm not advocating that every tradition have an equal amount of article space, but a subsection for "Other traditions" could at least cover the central historical aspect of Japanese, Latin American, and African philosophy, and give some more worldwide coverage to the section. Please let me know your thoughts! Fritzmann (message me) 18:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Fritzmann2002 and thanks for your first review comments. I would try to implement your suggestion if there is consensus on this point but there are some considerations that make me hesitate. A key point here is WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It is very easy to find overview sources that give a narrower perspective on the history of philosophy than our current section. A great example in this regard is the 10-volume Routledge History of Philosophy, which focuses exclusively (or almost exclusively) on Western philosophy (which is understood in the sense of including certain forms of Arabic-Persian philosophy). Scharfstein 1998 is a little bit broader: he dedicates the whole first chapter of his book to explaining and defending the claim that there are only three great philosophical traditions, the Indian, the Chinese, and the European. I found it tricky to find wide overview sources that give a broader outline of the history of philosophy than the one we have here. It's often necessary to use sources from adjacent fields, such as comparative philosophy or world philosophy. For example, Smart's book "World Philosophies" covers many additional traditions. However, he justifies this by using a very wide definition of "philosophy" that is not typical of how philosophy is usually defined. It goes well beyond systematic and rational inquiry by encompassing traditional worldviews, including myths of origin and ... proverbial lore.
    I'm not sure if you find these points convincing and I don't want to impose my own view here. Shapeyness in their comments above also asked a question similar to yours. If there is consensus between the two of you that adding such a section would be an improvement then I would give it a try to see what I can come up with. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we falling into the trap of Eurocentrism and English language source centrism by that logic? TheUzbek (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I implemented the suggestion, which I hope solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I reformulated the passage in question. As I see it, there is always an implicit "ranking" that decides what needs to be included in the article, what could be included, and what is not important enough to merrit a detailed discussion. But maybe you are right that this shouldn't be made too explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your well-argued response; it's very clear you have a strong understanding of the subject matter! I think the one other concern I had is that those other traditions are just sort of name-dropped and then not elaborated upon within the history section. Even if those three just got a single combined paragraph that is basically a summary of their lede in their respective articles, that would more than satiate what I am looking for as a reader. Again, not at all a requirement and just my two cents - I would also be interested to hear input from other reviewers on the matter. Fritzmann (message me) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fritzmann, a small subsection for "other traditions" with just a single paragraph or two would be enough. There are due weight concerns but I think they are outweighed by concerns on the other side over providing a global perspective (WP:WORLDVIEW). Shapeyness (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a first attempt at implementing this suggestion. I hope this is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann and Shapeyness: any come back on this? No need for any, I'm just checking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source suitability review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request and warning that given the sheer width of the topic, only an expert can really judge whether there aren't any major omissions. Reviewing this version, I notice that a large number of § aren't followed by a space. Source formatting is unusual but that doesn't need to be a problem. Retrieval dates are not applied consistently. Are there no non-Western sources besides Jha, Meenakshi and the Economic and Political Weekly? I am not sure that Baggini, Julian; Krauss, Lawrence as well as Britannica are a good source for such a topic? Speaking of Britannica is not consistently formatted. Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). is apparently unused. I am not sure that the Routledge source needs to say "www.rep.routledge.com". OUP Oxford and OUP ought to be standardized to one or the other. Quinton, Anthony Meredith lacks a bullet point. Of the sources I know, they all seem to be suitable for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I hope I managed to sort out all the formatting and consistency issues. I used the template multiref2 instead of the more usual sfmn mainly because it uses a new line for each bundled reference rather than putting them all in one line, which can get confusing if there are many references. I added retrieval dates to all reference templates that use a URL parameter. Please let me know if there are others that also require it. After a short random look through some of the sources, I encountered the following non-Western authors: Jonathan Chimakonam (University of Calabar, Nigeria and University of Pretoria, South Africa), Fainos Mangena (University of Zimbabwe), Antonio Cua (Filipino Chinese), Tu Wei-Ming (Chinese), and Licheng Ma (Chinese). There should be many more and I could have a more thorough look if this is a concern.
I removed the source "Baggini & Krauss 2012" since the claim is well supported by the remaining sources. As for Britannica, I agree that it is not ideal for in-depth claims on very specific topics. However, this is not so much of a problem for this article since it doesn't go into depth on any specific point and has mostly the goal of providing a broad overview instead. I tried to avoid using Britannica as a standalone source by having it in addition to other sources of the same claim as an accessible alternative for readers to consult. If you have the impression that it is not appropriate for a certain claim then I will try to find an alternative.
Dowden 2020 itself is used several times. The error message comes because I added an earlier version to link it to an ISBN. The 2020 version is freely available online and the page numbers refer to this version. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are many non-Western authors, but are there also non-Western publications/publishers? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was not aware that your point was focused on the geographical location of the publishers rather than of the authors. You are right that most of the sources used in this article are published by Western publishers. The main reason is that these publishers globally dominate the field of high-quality academic sources written in the English language on philosophy in general, including non-Western philosophy. If you have a specific source that you would like to see included in the article then I would be happy to take a look at it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any specific source in mind, just a general observation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does the article pass the source review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Dowden 2020 needs to be fixed, it throws a harv error for me. Probably because there is another template there, Dowden 1993. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the harv warning comes from a user script. I added the parameter "|ref=none" to the 2nd template, which seems to have solved the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a pass, with the caveat that this isn't a topic on which I have much familiarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from UC

[edit]

Perhaps fittingly for the subject, I worry that we've become tied in terminological knots in the section about definitions of philosophy. To me, the latter two paragraphs (about philosophy being a form of therapy or an exercise in self-improvement) strike me more as statements about what philosophy does rather than attempts to form an all-encompassing definition of what it is -- a bit like you might say "running is a form of outdoor therapy", "God is love" or "a dog is man's best friend": nobody would seriously argue that "man's best friend" is even trying to be sufficient information to explain to an unfamiliar outsider what a dog is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that whether these paragraphs express definitions of philosophy in the strict sense is itself a philosophical question. Overgaard et al. 2013 consider the question "What is philosophy" and discuss philosophy as a form of therapy as one of the answers to this question in contrast to other answers, such as philosophy as a form of science. Banicki 2014 talks of "philosophy as a kind of therapy" and of "the therapeutic model of philosophy". One consideration in this regard would be whether the features in question are considered essential aspects of philosophy rather than merely accidental features that philosophy just happens to have. For example, is it essential to philosophy that it aims at curing certain (linguistic) maladies? In any case, the positions discussed in these paragraphs are influential characterizations of philosophy that should be discussed somewhere. It seems to me that this section is the most fitting place to do so. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that these things need to be discussed somewhere. I wonder if the answer is to have a subsection on the functions of philosophy - which could then have (for example) some material on the role of philosophy within society (I immediately thought of the Greek idea of the kaloskagathos - a man both beautiful of body and cultivated of mind), as an adjunct to other fields, and so on. I do feel like the definitions section loses focus some time in the last three paragraphs and has moved, without really stating it, from what philosophy is to what philosophy does. If nothing else, those last two paragraphs tread lightly indeed and may be on the wrong side of brevity versus comprehensiveness UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with defining something in terms of its aim. The case of philosophy as a spiritual practice of self-improvement goes back to Greco-Roman times (would it be worth incorporating a Wikilink to Stoicism, which is the most obvious example?) and has been taken up by recent philosophers who are themselves the subjects a considerable scholarly literature.
I feel less strongly about linguistic therapy as it is so strongly associated with a single 20th-century figure. It seems like a nice addition the article, but its case for being encyclopedic at this high level is debatable.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a step towards a compromise, I merged the last two paragraphs into one to give less emphasis to the therapy-conception of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate work towards compromise, but these two forms of "therapy" are wildly different. One aims to bring the practitioner into sync with the rational structure of the cosmos by way of living according to the rational principles uncovered by way of philosophical reflection and spiritual exercises. The other aims to liberate just those who have confused themselves into being upset about philosophical problems that are actually just confusions about how language works. Does any source actually treat these as different approaches to the same thing?
I support restoring the previous version. Or, if for some reason the length of these paragraphs relative to those preceding them is actually an issue – which I really do not think that it is – then we could cut the Wittgenstein paragraph and add another sentence or two to the other mentioning a couple Ancient/Hellenistic philosophers by name.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are surely not the same thing, they are merely related as forms of therapy. For now, I replaced the expression "closely related" with "related" to not overemphasize the connection. Personally, I don't see a problem with the original version. I would go ahead and restore it unless others see it differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only @UndercoverClassicist appears to object, and we should certainly allow a few more days, but they have possibly abandoned that objection in view of our comments. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, but that need not be a problem: I haven't offered a review and so it's merely a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of a good overview source that makes this precise distinction between the definition and the functions of philosophy and provides a detailed discussion of those functions then I would be happy to read it. I'm not sure that it's always possible to draw such a clear division between what something is and what it does. Some things may be defined by their function or by what they do. This could be true for philosophy. In our current article, the section "Relation to other fields" was intended to cover some of the expansion ideas you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Central description"?

[edit]

According to the article's Information page[4], the "Central description" of this article, unlike the "Local description", does not capitalize the first word. I don't know if this is an issue, however, because I can't find the former in either the article or the project sidebar and don't know where on Wikipedia it appears. Is this something that should be addressed? http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=info

I think the central description is taken from wikidata, in our case http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5891. I'm not sure about their rules, but comparing it with a few other items, lower-case seems to be standard. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. I have no experience with Wikidata. I only brought it up because it looks like a stylistic inconsistency, but I couldn't figure out where it was coming from or in what contexts it might be displayed. It seems, though, like we should probably just leave it alone. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

I will sign myself up to some work on the formatting and reliability of the citations, but not spot checks. Maybe some thoughts on completeness, but Adamson is on 6 volumes of his History of Philosophy and we haven't even passed the Renaissance. I suspect he will do 6 volumes just on what is traditionally covered in an undergrad Modern Philosophy class. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the sources. Adamson's A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps is a huge undertaking indeed. I'm not sure how many volumes are planned in total. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [13] uses a primary source but [12] does not although both have direct quotes. Cite all direct quotes of primary works to your favorite translation or edition.
    Done. I didn't spot any others. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regenbogen 2010 and all other non-English sources should include a lang= flag
    Done. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am used to "et al." in italics, but I will let the MOS specialists tell you if it is common enough to be upright.
    The short answer is that opinions are divided but style guides tend to favor no italics. For the long answer, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics and SilverTiger's review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History seems well balanced to me over all. There is a strong temptation to make it 90% western and 10% "eastern", but the major traditions makes sense to me.
    • I might mention the critical traditions (Marx, Feminism, etc) in the Western philosophy section since you introduce Marx vis-a-vis China in the article and that seems off to me.
      I found a way to mention Marxism. Feminism has its own paragraph in the section "Relation to other fields". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would retool the Latin American section to cover the traditions of Indigenous North Americans as well.
      Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some worry that outside of the History section the article is pretty much pure-Western Philosophy. Can you weave in anyone from another traditions
    I don't think the presentation is pure-Western since the topics covered are not restricted to Western philosophy. I tried to follow how high-quality overview sources present the different subjects. For example, overview sources on epistemology in general (not specifically on Western epistemology) usually do not mention things pramanas even though they are discussed in Indian philosophy. But they mention sources of knowledge that are discussed as pramanas in Indian epistemology, like perception, inference, and testimony. In this sense, the territory they cover does not exclude Indian epistemology. We could explicitly introduce the term pramana. However, given how the overview sources treat the subject, I think this is not a good idea. The same overlap is there for the other fields as well, such as the existence of matter and souls discussed in metaphysics.
    A different approach would be to use examples from other traditions. For instance, we currently use utilitarianism as an example of consequentialism. We could replace it with a discussion of mohism. But the influence of utilitarianism and mohism is orders of magnitudes different, which is why this probably would not be a good idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of the sourcing is incredible. Very well done. I might push you on the following sources:
    • Zack 2009, because it is your only pop work in a sea of academic ones
      I replaced it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • EB Staff articles
      They are not ideal for sourcing in-depth claims on a very specific subject but I don't think this is a problem here given that we are trying to provide a broad overview and that they are accompanied by additional high-quality sources. If some specific instances are not appropriate for the claim they support then I would try to find alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is because my upper-levels were done in feminism, critical race theory, standpoint epistemology, queer theory, etc., but it feels like it was given the short end of the stick.
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjiii: Comments

[edit]

I think it's fantastic that you're bringing these broad topics up to GA/FA standards. I have not participated in a Featured Article Candidate discussion before, so I won't support/oppose. Logic is the part that I'm most familiar with, so I'll focus entirely on that section.

Source spot-checking for this version: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=1184786104#Logic

  • [107]: Verfies the source and no close paraphrasing. Really solid summary of someting that is kind of complicated in the sources' phrasing.
  • [109]: The term "modus ponens" is used beginning on page 367 in Dowden; it's very clearly laid out on the cited page (p. 103) in Velleman, so good use of multiple sources without WP:OR. The example quoted is from the other cited page in Velleman (p. 8). In addition to using high quality sources, this is about the way deductive reasoning is introduced in college-level Intro to Logic classes.
  • [110]: The sources verify the article and there's no close paraphrasing. Again a good summary of something with complicated language in the source texts.
  • [113]: Vleet (2011) seems to verify the whole paragraph on its own.

I'll try to come back soon to comment on the prose, Rjjiii (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjjiii and welcome to FA process! Your knowledge in the field of logic is appreciated and I'm looking forward to your prose comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from the top:

  • The piped link would be more clear to me if it was "correct reasoning".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is clear except for this sentence, "In this way, it formulates exact criteria and methods based on the structure of arguments to determine whether they are correct or incorrect." I think that "formulates exact criteria and methods based on" could be shortened down to a single verb like "examines" without losing any meaning to nearly all readers. If there is some nuance in the current wording, it's not clear to me.
    I slightly tweaked your suggestions to include the term "exact criteria" since formal logic is mainly interested in general criteria of validity rather than whether a specific argument is valid.
  • "analyze and evaluate" Would the single verb "assess" cover both?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this support is not as certain and does not guarantee that the conclusion is true." The "is not as certain and" seems redundant.
    That's true, I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of comments from other sections of this FAC page:

  • I find "et al." to be the common form and appreciate the change.
  • Regarding the bundled citations, the way you've done it has a benefit for accessibility. Bundling citations into lists either with bullets (*) or a template that generates html lists, will allow screen readers to parse the short footnotes as separate items. Template:sfnm could one day be updated to make use of this, but currently it does not.

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to comment. Leaning oppose.

  • In the image gallery at the top of the page, I am a little unhappy that all three of the non-Western philosophers are on the second row; it sends an unfortunate (not so) subliminal message.
    The rationale behind the current arrangement is the following. One way to divide philosophy is in Western and non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to group the philosophers together in one row each. In regard to philosophy in general, Western philosophy has been more influential than non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to have it in the first row.
    One alternative would be to arrange the philosophers chronologically: Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Avicenna, Kant, and Nietzsche. However, Plato is much more important in the field of philosophy than Buddha and Confucius. So it might be a good idea to keep him in the first place. Maybe there are other organizing principles that avoid this problem. In any case, the sidebar is used in many articles and there were already several discussions on who should be included on the talk page. So we would have to start a discussion there first and get some input before making any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on who is displayed, just on the order they are displayed in. If there is a discussion you could point me towards where this is discussed, and ideally agreed, that may be helpful. That the current order is based on the perceived importance of each in the field makes me more uncomfortable. I assume there is a HQ RS which so ranks them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is a misunderstanding here but I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom. According to my understanding, the current order is not based on the perceived importance of the individual philosophers. They are sorted by association with Western and non-Western philosophy: Plato, Kant, and Nietzsche belong to Western philosophy. Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna belong to non-Western philosophy. This way, we have two rows of images: the Western row and the non-Western row. The philosophers within each row are sorted chronologically: Plato was born before Kant and Kant was born before Nietzsche; Buddha was born before Confucius and Confucius was born before Avicenna.
It shouldn't be a problem to provide reliable sources for their association and their birth dates. There were talk page discussions on who should be included but I'm not aware of discussions on the order in which these philosophers are presented. I appologize if I'm talking past the point you were trying to make. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog is quite right to raise this, and to feel uncomfortable with the current division. Comments that intimate western philosophy is more important than that of the East is mildly eyebrow raising, and does not alleviate that discomfort. To get as close to a random list as p[possible, I suggest either aphpabetizing them, or possibly chronologically. Unfortuantely, what would be perfect—{{Random slideshow}}—is not an option open to us. MOS:ACCESS, you see. ——Serial 20:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Serial and thanks for your input and your suggestions. I think the claim that some philosophical traditions have been more influential than others is not controversial. Maybe pointing to some high-quality reliable overview sources can alleviate the discomfort caused by contempating this idea. I just had a look at the entry "Philosophy" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy: correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to discuss almost exclusively Western philosophers. I also tried the entry "Philosophy" in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the same result. If you know of some high-quality reliable overview sources on philosophy in general that paint a very different picture then I would be interested in looking at them.
Plato is often considered the most influential philosopher so it would make sense to consider an ordering principle that makes him come to the first position. A chronological order would make Buddha come first. This could be surprising to readers. For example, I didn't spot a discussion of Buddha in the two overview articles mentioned above but they both discuss Plato. In the alphabetical order, Plato would come last. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the natural question, then, is why images of the Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna are displayed at all... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this would be the more relevant concern than the question of whether the current order of images is biased. I don't think they are included because they are among the 6 most influential philosophers overall. The main argument for their inclusion is probably that non-Western traditions should also be represented and the images in question each depict one of the most influential figures within their tradition. For related discussions, see Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Justification_of_additions and Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Averroes?. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party comment: I've commented in an existing (if not especially active) discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery. The image isn't appropriate for the navbox in general, regardless of the ordering. If the image is removed from the navbox, there could still be a lead image or gallery in this particular article. For example, a two-by-two gallery containing Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and Avicenna, could represent the four major traditions that are discussed in the subsections of Philosophy#History. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! It's probably better to have the main discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery rather than here. I'll post an update here once we've reached a conclusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short update: I removed the image from the sidebar and added it as a lead image instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: I think the inclusion of Nietzsche is an odd choice, as he has not been nearly as influential as either Plato or Kant. Western philosophy is often divided into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. The current display has an image of an ancient philosopher (Plato), two modern philosophers (Kant and Nietzsche) and none from the medieval period. Might I suggest replacing Nietzsche with an influential figure from that period? Thomas Aquinas feels like the obvious pick. Other influential philosophers from the period include Duns Scotus, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Ockham. Tkbrett (✉) 16:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Aquinas would be a solid choice. What do you think of the following? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philbar 5.png
I note in passing that this does nothing to address the concern I raised to kick off the discussion this image. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case for the current order but I don't want to impose my view. The following has a chronological order. Would that be acceptable? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philbar 6.png
I think the updated image is better. I can't say I share the concern of the original drive-by comment. Tkbrett (✉) 17:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It provides an interdisciplinary perspective and studies their scope and fundamental concepts." I am unsure what "their" refers to. Is it possible to clarify or rephrase?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had originally posted two points which I saw as readily fixable with a view to then closing the nomination. As the discussion has become rather more than a drive by it seems appropriate for me to recuse and allow one of my fellow coordinators close it. Not least because as the article stands I am unconvinced that it meets criterion 1d and so have indicated that I am leaning oppose at the head of this section. Obviously I am open to being convinced otherwise, but have not yet been. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, while not binding is persuasive as to why a gallery might not be a good idea. I would honestly prefer nothing in the leade to cherry picking 6 philosophers. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both points. But while that is my preference, it is not something I am going to oppose over. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that having no lead images would solve various problems, like the ones we have been struggling with here. If there are no objections, I would go ahead and remove them. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, does this resolve your concern? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:. It does. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I co-nominated this article for GA status with Phlsph7 just this past August, and so it largely goes without saying that I approve of the overall structure and coverage of the article. There is more discussion on these matters than anyone would want to read here and in the article Talk page and its archives.

To this I will just add that I am quite impressed with the way that they have handled the issue of balancing Eastern and Western traditions, which I flagged prior to FA nomination (skip down halfway) as probably the biggest challenge, and one for which there is no perfect solution. To the best of my ability to assess, they seem also to have done an admirable job of bringing everything into compliance with all the niceties and finer points of Wikipedia style.

Much gratitude as well to everyone else whose edits and comments have contributed to making this such an excellent article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks a lot for your support, your countless valuable contributions, and your guidance in getting this article FA-ready. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2023 (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) 30 November 2023 [5].

1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As FAC reviewers may be getting bored of articles about Gillingham F.C., I thought I would instead nominate an article about New Brompton F.C. Oh, hang on - it's the same club - never mind :-) I am particularly pleased with the number of images I was able to find for this one - it's quite unusual to find match action photos in newspapers of this vintage but the Daily Mirror was kind enough to send a photographer along to one of the team's games in 1907. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • I would wikilink FA Cup in the lead.
  • went on to win 2–1 thanks to a goal scored by Cunliffe. -- Might just be me, but thanks to sounds a bit informal I guess. Perhaps a little tweaking.
  • Godley was making his debut -- made his debut
  • Hartley was absent for the game against Millwall on 27 April, Godley playing in his place. -- perhaprs with Godley playing in his place for better flow
  • even had they finished in the bottom -- might be an English writing I am not familiar with, but could this be phrased as even if they had finished (I could be wrong though)
  • I think the footnote could be split into 2 sentences.
  • Few comments from me. Great work as usual on this series; very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Is it worthwhile, somewhere in the lede, mentioning the club's current name? Especially since you pipe from it.
Done
Background: Was promotion possible from the Southern League Division One at the time? Or was there a requirement of election to the Football League? Some brief explanation might be useful since NB was not at the top of the football pyramid.
Added a few words to clarify
"the game, which was originally scheduled to be played on Boxing Day but was postponed due to snow" So by the original schedule NB was to play both Christmas Day and Boxing Day? Leaving aside 29 December.
Yes, that's correct. Right up until (I think) the 1950s there was a full programme of professional football in England on both Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and then they usually played on whatever was the next Saturday as well. In fact in 1913 Gillingham played games on the 25th, the 26th, AND the 27th!! Hard to imagine today's prima donna players going along with that :-)
"as no teams were promoted from Division Two." Why?
I've removed that bit completely. I've just discovered a source which indicates that promotion and relegation between the two divisions was not automatic but by election, and that Northampton and Crystal Palace were both re-elected to Division One. So we can't really say what would have happened had NBFC finished in the bottom two.......
In the table for the FA Cup matches, the wrong year is three times given.
That was embarrassing! Fixed now
There seems considerable whitespace in the "Players" section apparently due to the images.
I've tried a few things viz-a-vis the formatting of the table but can't figure out a way to reduce it. Any advice you can give.....?
Multiple image template or moving one to another section?
That's my lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • 'wrote that "[w]ith such a list of players': FYI MOS:CONFORM permits this to be 'wrote that "with such a list of players'. It's optional; I mention it in case you weren't aware.
    • Done - thanks for the tip
  • Not an issue for this article, but I see that the nickname "the Hoppers" doesn't get a mention in History of Gillingham F.C.. Should it?
    • I had a look through my various club history books and none mention it being a widely-used or long-lasting nickname for the team
  • Can you tell if Lunn was on the teamsheet for the first game of the season? If so I'd include him in the pre-season section even if Brown doesn't mention him.
    • He made his debut in the match stated at the end of September. I didn't find any sources which indicate that he joined the club before the season started so I presume he joined some time after the first game
  • I overuse semicolons myself so if I'm noticing them there are probably too many. I would suggest trying to remove at least two or three. The "January–April" subsection has nine in three paragraphs. I think it's not so much the number of them as that the sentence structures are a bit repetitive -- very difficult to avoid describing dozens of matches one after the other, I know. Perhaps just changing one or two of them to full stops would do it.
    • Got rid of a whole bunch

That's all I can find to complain about. I made a couple of copyedits; please revert if you disagree with anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I think we've covered this before, but can you say why rsssf.org is a reliable source? I can't find a discussion of it in the previous reviews I looked at.

Formatting looks good and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF is very highly regarded and its data has been cited by news outlets in India (where it was described as "a reputed organisation of football statistics experts"), the UK, the UK (again),the US and by Reuters. The Guardian newspaper called it "ever-reliable" and it is or was the "official statistical partner" of the Danish Football Association. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear from their introduction page how they validate the data supplied by their members. It does seem that they are not open to everyone -- there's a membership application process which requires submission of some statistics, so that implies a quality control step of some kind. Along with the positive references by other reliable sources I think this just about passes, but if there are any other football statistics databases which have clearer editorial control I'd suggest switching. Or if you can find a clearer description of editorial control for rsssf.org that would also help. For the coords: this is a pass, though I'd welcome further opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: To make things easier, I've just replaced RSSSF in this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that makes the source review an unequivocal pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Is there a way to verify the kit in the infobox? Do we know where "Boots, Balls and Haircuts" was first published? Everything else seems fine, licence-wise. ALT text is passable. Image placement seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The kit is sourced via the final sentence of the "background and pre-season" section. Location added for "Boots, Balls...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is a pass on the image front. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - may I start another nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: - thank you most kindly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (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) 30 November 2023 [6].

Brother Jonathan (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A gargantuan novel of 1,325 pages that required three separate volumes in publication, possibly bigger than any other well into the 20th century. A major financial loss for a shrewd Scottish businessman. A tragically lost opportunity for the author to *finally* overtake James Fenimore Cooper as America's top novelist. Brother Jonathan is a lot of things, but its not good, if only because it is just too many of those things at once: super realistic but also fantastically Gothic? Where John Neal's contemporaneous American readers took offense, British critics saw promise and modern scholars see sparkling gems far advanced for 1825, mired as they are in a thick and confused mess of a plot.

Come take a look for yourself! Should this nomination be approved, it will be my sixth — eighth if you include my featured lists — article I have drafted from scratch on topics surrounding the life of eccentric and influential critic and writer, John Neal. Thank you very much in advance, should you take the time to look this one over and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • I think you wait too long in the second sentence to tell the reader what Brother Jonathan is.
Agreed. That is now fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter loves Edith and feels jealous of her relationship with Jonathan. Jonathan" generally we don't use names back to back if we can avoid it, I believe.
Fix. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Jonathan's departure from Gingertown, " This is, I assume, the setting in Connecticut. I might introduce it by referring in the previous paragraph to Gingertown, Connecticut, not merely Connecticut.
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his rural Connecticut town" This is, I assume, Gingertown. I might omit this phrase. It can be mentioned that either Gingertown or the Harwood house are rural.
I changed "Connecticut town" to "surroundings". The community being rural is relevant to his restlessness, so I want to leave that word in there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bald Eagle saves him and brings his unconscious friend to the Harwood home. Edith encounters him and they express love for each other and become engaged." Who, in the second paragraph is "him"?
Swapped "him" for "Walter". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He briefly encounters Nathan Hale en route to a New York tavern where Walter meets many upstanding urbanites." This makes it sound like Nathan is also going to the tavern, and it is unclear if that's so.
Reworded to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Walter travels to Portland, Maine, " not Maine yet.
Fair. Changed to District of Maine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literally explosive" I'd cut the "literally". The reader gets it, it's the obvious thing to say, and you're pulling your punches if you'd dilute it.
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also like his earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual crimes" What sexual crime? Fornication? Perhaps greater explanation is needed.
Agreed. I added a little more to both the plot summary and to this part of the Themes section to make it clear we're talking about Walter seducing Emma. "Crime" has been downgraded to "misdeed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackwood allowed him to be less cautious in revising the original manuscript" maybe "Blackwood allowed him to publish something closer to the original manuscript".
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting although I won't be reading it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I don't blame you! Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Would you say that this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Will post some comments here later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "who saw full development via this novel to become the US national emblem" - Do you mean something like "who became the US national emblem as a result of this novel"? The current wording is a bit unclear (in particular, development of what?)
Reworded. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Period critics reacted poorly to these aspects of the book." - Just the sexual content, or the mixed-race characters too?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Brother Jonathan's early and thorough use of realism in depicting American culture and speech is superlative for the period" - Similarly, superlative in what way?
Reworded to remove "superlative". Let me know if you think the new version is still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824" - I'd link Baltimore, as it may not be as well known outside the US (unlike something like DC or NYC).
Right. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these initial comments. They are addressed. Looking forward to comments on the rest of the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this nomination; sorry about that. Additional comments forthcoming in the next day or two. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot:
  • Para 1: "The novel begins one year before the Battles of Lexington and Concord" - To be more clear, the storyline begins one year before these battles. (When were these battles anyway?)
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself, but he lets Abraham know that he believes Abraham to be fully culpable for the crime. Jonathan is driven away from the community." - It feels awkward to have three sentences in a row beginning with "Jonathan".
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings. His father will not let him leave for New York City. Walter grew up spending time in the forest among Indigenous people, particularly his friend Bald Eagle. When Walter gets caught in a spring flood, Bald Eagle saves him and brings him home. Edith and Walter become engaged." - In my opinion, some of the sentences could probably be combined, as they are quite short. In particular, the first two sentences feel somewhat choppy because of how short they are; maybe something like "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings, and his father will not let him leave for New York City"?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter meets a young man named Harry Flemming, who recently met Edith. " - Do you mean to say that Flemming recently met Edith?
Yes. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter ends the engagement and develops relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery." - I'd either cut "other women" altogether, rephrase this to "two other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery.", or (if there were more than two women) "other women, including Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery".
I chose the second option. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter is not actually Abraham's son. Walter's father is a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife." - Maybe condense this to something like "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter's father is not Abraham but, rather, a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife"?
Replacement accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: "The colonel looks like Jonathan, which bothers Walter. Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan and that he has sinister reasons for joining the army." - If Walter's feeling of being bothered comes right before Walter's discovery that the colonel is Jonathan, I'd consider combining these sentences.
Combined. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 8: "She makes a contradictory statement regarding whether or not Walter should marry Edith, then she dies." - I would change "whether or not" to just "whether" and change the last part to "then dies" for concision.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 9: "Walter learns that Jonathan and Benedict Arnold are traitors together" - Minor point, but did he learn that they are traitors who are working together, or just that both of them were traitors?
Together. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
  • Para 1: "Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early American fiction and possibly longer than any other since." - Regarding "considered it the longest work of early American fiction", was there any dispute over whether this was the longest work of early American fiction? In this sentence, I get the sense that there is uncertainty over whether any other book would be considered longer.
I don't know how disputed titles like "longest work of early American fiction" or "longest American fiction work until at least 1958" are. Page numbers are mathematically comparable, but word count is a better determinant. Because Brother Jonathan has never been digitized, an accurate word count is not at hand. Until someone comes up with a word count for this novel, I think those two claims ought to be attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper twenty years later." - The previous and next sentences are both past tense, so I'd also change this to past tense. Also, 20 years after Loshe's review, or 20 years after Brother Jonathan was published?
Modified to past tense and Littlepage publication dates added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "In 1823, he was at a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?" - The phrase "Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark" seems awkward to me. I can't pinpoint why, but I feel that "Smith's then-notorious 1820 remark" would flow a lot better.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Less than a month later on December 15, 1823, he left Baltimore on a UK-bound ship" - I wonder why this sentence gives an exact date, whereas the previous sentence (presumably talking about a party in November) only gives the year.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "The working title was The Yankee" - I'd add a comma after this because, similar to the examples given in WP:CINS, this clause can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "His financial situation was becoming desperate[22] when William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal in April to become a regular contributor to Blackwood's Magazine.[23]" - Do we know how dire his financial situation was? Additionally, I'd say "when, in April, William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal to...", putting "April" next to "when".
I haven't found any additional detail on his economic situation at that moment. The source I cite says "His situation was desperate when on April 20, William Blackwood responded." "April" is moved.
  • Para 4: I know Neal was the one who wrote to Blackwood, but "He sent him the manuscript" is a bit awkward.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Based on feedback from both Blackwood and his associate David Macbeth Moir, Neal revised the novel and submitted a second draft in March 1825. Based on that draft, Blackwood agreed to publish, but requested one more round of revisions, to which Neal agreed" - Likewise, two consecutive sentences beginning with "Based on" also feels awkward.
I removed the second "based on". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: "Only 500 copies sold before Blackwood deemed the venture a failure and the two men's relationship broke down" - Do we know when the breakdown happened? In addition, "the two men's" is somewhat redundant since it is already implied that only Blackwood and Neal were involved.
"Two men's" reworded. Timeline added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, did the book become more popular later? The last paragraph of the Background section addresses only how many copies were sold before Blackwood and Neal broke off their partnership, but it never mentions anything about later sales, if they even happened.
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional comments! I should be able to address these by November 21. Feel free to add more before then if you have them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I believe all your comments so far are addressed. There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824. Let me know if you think either issue warrants more discussion. Otherwise, what other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824.", no problem - I understand that some changes may not be possible due to a lack of reliable sources. I'll look at the "Themes" section now (I was planning to do this earlier today). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Themes:
  • In general, I would suggest adding a few subheaders for readability. From what I'm understanding:
    • Para 1 is about Neal's efforts to portray Americans,
    • Para 2 is about Brother Jonathan as an emblem/allegory,
    • Para 3 is about Walter's coming of age as an allegory,
    • Para 4 is about allegorical representations of egalitarianism,
    • Para 5 is about cultural diversity,
    • Para 6 is about racial aspects/tensions, and
    • Para 7 is about sexual aspects/relations. Am I correct in that regard?
I just added four subheaders. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "anglophile world" - Just to double-check, did you deliberately write "anglophile" (English-loving), or did you mean "anglophone" (English-speaking)?
Thank you for asking! Anglophone is really what I meant. I swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US." - Incidentally, that would have been quite an interesting reaction. Do the sources mention the nature of the reaction (e.g. protests, boycotts, angry letters)?
Yes, but I removed this sentence to avoid repetition and added this requested detail in the part of the "Depiction of Americans" section that also discusses it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Though initially considered to personify just the New England states, Neal advocated for Americans to accept Brother Jonathan as a representation for the entire country" - There is a dangling modifier here. Presumably it was Brother Jonathan, not Neal, who was initially considered to personify just the New England states. May I suggest "Though Brother Jonathan was initially..."?
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "about the protagonist Walter Harwood" - You already mentioned that Walter was the protagonist in the previous paragraph.
Walter's name deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "This exemplifies Neal's belief that people are their truest selves when at home" - Might be good to mention who says that, since otherwise it seems like we're saying this in wikivoice (rather than a single author making this observation).
On second thought, the idea in this sentence is poorly connected to the previous one, so I deleted it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "The stage coach that transported him to New York also exemplifies this natural American republicanism" - Similar to the above, you may want to mention who said this.
Attribution added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: "he is an unclear entity who may be one of two different men" - I would say that "may be one of two different men" makes the phrase "he is an unclear entity" redundant.
Redundancy removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "But unlike the mass death scene at the end of Neal's earlier novel Logan" - I don't recommend starting the sentence with "but", as it feels a little choppy.
Swapped for "However,". Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: "This may be interpreted as Neal's take" - It may also be good to say who interprets the ending of Brother Jonathan that way.
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: "The story explores the consequences of those actions for both men and women." - Any specific examples of said consequences? It's OK if you don't have any.
Nope. Both cited sources are pretty vague on this point. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 7: I noticed that the last half of this paragraph is mostly quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, it may be advisable to summarize some of the quotes. For example, you could summarize the Blackwood quote by saying something like "he disapproved of the seductive images and predicted that the vast majority of readers would not read it as a result".
Two quotes replaced with narrative summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for these! I believe all your comments above are addressed. What other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving these issues so quickly Dugan Murphy. This article looks to be in pretty good shape so far, though I will probably have my final comments up by Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Just checking in since Thursday came and went and you didn't post any new comments. Yours is the only comment thread on this nomination that is still active. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy, sorry about that, I completely forgot about commenting here on Thursday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm leaning toward supporting the FAC, since my remaining concerns are all minor, but will have my final comments shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Style:
  • Para 1: "Walter's dialogue in the first volume may be the earliest attempt in American literature to use a child's natural speech patterns to express a wide range of emotion." - The "may be" part is according to Martin, right?
Yup. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Literature scholar and biographer Benjamin Lease" and "the compilers of the Dictionary of American English" - Are these two the same?
Nope. Lease pointed out in his 1972 book that the people who put together the dictionary earlier that century had referenced three of Neal's novels. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary critique:
  • "as did readers in general, who largely ignored it" - Two things. I assume these readers are in the UK because you say that US critics took little notice; is that correct? Also, do you know if they ignored the novel because it was puzzling?
I realize I'm repeating here the thing about American readers ignoring the book because the previous sentence is supposed to be about readers in both countries. The source for your pulled quote (Sears 1978, pp. 73–74) says "No wonder that the reading public did not know what to make of the sprawling, brawling work, and ended by ignoring it." This seems to indicate that readers ignored it because it was puzzling, but I think it would be safer to stick to the point that they ignored it. I've reworded the last two sentences of this paragraph with all this in mind. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depiction of Americans:
  • Para 1: "Among American readers and critics aware of Brother Jonathan" - I would probably change this to "Among the American readers and critics who were aware of Brother Jonathan" to clarify that, while most American critics and readers didn't take notice of the novel, those who did were angered by it.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "In contrast, Sumner Lincoln Fairfield of the New York Literary Gazette specifically praised the novel as a "great success"" - Out of curiosity, do we need this word? "Specifically" in this context could be a little ambiguous, as it could be modifying either Fairfield, the praise, or the novel, so maybe this can be cut.
"Specifically" is deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham, according to John Bowring, assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."" - I'd rephrase this to something like "On the other hand, John Bowring claimed that Jeremy Bentham assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."", since this claim is refuted by Neal in the next sentence.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual content:
  • No issues.
Excessive but powerful:
  • Para 1: "The New Monthly Magazine ... The Monthly Review" - I presume these are both British? (Sorry, I'm just nitpicking at this point, as the article is pretty well written.)
Yes. Language added to that effect. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "The British Critic focused on what that critic" - Are you referring to the British Critic's critic?
Yes. I reworded to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "full or vigour and originality" - Full of vigour and originality, I assume, because the sentence would not make much sense otherwise.
Good catch! Typo fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moir praised: 'It is extremely powerful...'" - Usually, "praised" is a transitive verb, so you'd say something like "Moir praised the novel as 'extremely powerful...'"
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern views:
  • "Twenty-first-century readers are generally unaware of Brother Jonathan" - Is there anything available about 20th century views? You mention some reviews from the 20th century in the following sections.
My source for this statement is Richter in 2009 saying Brother Jonathan is "virtually unknown today". Per MOS:DATED, I chose the wording you quoted here. None of the 20th-century scholars I read said anything similar about readers in that century, even though clearly the novel has been obscure almost since it was published. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that makes sense. If the 20th-century scholars don't say anything about readers in that century, it wouldn't do us any good to basically add original research about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realism:
  • No issues.
Complexity:
  • Para 1: "The plot was "brilliant yet exasperating" according to biographer Donald A. Sears.[2] Morgan used the term "overstuffed".[116]" - Similarly to the previous sentence about Richards and Fleischmann, I'd suggest just combining these two sentences.
Combined.
That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for reading through the rest of the article! I have responded to all your comments. Do you feel any of them warrant further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I will support this FAC now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

A la Epic. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" I know you have to be cognizant of size constraints, but why would Jonathan implicate Abraham and then implicate himself?
Reasonable question. I re-read that section of the novel and some scholarly analysis of it and clarified accordingly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is nursed by their daughter" I'm not sure who 'their' refers to in this context
She's the daughter of the Quaker hosts. I reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation" A line like this raises the question for me of whether Neal said that, or literary scholars have proposed that? Most of what you mention (ie it was a coming of age story) I think is fine, but in this case I would attribute-- since I don't think it would necessarily be agreed by all.
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US" I'd be curious to hear more about this... feels almost contradicted by "In the US, critics and readers took little notice" later
Come to think of it, this sentence doesn't really say anything that doesn't come up later in the "Depiction of Americans" section. I added an extra sentence down there to satisfy your curiosity. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the novel features colloquialism and accents" -- not clear which novel is referred to here
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " generation's predominant concept of the United States as a unified nation" Is this really the case? My impression (not my area of expertise by any means) is that Americans of the early 19th century might have considered themselves on a more regional/state basis than national
The cited Pethers source says "...Neal increasingly begins to manifest through what we may call a vocalization (rather than a narration) of national diversity. In this respect, ... Neal's mature works of the 1820s ... contain within themselves multiple and contesting dialects which advance the project of transcending the Revolutionary era's political nationalism. Inverting the national motto of E pluribus unum to allow for sundry forms of cultural affiliation, the polyvocality of Brother Jonathan (1825) and Rachel Dyer simply reiterates the ideological intention of Neal's semiautobiographical novels in a different key." The cited Richter source says "Under the ironic title of Brother Jonathan, the diverse linguistic styles subvert the fiction of a unified, national whole." So it looks like neither claim predominance of the national unity idea, but just that Neal challenged it. Thus, I edited "his generation's predominant" to "the". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depicts American Indians as a people vanishing to make way " we have an article on Vanishing Indian, which needs a lot of work but may be worth linking
Agreed. Looks like this article didn't exist when I was first drafting this section! It is now linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When reviewing a Cooper novel four years later, the same magazine claimed Logan, Seventy-Six, and Brother Jonathan to be "full of faults, but still full of power" and successful at positioning Neal as Cooper's chief competitor" if the novel was published in 1825, and authorship attributed in 1830, how did the magazine do this?
The first two were already linked because Seventy-Six was attributed to "the author of Logan". I can't find a reliable source saying this, but I think there were so few books published in the UK by Americans about the US, and Neal's style is so distinct, I guess this critic felt safe attributing Brother Jonathan to the same author. So I think the most I could add here is that those other two novels were already connected by the title page of Seventy-six. (But since you mentioned it, the "four years later" line was in reference to Seventy-six's 1823 publication, so I just changed it to in 1827".) Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-reading your comment here, the original British review, and my summary of it. Here's the original 1827 review: "If we except Brown ... and the unknown author of Logan, Seventy-Six (which contained some most vivid sketches of scenes during the American war,) and Brother Jonathan, three of about as extraordinary works as ever appeared–full of faults, but still full of power; if we except these, there is no rival near Mr. Cooper’s throne." I think changing "positioning Neal" to "positioning the author" is warranted and speaks to your concern, because the critic didn't mention Neal by name. I just made that change. The article doesn't say that the review positioned Neal. It says the reviewer felt that the three books together positioned their author (who happened to be Neal). The question remains why the critic felt comfortable attributing all three novels to the same author. Regardless, he did attribute all three to the same author. That is clearly factual. What are your thoughts here? Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a perfectly logical solution, thanks for your diligence! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " blame it for many of the plot's inconsistencies." Do you ever highlight what these are?
I just added a couple of examples in the "Complexity" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-Uncle Sam national emblem of the US in part because of this novel. " Not convinced the article establishes this, especially the "in part because of this novel" part
How about this this sentence in the "Themes" section? "The emblem had been developing for decades as a minor self-referential device in American literature, but saw full development in this novel into the personification of American national character." Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just having a bit of trouble parsing the transition from Brother Jonathan, a book that seems to not have been particularly popular to a broader conceptualization of Brother Jonathan as an emblem. Does the sourcing consider Neal's argument to have influenced popular perception? Eddie891 Talk Work 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't explicit about connecting the novel to popular opinion. I think it's more about looking at the emblem's development through a historic lens. As such, I removed that language from the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "society around him both come of age through the American Revolution. " I get what you're trying to say, but it's not really the society coming of age-- what would it come of age to? Society itself didn't necessarily change a whole lot over the course of the book. Maybe like the nation or something?
I swapped society for nation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Martin found the representation of American Indian English more likely accurate than found in books by contemporaries like James Fenimore Cooper" Is one scholar's opinion sufficient to then say in the lead of the article that the depiction was definitely likely more accurate? Also do you mean "More likely accurate" or "likely more accurate".
I changed the sentence in the lead section to omit mention of contemporaneous literature. Conversely, in the "Style" section, I added another scholar's opinion to support Martin's on this topic. Given this rewording, your last question in this bullet point is now moot. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These elements of the novel were praised in the UK but derided in the US. " You never really establish that the depiction of a child's speaking was particularly derided in the US (or praised in the UK), I thought it was more the other regional differences depicted
You're right. I've reworded this sentence in the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first round, really interesting article you've got. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and for the comments! I am still working on them. The only one so far that may warrant more discussion is the comment about Neal's anonymity. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: And now I feel your comments are fully addressed. Thank you again for developing this list and typing it out. Do you think your comments about Neal's anonymity and Brother Jonathan as an emblem (or any of your other comments) need further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. Not sure yet about authorship. I have a response about Brother Jonathan above, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Thank you for the additional responses. I think the issue about Brother Jonathan the personification/emblem is now resolved. I also added another response to the anonymity thread. Let me know if that needs more discussion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Vat

[edit]

I don't think I can commit to a comprehensive look at the entire article, but I can do images :)

Image review is, as you might expect, a pass. All images are PD by virtue of age (and pd-text for the title page additionally), and have been properly prepared for FAC by addressing all complex nuances. Alt text is present and usable. I'll take the opportunity to note, though, that adding the "upright" parameter with no number unintuitively sets it to "upright=0.75" rather than the expected default of 1 -- some images might be worth double-checking to see if they're displaying as intended (a couple of the landscapes look small). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! I appreciate the tip about the upright parameter. I just looked at the MOS and it says that using that parameter without a number is deprecated, so I removed it from the two portraits. I increased the size of the three landscape images on your suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "an 1825 historical fiction novel": I think it would be more natural to make this "an 1825 historical novel", and link "historical novel" to historical fiction. "Historical fiction novel" sounds quite unnatural to me.
Fair. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, he revised it": mismatching referents; "written while" refers to the novel so the pronoun "he" is incorrect. Perhaps "Neal revised it in London" would work?
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section is well over 1,000 words. I think it would be worth trimming this a bit, but I have to say it's concisely written, so I leave it to your judgement if there's anything that could be cut.
Oh my gosh, I know. It turns out 1,324 pages doesn't fit easily into the 700-word max recommended by MOS:PLOTLENGTH. I just trimmed it from 1,078 words to 877. At this point, it is little more than plainly-stated, basic plot points, so I'm stopping there under the plea that this famously long novel with a famously too-complicated plot deserves special permission to exceed the recommended plot summary word limit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starts developing relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery, whom he met through Harry, but who knows Edith from childhood": "whom" appears to refer to both women so this is easy to misparse. Suggest rephrasing.
I agree. Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while observing debauchery": a bit unspecific. I assume the book itself is not particularly explicit if this included any sexual behaviour, but can we say whether this refers only to drunken revelry or to sexual escapades as well?
Changed "debauchery" to "riotous behavior" for lack of sexual escapades. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dedicated large expanses of Brother Jonathan": "expanses" is an unusual metaphor for part of a book -- perhaps "long sections" or "long passages"?
Changed to "a large proportion". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to step away from the computer for a bit, but will look at the remaining comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but in this regard, Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as the best and most extensive attempt": suggest "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as Neal's best and most extensive attempt in this regard."
Accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DASH you can have unspaced em dashes, or spaced en dashes, but not unspaced em dashes.
I only have one dash use in the regular prose, which is spaced, so I made it an en dash. All the other dash uses (aside from number ranges) are in quoted text, I standardized the quotes with fully or partially spaced dashes to en dashes and the fully unspaced ones to em dashes. I also noticed an inconsistent use of en vs em dashes in number ranges, so I changed those all to en dashes per MOS:RANGE.
  • It seems out of sequence to have the background after the themes section; any reason not to reverse those?
No good reason. I moved Background to follow the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had Blackwood allowed him to a story closer to the original manuscript": looks like a missing word?
Precisely! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the subsection "Complexity" is a sequence of short sentences, which gives a very staccato effect to the reader. Can we combine a couple of these, just with an "and" or something equally anodyne, to vary the flow?
I hear what you're saying. I combined two and reversed the sequence of another. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in excellent shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the compliment and for taking the time to read through the article and write out comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Would you say this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the fixes look good except for the dashes. Per MOS:CONFORM we regularize dash use in quotes. You have many dashes in quoted material -- e.g. "Walter and Edith were happy: and Warwick Savage – alias, Jonathan Peters – alias, Robert Evans – he, though not happy, was no longer bad, or foolish" which uses spaced en dashes. You have unspaced em dashes in "not because of their being worse—but because of their being better" and the Connecticut farmer's speech, and the quote box showing phonetic stuttering is a mixture. There are others. There's an exception in CONFORM: "provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text". I think you might argue that the quotes of the farmer and the drunk are important to show as Neal had them, but is it clear whether he had em or en dashes, or that it would make a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking about MOS:CONFORM! Thank you for bringing that in. I standardized to the standard of spaced en dashes per MOS:DASH, with the only exception being the semi-spaced en dashes in the quote box and the unspaced em dashes in the farmer dialogue. As you suggested, I see the purpose of including those text quotes as demonstrating Neal's unique experiments in punctuation. I think they need to reflect the original text in order to not "obscure meaning or intent of the text". It's valuable to demonstrate how Neal's use of dashes was irregular. That means that the only em dashes left in the article are in the farmer quote. The only en dashes not fully spaced are in the quote box. @Mike Christie: What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is justified, but judging from this, which seems to be a first edition, the drunk quotes should be spaced em dashes. I couldn't find the other quote but I'd guess you can; worth checking if we're going to argue that the exact typography is important. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! You know, now I'm thinking that the drunk quote is my transcription of somebody else's transcription instead of the original text. The farmer quote certainly is. Here's the original. Based on this fresh look at the original publication, I just standardized those two quotes to spaced en dashes like the rest of the article. Now adherence to MOS:CONFORM is complete! Thank you for keeping on this and helping me figure it out. @Mike Christie: Anything else? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think everything looks good now; glad we ran that one to ground. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I am partway through compiling my comments on this article. I will update this once I'm done. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • There is something of a tendency to structure sentences in a comparatively intricate way that at times impedes readability. I have given some specific examples below.
Lead
  • "Period critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes." – this is a fairly conspicuous use of "period" in this sense. I would go for the much more common "contemporary" (or phrase it along the lines of "critics at the time").
Sure! Changed to contemporary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Contemporary critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes. They were explicit for the period, addressing female sexual virtue and male guilt for sexual misdeeds." – "They" in the second sentence refers to the themes, but the intuitive parsing is that it refers to the subject of the preceding sentence, i.e. the critics. There are several different possible ways to address this, for instance merging the sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good eye. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a bit further myself. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using phonetic transcriptions, the dialogue documents a wide range of regional accents and colloquialism." – that should presumably be "colloquialisms", plural (or else it should be rephrased to avoid the intuitive parsing of "a wide range of" modifying "colloquialism" as well as "regional accents"). Or even simpler: change it to "colloquial speech". I would also link the term (colloquialism).
Changed to colloquialisms. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included" – inconsistent verb tense.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Written while he was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, Neal revised the novel in London many times over and convinced [...]" – this adjusted phrasing still doesn't quite work; Neal wasn't written. I would suggest the simpler phrasing "The novel was written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic, and he revised it in London many times over before convincing [...]".
    That's funny you should point this out, because I think you know that I already reworded this sentence for the reason you are raising here. My rewording did not achieve its purpose! I just reworded again and I'm confident it is now grammatically correct. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, hence "this adjusted phrasing". TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid 1825" – missing hyphen.
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: The body twice mentions plot inconsistencies. If the plot is generally considered to have a significant amount of inconsistencies, this should probably also be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. If nothing else, it would prepare readers of this article that the "Plot" section might be expected to be a bit difficult to follow. The lead does mention that the novel is viewed as "too complex to be considered good" by many scholars, but a complex novel is not necessarily the same thing as an inconsistent (or even just difficult-to-follow) plot – for instance, The Lord of the Rings is fairly often described as a complex work in a positive sense, i.e. a carefully and intricately constructed narrative, without this being regarded as having a negative impact on its readability. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Twenty-first century readers are generally unaware of the book and scholars who are familiar with it generally consider it too complex to be considered good." – not a dealbreaker in any way, but the sentence would probably read better if one of the two instances of "generally" were swapped for a different word. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the consensus among scholars is that the plot is too fractured and complex to be considered good" is a significantly stronger statement, and in particular, it's a stronger statement than the body makes (or indeed we have sourcing for, unless there is a source that explicitly states this to be the case). TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to summarize the last two paragraphs of the article in the second half of the last sentence of the lead. I just reworded to something closer to where I had it your last comment on this topic. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" – maybe there's something I'm missing, but that seems contradictory to me. Update: Resolved while I was compiling my comments.
  • I can't say I see what the 1761 image of New York City adds.
    It's the closest I think I can get to illustrating what New York City looked like when Walter Harwood was there. Much of the novel takes place there. Do you think the article would be better off without it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. I don't think it illustrates what it looked like at the time particularly well, and because it is so wide it has an undesirable effect on the text layout (depending on screen width and settings, and so on). It's not a big problem, but I do think it's a net negative. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not irreversibly attached to it. Consider it deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Quaker household" – I would link Quaker.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his family home seized by Tories" – is there a strong reason to refer to them as "Tories" rather than, say, "British Loyalists"? "Tory" has rather different associations to me, and I suspect most readers.
Tory is the term used in the novel and it was common in revolutionary America, but I agree that British Loyalist would likely enhance clarity for all anglophones. Term is swapped. I'll look at your other comments in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She seduces him and they sleep together" – She seduces Walter, right? I would clarify that since Harry was also mentioned in the preceding sentence.
Yes! Name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan" – I might add "scare quotes" to "Warwick" here. I might also add something along the lines of "in disguise" or "using a false identity" to make it a bit clearer, even if it is not that difficult for the reader to piece it together, so to speak.
    If I was to introduce this convention, I think staying consistent with it would feel annoying to the reader. Once you read the whole plot summary, you realize Abraham is not Walter's father, that Warwick is actually Jonathan, and that Warwick is actually Robert. Adding "using a false identity" would be fine, though, so I did that. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way it's done now works just fine; I wrote "I might" for a reason. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruth Ashley, who has held unrequited romantic feelings for him since he arrived in New York" – I might give a rough indication as to the amount of time.
Sure. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert is his real father but thought Walter was Abraham's son and responsible for the accidental infant death of Robert's other son." – the "and" is ambiguous. Did Robert think Walter was responsible or is Robert responsible?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "At more than 1,300 pages over three volumes" – I would write "across three volumes".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm referring here to the lesser known infant novelist. But really, good point. I moved the parenthetical. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The novel that became Brother Jonathan he hoped would boost his reputation to surpass Cooper's." – a bit awkward phrasing.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the US, its language, and customs" – a bit odd to have "its" in front of "language" but not "customs" like this. I might either say "the US, its language, and its customs" or "the US, and its language and customs, [...]".
Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • "cultural recognition of the US within the anglophile world" – Anglophile or anglophone? According to my dictionary, the former should be capitalized and the latter should not, so this is wrong either way. (Update: This part was resolved while I was compiling my comments.) I would also link it.
Linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brother Jonathan is partly a coming-of-age story about the protagonist Walter Harwood growing into manhood and about the new American nation as it is born in the American Revolution." – if the intended reading is that it is a coming-of-age story both with regard to Walter and the US, "partly" confuses that somewhat and using the word "both" somewhere in the sentence would make it clearer.
    "Both" is added. "Partly" is kept because the novel is famously much more than a coming-of-age story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Partly" can mean "in part" in the sense of "among other things", but it much more commonly means "not entirely". TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "naiveté" – use either "naïveté" or "naivety". This spelling is neither fish nor fowl.
I see! Changed to "naivety". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to cultural studies researcher Jörg Thomas Richter, the stage coach that transported him to New York" – the added attribution makes it sound like the stage coach transported Richter rather than Walter.
Walter's name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heterogenous" – heterogeneous. "Heterogenous" means that something originates from without (as opposed to from within), whereas "heterogeneous" means that something is diverse (and intermixed, usually).
You're really good at picking up on these almost-the-right-words. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also includes a character on the stage coach smoking a pipe dangerously close to a keg of gunpowder, suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation." – this is the type of media analysis where it's pretty important whether this interpretation comes from the author or not. If it does, that should be made explicit. If it does not, it should be indicated whether this comes from a particular person's reading of the text or is a generally accepted interpretation. Update: The preceding sentence is now attributed to Richter. If we are to infer that this is also Richter's view, it needs to be clarified ("He" in this sentence refers to Neal).
Fair. Richter is now attributed in both sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the novel features colloquialism and accents specific to [...]" – is that "colloquialism [in general] and accents specific to [...]" or "[colloquialism and accents] specific to [...]"? If the latter, it should be "colloquialisms", plural. If the former, it should be rephrased to avoid the latter reading.
Colloquialisms it is. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter seduces Emma, and like many of Neal's earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual misdeeds." – like in many of Neal's earlier novels. The male protagonist here does not do the same thing as the other novels, but the same thing as the corresponding characters in the other novels.
"In" added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism" – or should it be "dialects and colloquialisms", plural?
I guess plural is more appropriate given that Neal stresses polyvocality in so many of his works. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an early example of documented American colloquialism" – again, it seems to me like it should be plural.
Pluralized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinct of British precedent" – maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR thing, but I would definitely say "distinct from" (which is also what the WP:LEAD says).
Changed to "from". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The novel's prodigious use" – prolific?
    What's wrong with prodigious? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not wrong, per se, but this is presumably intended to be a statement about quantity. While "prodigious" can be strictly about quantity, it is usually a statement about quality (with or without also being a statement about quantity). "Prolific", on the other hand, is always strictly about quantity. In other words, with "prodigious" the sentence would likely be parsed as "The novel's extensive and skillful use [...]" rather than just "The novel's extensive use [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. I switched to "prolific". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accent marks, italics, and diacritics" – accent marks and diacritics?
"Accent marks" removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This experiment comes after Neal played with" – verb tense.
Changed to "came". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Period critique
  • As above, I would avoid using "period" here in favour of e.g. "contemporary".
Sure. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception of Brother Jonathan was mixed but mostly warm. Most of the positive criticism is qualified" – inconsistent verb tense.
Changed "is" to "was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] commentary on the novel's shortcomings, such as The Ladies' Monthly Museum published: [...]" – this is rather difficult to parse. "Such as" is usually in the sense of "for instance", but here it seems to be in the sense of "of the kind [that]"?
I meant the latter, but anticipating others experiencing the difficulty you did, I added "what" to change it to the former. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared to them" – those?
Word swapped. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as did readership in general, who largely ignored it" – this is either a sense of "readership" that I am unfamiliar with, or it should be plain "readers" (or possibly "the readership"?). At any rate, articles are supposed to be accessible to most readers, so I would suggest rephrasing this.
"Readers" is a fitting substitute. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "characterization of Americans". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern views

Ping Dugan Murphy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for applying your fine-tooth clarity comb to this article! I believe all your comments are addressed and the article is better as a result. The only ones I believe may warrant further discussion are your comments on the NYC skyline, scare quotes, coming-of-age, and prodigious. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I addressed your new comments, so I believe the only standing comments that may need more discussion are the ones about coming of age and the use of "prodigious". What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: Those are indeed the only remaining issues that need to be addressed, apart from a couple of comments that I have just added. See above for my responses to those specific issues and the handful of new ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Great. I believe I have resolved all the new and old issues you have raised. As long as you think my replacement for "partly" is appropriate. Tell me your thoughts. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: We're certainly getting there. I spotted one new issue and replied to another. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I made a couple more tweaks and issued a couple more responses. I think we may be done here. How do you like the last sentence of the lead? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

...working... ——Serial 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I can see that some reviewers could have been put off by the amount of black ink thrown up; but it's worse than it looks. That in the cites section are solely due to the use of =N, quote; the comma delineates two items. There's nothing wrong with noting who one's source is quoting, by the way—a good reading of WP:V. But, tbh, I'd go either further or back; if you are going to specify a quoted source, why not the page number as well? After all, the Literary Gazette—fn93, for example—was a weekly publication at its height, so if the reader wants to confirm your quote, they appear to have no small search ahead of them. And precision would not seem to be furthered by a pageless source being not only pageless, but only 'ostensibly' so (fn96). I suggest keeping it simple. I see several works from (random cut-off date for modern scholarship) pre-1970, but they are not overly used, and the most commonly used are modern works. In any case, there's undoubtedly little wrong with the University of Wisconsin or The New England Quarterly. It's a pretty niche topic, and a search of several databases suggests that nothing that should be used here has been overlooked. Couple of other points.

Regarding citation 93 and others like it: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase? If you're saying that I should find what page in what issue of The Literary Gazette is being quoted by Cairns, I don't see why that is necessary. I'm not citing The Literary Gazette. I'm citing Cairns. I'm just making clear that the quote is not Cairns's words, though I got the quote from Cairns. Let me know if you think this should be discussed further. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as yours is a high-quality and independent reliable source, we don't need to know who they cite. You cite what you read; you only need to cite who they cite when you read the second thing through the first. See WP:SAYWHERE: 'follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones'.
Ok. I removed all the references within inline citations to who is being quoted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gale is a reputable publisher, we don't need to be told it's an A Cengage Company.
Sure! I literally copied how it was written on the title page. I deleted that part. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're citing a chapter in Watts & Carlson, that's the required cite; the complete monograph is unnecessary. Likewise DiMercurio. It's the authors of what you cite the reader needs, not who edited it.
If I understand what you're saying here, then the source listings for chapters in Watts & Carlson and DiMercurio don't need a title parameter. Unfortunately, when I delete those title parameters, those source listings render with an error message. I've left them as-is for now. But if what you're saying is that I should delete the listings for these two books, then see my response to your last comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Responded there. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cambridge, England'. UK, I think. Also re. Spiller.
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schumacher, Merlob, need publisher/location info for consistency.
Merlob, Pethers, Sivils, Richter, and Schumacher are all book chapters. Each of these source listings include a link at the end to refer to the full book listing. It is designed that way to avoid repeating the same information over and over again in the chapter listings. This is the format settled upon during the FAC review for John Neal (writer) three years ago, which also cites chapters in the same two books. So I've been following that precedent ever since. Do you feel strongly about this format choice? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As book chapters, they need to be cited within the context of who they are published. See WP:HOWCITE, which basically shows that everything you've got in your chapter cites should be augmented with what you have for the rest of the book. Yes, this might result in the same book being cited several times. This is good, as the reader needs to know where the material is to find on each occasion. And using the full book citation on its own makes it appear as you're using the whole book, which you're not.
Ok. DiMercurio and Watts & Carlson are removed from the source list and their publication information is added to the relevant chapters. That means that I changed all the Richter 2009 inline citations to Richter 2018 to keep them linked to the proper source listing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
——Serial 20:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for reviewing my sources! I responded to your comments about handling chapters vs books and attributing quotes. Do you think either point needs more discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Dugan Murphy, and apologies for the delay getting back to you. I hope I have clarified my queries while emphasizing the importance of following an English Wikipedia content guideline, WP:REF, in this case, an extension of policy, WP:V. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I believe all your comments are fully addressed. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Would you say that this article has passed your review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you Dugan Murphy for providing me with a really interesting read. You've clearly put a lot of work into the topic. Congratulations  :) and yes, "consistency being key", etc., @FAC coordinators: I'm happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial 19:45, 25 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2023 [7].

Mount Berlin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica, and the only one in Marie Byrd Land with ongoing geothermal activity. In the past, especially before about 10,000 years, a number of volcanic eruptions have taken place there and have dispersed tephra across Antarctica. The volcano partly developed under ice and features ice-volcanic landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
(t · c) buidhe 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]
'assessed'? 'evaluated'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yup these would be better, I was expecting you to say it was prospected by the US or similar Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus a few quick replies Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I miss this?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support on prose Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Which means that having said "which is variously interpreted as a rift[29] or as a plate boundary" you immediately describe it as a rift in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps 'This feature ...' or something similarly neutral?
?
Sorry, missed that. At least on Wikipedia Rift is uppercase, and in light of this example I would not categorically assume that putting it in uppercase implies that it must be a rift. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "The rift" is saying that it is a rift, 'The Rift' is merely referring to its common name.
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking.
  • Just to be clear, there are no known eruptions between 2.7 million 571,000 years ago?
    Aye. There probably was activity, but its output was buried under more recent eruptions or eroded away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 25,500 years ago it shifted to Mount Berlin proper". Would "it" refer to the activity which "also occurred on the flanks of Mount Berlin", ie as well as the activity on Merrem Peak, or to the activity which "then took place at Merrem Peak between 571,000 and 141,000 years ago"? PS Or, I suppose, both.
    Volcanic activity in general, but I already used "activity". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think 'activity shifted to Mount Berlin proper' works in this case, and it removes the ambiguity.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a word can be included in an article which even the author can't define. How about 'Distinctive layers in ice cores have ...' or similar?
Did an impromptu translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I never bother, on a "sky is blue" basis, and have never been challenged. I also find it faster and usually faster to generate my own maps. My notes at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps may help if you want to trial this. (Both of the maps there are from FAs.)
I've put in such a map taking inspiration from yours, using Wikipedia's own coordinates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a couple of queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the map. Just the rift issue left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Comments by Esculenta

[edit]
  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) high" This phrasing meeds an adjectival form (parameter adj=on). There are several examples through the article, please audit.
    I think I got all of these, although I am not sure if that's grammatically correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "a c. 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi)" uses "c." for circa, which is commonly used in historical contexts. For the average reader (to which this lead should be geared) it's probably better expressed as "approximately" or "about" for clarity.
    Done and also the occurrence in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mountain with parasitic vents that consists of two coalesced volcanoes; Berlin proper with the" it's grammatically incorrect with a semicolon there (colon would work), but maybe the sentence would benefit from restructuring …
  • … "Berlin proper with the 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater and Merrem Peak with a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) wide crater, 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away from Berlin." This sentence might be reformulated for better readability. For instance: "Berlin proper features the 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater, while Merrem Peak, located 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away, has a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) crater."
    The colon is in now. Going to need a second opinion on splitting, though, as it seems like it would be considerably wordier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has a volume of 2,000 km3" What does "It" refer to? The last thing discussed is trachyte, the dominant volcanic rock.
    Rearranged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a tephra? Yeah, I see there's a link, but this is the lead and there shouldn't be undefined/low context words in there that the reader has to click away to learn.
    Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tephra layers were formed by explosive eruptions/Plinian eruptions" this and/or slash to describe the eruption seems awkward; could it not be written more elegantly?
    Tried it, but I can't find a formulation that isn't either SYNTH or cherry-picks sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like this: "The tephra layers were formed through a combination of effusive and intense explosive or Plinian eruptions, which were particularly active over the last 100,000 years, producing high eruption columns and distributing tephra widely across Antarctica and the southern Pacific Ocean."
    Mmm, the effusive eruptions didn't generate tephra layers. Upon reflection, I went for a different solution, it's somewhat cherry-picky but Plinian eruptions are a type of explosive eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link volcanic rock, and BCE in the 2nd image caption
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead image has me confused – are we looking at the highest point, or from the highest point?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead says that MB is 210 km from the Amundsen sea (what part of the Amundsen Sea, it doesn't say), but this distance is not given in the article text, which says it's 100 kilometres inland from the Hobbs Coast of the Amundsen Sea. Shouldn't be in the lead if it's not in the article, cited.
  • it's interesting how 2,000 km3 = 500 cu mi in the lead, but when dealing with a tenth of that number, 200 cubic kilometres = 48 cu mi.
    Wow. No idea how I didn't notice this error before; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this article in AE ("hypothesized") or BE ("metres")?
    It's supposed to be the latter, but I am ESL and so don't always notice the spelling differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to parasitic vent and its redirect to "parasitic cone" bugs me. As I'm sure you well know, the vent is the opening through which volcanic materials are expelled, while the cone is the structure that forms around the vent due to the ejected material. So the interested reader who wants to know more about the cool-sounding "parasitic vent" gets led to the parasitic cone article, where the phrase "parasitic vent" does not occur (yep that article's crap), and leads to newbie reader not knowing if the terms are equivalent (the crap article mentions vents, but what's "parasitic" about them?). You seem to be one of the geology/volcano experts around here – perhaps you could use your powers to fix that problem for your future article links, and future readers? (I know, not strictly FAC-related, but a general suggestion)
    There is apparently space for a dedicated article but I tend to write more on specific volcanoes than such general articles. It seems like maybe swapping the article and the redirect would be warranted, seeing as a parasitic cone is by necessity built on a parasitic vent; what say you Volcanoguy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable but volcanic vent also redirects to volcano. Volcanoguy 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, volcano is a very broad-scope article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from the lead. I see from a quick read that the entire article could use a thorough copyedit for nits like these, but to prevent this from becoming a lengthy peer review I'll end my commentary here and wish the nominator luck. Issues aren't enough to oppose, but I'm generally underwhelmed by the article quality. Esculenta (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the issues and also attempted to mend some others. Do you think that The volcano is covered by glaciers, and thus only a few rocky outcrops occur on the mountain, although the volcano is considered to be well-exposed compared to other volcanoes in the region can be split in some way? Same question for and generated distinct deposits when eruption characteristics changed. Also I can't tell how to make the "in" go away in "1 metre (3 ft 3 in)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sentences can be readily simplified by splitting them, so the newbie reader doesn't have to parse so much info in one gulp. "The volcano is covered by glaciers, resulting in only a few rocky outcrops being visible on the mountain. Despite this, the volcano is considered to be well-exposed in comparison to other volcanoes in the region." and another split: "They were formed by pyroclastic fallout during eruptions, which mantled the topography. As eruption characteristics changed, these processes generated distinct deposits." BTW "mantled" is not a common verb (outside of geological discussions), so it would be good if there's a stop there for the reader to assimilate that. Esculenta (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And is this what you mean: 1 metre (3 ft)? Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, another pet peeve: "about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)" there's no reason for there to be two significant figures in the output if the input is "about 1"; the answer implies a false precision. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was what I meant. Installed it for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Dealt with some potential nits in the description section) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esculenta, 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) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really only reviewed the lead in full, so I can't support. I've got a full plate on wiki and IRL, so can't commit to a full review at this time. I'll perhaps revisit for a complete review if I find a chunk of time to dig into the article, but can't guarantee it. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Volcanoguy

[edit]

I might not be able to review this article due to computer issues but I'm putting this here just in case. Volcanoguy 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volcanoguy, this nom has been open a month so quick check if you'd still like to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre (11,411 ft) high glacier-covered volcano". Should this be "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre-high (11,411 ft), glacier-covered volcano"?
    Mm, not sure that we can assume knowledge of what the meters mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously referring to the elevation. Volcanoguy 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I prefer the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's problematic how it is but maybe it should be clarified that 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) is the elevation. Height can mean several things. Volcanoguy 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but this is a marginal thing IMHO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano began erupting during the Pliocene and was active into the late Pleistocene-Holocene." Why not use "late Quaternary" instead of "late Pleistocene-Holocene"?
    Quaternary is a very broad term that has also been applied to purely Pleistocene volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the Holocene and late Pleistocene are late Quaternary. The article already makes it clear that Mount Berlin was active during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Volcanoguy 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying late Quaternary however does not make it clear that activity lasted into the Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "late Pleistocene-Holocene" supposed to mean Mount Berlin was active at the boundary of these two epochs or that Mount Berlin was active during both late Pleistocene and Holocene? Volcanoguy 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, but both interpretations are factually correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
According to WP:DASH, dashes are used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Many of these volcanoes form distinct volcanic chains, such as the Executive Committee Range where volcanic activity has shifted at a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.4 in/year)." Is there a specific direction this volcanic activity has been shifting?
  • Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years." I would suggest slightly rewording this sentence to "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary; argon-argon dating has yielded ages as young as 8,200 years."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four volcanoes in the Marie Byrd Land volcanic province". Missing the capitalization of "volcanic province".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The West Antarctic Rift has been volcanically and tectonically active over the past 30-25 million years." En dash instead of hyphen?
    Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a hyphen between "long" and "term". Volcanoguy 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
Last eruption and present-day activity
  • "The date of the last eruption of Mount Berlin is unclear but the Global Volcanism Program gives 10,300±5,300 BP as the date of the last eruption." "Last eruption" and "last known eruption" are not particularly synonymous.
    While I think last known is implicit in the GVP indication, I am not sure it's explicit enough to say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there could have been more recent eruptions that haven't been identified. Given the fact that Mount Berlin is mostly covered with ice there could very well be younger volcanic rocks that haven't been found or dated. So to say that 10,300 ± 5,300 BP is the date of the last eruption may not be the case. Volcanoguy 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I don't know whether GVP knows or has reasons to treat it as the last eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't; the GVP treats it as the "last known eruption" is what I'm trying to get at here. Volcanoguy 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this time, and I didn't notice that the GVP pages say last "known" eruption; correction now in in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These geothermal environments may host geothermal habitats similar to these in Victoria Land and at Deception Island". Similar to "those" in Victoria Land and at Deception Island.
    Forgot to note that this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending feedback from Volcanoguy on some, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Volcanoguy 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "It is a about 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi) mountain": looks like some editing debris?
    Yeah, something happened to the lead. I've cleared it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the self-links to Berlin Crater
  • "The edifice emerges 2.1 kilometres (1.3 mi)[11] from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." I don't know what this distance refers to. The associated note says that the ice sheet is piled up against the side of the volcanic, so there appears to be no horizontal distance between them.
    Aye, but there is a vertical distance between the summit of Berlin and the WAIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the text doesn't make it clear that that's the distance being given. I would take "the edifice emerges" to refer to the point where the rock emerges from the ice. Since the note clarifies the relationship between the edifice and the WAIS, I don't think you need this at all, but if you keep it it should be clear what it refers to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me "emerging X meters" is clearly meant to refer to the emergence i.e the vertical coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I follow you. The volcano has an elevation of 3.478 km at its peak; the highest point of WAIS on its flank is 1.4 km; so the difference between those two is 2.1km. How about "Mount Berlin's peak is 2.1 km above the highest local elevation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, OK, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These craters are aligned in east-west direction": suggest either "These craters are aligned east-west", or "These craters are aligned in an east-west direction".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire edifice has a length of about 20 kilometres (12 mi)." Given that we said it consists of two edifices, suggest making this "The entire combined edifice".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows feature levees." What does this refer to? The link goes to an an article that does not explain the term's use in this context.
    Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tendency towards more primitive magma compositions": I had a look at the magma article to try to understand this use of "primitive"; as far as I can tell it refers to the composition of the original melt. Is that correct? If so, how can that apply when it appears there is no single magma chamber?
    Footnoted this, it's a technical term to define magma chemistry and is strictly speaking a spectrum rather than a yes-no thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years": It wouldn't hurt to make it clear these dates don't apply specifically to Mount Berlin. Perhaps "Activity in the province" to address the first part, and give the location of the dating in the second half?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really necessary, but it would be interesting to know if the tephra layers have been found in ice cores in the northern hemisphere.
    Yes, but not from Antarctic volcanoes. Oruanui might have produced a bi-polar tephra layer, though, but it's in New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the eruptions in the "Chronology" section are more or less chronological; any reason not to switch the first two entries to make them conform?
    Can't think of one, so that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 443,000±52,000 lava" seems an abbreviated form of words?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7,768 BCE": all your other dates are essentially BP dates; I think it would be better to be consistent. There's another BC date in the final section.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have a similar composition even if no exact match is found": the phrasing seems odd. I assume this means "have a similar composition though no exact match has been found"; if so I'd use that form of words.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been evaluated for the potential to obtain geothermal power": any interesting conclusions from the evaluation?
    No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me like this statement from the same page (p.120) could be summarized as a conclusion: "Being isolated and extensively covered with ice, these volcanoes are unlikely to have any significant economic value as geothermal resources" (rather than leaving the reader hanging). Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with Esculenta that a brief summary statement to the effect that there is little chance of exploiting the volcanoes for geothermal power would be helpful but that's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (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) 24 November 2023 [8].

Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In September 1999, Alexander McQueen staged Eye in the middle of a hurricane threatening New York Fashion Week. Other designers cancelled, but McQueen forged onward with a controversial collection that crossed Middle Eastern traditions with Western sports and fetishwear. Jeweller and frequent McQueen collaborator Shaun Leane notably chimed in with a yashmak veil forged from chainmail. Reception was mixed: the overly-theatrical show overshadowed the clothing, and the theme predictably drew accusations of misogyny and cultural appropriation. In retrospect, Eye remains one of McQueen's lesser-regarded collections, outdone by much of the rest of his body of work. Nevertheless, I find it of interest, if mostly as a reminder that not all of his experiments succeeded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • There are a few spots where four citations are used. It may be best to do citation bundling or another solution to avoid citation overkill.
    • Normally I try to avoid going over 3, but I think the couple of times I've gone with 4 are reasonably justified (mostly where I'm making a broad statement about opinions and a couple times for sentences that compress details from multiple sources). I tried doing a cite bundle, but with the sfns, it creates a third layer that people have to click/hover through if they want to see the full ref, so I'd prefer to avoid those if you don't mind
  • I believe well-known cities such as New York City are not supposed to be linked. I also believe the following links are unnecessary, (film, history, nature, world religions, art).
    • Mmmmm...I'll ditch the others but arguably New York City is contextually relevant and someone might want to click through, so I'm going to keep it
      • From my experience, I believe it is strongly discouraged to link well-known cities with New York City being a common example, but I do not have a strong opinion about it myself so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Some items had prints resembling traditional Islamic art.) Did the source provide any examples or go into further detail on how the items resembled traditional Islamic art? It is understandable obviously if further detail is not available, but I did pause here and ask myself this question so I wanted to ask you.
    • Unfortunately it's an offhand comment that doesn't really go into detail - it mentions garments with "Moorish white and blue prints". It's an obvious reference to Islamic geometric patterns / Zellij, but I didn't want to get that specific in the text given the reviewer didn't.
      • Thank you for the response. I got the impression from reading this part that the reviewer did not go into further specifics, but I wanted to clarify that just to be sure. The current wording makes sense then and reflects the source well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Lisa Armstrong at The Times of London speculated there was also an element of spite towards the British Fashion Council.) Would it be possible to briefly expand on why this would be considered an element of spite?
    • I had a hard time with wording this because she's speculating about his beliefs, and I didn't want to wind up in a "she thinks he thought they thought" chain of silliness. How's it look now?
  • Apologies for the nitpick, but I do not believe the "crunch time" quote is really necessary. It is not really clear who is saying this quote and rather than attribute it, I think this could be more easily paraphrased.
    • Yeah fair, I reworded a bit, I guess it's a common enough term
  • I do not think US$ and £ need be linked multiple times in the article.
    • Me neither, but the conversion templates force it and I've never been able to figure out how to turn it off.
  • I have a quick question about this part, (The show was staged at 9:00 p.m.). Would it be necessary to clarify the time zone, which I believe in this case would be EST. I do not believe this was done in the other articles so it is likely fine here (and to be blunt, it was not something I thought about), but I just thought about it now so I wanted to ask you anyway.
    • No idea. I don't think it's necessary? But if someone else weighs in to suggest it is, then I don't mind adding it.
      • It probably is not necessary since the location is already well-established at this point. I would think the time zone would only be necessary for like a television show or something where it could vary depending on region, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, (The show's soundtrack was described by one reviewer as "ominous disco".), why not name the reviewer and publication since it seems to be known since the citation has a name and publication?
    • Unfortunately no one else described the music so I'm stuck with just the one quote, but name/publication didn't really feel like a necessary detail. I do it for reviews and analysis because it gives context to the opinion, but here it doesn't add much
      • I would still more clearly attribute the quote (in this instance being from Alex Kuczynski of The New York Times) as I do not see any reason to be vague about it by not naming the reviewer or publication and instead opting for "one reviewer". I found this part to be unclear, particularly when two citations are used for this sentence so it is even less clear where this quote is coming from. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance for this nitpick-y question, but is the following sentence entirely necessary: (The show reportedly received a standing ovation.)? If it is not entirely clear if this really happened or not, I am not sure if it really adds anything. Also, is applause a rather normal part of a fashion show? My primary concern though is the "reportedly" part though just to be clear.
    • Weeeeeeell, only one reviewer saw fit to comment on it, so I threw in a "reportedly" just in case. I can take it out if you think it's fine without. Applause happens at some fashion shows (I'm assuming more common now as crowds tend to be more expressive these days), but standing ovations are relatively rare in fashion
  • I have a comment for the following quote: "The bad boy [McQueen] did good." I do not think the additional McQueen is necessary as I believe it is already clear in context, and I think it would be best to stick to preserving the original quote.
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (dismissed Eye as a retread of things McQueen had done before). Did they provide any examples of how this was a retread?
    • Basically all of it, lol, which is why I went with a broad summary. McDowell haaaaaaated Eye. He hated the water gimmick and he hated the acrobats and he summed up the clothes as, essentially, a bunch of ugly junk that McQueen had done before. I could get into more detail in the article if you feel it's warranted
  • In the "Reception" section, Hilary Alexander's full name is used multiple times throughout, although for other critics, only their last names are used after the first instance.
    • I initially did that because I felt there might be some confusion as her last name is McQueen's first name, but on review it's not really necessary, so, fixed
  • I believe in both instances here, (The Met) and (originally staged in 2011 at The Met), the "The" should not be capitalized.
  • For the "Analysis" section, would it be more beneficial to put the Clarissa M. Esguerra and Michaela Hansen paragraph before the Ana Finel Honigman paragraph? I only ask this because I think it could be better to put the Between comparisons in the same paragraph, and Esguerra and Hansen's discussion on turquerie could more naturally lead into Honigman's part on cultural appropriation. This is just an idea of course.
    • I tried a few versions of this part, but ultimately I settled on separate paragraphs because E&H's analysis is so much more rounded. Honigman doesn't have much more to say than I've summarized, and I think it would read awkwardly if I chopped her sentences into E&H's larger paragraph.
  • This is not required for a FAC or a FA, but I always think archiving web citations is helpful, especially to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
    • Tried it a couple times but kept getting gateway timeouts :( I'll try again later.
      • I understand. The IABot has been acting up for me for a while so I've gone back to doing it manually, but there are still issue with that. As I said above, this is not a requirement for a FAC or a FA so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Wonderful work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Aoba! I'm always happy to have your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the response. I just have one point remaining. I still believe the "ominous disco" quote should be more clearly attributed in the prose. I always believe that quotes should be clearly attributed when information like the author and publication are known to give readers a more complete picture of where this information is coming from and who said it. Once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

Why is dailyartmagazine a high quality RS? The editorial team looks semi-pro at best to me and "She dreams of becoming a curator but works in the miniature industry." doesn't give me much hope. Not really a sign but only 4k twitter followers is a red flag.

  • I chucked it, on review I didn't need it anyway

What are your thoughts on the use of the via field? Part of me wonders if Gale and Newspapers.com should get tagged.

  • I'm ambivalent about it, but I will mildly protest that I haven't been asked to use it at most previous FACs, so I don't believe it's standard

The video of the show needs an access date. I'm not sure if the fact should be mentioned if you need a primary source, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

  • Normally I wouldn't bother, but I think it's worth it for the transition between the wacky acrobat show and McQueen coming out to drop trou

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The comments are largely around BrEng bits, with a couple of other bits mixed in.

  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear"
    • Is this BrEng? I've always seen it as one word, like "sportswear"
  • "pants" -> trousers. To Brits "pants" are underwear
    • I always forget this
  • "taxicab" -> taxi
  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
    • Same as above
  • "Harem pants" -> harem trousers
    • Do you mind terribly if I keep it as-is? "Harem pants" is the generic term, and immediately afterward I describe them as trousers, so it ought to be clear enough
  • You refer to "boxing shorts" in sportswear, but link to boxer shorts, a type of underwear. When I think boxer shorts, I think this sort of thing, rather than this sort of thing. Although one developed from the other, they are now quite different.
    • This is extremely annoying because we don't have an actual article on boxer shorts and the boxing article doesn't really get into them. That being said, retargeted to boxing as the least useless option
  • "didn't" -> did not
  • "prompting a time crunch": I'm not sure what this is saying, and I don't think it's encyclopaedic in tone – may be worth reframing?
    • Really? I thought it was a common phrase, but okay.
  • "Rumors" -> Rumours
  • "£500,000 (US$800,000) to £1 million (US$1.62 million)": you don't need the links on the other three sets of currencies
    • I've tried that and it continues to produce links - it's producing them in your comment, even. The link=no parameter simply doesn't work on this template, I don't know why and frankly I'm too dumb to fix it.
  • "Runway show": you've got two headers with the same name, which I think may be an MOS no-no
    • Revised
  • "utilised" – "used"?
    • Why?
      • Because 99 times out of a hundred "utilise" is greatly inferior to "use"; the other one time it is just inferior. That and Orwell: never use a longer word where a shorter one will do! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok
  • "pantsuit" -> "trouser suit" – and link
  • "couldn't" -> "could not" (twice)
    • Above two done
  • fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
    • Same as first time
  • "finesse": do we need the scare quotes on this?
    • I'm using the exact word the guy used, hence quote marks
  • "harem-style pants" -> "harem-style trousers"
  • "niqab" -> Niqāb (or niqaab) – but def linked
    • Done

Interesting work, as always. That's my lot, and I hope it's useful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

Time to give the copy a bath... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It was inspired by the culture of the Middle East, particularly Islamic clothing, as well as the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove last comma
  • Sixty-eight looks were presented in the main show, after which, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor for the show's finale. No comma needed after "which"
Concept
  • Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab, and the London Arab community, the collection Remove comma after taxicab
  • McQueen stated that he wished to examine the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove comma
  • To this end, the collection crossed traditional Middle Eastern and Islamic garments such as harem pants, baggy trousers fitted to the ankle; the yashmak, a type of veil; and the burqa, which fully covers the body and the face; with elements drawn from Western fashion such as sportswear and fetishwear. I am unsure if the last semicolon coming out of the list should just be a comma.
    • Revised the sentence a bit
      • This looks good.
  • body conscious silhouettes hyphenate "body-conscious"
  • Another longtime associate, jeweller Shaun Leane, created a yashmak made to look like chainmail, from aluminium plates inset with red Swarovski crystal cabochons. Is the comma after "chainmail" needed?
    • Revised the wording a bit but I think yes.
      • The changed wording justifies the comma.
Runway show
  • He viewed this as a step toward developing the brand internationally. He was clear from the outset that he intended to return to England the following season. Two sentences in a row starting with "he".
    • Merged them
  • Sponsor American Express, in their third year as McQueen's backer contributed Complete the appositive with a comma after "backer"
  • De Beers contributed an unspecified amount of funding, and lent a 1,220-diamond necklace and a 407-diamond pin for the runway show. remove comma, obvious WP:CINS issue.
  • The show was staged at 9:00 p.m. in a Pier 94 warehouse on 16 September 1999 maybe The show was staged in a Pier 94 warehouse at 9:00 p.m. on 16 September 1999, to put the time and date together
Reception
  • Similarly, Givhan wrote that McQueen had created not fashion, but "a collection of costumes for a fascinating theatrical event" Remove comma after "fashion"
  • Menkes gave "high marks for showmanship", but wrote that and Fox was not sure whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not, but noted and Quintanilla felt that most of the clothes were "pure fantasy", but found the coats and dresses to be "standout pieces." and Both Givhan and Suzy Menkes ... appreciated these more commercial pieces, but felt and Scott found that the runway items "defied description, if not reasoning", but noted that McQueen's retail clothing was usually "more realistically wearable". and Jean Fraser of the Edmonton Journal enjoyed the performance, but wrote of the designs: Remove comma, CINS
  • Horyn found the clothing less impactful than the runway show, remarking that "the clothes didn't break new ground", but that one had to respect McQueen's vision nonetheless. A bit awkward. A verb after "but" would help here.
    • "respect" is the verb in this context.
      • It still doesn't work the way it's structured. I took out the second comma which does.
Analysis
  • Curator Soyoung Lee wrote that the yashmak "signals mystery and forbiddance" by concealing the wearer's body and face, yet possesses a "sensuous fluidity" in its movements. Remove comma, CINS
Legacy
  • $1,875 USD maybe US$1,875? This would be consistent with the only other monetary figures in the article.
And it would comply with the MoS. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, but fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie: Image review

[edit]

There are seven images. Two are public domain. Three are CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the Musée des beaux-arts du Québec exhibition. Another image is of a burqa in a French museum. The only non-free image is the yashmak, for which an appropriate NFCC has been provided. The original is no longer in existence, and it is talked about enough including critique to merit the use.

The yashmak image lacks alt text. Alt text is present and adequate for the other images, though maybe a little more detail could help on some of the other look images. All images have suitable captions and placement.

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello PMC. Each time I've seen one of these McQueen collections at FAC, it has been promoted before I got there, so with the admission that my only knowledge of the industry is from watching this!, here are my comments, suggestions and questions...

  • short description - move to top

lede

  • eponymous fashion house - intentional redirect from brand?
    • Somebody moved it at some point and I don't really care enough to move it back one way or another. Does it matter? It gets to the right article.
  • made from chainmail. - link chainmail
    • Linked

Concept and creative process

  • Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab and the London Arab community, the collection explored - is this saying he heard the music in cab and in the London Arab community or inspired by two separate things? If separate, suggest reword to 'McQueen heard in a taxicab and by the London Arab community' (or similar)
    • Tweaked
  • football jerseys bearing red crescent moons - this juxtaposition could possibly be emphasized by a link ie [[Star and crescent|crescent moons]] but maybe it's obvious enough?
    • Linked
  • There were also a number of draped dresses - was also a number of? or is that the Engvar thing I can't get used to?
    • Remove the middle words and try it. "there was dresses" vs "there were dresses" - were is correct.
  • provided by milliner and - the milliner
    • nope. I fall on the pro-false title side of this debate
  • made to look like chainmail - link chainmail

Runway show

  • personnel who didn't attend - tweak contraction
  • Rumors from before the show - rumours
  • Runway show is used as two diff level headers - is that OK?
    • Fixed
  • Pier 94 - could link North River (Hudson River)#Status (that calls it the "UnConvention Center", the second-largest exhibition hall in New York City) - not mentioned in sources?
  • weather, more than 1,000 guests attended - invited guests? How do people get 'tickets' to these shows?
    • They're invited, it's not like a concert where the public can buy tickets.

Reception

  • couldn't decide whether - tweak contraction
  • Menkes gave "high marks - move her name and links up to here
    • Done
  • Writing for The Detroit News, Nicola Volta Avery wrote that - swap "wrote" to 'said' or 'opined' or similar as already said "writing"
    • Done
  • whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not - not sure if "or not" is needed when "whether" is already present?
    • Removed
  • felt it indicated that he had "undoubtedly - maybe swap "he" to McQueen?
    • I think it's evident from context
  • and said he couldn't imagine other - tweak contraction

Analysis

  • but exposed the genitals - nipples and buttocks aren't genitals?
    • I was trying not to use her exact wording but fair
  • Hilary had similar thoughts, saying - add surname Alexander
    • Fixed
  • sexualised niqab designs - link niqab
    • Done
  • Curator Soyoung Lee wrote - add link
    • Done

Images

  • caption ...The headpiece in the front ensemble is a 2021 creation by Michael Schmidt - link Michael Schmidt (designer)
  • alt=A garment made of plates of metal joined together, adorned with small red gemstones. It covers the entire face, torso, and arms, except for the eyes. - reorder to 'covers the entire torso, arms and face, except for the eyes.'
    • Done both

Refs

  • 13 Bethune 2015, p. 304–311. - pp
  • 41 "Has the bottom fallen out of london fashion week?" - cap L at least?
    • lol oops

Bibliography

  • Lee, Soyoung (2018). "The Resplendant Body: Jewelry on the Edge - authorlink and typo Resplendent
    • Fixed

Consistency

  • the New York Times v The New York Times
    • Fixed
  • boxing shorts v boxer shorts
    • They're different (albeit related) garments so I'm differentiating textually. It would be easier if we had an article on boxing shorts, but we don't - see Schro's comment above about links to it. Boxing shorts are the kind of shiny nylon boxing shorts that boxers wear in the ring - think this type of thing. Boxer shorts are soft, usually cotton, and are meant to be worn as undergarments - think this. The girls in the show had athletic-style boxing shorts, McQueen showed off his undies

Misc

  • For the show's finale, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor. Strobe lighting played while acrobats dressed in robes resembling burqas descended from the ceiling suspended from wires, - so no-one interpreted this? What does it all mean:) - fly away to freedom from the torturous and black place? Guess we'll never know.
    • Honestly, this is one of McQueen's dumber concepts and I think everyone wrote it off as such. I don't even think he knew what he was trying to say with it. In comparison, better finales like the illusion of Kate Moss drew enough analysis that I got an FA out of it alone.
  • Knowing next to nothing about runway shows, are they just one-offs? McQueen didn't then repeat the show back in London?
    • They're generally one-offs; that he reprised Banshee and Dante is genuinely weird. I'm not aware of him doing so for any other show.
  • No comment from Wintour?
    • Not that I found in any source, but that doesn't really surprise me

That's all from me. I know so much more now, so thanks! JennyOz (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (no spotcheck)

[edit]

Bibliography

  • There are no sfns pointing towards Bolton 2018
    • Oops, that was a leftover - removed
  • On the Victoria and Albert Museum video, add the media type and put YouTube in the via parameter
    • Via parameter done, but it isn't any of the applicable media types, so that wasn't done
  • The Internet Archive link to Thomas 2015 is locked- that is, the borrow is unavailable to most, so you could cut the link or add the lock icon next to it
    • Ditto Wilson 2015
      • I'm gonna keep them in case they become available again, I generally haven't bothered with locks for paywalled/restricted sources as it's not mandatory and would be a huge amount of work for minimal benefit

Refs

  • Ref 12 is dead
    • Good thing there's an archive
  • Citations that are housed at Newspapers.com often have that site in their via parameters- same for Gale and ProQuest sources, but this is a suggestion, it's not required
    • I don't bother, generally; I got told somewhere along the line not to do this, but
  • Ref 57: International Herald Tribune is the wire agency, but NYTimes is the publication- switch
    • I don't think so. IHT was its own newspaper that happened to be owned by NYT; as a resullt its archives are now hosted on NYT. The bottom of the article even says "A version of this article appears in print on   in The International Herald Tribune."
  • Ref 59: add YouTube to via
    • Done
  • Ref 82: quotes in the citation title should use apostrophes per WP:QINQ
    • I've italicised it instead for consistency since what was in quotes is a major work

Premeditated Chaos, that's all, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) was the fifteenth collection made by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen". Suggest deleting "made".
  • "the collection's most well-known design". Suggest "most well-known" → 'best-known'.
    • Above two done
  • "Bibliography": you only need to link Metropolitan Museum of Art at first mention.
    • I've been told to link each instance of a publisher, because readers won't necessarily be reading the bibliography from top to bottom.
A little to my surprise, that is a not unreasonable interpretation of MOS:REFLINK. I am not a fan, but that is irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 November 2023 [9].

Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the longest MLB baseball game in terms of innings ever, and probably with rule changes the longest there will ever be. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airship's flyby

[edit]

That's probably the chunkiest infobox I've ever seen. Would suggest narrowing it a bit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The line score takes up the space it does. If there's any way to narrow it, I'm all in favor of it, but the only way I can see is eliminating the line score, and we might as well get rid of the infobox then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to set an image size. The box with the giant image is taking up my column in New Vector -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly big. At my standard settings the first line of the text is "On Saturday, May 1,". On my phone, where the cartoon is little more than a blur, the first line of text is "On Saturday,"; the second is "May 1, 1920," This is not satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Experimenting, setting upright to 1.4 gives a legible cartoon on my - largish - monitor with a sensible strip of text; and a result on my phone where the cartoon title is legible - so no difference - and the strip of text is at least not laughable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The plaque image is displacing the following table
Those are done. Thank you for the image review. Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – abandoned

[edit]

Interesting article, putting down a marker to review soon. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox image is far too big, and cramps the text in the lead. Somewhere around 450px would match the width of the score.
  • The abbreviations "BKN" and "BSN" are used in a few places, but never explained. Recommend including them in the opening sentence of the lead: "On Saturday, May 1, 1920, the Brooklyn Dodgers (BKN) and the Boston Braves (BSN) played.."
I've struck the infobox and eliminated the abbreviations, which are not official in any case.
  • "..saw rainy weather, and it was unclear whether the game would be played, but the weather cleared.." The repetition of "weather", "whether" and "weather" makes this sentence slightly awkward; try to rephrase.
  • Wikilink "run" in the lead.
  • "Brooklyn scored a run in the fifth inning, and Boston in the sixth; thereafter the pitchers became increasingly dominant. As the game lengthened past eighteen innings, the small crowd at Braves Field cheered both pitchers. The last twenty innings were scoreless, and with darkness starting to fall, the umpires called a halt after the 26th inning.." Spell out "twenty-sixth" to make the format of the other comparable numbers.
  • I know AmEng likes false titles, but try to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE they create: "manager Wilbert Robinson", "Pitcher Leon Cadore", "spitballer Burleigh Grimes" etc.
  • Explain what "had a 15–14 record" means.
Link added.
  • "Oeschger was later in 1919 traded.." This sounds a bit odd; maybe switch it around to "Later in 1919, Oeschger was traded.."
  • "Earlier in the 1920 season, Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschger, 1–0 in 11 innings." I'd move this to the end of the next paragraph.
  • "Both Oeschger were 28-year-old right-handers." Should this be "Both Oeschger and Cadore were 28-year-old right-handers."?
  • "..good for second place out of eight.." "good for" sounds like journalese. Maybe "placing them".
  • "..half a game behind.." What does this mean?
  • "Boston sported a 4–5 record.." Again, not sure this use of "sport" fits in an encyclopaedia.
  • "..31⁄2 games.." As you used the written form previously ("half a game"), this should also be written out.
As a general rule, baseball games behind are more commonly expressed as numerals, perhaps deriving from their place in statistical tables such as standings. I've never seen, in text, 1⁄2 games behind, though. It seems to be an exception.
  • "..for the 3:00 game.." Specify am or pm (same in the infobox, now I notice.)
  • "..be the starting pitcher, if the game was played." No need for this comma.
  • "Thus, only 4,000 or so fans came to Braves Field to view the contest." Switch "came" to "went".
  • "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?
This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.
  • "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?
Linked.
  • "..when Zack Wheat popped to second base." What does this mean?
Rephrased and linked.
  • "In the bottom of the first.." What does this mean?
See "top".
  • "..walked to lead off the inning.." What does this mean?
Linked to base on balls
  • "Cadore retired the next three batters.." What does this mean?
Retired is now linked to out (baseball).
  • The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."
I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.
  • "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?
Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.
  • "..side without a run scoring." Grammatically, I think this would sound better as "..side without a run being scored." But honestly, this section is so jargon intense that I'm really struggling.
  • I think there is an extent to which any sports articles requires jargon.
  • "Wheat walked with one out.." What does this mean?
  • Linked.
  • "..hit a ground ball.." What's a ground ball?
  • Linked.

I'm going to stop here for the moment. I'm really struggling with the jargon. As someone who writes cricket articles, I appreciate the difficulty, but this section could really do with simplifying if possible. If not, all jargon at least needs to be wikilinked on first use. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think now you'll find that all terms with articles are linked, and a glossary is supplied for the puzzled reader to look up the terms. I don't think it can be written without jargon because the ninety and nine of the hundred readers who read this article are going to know something about baseball or they would not be looking for the longest game.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More
[edit]
  • "..as there was as yet no artificial illumination of baseball fields." This sounds awkward; maybe something simpler like "..as the field had no artificial lighting."
No MLB field had such illumination so I'd rather phrase it broadly.
(Pulled down from above.) I take your point, but the current phrasing remains awkward. How about "..as baseball fields did not yet have artificial lighting." (It's mostly the "as there was as" which is awkward.)
OK
  • "Called to bat, Stengel received mixed boos and cheers from the Brooklyn crowd as a former Dodger, and doffed his cap, whereupon the bird flew away to great laughter from the crowd." I found this a bit difficult to read first time. I think removing the comma after "Dodger" would help.
OK
  • "The Dodgers had won eight of their first twelve games going into May 1, and was in second place.." "was" should be "were" here for consistency.
OK
  • "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?
Linked.
(Pulled down from above.) I still don't know what "reached" means in this context.
I've directly linked from the glossary.
  • The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."
I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.
(Pulled down from above.) I disagree. One says it almost entirely stopped (ie, it didn't stop), while the other says it stopped. That's a contradiction.
I cut the one that is not in the game description.
  • General repetition: Five of the six paragraphs of the First nine innings section start "In the top of the xth...", while the other starts "In the xth..". Try and add some variation.
OK, done.
  • "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?
This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.
  • "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?
Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.
(Pulled down from above for both of these.) An article should not require a reader to have thoroughly read a glossary on the subject to understand. If there is something in the glossary to help understanding, then link to it. Unless I'm missing it, the article does not currently link to the glossary at all.
  1. I've linked to the glossary for the baseball terms you question and as many others as I can find.
  • "Cadore, though, retired the side without a run scoring." This might be an AmEng/BrEng thing, but to me this should be "..without a run being scored."
  1. It feels the same to me either way but I've taken your language.
  • "Cadore's hit could have been a double play had not Oeschger bobbled it.." Bobbled?
  1. I'm not sure that term is unique to baseball or even sport but I've linked to "muff' in the glossary.
  • "..hit a fly ball to shallow left field that dropped, allowing Krueger to score." I don't follow what is happening here.
  1. Rephrased somewhat.
  • "The Brooklyn run scored on what Oeschger remembered as a broken-bat single." Feels like this is missing "was" after "run".
  1. The shorter version feels slightly more natural but I'll accept your language.
  • "..right fielder Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard in left field with one out." I don't understand the relevance of the scoreboard in this description.
It denotes that the ball traveled to the scoreboard in left field. The would make it quite a long hit. It's useful to put in some description where we can other than simply mentioning hit or out, and this is an important point of the game. Similarly we mention the broken-bat (now linked) nature of the Brooklyn run-scoring hit.
  • "..advanced to second on a Cruise sacrifice but, and went to third on a groundout by Holke." Something not quite right there I think.
Yes, fixed.

Reviewed to end of First nine innings, will continue. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the @FAC coordinators: ; I've abandoned this review as I just can't wade through the jargon well enough to review it suitably. As Wehwalt suggests, there may well be no realistic way of avoiding it, so I don't intend to oppose, but I don't think I'm in a position to provide an effective review of this article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts. I do not think it possible to write an article on a sporting event without using the sport's jargon. For guidance, I looked at the FA 1988 Football League Second Division play-off final, for which you were the successful nominator. I do not question its quality, I simply note the use of jargon, in fact often less linked than in the present article. For example (citations excluded in all cases, but links included), "but the Chelsea goalkeeper, Kevin Hitchcock managed to get his left palm to the attempted chip. Nevin then created an opportunity for Chelsea, crossing the ball to Dixon, who missed the goal with his header." Never is there an explanation or link to what a chip is, or an opportunity, or crossing, or header. Or a goalkeeper, or "goal" in its meaning as in an area on the pitch. Oh, I rather like this passage: "Chelsea dominated play early on; within 90 seconds of kick-off, Nevin had a shot at goal which Pears "brilliantly" deflected onto the post, according to White. Middlesbrough's best chance of the match came a few minutes later, when a cross-cum-shot from Cooper rebounded off the post to Slaven. From 5 yards (5 m), his headed shot went over the bar." Nowhere is there an explanation or link to tell the putative novice reader what a kick-off is, or what shot at goal is, or a post, or a bar, and certainly not a cross-cum-shot. (I wondered at that myself, and do follow English football in a desultory sort of way, and have been to two play-off finals myself). I could go on, or even pass to cricket (I'm sure I could find ample there) but I think my point is made.
I say again, my point is not to denigrate your writing in any way, and in my view you are one of the best writers we have. But an article such as these two are not intended to give basic information on the rules of the sport to the reader. While they should be adequately linked, they exist to explain exceptional matches (such as Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979) to individuals already versed in the sport. While they should explain the basics (such as the background and aftermath) in language that is clear to anyone, ultimately discussion of sport uses the language of sport. As your articles show, and in my view both your articles and this one meet the standards I have discussed. (though I might link cross-cum-shot) :).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by RoySmith

[edit]

I probably won't do a full review, but here's a few random comments:

Brooklyn and Boston played to a 1-1 tie on September 20, 1905 in the second game of a doubleheader (8 innings), on April 24, 1907 (13 innings), and possibly other times as well. Thus, that title would not completely disambiguate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have articles about those games?
No, they aren't notable games as far as I am aware. But how does the reader know that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is not to disambiguate in the title unless you have to, not because you might have to at some point in the future if other articles get written. TITLEDAB says, "... already used for other articles". RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside FAs such as Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977) (there is no other similarly-titled Coventry City article), I'd state that the (26 innings) is not a disambiguating parenthetical, but part of the scoreline, as baseball games that are decided in other than nine innings very often carry such a parenthetical. It also, like the year in the soccer article above, provides a clue to the searching reader (in our search box) that they have found what they are looking for. Simply stating the score without the number of innings does not tell the reader that they've found what they very likely are looking for, the longest MLB game ever. Unlike many other articles on individual baseball games, this does not have a shorthand nickname like, say, the Pine Tar Game. TITLEDAB says, "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that it was even possible for a baseball game to end in a tie. It took a bit of research to discover this used to be common, due to the lack of lighting at ballparks. I think this should at least be covered briefly.
I've added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's many places in the Records set section where statements are implicitly as of 2023. While this is stated explicitly in the first sentence, it should be made explicit for all the other ones, in some way that isn't as ugly as plastering {{asof}} templates every other sentence.
Do you have some suggestions as to how? It would be as of 2024 now, effectively, as the regular season for baseball has concluded and postseason records will not change the regular season record book.--
Maybe start out the section with, "The May 1, 1920 game set a number of records which still stand As of 2023" and then start enumerating them? I would even make that one sentence a stand-alone paragraph to emphasize that it applies equally to everything that follows (even if that horrifies the FA regulars). RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence but kept it within the exiting structure of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess...

Lead
[edit]
  • Delete "Saturday" in the first sentence. What day of the week it was isn't that important.
  • "26 innings, the longest game in terms of innings..." -> "26 innings, the most..."
  • Only link Braves Field the first time
  • Delete "for their teams". Who else would they be pitching for?
  • In the lead, it's "jointly hold the record", in the main body, "jointly hold the MLB records". Use either record (singular) or records (plural) in both places.
In the lead, we only mention one record. In the body, we list two: longest pitching appearance and longest complete game. These are distinct records.
  • "May 1, 1920, saw rainy weather", don't repeat the date, or at least don't repeat the year. How about, "The day of the game" or "Game day"?
  • "came to understand ..." in wiki voice is editorializing, and I can't find where it's stated in the main body.
  • "no illumination of baseball fields." Of course there was. It just stopped working at sunset.
  • "There were stories told" is stated as "A myth arose" in the main body. I'm not convinced those are fungible.
I think the sources would support both phrasings, but I've adjusted the lede a bit.
  • "as many former major leaguers" It's not clear if "former" means "before 1920" or "before 2023".
  • "the records ... were not threatened." Who said they weren't threatened? WP:OR?
No, the body says that the longest pitching appearance in the two 25-inning games was 91⁄3 innings, which is barely a third of what Oeschger and Cadone did. So no one came close to equalling their joint record.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to in this section.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
[edit]
  • There's so much richness in the cartoon, let's not deprive our screen-reader users of it with just a stingy "Newspaper cartoon" for an alt text.
Added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's a correct statement. I added a bit more which attempts to let a blind person enjoy more of the wonderful story depicted in the cartoon. And while I was there, I uploaded a better version of the image.
Background
[edit]
  • "Joe Oeschger, had won 15 games in 1917, but only four in 1919" ... and in 1918 didn't play because he was abducted by space aliens?
He probably would have preferred it to the poor record he posted for the Giants ... added.
  • "Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschge" Drop "over Oeschger"; we know they opposed each other, no need to repeat that. Actually, no need to say "winning pitcher"; we already know what positions they both played.
The current phrasing makes it clear both pitched the entire game (or at least, until the final inning). The changes you suggest would not exclude the possibility of relief pitchers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Cadore and his roommate" avoid repetition of "and"
All done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First nine innings
[edit]
  • Throughout this entire section (and the rest of the article), you overuse "but". It's not just the word itself; it's repeition of the "A thing happened, but then something else happened" sentence structure that's repeated many times and makes for an awkward pattern.
I see your point, and will work to tone it down a bit, but it is to an extent unavoidable. The narration of a baseball game, with many discrete events, is necessarily going to be choppy, and as many of the innings took the pattern "So-and-so reached base, but then Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without a run scoring", it's hard to avoid. Cadore, for example, allowed baserunners in 13 of the first 14 innings, but only one scored.
"Although So-and-so reached base, Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without allowing him to score"
"In the first 14 innings, Caldor only kept the bases empty once; of the 27 (whatever) baserunners he allowed in that stretch, 26 were stranded"
  • "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly." This implies the game was started in the rain, which comes as a surprise. Maybe in the first short paragraph of The game, "... to view the contest, which started while it was still raining"?
The source doesn't definitively say that. Baseball can be played in the rain, as long as it isn't raining too hard, and there could have been intervals of rain during the first inning.
You've already got a source which covers that: 'It was drizzling when Umpire Barry McCormick called "Play Ball!"'. That begs the question of how drizzle stops abruptly, but that's not our problem.
  • "which held up many fly balls" I picture a cold wind, holding a gun to a fly ball's head, demanding, "OK bub, give me your wallet!"
I've changed to "slowed". But I'm dubious it carries the same nuance to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reached on a throwing error" reached what? There's a lot of baseball jargon in this article. Maybe that's OK given the subject matter, but this one seems a little much. Pity our poor readers who were forced to grow up on footy and cricket.
Rephrased slightly.
  • "Oeschger doubled to center field" might be worth mentioning that in this era, pitchers actually knew how to use a bat.
The two pitchers were a combined 1 for 19, which isn't very good, nor unusual for pitchers.
  • "from Mickey O'Neil, the catcher" -> "from catcher Mickey O'Neil"?
  • "Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard" I'm guessing that means the ball bounced off the scoreboard, but that's not clear. Was this a ground-rule triple? It might be interesting to say where the scoreboard was, i.e. behind left, center, right, whatever field?
  • "tagged out at home plate" spelling out "home plate" instead of just "home" seems out of tone with the rest of the narrative.
Maybe, but I was trying to avoid being too jargony.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stallings replaced the catcher, Krueger, with Rowdy Elliott" it's unclear if that happened in the 7th or the 8th.
  • "The pinch hitter also singled." this is an awkward little sentence. How about "... Stalling sent in Lloyd Christenbury to pinch hit for O'Neil. Christenbury attempted a sacrifice, but Cadore's throw..."
Extra innings
[edit]
  • "Having pinch hit for his catcher, Stallings" I know what you're saying, but this sounds like Stallings did the hitting, as opposed to doing the managing. Maybe it's OK, but consider if it can be clarified.
  • "In the top of the seventeenth, Brooklyn mounted its first threat of extra innings". They weren't threatening to send it into extra innings, they were already there. Maybe "... first threat of the extra innings?"
I've never heard "the extra innings" in baseball parlance. It's always been without the definite article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "threat of extra innings" is still confusing. When I read "threat of X", I take to to mean "X might happen". Threat of rain. Threat of banishment. Threat of being forced to listen to Justin Bieber. What you're trying to say is "threat of scoring a run during extra innings", and "threat of extra innings" doesn't say that to me.
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the game lasted three hours and fifty minutes" That's astoundingly fast for 26 innings by modern standards. Might be worth saying something about that.
It's fast, but nine innings was sometimes played in less than an hour pre-television.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only three baseballs were used in the entire contest" again, might be worth comparing to modern play where three baseballs might not get you through a single at-bat.
It's exceptional, but a comparison with modern practice seems a bit OR to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Records set
[edit]
  • "Charlie Pick ... eleven at bats in a game without getting a hit", which implies others have had eleven at bats, but they got a hit?
Yes. In this game, Boeckel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holke's record of 42 putouts in a game by a first baseman" or for any other position, I would imagine?
  • "43 total chances, also a MLB record for a first baseman", same comment
On both. I would agree, but I'm unable to find a site that confirms this. The records seem to be broken down by position. But given the first baseman gets the most putouts in most games unless you have Nolan Ryan on the mound, you are almost certainly correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction and aftermath
[edit]
  • "The tie game was replayed as the second game of a doubleheader on June 25," Interesting, Yesterday I learned you could have ties. Today I learned they get replayed. Might be worth mentioning how this worked in those days.
Added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, both men pitched effectively if not brilliantly for several years after the game" Editorializing. Who said those things?
I've limited to they remained in MLB for several years after the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, probably worth mentioning somewhere if the pitchers were left or right handed. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's worth mentioning. They were both right-handers, but that really plays no part in the story. Stallings sometimes platooned his players, especially in 1914, but there's mention of him doing so or choosing a right handed pitcher for that reason. Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of that, I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten to or responded to everything. I've cut down on the number of but constructions in the "The Game" sections, but I haven't tried to eliminate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your further points, or at least discussed them, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more changes which you can find from the history. The only thing I still see as a problem is overuse of "but". I made a few changes on my own. There's more work to be done on this, which I'll leave to you. As a nit-pick, "overcast" has a specific meaning in meteorology and "dark clouds and mist" isn't quite it. Given this isn't a meteorology article it was probably OK, but since I was in there removing a "but", I fixed that too. I also wrote you a nice alt text for the infobox cartoon. RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very thorough alt text. I've reduced the "but" constructions to two in the first nine innings and two in extra innings (not counting the quotation from Oeschger). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, the Miracle Braves, the World Series champions of 1914, when manager George Stallings led them from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series." - this is a bit convoluted. I suggest "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series."
  • "Brooklyn center fielder led off Hi Myers the top of the second inning" - I think some of these words are in the wrong order
  • "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants. He compiled a lifetime record of 68–72, marrying the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker," - the first part of the second sentence oddly combines two not-really-related things. I would re-arrange it to "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants, compiling a lifetime record of 68–72. He married the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker,"
  • "Sportswriter Bert Randolph Sugar wrote, "but for Cadore and Oeschger" - I don't think the "but" is needed. That presumably relates to an earlier sentence in Sugar's article which isn't quoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I've done those things, though with a bit different text from what you suggested in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Just two bits from me:[reply]

  • I can just about follow the technical language of baseball in the first para of First nine innings (is that what it's like for Americans having to review cricket articles?), and my mind got stuck in a "who's on first" loop. If a complete novice comes along, I suspect they'll struggle. I don't think there's anything you can do about it really – all the technical terms are linked to explanatory articles, so I think that will have to do.
    The only real wrinkle was in the phrase "was left at first base" in which the linked "left" is a bit of an easter egg: maybe extend the link to cover "left at first base"?
  • "pitchers mound": pitcher's mound? (or pitchers' mound?)

Interesting piece of history. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've made those changes. Yes, I feel the jargon is inevitable and fully understanding the description of the game will require some basic knowledge of baseball or willingness to patiently go through the links. As for cricket, I've seen enough of it over the years to have a rudimentary understanding of what I've seen on TV and very rarely in person but I probably lose a good deal of the nuance, so you're probably right. Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

[edit]

Spot for comments to follow Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Cadore was involved in a well-known stunt," Does the source establish the stunt as "well-known"? Feels hard to quantify, to me
I've added a source that describes it as "remembered as Casey's zaniest moment as a player" and "there were enough eyewitnesses on hand that day to assure that this was a wholly true story, not a fable. His signature moment had been achieved.".
  • " Stengel later stated of Cadore, who was a roommate while both were with the Dodgers, "Wonderful person, wonderful pitcher with a brilliant mind."" what's the relevance of this sentence?
I think it's to establish the relationship of Stengel, a very well known baseball figure, with Cadore, who is less-known, also with a view of setting up the quotation from Stengel late in the article. To be blunt, outside of this one game, the only thing Cadore is really remembered for is his bit part in Stengel's sparrow stunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he had won fourteen games in 1919," out of how many?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on from their great success" maybe like "from their last great success" or "most recent"? Unless it really was and remained their only?
The Boston Braves won only the one World Series though they played in it in 1948.
  • "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to a sweep of the 1914 World Series." Can you reorg or split this sentence up actually? I don't think it reads super easily, especially because you don't give the year of their "great success" until the very end of the sentence, and I might expect something like "George Stallings had led the team"
I don't think the had is necessary. Rephrased.
It already is, in the extra innings section.
  • "Ties, brought on by adverse weather or the fall of darkness, were common in MLB in the time before night baseball." awkward phrasing here: ties are presumably still as common due to adverse weather as they were before night baseball?
No, because baseball rules now allow for suspended games and also can wait past the fall of darkness to resume a game.
  • Something isn't working for me in the background. I think it's that things keep getting introduced in passing. For instance, "(that role fell to Burleigh Grimes)" is when Grimes is first mentioned, "they were well-regarded as the 1920 season began" is when we get a sense of the time the article is focused on (rather than earlier in the sentence), "The starting pitcher for the Braves on May 1, 1920" is when the date of the game is established (why not earlier), but we don't know why the date is significant until later, when "before the May 1 game," is mentioned. I think this might be helped if you have an introductory sentence that establishes the teams that were set to play on what date. Might just be me though, happy to be told this is silly.
Added a topic sentence. Grimes is mentioned three times in the article, the purpose is to establish him as a pitcher for Brooklyn.
OK.
  • Are all the baseball terms needed? I think there's a few that could be replaced with words that make sense to the ordinary reader (ie why use 'retired' instead of 'out', 'left' instead of 'stranded')? Most of them are necessary, just not all imo
"retired the side" is such common baseball parlance that not to use it would look odd. Left is the more formal term in my view as it is part of the statistic "left on base". It's the description of a baseball game and baseball terms must be used. There are ample links for those unfamiliar with baseball who for some reason try to puzzle through this description. I find other baseball articles about specific games to be similar in their use of terms, and those many we have about American football and soccer.
  • Are the duplinks intentional?
There's one, I think, now, with "lead off" and "led off". I'm inclined to leave it.
  • " one long hit that might win the game" What does "long hit" in this context mean?
I think, literally, a long hit, an extra base hit. We're being pretty faithful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after Holke threw the ball back to him" necessary? How else would he have gotten the ball?
Another fielder might have thrown the ball. The source doesn't mention it, but it would be usual for the pitcher, Oeschger, to back up the play at first base.
  • "has had the effect of greatly reducing" maybe just "has greatly reduced"
Fine.
  • " as the advent of the relief pitcher made it highly unlikely" but according to our article on relief pitchers, they had been around since even before this game
Changed to "greater use" of the reliever.
  • " According to Warren Corbett" maybe put a year for context here?
OK
  • "James C. O'Leary of The Boston Globe" a date would be good for this?
I've made it clear this was the next day
  • "but such matters were not a consideration in 1920" necessary? I think it can be assumed from the context to be the case
Yes, but I'm inclined to spell it out for the reader.

That's all for a first read-through, mostly minor points. As always, not wedded to all/any of the aboveEddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've responded or dealt with all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can support now. I went ahead and linked night baseball on first rather than second mention. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. I presume that www.sports-reference.com is not usergenerated? It looks like otherwise the sources are consistently formatted and seem to be reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball-Reference.com is probably what you mean. Although it includes a part that is user generated (the "bullpen"), all citations are to the main portion, that is not user generated, and that is widely relied upon by media organizations and others per our article on it, that contains stats for all players and games in Major League Baseball.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then that seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2023 (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) 20 November 2023 [10].

Hypericum sechmenii

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure Turkish plant species in the genus Hypericum, which is where most of my editing experience lies. It's my first attempt at FAC, so I wanted to have an article with very narrow coverage that I could be confident I had completely encapsulated. I've worked on the article on and off for several years, gotten it through a "very thorough review" at GAN, and received more granular feedback from Chiswick Chap and Cas Liber. I now believe it is as ready as it can get, and am excited to receive feedback and finish my first (of hopefully many) FA. Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

[edit]

Good to see a plant here! Comments below:

  • Its appearance and characteristics were first described in 2009 – It seems to me that not only the apparance and characteristics, but the entire species was first described in 2009? So this is potentially confusing.
    • I was previously advised that a technical term like "species description" shouldn't be in the lede, but I concur that it makes more sense to use the terminology - it is pretty self-evident
  • You could link "first described" to Species description.
    • Done
  • The taxonbox lacks the year of description behind the author names.
    • Per the ICBN, plant species are not supposed to have the publication year after the author names; I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia policy that countermands that standard but please let me know if there is one
  • After this description, – Somehow seems redundant, maybe remove.
    • Rewritten
  • the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus Hypericum – not sure what this means. Was the species previously referred to a different genus?
    • Ocak and Koyuncu described the species and assigned it to Hypericum. The genus is subdivided quite rigorously, however, because of its wide diversity. Robson was the one to incorporate H. sechmenii into that subdivision by assigning it to a section and subsection. I've rewritten the sentence to hopefully make it more clear, but it may still need some tweaking.
  • typically 3–6 cm,[2] sometimes to 8 cm. – In height? In diameter?
    • Tall, fixed
  • I wonder if it is worth trying and emailing the describers of the species and asking for better pictures for Wikipedia.
    • I've already done that, several times actually. I received one response but it was garbled and just redirected me back to the papers I already had, and subsequent attempts went unanswered.
  • Directly beneath the cuticle are one to two bark-like layers of periderm which are composed of several layers of dead cells. Beneath the periderm are several layers of thin-walled tissue cells called a cortex. The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem. – I am not sure here if you are describing general plant anatomy or if all of this is specific for this species? (I do not mean to say that everything has to be species specific, not at all – but you should make clear to which taxon this information applies). I see, though, that this is not mentioned by the source … which is a bit unfortunate, as I do not know what to do with this information.
    • Most species of Hypericum have not had this sort of anatomical analysis done, so yes it is very unclear. I'm not an expert on the cellular morphology of different plant clades, and I included it since I figured it would be easier to remove than to add. If it is an issue I can spend some time digging into this, if not then I will let it be for the moment.
  • What are amber glands? (edit: you are referring to a color? Maybe make this clear? And link to Amber (color))
    • Yes, amber-colored, linked and clarified. If amber-colored is only necessary for the first instance let me know and I will remove subsequent clarifications.
  • H. huber-morathii has a slightly larger region on its end where the grooves meet. – You mean the pollen grain, not "H. huber-morathii", right?
    • Clarified
  • Anatomically, Hypericum sechmenii is also similar to – What is the "anatomically" doing there? It looks redundant because the article does not mention any features that are not anatomical.
    • The anatomy refers to the similar stomata adaptations and the differences in their palisade tissue structure. Perhaps, "has similar adaptations to..." would be more appropriate, if your think that is warranted?
  • inner stem tissue and pith tissue – Is there a difference here, or are these the same? If different, link/explain. If same, then stick to the same term.
    • To my understanding, the inner stem tissue is made up of either xylem or pith - in the case of H. thymopsis, there is only xylem; in the case of H. sechmenii', there is both xylem and pith. I've linked pith to its article
  • the species was formally described in volume 46 of the peer-reviewed journal Annales Botanici Fennici. – looks like excessive detail to me.
    • Cut down to just mention the journal.
  • Hypericum sechmenii was described by Atila Ocak and Onur Koyuncu alongside Filiz Savaroglu and Ismuhan Potoglu – the latter two are not authors of the species, though. Mentioning them could be confusing. I suggest to remove the entire sentence (also because it basically just repeats the previous sentence).
    • Done
  • The taxonomy section seems a bit wordy for me in relation to its content. The language could be more concise.
  • with almost every species in the genus being placed into one of these sections based on their morphology and phylogeny. – Based on their morphology and phylogeny? Are you sure? Phylogeny is based on morphology.
    • My bad, phylogeny /= molecular phylogenetics, fixed
  • However, Hypericum sechmenii was omitted from this original monograph, as it had not yet been identified as a unique species. – It was not knowingly "omitted" then, right? I would remove this sentence.
    • Would "not included" be more appropriate? I'd like to keep this as there are very few species that Robson didn't include in the original monograph, which makes this one someone unique.
  • After Hypericum sechmenii was described, it was then placed into the overall framework of the genus – See comment for lead.
    • I've just cut this sentence in the name of brevity, I think there is sufficient context in the rest of the paragraph.
  • Hypericum sechmenii is one of numerous species of Hypericum that are endemic to Turkey. – Can this be more specific? We should know how many described endemics in Turkey, hopefully?
    • The number is in flux as species are described, synonymized, and their range is clarified. However, I've pretty easily found a 2019 report that puts the number at 45, so I've included that.
  • Isotype, what is this?
    • I've added a note, but if there's a way you think could do it more elegantly please let me know
  • I am not sure about the "Table of collected specimens of Hypericum sechmenii". It seems a bit excessive, and I wonder if it can be of use to anyone. But most of all: Do you think it is exhaustive, or is it just those specimens you know about? It might get outdated quickly, too,
    • It includes all the recorded collections of the species in published academic journal articles. No, I don't think it is strictly necessary - do you think any of the information would be warranted to be incorporated into the paragraph prior?
  • Anything about the fruits? I can't remember reading about them in the description.
    • Sadly nothing I've been able to find. I also just took a look at the other species in its subsection and none of them have fruits descriptions either. It may be that the fruits are largely diminished or not visible - but I'm not sure that's right and it would be entirely speculation
  • That is all from me. What I really like about this article is that the terms are well-explained, and that there is an extensive "similar species" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Hello Fritzmann, and welcome to FAC. Given you haven't previously had an FA to your credit, this nomination will need to undergo spot-checks for source-text integrity and a review for over-close paraphrasing before being considered for promotion. No action is required on your part regarding this note. Best of luck with your nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, is there anything else that needs to be done with the nomination? If my count is correct there are seven supports, and all opposes have been struck. I am assuming that there still needs to be a referencing review. Fritzmann (message me) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned spot-checks (for source-text integrity or possible overclose paraphrasing) and a general source review that will examine the reliability, verifiability and formatting of the sources. Fellow coordinator Gog the Mild has put in a request here. A reviewer should turn up any day now. FrB.TG (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

Thank you for engaging with our FA nomination process. I think the prose needs some editing to bring it to FA standard.

  • First of all, there are lots of "whichs" that need a preceding comma or changing to "that".
    • DonecOMM
  • This sounds odd to me "the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus". What is meant by "incorporated into the organization"? Does it mean added?
    • Changed the wording per your and Jens's recommendation
  • "The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem". What is meant by "elements of"? And it reads as though xylem and phloem are unique to these plants.
    • I'll be honest, reviewing the source they just say "xylem elements" so I'm not sure. Looking at the pictures provided, it appears that they just mean that there is a layer of tissue surrounded by a layer of xylem. I'm going to change it to reflect that, but if you have other input it would be welcome.
  • There's a similar problem here "On the top and bottom sides of the leaves there are pores that regulate gas exchange, called stomata," lots of plants have stomata.
    • I'm not sure how to make these terms sound general while maintaining their readability for laymen. All of the terms are linked, and following any of them would demonstrate that these features are common to most plants as opposed to restricted to the species.
  • Does "seeds" really need a link?
    • I would argue that if roots, stems, seed capsule, leafstalks, and petals are linked, then yes. I think all those terms are relatively similar in their complexity, so if they are simple enough then I would unlink all of them.
  • "while the dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives) that deter some herbivorous insects." And above we have " which a 2020 paper theorized could deter herbivory because of their toxicity." Can we amalgamate these disjointed statements?
    • The druse crystals and red glands are two separate repellants for herbivores. The crystals are spiked and cause irritation, while the glands secrete those phenolic compounds that are toxic. Each paragraph describes these two separate features.
  • This is odd "it has also been closely compared to Hypericum thymopsis." Do you mean it compares closely?
    • Removed "closely" to reduce ambiguity
  • This sounds odd "a genus-wide monograph".
    • Reworded to "monograph of the entire genus Hypericum"

-Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Comment: I'm very supportive of the prospect of a featured article on an obscure species like this, but I find it very difficult to support the use of non-free images of an extant species like this. Perhaps if the species was known only to exist in an area that was genuinely inacessible, this could be justified, but I'm really not convinced in this case. Has any effort been made to reach out to individuals who may have taken photos, to ask if they'd be willing to release them under a free license? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in response to Jens, I have repeatedly reached out to the authors of the original description and the anatomical study to request additional information and the release of image rights. Unfortunately, I only received one response which seemed supportive and asked which information I needed. I replied to ask and followed up, but never received a further response. I also reached out to the herbariums that house the specimens, also to no avail. I think that the first image in the infobox is absolutely critical, while the second one on pollen morphology is less so. However, even the latter one demonstrates the minute differences between this species and several closely related ones. Even for an expert, microscopic differences in pollen may be the only way to tell them apart.
As for the genuinely inaccessible part, this species is known from an area of less than ten square kilometers in the rugged, rural mountain region of Central Anatolia. There are fewer than 250 plants remaining, and that was from a 2013 estimate. It may very well be extinct by now. If that doesn't make the species inaccessible, then I don't know what would. Fritzmann (message me) 12:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I remain opposed to the use of the non-free images. We have several featured articles on similarly obscure species (e.g., the mammal Akodon spegazzinii and the mushroom Gymnopilus maritimus) that sadly go without lead images because of the lack of freely licensed material. If we had reliable sources noting that the species was extinct or probably extinct, then I think things would be different. But, until that time, I worry that the non-free images here are replaceable as per the non-free content criteria. (I also worry, incidentally, about criterion 2. But my main concern is about replaceability.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while the non-free images remain, per above. Sorry. Anyone is welcome to strike this oppose once the images are removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I would like a second opinion but if there are others who are hesitant about their use then I will remove the images. Fritzmann (message me) 12:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be an interesting precedent if this passed with non-free images. I've raised the question here to hopefully bring some more eyes and ensure a clear consensus. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, I am very interested as well. I think there is a good discussion to be had in this regard. Fritzmann (message me) 22:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because Josh posted a request for input at WT:NFC. I'm sensitive to the issues raised by Fritzmann. Difficult to find, yes. Even more difficult to properly identify, yes. But, this sets a new precedent and I am very loathe to agree with it. The species, so far as we know, still exists. Unless we have reliable sources indicating extinct or probably extinct, then we are speculating about its non-existence. We don't know. Not knowing its current status doesn't generate an exception to WP:NFCC. What we do know; there's a Turkish language Wikipedia which has over 500,000 articles. The province where this plant exists has a population of over 900k people. No, there's no article on this species on the Turkish language Wikipedia, but again that doesn't generate an exception to NFCC policy. I feel that unfortunately the image needs to be deleted. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also here because of Josh's post. It's refreshing to see an NFCC debate that isn't about criteria #8, which is heavily subjective. Unfortunately, in this case the issue is criteria #1, which is much less subjective. The image has got to go. In addition but entirely separate to that, I don't think *any* featured article should have *any* non-free images, with no exceptions. An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content. Therefore I also oppose the nomination while there are any non-free images in it. The FAC coordinators should feel free to strike my oppose i.f.f. the images are removed or replaced. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Hammersoft, and J Milburn: Thanks for leaving your thoughts, the reasoning seems sound to me. I can't say I agree but I understand why a hardline stance needs to be taken. Perhaps removing the images will reduce the quality of this article, but will contribute moreso to the overall mission of the project. Fritzmann (message me) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precedent-wise: Way back when, we had the non-free File:SaharanCheetah.gif on Northwest African cheetah because the species in question was critically endangered (less than 250 individuals) so creating a free image was not a sure thing. It was eventually replaced with File:NorthWest African Cheetah (14846381095).jpg but this edit claims that this image was incorrectly identified. How widespread is this plant and where does it occur? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better not to have non-free images in the article if there is a reasonable chance that one might be created (or made free), and the precedent set by including one would be bad. Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}? —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure I've had an FAC pass through with non-free media in it, and I don't see the problem here either. I disagree very strongly with the thought that "An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopaedia while containing non-free content": that's a misleading idea of what a free encyclopaedia is and is not - as far as I am aware - based on any policy or guideline.
    I looked at the last fourteen articles I've taken to FAC (all of which are from this year). Five of those fourteen have non-free images: Private Case, Portland Spy Ring, Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, Death of Kevin Gately and David Kelly (weapons expert).
    User:Nikkimaria, you look into images at FAC more than anyone else: do you have an opinion on this? - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (added three recent examples - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    • I haven't the time to go through the archives but I know we have accepted non-free media in FAs in the past. For some reason this FA springs to mind. It's unfair on the nominator to say that ""An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content". I would question the value of the scanning electron micrograph in this candidate, but I don't see a problem with the lead image. Graham Beards (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've passed numerous image reviews on articles with non-free images with no complaint. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria does implicitly allow non-free images, providing that they meet the usual rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is not whether FAs may contain non-free images: Non-free images are fine if they can't possibly be replaced by free images and significantly enhance reader understanding. In this article, it is unquestionable that the images would be very helpful to readers; the question is whether we believe it is possible to replace them by free images. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my thing is that isn't every image technically replaceable by a free image? We could theoretically request that the owner of every non-free image release it for use... but that is highly unlikely to happen in any case. Could someone hypothetically trek into the remote Turkish mountains to search for a probably extinct plant no one cares about on a volunteer basis for an online encyclopedia? Yes. But it is not realistic at all to expect that, just like it ism't realistic to expect that every owner of a non-free image will release it for free use. Fritzmann (message me) 12:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Images of non-free art are not replaceable by free images (although I'd like to note that some other language Wikipedias manage to write excellent articles without any non-free content at all). There is a bit of a grey area here between "it is theoretically possible to create a free image" and "it is reasonably possible to create a free image". I mean, if someone finds a cave on Mars and takes photographs of something amazing in the interior, but does not release them under a free license, it seems prohibitively difficult to send a Wikipedian to Mars to take a free photograph, so we might just go with the non-free image, at least until a new mission to this cave is announced. On the other hand, enough people go to the summit of Mount Everest that we can reasonably expect free images to exist (and indeed there are many). The relevant policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, by the way, just says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Can a free image of this rare plant that is known to exist in Turkey be made? It seems more "Mount Everest" than "cave on Mars" difficulty to me, but others may well disagree. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that at least one person here has said they don't think an FA should have any non-free images, Kusma, do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? It looks like Fritzmann has both searched for one and reached out to possible sources that may have them. If there are no free ones, and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one. This is, as far as I am aware, standard practice on all articles. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. For example, we do not allow non-free images of living people if no free images are known to exist, in order to encourage the creation of such images. —Kusma (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, that's not the case here. I think opposes based on personal views on the usage of non-free content should be disregarded. Let's stick to policies and established guidelines please. Graham Beards (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to me being mistaken, I am not: we are rather obviously not talking about non-free images of living people. I'll ask again: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? If not, then use of a non-free image is within the NFCC guidelines and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree that an oppose based on the fact that there is non-free content in the article at all should be disregarded. But this is a distraction; here is not the place for a conversation about whether NFC should be banned in FAs. We have a clear policies about the use of non-free content, and these policies are explicitly referred to in the featured article criteria. These criteria policies say that non-free content cannot be used if it could be replaced by free content. (So, for example, SchroCat's view -- 'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy. We can't have replacable non-free content even if it hasn't yet been replaced.) The question is whether the non-free content used in this article is replaceable. I believe it is. So does Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy. (The Squirrel Conspiracy also separately has a view about developing much firmer anti-NFC policies.) I think Kusma thinks that it is, but I may be misinterpretting Kusma's comments. Fritzman believes, as far as I understand, that the images are not replaceable in the relevant sense. (I would probably agree if it was the case that we had a reliable source saying that the species was extinct, or even probably extinct.) Some others (Graham Beards and SilverTiger12) have supported the use of the images (or one of them), which presumably means they either think the image is not replaceable, don't know about the policy regarding replaceability, or believe that the policy does not apply here for some reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entirely wrong to say that "'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy". We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones. When free ones subsequently become available (falling out of protection, released by copyright holder etc), then the non-free can be replaced: this is entirely within the spirit and letter of the policy. With regard to this article (which is what this page is for), searches have shown no free-use images that can be used, so a non-free image is entirely appropriate. Again, this is within the NFCC guidelines, FA criteria and current standard practice. I'll also ask you, Josh, the same question that has been ducked by others: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used in this article? - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The mere non-existence of free images is not an acceptable reason to use non-free images instead. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the minute area in which this plant just about survives means it's not going to be created. Opposing a decent article over a picture of a rare plant only found in a tiny area? Seems a massive overreaction to me, but I guess everyone's mileage differs. However, we now have an article of a plant in which no-one can see what the plant looks like. That's a bureaucratic nonsense - an over-adherence and overly-narrow reading of the guidelines which does our readers a massive disservice and not a constructive step by any measure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you are continuing to insist that 'We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones', even when NFCC#1 has been explained several times, is striking. At risk of repetition: No, we cannot use non-free content just because we don't have any free content. We can only use non-free content when we couldn't have any free content. That's what the relevant policies and guidelines say, and have said for many years. If you believe that we couldn't have any free content in this case, then fine, that's an interesting discussion that we could have. But your insistence that we can use non-free content when we don't have any free content isn't down to reasonable disagreement; it just shows that you don't (or didn't) understand the policy. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the snarky nonsense, Josh. We now have an article of a plant where we don't know what the plant looks like. You have done the readers a disservice in ensuring the removal of the image. Nice work. Fritzmann, sorry you've been forced into this step: FAC is normally much more constructive than this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out above, we already have numerous featured articles about living species that go unillustrated because of the lack of free content, including some that I wrote. That's the price that we have collectively decided to pay by having strict guidelines and policies limiting the use of non-free content. You're welcome to think that those policies and guidelines are nonsense, or do a disservice to readers, but I don't think it's fair that you take out your frustration with them on me. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify for the closing co-ordinator, Josh, User:The Squirrel Conspiracy, you have both opposed here: can you clarify on which of the FA criteria are you officially opposing, and if it relates specifically to number 3, could you clarify on what basis you think this breaches the NFCC guidelines? - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was being clear, but I'm happy to be as explicit as I can. I am opposing based on WIAFA#3, which stipulates that '[n]on-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content'. That links criterion links to our non-free content criteria (which, for the record, are a policy, not guidelines). NFCC#1 requires explains that 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose'. I believe (along with, at least, Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy) that a free equivilent 'could be created' in this case. Just as there is a very, very strong presumption against a non-free image of a living person, so there is a very strong presumption against a non-free image of an extant species. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy with regard to "could be created" is vague and open to interpretation. It implies "easily" or "readily" to me. In this case, the plant could be extinct or a least nigh on impossible to find. I think we need to be more flexible on this. The use of the image is not setting a precedent. That was already set years ago. (As an aside, I have emailed Dr Onur Koyuncu, (a coauthor of the original paper) and asked for a free photograph. As the paper was published ten years ago, we cannot be sure if this researcher is still active and responding to emails). Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says in WP:NFC#UUI, it is generally considered possible to create free images of living people and extant buildings, and we don't care too much that it may be difficult. I tend to agree with JM that it is preferable to wait for a free image of an extant species than to go the easy way of taking a random non-iconic non-free image, as doing so makes it harder to accomplish our free content mission. If the article can pass FA without being illustrated, I don't see a big problem, especially if images can be linked to prominently. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Thanks you for removing the images; I have struck my oppose, and will aim to find time to look through the article properly. You may have missed it in the midst of the discssion above, but I do encourage you to think on Kusma's suggestion above: 'Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}?' I've found that useful in a number of articles; I believe it is in use in other FAs, but I'm not certain. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]
  • Hello I'll be doing a non-expert prose review
  • Can see both points of view on images so I'm neutral on that issue.
  • "The petals are bright yellow, like most species of Hypericum," link hypericum on first mention in body and lead, as well as in infobox
    • Linked in the lede, already linked in the infobox
      I'd still like it linked first time in body, that for me at least is standard practice Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, linked at the first mention of the genus in the description section
  • "and grow in a pentagon of five on each flower" - link pentagon? and don't think you need "of five" since pentagon already means that
    • Changed to "pentagon shape"
  • if you are linking to taxonomist and ecologist, then I'd suggest linking botanist as well
    • Good call
  • re "When compared to Hypericum minutum and H. huber-morathii, Hypericum sechmenii has differences in its leaves, flowers, and pollen grains. Its leaves are adjacent on one another and overlap, while the leaves of H. minutum and H. huber-morathii" - is there a pattern to when you use Hypericum and when you use H.?
    • I use the full name the first time a species is mentioned, and on the first mention of a species in Hypericum in a paragraph. Good catch here, this doesn't follow that logic but I think I've taken care of it
      thanks for the explanation, I don't think the lead follows this logic with "The most closely related of these are Hypericum huber-morathii, H. minutum, and H. thymopsis."? Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, fixed there and in one other spot
  • re "The area of distribution on Arayit Mountain is estimated to be 2 square kilometres (km2). The area of the Kaymaz to Sivrihisar locality is estimated to be smaller.[1]" then how can we say "It is estimated that there are fewer than 250 members of the species within an area smaller than 10 km2", since the way I'm reading it 2 km2 plus less than 2km2 doesnt equal 10 km2
    • My understanding of the source is that the two localities given are assumed not to be the only places the plant grows. It seems that the 10km2 figure is an extrapolation of the actually found localities - with are stated to be separate and fragmented. However, this is not explicitly stated in either survey of the species, and it would be venturing into my own original research to make assumptions like that.
      ok. hmm .. then "Hypericum sechmenii has a known distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" in the lead perhaps should be "Hypericum sechmenii has an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" and in the body "The species is rare, with an estimated 250 surviving plants of the species in an area smaller than 10 km2" should be written since it seems to present 10 km2 as fact. Difficult I know because you have said "estimated" but I read that as applying to the number of pplants and not necessarily the area
      • Done as suggested in the lede, changed to "in an area assumed to be less than 10km2" in the body. If you have a more elegant solution please, by all means feel free to change as you see fit
  • "Ocak and Koyuncu gave the species the specific epithet" - can give Koyuncu's full name on first mention
    • Was given once in lede, have also added first time in body
  • perennial herb can be linked on first mention in body
    • Done
  • in the lead you say it is a "rare species", but don't explicitly say that in body?
    • I have rewritten the first sentence of the Conservation section to include this verbiage
  • that's it from me, cool we know so much about a very rare plant. Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12

[edit]

An interesting article about a rare plant. I don't have many comments.

  • The two Fair Use images are, in my opinion, acceptable given the complete lack of free images and the extreme rarity of the plant.
  • In the lede, I suggest adding a "the" to and Norman Robson later placed H. sechmenii into the section Adenosepalum.
    • Agreed, done
  • You may also want to split the first paragraph of the lede into two paragraphs right after the sentence quoted above.
    • Split
  • Please use the {{Convert}} template for measurements, excepting where the measurements are in micrometers.
    • I think I've gotten all of them
  • Hypericum sechmenii is a flowering perennial herb that grows in dense clusters of upright stems typically 3–6 cm tall,[2] sometimes up to 8 cm tall.
    • Done
  • Can you change the one instance where millimeters is used (the length of the sepals) to use centimeter instead for consistency?
    • Yes, thanks for spotting that one
  • Why are there 3 subsections listed? None of them are mentioned in the paragraphs above.
  • Also, if there is one, please add a cladogram of the clade.
    • To answer the above two comments: I have not been able to find a clade because Robson added the species to its subgeneric classification in a brief addendum without a ton of detail. As such, I included the nesting diagram in the article for a substitute; the other three subsections are just the other subsections inside sect. Adneosepalum besides the Huber-Morathii group. If you think they should be removed I don't have any problem with that.
  • Is there really no more recent update on the species' conservation status more recent than 2013?
    • Nope. The optimist in me hopes that no one has bothered to go find it again, while the pessimist in me suspects that the species may be extinct by now.
  • The citations all seem to be in order, and Earwig didn't find any copyvio.

And that's all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have made changes as noted in my responses. Fritzmann (message me) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres (3.9 square miles), with fewer than 250 living plants." In context, is "living" not redundant.
    • Removed
  • "The pale glands contain and excrete essential oil compounds". Is it known what they are essential for?
    • "essential oil" is a type of oil category, I think I have it linked
And do they serve any function, ie is it known if they benefit the leaf or the plant in any way?
In some species of St Johnswort yes, in others their purpose is not known - but it is not a well studied part of their anatomy. I've not found anything that gives their function for this particular plant
  • "grow in a pentagon shape on each flower". Are the petals pentagon shaped, or are they arranged in pentagons?
    • This passage has given me quite a bit of trouble. I have changed to "pentagonal arrangement" to hopefully make it more clear
Much clearer, but it does leave the question: What shape are the petals?
Strangely, neither the original authors nor Robson give the petal shape. Almost every other species I've written about has at least a brief mention of this, but not this one. Only the glands are described. One of the peculiarities of botany is that sometimes details are missed, I suppose, seemingly at random.
  • "They are 0.4–0.7 cm (0.16–0.28 in)". Adding 'wide' or 'across' may aid clarity.
    • Added "long", thanks
  • "In its original description". Optional: perhaps mention when that was. (I am aware that its date of discovery is mentioned at the start of the following section and the description date a little later.)
    • I think I'll leave the chronology for the taxonomy section, if it's all the same to you
  • "The holotype of the species was first collected in that same year". Is "first" needed? It suggests that the holotype has been collected several times.
    • Yes, first is redundant as there is only one holotype per species
  • "Three years later, in December 2009, the species was formally described in the journal Annales Botanici Fennici." It is usual to say who it was described by.
    • Moved the authors' names forward
  • "Flora of Turkey endemic species registry in 2011". I am puzzled by the upper-case F.
    • "Flora of Turkey" is the name of the publication - I have italicized to note this
  • "early molecular phylogenetics". What does "early" mean in this context?
    • I wanted to indicate that the methods used were in their infancy at the time and not particularly accurate, but that is not relevant to the overall article and may veer into OR. I have struck the "early"
I had thought so. You could say something like 'and the relatively primitive molecular phylogenetics of the day' or 'and an early use of Molecular phylogenetic analysis', but I like it how it is.
"early applications" is what I went with
  • Elevations given in imperial measurements use feet, could you tweak the two conversion templates in "Distribution and habitat".
    • Done
  • Why is the note for Isotype "a 1" rather than just '1' (or 'n 1' or 'note 1')?
    • Inexperience and sloppiness with ref groups, thank you for the keen eye
Ah you gave me a laugh there. You may appreciate WP:GOG1.

What a splendid and well written little article. Can we have more like this please? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to bring more species articles to FAC, especially others from Hypericum. I hope they don't become droll; I quite enjoy writing them. Fritzmann (message me) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I look forward to them.
A couple of thoughts above, which I am happy to continue discussing, but they are not of sufficient weight to prevent me supporting this gem of an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for helping make this process a most enjoyable one. The essay definitely struck home with me, it seems like the iceberg goes ever deeper with Wikipedia.

AK

[edit]
  • Bit late here, so the article's more or less ready to go, but I have a few minor comments.
  • "which grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" you mention in the body that this isn't always the case, so maybe change to "usually grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" instead?
    • Good call
  • "fewer than 250 plants" ends the sentence a bit abruptly, especially since the previous clause was talking about distribution. I think "fewer than 250 surviving plants" might be better.
    • Good call, that is the verbiage I use in the conservation section as well
  • "O.Koyuncu" is the lack of a space intentional?
    • Yes, that is his standard author abbreviation
  • "the journal" maybe expand to "scientific journal"?
    • I think scientific is implied, readers can get more details at the link
  • "However, Hypericum...unique species" This sentence is kinda redundant; we discuss the discovery of the species in the paragraph right above this one, so this seems a bit like overkill.
    • I would prefer to keep it, as there are very few species not included in the original monograph, but the reason is not because it was missed (which happened with a few other species) but because it was not described yet.
  • Would bullet points for the list of species in the group look nicer?
    • This is pretty standard style for non-cladogram layouts of taxa
  • That's all I got. On the subject of the images, I do feel like we should not have fair-use images of extant species, even if they are very rare; it just doesn't seem to meet the strict requirements we have for NFCC. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great work! AryKun (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Some nitpicks with ref ordering: a few instances of [3][2] when it should be [2][3] and one instance of [8][2] for [2][8]. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not necessarily though. In my articles, for example, I usually place the most important source (which covers most of the previous text) first. I heard that other editors place the refs in the order in which the information appers in the previous text. So I guess it is up to the author how to do it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other FACs (like this one) where reviewers ask that they are. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that such a requirement can be quite annoying for authors, does not provide any benefit to readers, and also is not suggested by any policy or guideline as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what Fritzmann says. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really matters; feel free to change the reference order if you would like. Fritzmann (message me) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement on a specific ordering of references (see WP:CITEORDER). FrB.TG (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since my only nitpick crashed and burned, support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta

[edit]

A few more nitpicks for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • is it "St John's wort family" as in the article text or "St. John's wort family" as given in the family article?
    • Sources use both, my understanding is that St. John's wort is more common in the US, while St John's wort is more common globally. Since this species is cosmopolitan, I have elected for the global usage.
  • is the article supposed to be in BE (centimetres, kilometres) or AE? (honor, color, theorized, specialized)?
  • "Hypericum sechmenii is a perennial herb which usually grows" which->that
    • Done
  • if the term "flower" is to be linked (a low-value link, imo), then why not "petal" and "stem"?
    • Removed flower link
  • "has a very thick cuticle" I've found the use of "very" to be a mostly useless intensifier; I don't think the sentence loses anything without it.
    • Done
  • what benefit is there to linking a plain English term "hairless" to its jargon counterpart (glabrous)? The unlinked term as written is already understood by both laypeople and advanced readers. I noticed that later "net-like pattern" isn't linked in the same way to "reticulate" (not that it needs to be, just pointing out the inconsistency)
    • Yes, it can be understood as hairless - but it would be improper to say that plants have hair in the strictest sense. I prefer to remove ambiguity and link to the jargon term used in the description, which doesn't do any harm.
    • If we were to have an article that added additional context to the term, like there is for glabrousness, I probably would link it. As it stands, there is only a redirect into a disambiguation page into a section link to "leaf venation", which I don't think is particularly intuitive.
  • "They are roughly 0.2–0.5 cm (0.079–0.197 in) long" ensure that the precision of the input matches that of the output. There are some other examples throughout the text (which are more difficult to justify truncating); have you considered using fractional outputs instead? e.g., 0.2–0.5 cm (1⁄16–3⁄16 in)
    • I have changed the presentation of measurements back and forth quite a bit by now; I will just truncate to maintain significant figures.
  • "contain and excrete essential oil compounds" construction sounds odd, I suggest just "essential oils"
    • Done
  • maybe link gas exchange, vein, midrib
    • Done
  • short-form species names in subsection "Similar species" are missing non-breaking spaces or nowrap templates
    No idea why it did that, but it appears a good Samaritan has come along to fix my sloppiness. Fritzmann (message me) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/gloss palisade tissue
    • Done
  • "Huber-morathii Group" capitalise 2nd name?
    • Another weird thing no one can seem to decide. Is it the Hypericum huber-morathii Group, the Huber-Morathii Group, or the Huber-morathii Group? Who knows. I've standardized to Huber-morathii group, since the species name does not have capitalization after the hyphen
    Looks like "Huber-morathii" is in reference to a guy named "Huber-Morath", so yeah I agree it should be "Huber-Morathii" Fritzmann (message me) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. sechmenii has two adaptations of the genus Hypericum which deter grazing" which -> that
    • Done
  • the text mention that some cells contain druse crystals. This seemed odd to me that this would occur intracellularly (isn't the cell size then self-limiting? doesn't it mess up with cellular electrolyte balance, etc.), so I went to the source to check, and saw prose like "Some hypodermal cells are includes druse crystals" so I'm reluctant to use this as confirmation; the images of the transverse leaf section and stem section don't really clarify the intracellularity or extracellularity of druse crystals, and our own article on druse (botany) doesn't commit either way. Can you provide clarity?
    • I'm not sure what the question is, are you asking whether the druse crystals are present inside the cells or in the extracellular space? My understanding is that druses by their nature contained within a cell, but I could very well be wrong. The prose of much of that article is not particularly stellar (the authors are Turkish, and likely writing in their second language), but they say elsewhere that "Some peridermal cells also include druse crytals", which seems pretty clear that the druse crystals are inside the cell.
  • it might be interesting to mention somewhere that the red glands of Hypericum (like this species has), contain compounds called naphthodianthrones (of course gloss what this means if you do), and that these red glands have been associated, in some folklores, with "magical protective powers"? (Crockett & Robson 2011)
    • Hmm, I'm hesitant to do this. While the red glands are characteristic of the genus, it is entirely likely that this species has lost that characteristic. Maybe I'm missing it, but a re-skim of the source descriptions don't mention red glands - only amber ones. These could be the same, and could contain naphthodianthrones, or they may have different compounds. That would also be quite interesting, but the research has unfortunately not be done.
      • Okay, perhaps I'm confused because this article first calls them "black glands" but then in the next sentence calls them "dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives)", which I guess I incorrectly assumed was equivalent to "red glands". Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed all mentions of "dark glands" to "black glands" to reduce confusion. My understanding is that they look black, but if you were to crush them with your fingers your hand would get stained red. In another point, the "anthraquinone derivative" is equivalent to "naphthodianthrones". It is just more clear because we have an article on anthraquinones and they are also the more well-known kind of compound. Fritzmann (message me) 21:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • one source I saw (Akçi̇n et al. 2016, "Anatomical Properties of Medicinal Plant Hypericum orientale L.", Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 10 (2): 16-20) says that in the Hypericaceae, there are species with either bifacial or ecvifacial leaves, and Hypericum sechmenii is the latter. What does this mean and should it be in the article?
    • I believe "ecvifacial" is a misspelling or corruption of "equifacial". This refers to the arrangement of the stomata, i.e. on both sides of the leaf equally, instead of bifacial where they are all or almost all on the underside of the leaf. I believe this is adequately covered in the last paragraph of the vegetative structures section.
Esculenta, should be done except for where noted. Fritzmann (message me) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, was there anything else that you saw? Some very astute observations so far, I appreciate that. Fritzmann (message me) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got – good luck! Esculenta (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

I like plants. Will endeavor to do a spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Climate of Turkey" should be ordered by its author - Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü - rather than its title. Eddie, apologies for repeatedly interrupting your source review, I shall stop now. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked three individual citations, which I have left below. However, I think I will have to bow out with my apologies. I can't parse the source material. Sentences like "seed linear foveolate to subscalariform" mean nothing to me. I don't feel that I can adequately assess whether the source material has been accurately reflected on the article page, unfortunately. Really sorry. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3a Not seeing this in the source, 3g not seeing "The holotype of the species was collected at about 1,800 m (5,900 ft)" in the source
  • 3a: looks like refs 2 and 3 got swapped when I changed to sfn. The Ocak paper contains the upper limit estimations; I have swapped them back
  • 3g: I am pretty sure this arose from first writing that the general elevation of the species was around 1800 m, and later adding the exact range of the species without removing the previous generalization. I have removed the first clause
  • 8 I don't think p. 591 is the correct page number for these citations.
  • Changed 8a to p. 592 and 8b to p. 593

Source review and spot-check

[edit]
Is Bizimbit Kiler (www.bizimbitkiler.org.tr) a reliable source? It's a bit underrepresented online. Location tags are applied inconsistently. Otherwise, it seems like the sources are reliable save as noted below and mostly consistently formatted, making allowances for certain inconsistencies in which information is available. I presume that all the sources here have been either used or ruled out?

On the spotcheck, reviewing this version:

    • My understanding of Bizimbit is that it is an online mirror of a paper publication, much like Hypericum MySpecies. In this case, it mirrors the content of a vascular plants list from a Turkish botanical garden's academic publication, which I have no reason to suspect of unreliability.
    • All of the sources on google scholar which are not used are only passing mentions of the species. I am confident I've fully scoured anything available online for actual information.
  • 1 I see nothing on the page saying that it is five leaves per flower or that it is typical for the genus.
    • The five petals statement was based on the image from the previous page, which the GAN reviewer suggested I use since none of the sources explicitly say it. I have corrected the sfn directions
    • I have changed the statement about most species of Hypericum to one about the type species of the genus
  • 2 I don't think the source implies that bracts lack the amber or black lines, or that the glands are black. "Little research has been conducted regarding the ecology of Hypericum sechmenii and its relationship with its environment." likewise seems unsupported.
    • The source states that the leaves and sepals have glands, and describes them in detail. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the omission of such a description for the bracts means that they do not have the lines.
    • I'm not sure to which reference of the black glands you are referring
  • 4 OK if we don't mind the image interpretation.
  • 5 OK but I note that the definition of cuticula and xylem is not in the source.
  • 6 I don't think "oblong" should be transcribed as "oval". As with above, the definition of cambium, suberin and druse crystal isn't in the source.
    • I have changed oval back to oblong
  • 7 The page number does not add up; also MDPI from what I know is a so-so publisher; are the authors well-known and/or the paper frequently cited?
    • The publishing website only gives the first page of the paper as 591, so I am unsure of how to give a more specific notation
    • The primary author has over 40 papers published on the biomineralization process, so she definitely isn't unknown. The paper looks like it has been cited 14 times; I have no idea if that is frequent or not
  • 8 I don't think that this page really supports most of the text.
    • Corrected per the previous review
  • 9 This is talking about Hypericum perforatum?
    • Yes, the glands should contain common chemical categories throughout the genus; as the type species H. perforatum is the most evident reference
  • 10 The definition of stomata is not in the source. And I don't see the vein thing either.
    • Leaving the definition for the end, but I have no idea where the vein statement came from. I've re-read the references and can't find it either, thank you for the good eye.
  • 11 I don't think this says why the adaptations arose, at least not on this page.
    • I'm not seeing what this is referring to?
      • "Both species have similar adaptations in their stomata that make them able to thrive in dry climates, and both have stomata on the upper and lower sides of their leaves" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "presence of amphistomatic leaves and xeromorphic stomata in H. sechmenii are the same features as for those in H. thymopsis" (xeromorphic means an adaptation or morphological feature that retains water and allows species to survive in dry habitats)
  • 12 This absolutely does not back the flower distinctions, at least not on this page.
    • Also includes the comparison table on the previous page, made that change to denote
  • 13 Is Günüzü=Günyüzü? Also, Atila Ocak is not mentioned here.
    • Yes to the first point; Ocak is mentioned as the collector in his 2009 paper, I have addended it to the sentence
  • 14 Where is the etymology stated.
    • Bizimbit gives "secmen kantaronu". Kantaronu is the Turkish common name for Hypericum/St John's wort
  • 17 OK
  • 18 Not sure what this source adds.
    • I believe POWO is a more recognizable source for botanical experts who may be dubious of Bizimbit
  • 20 Is HUB=Hacettepe University?
    • Yes
  • 21 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 24 Seems like this is on the previous page.
    • Page 70 also discusses the Irano-Turanian element, but I have expanded it to a range of 69-70
  • 25 OK
One thing I notice that a number of jargon terms (which I've listed above) used in the source have been explained in the article, without the explanation being in the source. Not relevant to the spotcheck, but worth noting, some content seems to duplicate itself, e.g the five petaled flowers thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for doing this. In your final comment, is there a hiccup between "without the" and "Not relevant"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've fixed that now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the thorough source review. I hope I have adequately responded. The one point I will push back on is the explanation for the jargon terms. I believe it is necessary, and that because their meanings are unambiguous the definition should not need a source. To do so would be counterproductive and make writing these articles to a high standard even more difficult, perhaps prohibitively so. I give the reader both a simple explanation, and the original, so if they are dubious of my explanation they can look up the jargon term (or click through to its wiki article) on their own. Fritzmann (message me) 00:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably add some citations for the jargon terms too. See for example how Gargaud 2011 is used on TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individual points all responded to. If there is consensus that sources are needed for every jargon term, I will endeavor to include them but that might take a little while. Fritzmann (message me) 13:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion regarding the explanations of the jargon terms: If these definitions are uncontroversial, I think that no citation is needed. These should fall into "the sky is blue" kind of statements according to WP:CITEKILL, and providing citations for them adds clutter without much benefit. Most of the FAs I wrote or reviewed do not provide such citations, including most of our dinosaur FAs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and Gog the Mild, were there any other sourcing concerns that I can address at this point? Fritzmann (message me) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd be wary of passing an article when a spotcheck shows this many issues, but this "spotcheck" ended up being roughly 90% of the article. Undecided whether we should worry about the remaining 10%. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for performing the spot-checks. Normally, when spot-checks reveal this many issues, I like to ensure that the nominator goes through the entirety of sources again and rechecks everything. As and when that is done, further spot-checks (possibly by you if you feel inclined or another reviewer) should be done to make sure everything is in the clear. FrB.TG (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I have gone through with a fine comb again that has hopefully removed any lingering ambiguity or inconsistencies. I will note that most of the issues arose from a hasty transition between reference styles during this FAC, as opposed to being present beforehand. That's certainly an error on my part (and a lesson learned for my next time at FAC), but I don't think it's indicative of the overall quality of the article. Out of all of Jo-Jo's points, it seems to me like a maximum of four could be interpreted as actual source-text integrity issues (and minor ones at that) — the rest all just required clarification within this review or were those page-related issues that also arose during this review. Fritzmann (message me) 14:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to hint at the alternative: For this reason, I like to use the {{rp}} templates rather than {{Sfn}} for page numbers, as these are much easier to handle and much more flexible. It's a personal preference, but rp-templates are one way to save a lot of headaches. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I had before the FAC, but was advised to remove it because it made the text look unwieldy and wasn't necessary for short articles like Ocak 2009. I guess the lesson is to know what is required beforehand and what is preference-based, and to stick to one's guns on the latter issues. Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Both templates are accepted, including at FAC, and there is no rule or guideline that one should be preferred over the other. It is entirely up to you. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that the source-text inconsistencies were "minor", but since they are no longer there this can be considered a pass. Don't care whether to use sfn or rp, that's up to others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (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) 20 November 2023 [12].

The Firebird

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another ballet (and popular orchestral work)! A personal favorite and choreographic masterpiece, this work was Stravinsky's breakthrough in the international music scene, setting the stage for Petrushka and The Rite of Spring. This article was promoted to GA in March with a review by Chiswick Chap, rewritten in July per an inquiry by Wretchskull. Just recently it received a PR by Corachow and Schminnte, and now here we are! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

Sorry, I missed the PR. As usually I'll look at lead last, but know already that the plot is too detailed for my taste, while I miss more about first reception, later performances and recordings.

Infobox

  • What I usually do for works with a foreign title which didn't make it to common name is still put it on top of the infobox, with the translation below, - here the French. I wonder if the French name should come before the Russian in the Native names, as it was for a premiere in France.
  • Caption: I doubt that the image had an English title. As the image caption is the first thing people will look at, it's perhaps worth saying that it is a sketch for a costume in the premiere, - the person is not mentioned in the lead.

Background

  • I like the concise para for Fokine much better that the composer's which I find overly detailed. Is it relevant that his father was a bass, or that he studied law, for examples? - need sleep --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed, and no worries over the PR, very glad to have you here! Thanks for all thus far! Also, somewhat unrelated- I saw The Company of Heaven in your stories list on your user page and gave it a listen out of curiosity, what a wonderful work! Britten's vocal music is glorious and diverse, and this one was no exception! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - resuming (and if you follow my stories you may have met Firebird "on the side", - a suite was played in the concert of the NWPh right after the Invasion of Ukraine, dedicated to the victims by (then) conductor Jonathon Heyward.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Thank you for some trimming. We have now R.-K. twice in short succession. I don't think we need to say "major works" when they also carry "first performed" and such.
  • I suggest to begin a new para for Diaghilev's background ("D. had founded ...")
  • *Koschei, the immortal king, and the captive Princess" reads like three characters.
  • watch out for ref order (after "deadline", for example)
  • "to the Rimsky-Korsakov household with Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov, the son of Stravinsky's teacher, and to whom Stravinsky dedicated the score" - split?
  • "While the composer worked, Diaghilev arranged ..." - I don't see one working, the other arranging simultaneously, - does it mean it was arranged before the work was finished?

Development

  • "April", - as this is a new section, where readers may arrive per toc, please provide a year (which is also not the year of December.
  • I wonder if "rehearsals began" should come before the two dress rehearsals.
  • I wonder further if there could be a section with narration of the plot and a list of roles, not in the lead, but before rehearsals.
    • Well
  • I see some contradiction between the Firebird first just described as classical, and then as revolutionary.

Premieres

Subsequent

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few minutes. Thank you for resolving the above! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Only after finding the Stravinsky background too long did I see that the equivalent passage of The Rite of Spring is much more elaborate. I like it short, but do as you see fit.

Structure

  • I don't see "Synopsis" justified, and Structure would be redundant to the header.
  • why Original Episodes Titles? vs. French episodes titles? (same for English)
  • if all these are titles, why not italic?

Instrumentation

  • on my display, the five completely normal strings occupy space with a lot of white space next to them.

Music

  • "call the princesses back into the palace, but when Ivan pursues her" - plural - singular
  • "Before Koschei turns Ivan into stone" sounds as if he does.

Suites

  • The titles of the first two suites have different capitalisation, - intentionally?

The article leaves me a bit curious about dates, people and styles of further recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is modeled after The Rite, but I think you were right on the extensive bio. For synopsis: I'm not sure what you mean, there's no header with '"Synopsis" since that's part of "Music and plot". Also, are you suggesting the table with episode titles be cut?
As for dates and people, I'm not sure what you mean. There are numerous names mentioned since many people were involved, and I tried to keep the ones focused on to a minimum so it wasn't confusing. The main three subjects here are Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and Fokine, as shown in "Background". Lastly, on the topic of recordings: I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of video recordings of The Firebird. I can find a few questionable reviews (like this) but I'm not comfortable citing that, and none of the book sources/journal articles seem to be very up to date with recordings. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for @Gerda Arendt (also, to clarify, there is one sentence about a film version of the ballet under "Recordings") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies to right above
  • The title of the table is "Synopsis and structure ", - I don't think we need any. Sorry that it wasn't clear.
  • I don't see any dates and people mentioned for the many recordings. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have no idea if any stand out. Gramophone usually has good reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you will probably have to be quite selective, as a Google Search for site:www.gramophone.co.uk "Firebird" + "Stravinsky" gives over 170 results, although there are some false positives. Schminnte [talk to me] 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I let Google do the picking by a more generic question, this one comes first. I agree with you, MyCat, that classical.net is rather useless for the purpose. I'd like musicweb-international.com better. There are also newspapers, such as TNYT. And most recent is fun ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the synopsis and structure table should likely be incorporated into the prose. The plot section should mention the significant scenes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the input, I now see what @Gerda Arendt meant. That being said, I'm not sure that adding more is necessary. The "Recordings" section as it stands discusses the pianola rolls, names the first recordings, and briefly touches on the film version- much like The Rite, which this article is modeled after. Much of the commentary there is Stravinsky commenting on recordings, but I don't find this particularly important to the reader; understanding which recordings came first is important to the history, but knowing Stravinsky's favorite doesn't seem very notable. Also, there are numerous dates and names- the reason there aren't names of conductors is because the sources do not list them. Thanks for the specificity, though, always looking for ways to improve an article's readibility. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taken so far. As usual, lead last. You said you took The Rite of Spring as a model.

  • There, the plot is a half-sentence, - I suggest you move the detailed plot further down in the article, and leave just what's essential.
  • There, we have the last sentence about influence and recordings, while the many recordings of the Firebird are not mentioned in the lead, and popularity is only given for the suites.
  • There, Firebird is mentioned as preceeding, and similarly, the Firebird lead might look foreward at Sacre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, thanks again for the comparisons. Cut down plot in the lead, added a bit more about recordings. The mention of how Firebird looks forward to The Rite is in the last sentence of lead para 1. Thank you again! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trimming the lead, but where did the nice table go?
In the lead, I'd like even less, believing that a list of the characters - as in Appalachian Spring, with a specific note about how unusual the Firebird role was at the time.
In the article, I'd like even more of a plot than we had in the lead before (again as in AS, and compare FAs about operas, such as Falstaff), and the best place for it would be after the table. The table offers the original names, valuable for some readers, and their English counterparts. coming again in the and those not interested can easily skip the section.
Regarding the points below, the technical term word for performing a role in opera and ballet the first time is "create", but some readers misunderstand that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested cutting the table. I don't have strong feelings about it, however, so @MyCatIsAChonk should feel free to put it back in. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, I've shuffled the lead around, let me know what you think. For the table, thanks for the clarification voorts- I do agree that this table is mildly unnecessary, as I only included it because it was present before the revision. Gerda, regarding the plot, I'm not sure there's much more to add. One difficulty I had in writing the "Music and plot" section was that there is no clear definition of the plot as recorded by Fomine/Stravinsky that I could find. Whereas Falstaff has a thorough plot explanation in many program booklets and websites, I can't find the same for Firebird- most sites give only a sentence or two about the plot, and I was lucky to find the explanations that I found in Philip 2018 and the three sites. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and understand. I miss the table, but so be it if I'm the only one. Support. I suggest you move - in the lead - the sentence about the music before later performances, but won't change my mind overall ;) --(didn't complete signing yesterday but better sign the support) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

[edit]

I'm think I've heard music from this and liked it so... here goes nothing?

And that's all from me. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from voorts

[edit]
  • "had recently come to love" - change "come to love"; feels a bit informal
  • "Benois recalled that Pyotr Petrovich Potyomkin, a poet and ballet enthusiast in Diaghilev's circle, brought forth the subject of the Firebird, citing [or reciting if he actually read it aloud] with the 1844 poem "A Winter's Journey" by Yakov Polonsky, which includes the lines" - "brought forth" when?; in what context; to whom?
  • "Fokine read much Fokine drew on the stark contrast between good and evil in skazki (Russian fairy tales) in developing the ballet's characters. to find suitable tales; in writing the characters, Fokine displayed a stark contrast of good and evil commonly seen in fairy tales.
  • "Originally, Tcherepnin was to compose the music, as he had previously worked on Le Pavillon d'Armide with Fokine and Benois, but he withdrew from the project soon after." - is there a specific date for when "originally" and "soon after" were?
  • "fearing public disappointment from the public."
  • "portraying ideas of expressiveness, naturalism, vitality, and stylistic consistency." I'm not sure how these are "ideas" that have been "portrayed", rather than descriptions of the choreography.
  • "was revolutionary to thefor ballet scene"
  • "However, Russian audiences had less favorable views towards the work, and the Russian premiere was not well-received by much of the audience" (not well-received seems like an understatement).
  • "which Stravinsky took his family to from their home in Ustilug." - which production? do you have a date (or month and year)?
  • "Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov quickly traveled to Paris to see the ballet, and he later praised the production in a letter to his mother." - this is in the section about subsequent productions, but seems related to the initial production.
  • "it was impossible to mistake the genius of the composer, or of the artist who had designed the setting...'" - remove ellipsis at end of quote.
  • "inon the Iberian peninsula"
  • I would recommend moving the first paragraph of the "General character" subsection to the bottom of "Music" in its own subsection called "Critical reception". Also, is there any more recent criticism, particularly in scholarly works?
    • You raise a very good point- I moved it to a new subsection called 'Musical legacy'. As for modern critiques, not too sure about that- yes, there's a bit of commentary on the music itself, but not many modern analyses of The Firebirds lasting legacy, which is rather disappointing since it's such a seminal work in Stravinsky's repertoire. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cite several sources regarding the choreography in the final paragraph of the "Development" section. Do those sources also comment on the choreography? Have you located any more contemporary sources that cite those works? If you're not sure about whether there's more modern analyses of the choreography / design / music, then I'd be concerned about whether the article meets FA's comprehensiveness requirement. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Voorts, fixed the other two. For this, I entirely forgot about the choreo, my mind was focused on the musical analysis... I'll try to expand upon this soon, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte

[edit]

I had my say at the peer review, where my prose comments were promptly dealt with. The only outstanding comment I had during the peer review was that I personally would like to see a more technical detailing of the music; in retrospect I think the level of detail is fine. I believe the article meets the FA criteria, so I'm happy to support. Schminnte [talk to me] 23:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Schminnte, hope to review A (For 100 Cars) soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]
Image licence, sourcing etc. look fine for me. Placement seems reasonable too. I did not review the song things in the "Music and plot" section.

Source wise, spot-check only upon request. Don't think we need to archive Google Books links. Is the New York Public Library really the author of "Stravinsky and the Dance: A Survey of Ballet Productions"? Except for Presto Classical we seem to be talking high-profile sources every time - famous orchestras, noted authors and reputable university presses. Source formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe Presto is ok to cite here, as it is cited the same way in another FA, The Rite of Spring. For Stravinsky and the Dance; The author is Selma Jeanne Cohen, but I believe that the NYPL is the publisher- the first pages of the book give little information. Cut archive links for Google Books- if I missed any, let me know. Thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, who authors Presto and what reputation do they have? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Presto is an online retailer for recordings and other music things. If I'm understanding WP:VENDOR correctly, I believe using the page just to see the number of commercially available recordings is appropriate. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OKish, although I notice that the linked webpage does not directly reference the number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, not sure if it shows up on your device, but I see "Showing 1 - 10 of 181 results" in the top left corner. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me it says 197, and does that number mean what we are interpreting it as? Search hits can mean a number of things, not all of them relevant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, ah, now I see what you mean. Cut the source and preceding claim. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass, source and image wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (flaming auto correct): you need to check dashes on page ranges, as there are hyphens mixed in there - possibly only one, but there may be others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few others:
  • There is some inconsistent formatting in having some books in with the refs (59 and 74) and the rest in sources
  • Ditto with journals - why are some in the refs and some in the sources?
  • Griffiths: as he's contributor and editor, you need detail of which essays the cites are from
  • Hamilton: space for W.W. on publisher
  • White (1957) needs an oclc
  • Not part of a source review, but I noticed some LQ issues too ," instead of ",
- SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, fixed page ranges. The justification for having some sources in the refs rather than the sources is that they were only used once. If I cited a book/article and I cited different pages for different things, it went in sources- If I cited one page from one book/article and that was it for that source, there was no need to use sfns. Griffiths: how would I clarify which one it came from? The various citations through come from many different essays. Fixed Hamilton. Added ISBN to White 1957. What's LQ mean? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK for the sources/refs, but FNs 81 (Howerton) 82 (Papanikolaou) and 100 (Macaulay) don't have a page number at all (just the page ranges); these should have a page number(s)
  • For Griffiths you can do it the same way you do for Carbonneau. Separate entries for each chapter used. At the moment it just says he's the editor, which looks a little odd
  • LQ: See WP:LQ - it's logical quotations, having the quote marks inside the punctuation, rather than outside.
- SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, fixed Griffiths source and quotations. I see the confusion about those three sources: for those, I found them online databases like Brill or ProQuest, where just the text was present without page numbers, and those databases are linked in the refs. The page ranges are the article's actual location within the printed material, but I didn't get the sources from the book- therefore, page range. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, no problems for the Brill/ProQuest refs
  • Just the LQ point to sort out for all those non-sentences with full stops ( a "delicious musician.", "sudden crash.", played on a piano." etc)
- SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, forgot about the periods- fixed. Thanks for the thorough review even outside of sourcing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review as this was one of the works that got me hooked on modern classical, thanks to my mother, a big ballet fan. Also I recall with pleasure reviewing Brian Boulton's Rite of Spring article, so high time for the piece that broke Stravinsky onto the world stage...

  • Copyedited as I reviewed, so pls let me know any concerns. Outstanding points:
    • Stravinsky finished The Firebird in about six months, and had it fully orchestrated by April 1910; the orchestration was finished mid-May -- what's the distinction between "fully orchestrated" and "the orchestration was finished"?
    • When the company arrived in Paris, the ballet was not finished, causing Fokine to extend rehearsals -- can we be more specific here, e.g. is it the choreography that was incomplete, since I gather the music was all ready and orchestrated?
    • After the premiere and subsequent performances, Stravinsky claimed to have met numerous figures in the Paris art scene, including Marcel Proust, Sarah Bernhardt, Jean Cocteau, Maurice Ravel, André Gide, and Princesse Edmond de Polignac. -- not sure of the significance of this, at least the way it's written, and especially if it's only "a claim"...

That's it for now, hope to get the remainder before long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, thanks for the review! Point one, I've no idea where that confusion came from, all fixed. Point two, the source does not elaborate further, just saying that ballet was unfinished and not saying why. Point three, I believe listing these people is important because it shows his popularity, and they all had some effect on Stravinsky: Princesse Edmond de Polignac commissioned numerous works of his, Gide was the librettist for Persephone, Cocteau was the librettist for Oedipus rex (opera), etc. Thanks for the CE- the entire article reads much better now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks re. point one. Re. point two, I can wear that for now at least. Re. point three, I understand, although without the clarification you've just given the significance might be lost on the average reader; ideally that bit might best come straight after Diaghilev's "eve of celebrity" quote, though chronologically it probably wouldn't work. If you keep it, think you at least need to re-phrase slightly and say Stravinsky recalled that after the premiere and subsequent performances he met many figures in the Paris art scene..., assuming that's all cited to his autobiography (you might chuck the relevant citation to the end of that sentence as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming...

  • Backtracking a bit, re. Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June for the premiere. It was his first visit to the city and the premiere of his first stage work. -- mentioning the premiere twice really did make it appear the premiere was like, now, when in fact it didn't happen till a few weeks later. Can we re-phrase to Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June to attend the premiere of his first stage work; it was his first visit to Paris.?
  • Rimsky-Korsakov's Sinfonietta on Russian Themes -- can we link, or at least date, this piece?
  • Re. the 1919 Suite, The score contained many errors -- I think an example or two might not go astray here...
  • The 1961 Columbia recording -- is this one conducted by Stravinsky himself? If so, worth mentioning that.

I think that's it for prose and coverage -- although I found a bit to edit, it generally flows well and doesn't seem to omit much, while also not being overly detailed. After we deal with the above I'll take another look top to bottom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, many thanks again, especially for the ce! Rephrased the sentence about Proust et al.
Point one: used your rephrasing. Point two: added date. Point three: source doesn't clarify, but I expanded the Stravinsky quote a bit. Point four: the source is no longer available on internet archive (lawsuit, probably) and I cannot access the page on Google Books, so I don't know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for all those. Re. the last point, I double-checked my copy of Stravinsky conducting Firebird and it is the CBS in 1961; to make things simpler citation-wise, I managed to find the relevant pages in Hamilton on Google Books and have tweaked the text accordingly. That said, I'd be very surprised if the 1961 recording was the first of the complete ballet score: Hamilton seems to be listing only Stravinsky's recordings of his works, so I don't think we can use that as a source to state unequivocally that his was the first complete recording. Unless you want to go scouring sources for someone reliable saying which was the first full score recording -- or even the first 1945 score recording, to be safe -- I'd alter that sentence to Stravinsky recorded the 1945 suite with the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of New York in 1946, and the complete ballet with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra in 1961.
Ian Rose, that's much better, thanks for rephrasing and clarifying- all fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy between the source and the original text of that sentence re. the 1946 and 1961 recordings rang a small alarm bell and made me want to spotcheck a few things to see that it was an isolated case, with the following result:
  • FN18a/b -- okay
  • FN61 -- okay
  • FN84b -- okay
  • FN88b -- issue: source mentions dungarees but I can't see anything about a Chinese Communist connection
  • FN91 -- okay
  • FN103 -- okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, cut issue with 88b, not sure where that came from- thanks for the spotcheck MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corachow

[edit]

My comments in the PR on the dance side of things were dealt with swiftly, though I'd like the following to be addressed:

  • In subsequent performances, considering adding a sentence to say that many more choreographers made their own version, not just the one listed here. Maybe named a few of them as well?
  • The only filmed recording mention is the Sadler's Wells / Fonteyn in 1959. I assume it's actually the first filmed performance? Online, I found DVDs of Firebird performed by Royal Ballet, Mariinsky and National Ballet of Canada (I believe the former two are filmed performance and the latter made for the camera). And I also recall watching the Paris Opera Ballet performing the Béjart version on video.

Personally I'd also like more details on the dancing side of things but I think it is acceptable here and I understand the difficulties with accessing sources. I'm also very sorry to have missed the Appalachian Spring review. Corachow (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Corachow, no worries about Spring- you being at the PR for this and that was immensely helpful, and it likely would've failed the comprehensiveness criteria without your comments! Point one: see the last sentence of the section, and most choreographers in Au 1998 are already listed in the section, so relisting them would be redundant. Point two: Gerda had a comment about the film versions too, but the conclusion was that there's little to no reliable coverage of this subject; I could only find sketchy sites like this. Having effective coverage of every film version would be difficult, since I cannot find a source that lists film versions, and even then, reviews of these films are few and far between. If there are any sources you're aware of, that'd be most appreciated, but my own searches have come up inconclusive. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The Oxford Dictionary of Dance (Google Books) listed several more versions, several made after Au 1998 was published, but did not go in detail on each one. Several well-known choreographers there, though their own takes aren't necessary the best known versions of Firebird and/or best known works in their careers. There's also one version by Alexei Ratmansky that was made quite recently. Corachow (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Corachow, thanks for finding that- added some names and companies. I'm not sure how helpful the addition is (see the end of "Subsequent productions") but it ensures coverage of modern choreographies too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Though all these new versions are all with completely new choreography and not Fokine. Please link Tetley and Taras. I also encourage you to add Ratmansky for American Ballet Theatre in 2012 (New York Times review), for a bit more modern coverage, and also because Ratmansky is one of the most important ballet choreographers working today. Corachow (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Corachow added- for the future, don't hesitate to add some things yourself if you deem them necessary, I trust your intuition on what's notable in ballet vs what's not. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is a support from me. In the future if I come across a source with information noteworthy I'll add them to the article. Corachow (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2023 (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) 19 November 2023 [13].

WWJ-TV

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC), User:Nathan Obral[reply]

Ask either of us about the most culturally significant TV station we've written and this will be our unequivocal answer. Channel 62 in Detroit started life in September 1975, after a years-long struggle to secure financing, as WGPR-TV, the first Black-owned TV station in the United States. Owned by a Black Masonic group, it was a high-visibility station at its launch with very ambitious programming plans, key portions of which never materialized. However, some of its local shows stuck, and it produced a string of notable local and national Black broadcast professionals. In 1994, a major TV station affiliation switch swept the nation and left CBS looking for a new affiliate in Detroit. CBS failed to secure a better station, and the desperate network bought WGPR-TV from the International Free and Accepted Modern Masons, in the process removing the Black- and community-oriented programming channel 62 had long carried (and raising some community outcry). Today, the former WGPR studios are on the National Register of Historic Places, and in the old TV studio is a museum devoted to its history.

CBS renamed the station WWJ-TV, for the radio station it owned there. For many years, it never thoroughly invested in this high-number station. It floated but quickly abandoned an attempt to start a news department in 1995; upon merging with WKBD-TV, that station's ailing news department briefly extended to channel 62 before dying; and there was a morning weather-and-news program for a few years. That changed in a big way in February, when a full online streaming service and news department known as CBS News Detroit debuted.

This is a big dog of a project, and it's one that we have found quite fulfilling. It is also Nathan's first time at FAC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed by script.
  • File:William_V._Banks.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Why is it necessary to visually identify the individual here, when he has his own article?
    • Also leaving room for Nathan to chime in. The association with WGPR-TV and Banks is incredibly strong—the museum in the former WGPR studio is named for him. I can understand the concern and that typically images like this are restricted to the subject's biography. It'd make sense to beef up the FUR, but Nikkimaria, do you think it should just be removed at this point?
    • Nathan here! For some context, Dr. Banks founded the Modern Masons in 1950, led the organization when it purchased WGPR radio and was instrumental in WGPR-TV even taking to the air. It even became a family affair of sorts; his daughter gave up a career as a college instructor to manage the station's day-to-day affairs. Station personnel have credited Dr. Banks for making them look beyond a show's budget to focus on the substance. That was largely why I had chosen to include his picture here, as he was almost inextricable. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll make minor copyedits as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "It is owned by the network's CBS News and Stations group alongside WKBD-TV, an independent station; both stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, while WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park." Suggest "It is owned by the network's CBS News and Stations group alongside WKBD-TV, an independent station; the stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield. WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park." "Both" is redundant with "share", and as far as I can tell there's no logical connection between the transmitter location and the previous clause, so it's better to split the sentence.
    • Changed.
  • Should there be a redlink for International Free and Accepted Modern Masons?
    • There probably could be an article here. I'd need to do more research.
  • "for $413,000 in United expenses": what is "expenses" telling us here?
    • You couldn't sell a construction permit for more money than the seller had spent trying to pursue it and on legal costs, etc.
  • "Land mobile interests pushed back against the sale": what are land mobile interests?
    • Added a link. Context: Land mobile radio was assigned the band 470–512 MHz to be shared with TV. Channel 20 is 506–512 MHz. They wanted more room to operate and thus the TV permit to be deleted.
  • "Despite being lower-rated and placing a heavy emphasis on gospel music and religious fare, particularly on Sundays, the Masons rebuffed an offer of $1.5 million for WGPR-FM in 1973": I don't follow the connection between the two halves of this sentence. I assume the implication is that this would have been a good price for a low-rated station? If so, can we source that well enough to say so? And why is the religious content relevant?
    • Reworded. No connection, really.
  • "The pursuit of a television station wholly owned and operated by Blacks was not without merit": suggest making this "not without business merit" -- my eyebrows went up when I read this, until I read the second half of the sentence.
    • Reworded
  • Do we have (even approximate) dates for Banks' attempted purchases of WXON-TV and WJMY?
    • Not in source. But Dr. Banks was determined to enter this side of the industry because he wanted to change the stereotype image of blacks in TV and felt the only way to do that was to purchase a station andproduce black related programs. The only TV channel available at that time was WXON channel 62, Walled Lake, Mich. The owners were willing to sell for a million dollars. The Banks team (with Boykin) scurried around seeking a loan. They were tured down by the Ford Foundation, and were turned down at four Detroit banks. "Then we tried to contact the owners of TV channel 20 who had a construction permit but had not been able to get on the air," Boykin testified.
  • "had planned to host a game show named Countdown": does the "had planned" mean it never aired? If so, is this worth mentioning?
    • Added here. That is indeed correct.
  • 'the program inspired multiple popular area dance moves during competitions in what George White dubbed "electronic sociology"': what is an area dance move? And I don't understand White's comment.
    • Reworded: "locally popular dance moves". Removed the George White item which makes no sense in context.
  • "from both he and the band": grammatically this should be "him", but suggest rephrasing instead as that would sound awkward. Perhaps "and he and the band gave several gold records to the stations".
    • Reworded
  • I was surprised to discover that A Time to Live never aired, having gained the impression from earlier mentions that it had been on the air. Looking back at the first mention, I see it says "Proposed programs included ...". How about making it "Proposed programs, not all of which were eventually produced, included ..."?
    • Changed
  • Along the same lines, you have "A Time to Live, the star program ..." -- can we say it was the star if it never aired? Perhaps "A Time to Live, intended as the star program ..."?
    • Changed
  • " The PTL Club, which by 1976 was on channel 62 for four hours a day[36] and became one of the station's more popular religious programs.[45] By 1977, The PTL Club purchased 24 hours a week on the station": this is a reduction, but it's phrased as if it were an increase. Suggest "By 1977, The PTL Club was still purchasing 24 hours a week on the station".
    • Changed to not conflict.
  • "limited solely to the congregation as not all of the church's members consistently attended": I don't know what this means.
    • Reworded.
  • 'with the parable "the set is not the show"': parable is not the right word, as it refers to a story, not just a succinct phrase. Perhaps 'insisted a newer set for The Scene was not necessary, saying "the set is not the show"'.
    • Changed.
  • In the last sentence of "Turning to religion and creativity", what does "pre-empted" mean?
    • It wasn't uncommon back then that network affiliates would not air all the shows provided by the network. In that case, they were often offered to other local stations.
  • "Unsolicited offers were also received for channel 62": why "also"? Because Mathews, or the group of Masons that were his co-plaintiffs, was interested in purchasing the channel? If so we should make that clearer.
    • Reworded
  • "consequently, Mathews took WGPR off the market": as far as I can see we haven't said it was on the market. We've said there were unsolicited bids but that's all.
    • Reworded.
  • Is R. J. Watkins worth a redlink?
  • "an uneven programming structure that still weighed heavily on religious fare": I think you mean "weighted towards"; as written this means it had a negative effect on religious fare.
    • Yeah, good catch.
  • File:WGPR TV.png is very dark. I would suggest lightening it quite a bit, unless it really was this dark on screen. If you don't have tools that can do that I can do it if you like.
    • That's a direct screenshot from tape. WGPR was not the best station technically and was at times quite inartful.
  • "the network seemed more interested in an acquisition than a purchase": what's the difference? Does purchase refer to an affiliation contract? If so I'd make it "than affiliation", or something similar.
    • Typo on my part.
  • "Even as the station never truly fulfilled its promised potential, WGPR-TV has been regarded as a needed starting point for many budding careers." Suggest shortening to "Even as the station never fulfilled its promised potential, WGPR-TV a starting point for many budding careers".
    • Changed.
  • "An NRHP plaque would be affixed": why "would be" rather than "was"?
  • "those programs started to become more expensive to purchase and thus made local news cheaper": "cheaper" is surely not right -- should this be "more competitive", or "a more attractive option"?
    • Fixed.
  • 'McMahon later described her initial reaction as, "...I thought to myself, 'This never happens. Until now.'"' I don't really see the value of this quote -- what is is trying to tell the reader? Just that McMahon was surprised?'
    • It's so unusual that I felt the quote was useful.
  • The CBS News Detroit section's second paragraph is partly in the future tense, even though the launch has now happened.
    • Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything above is fixed, so I won't bother to strike individual points. Just one point left:

  • Re McMahon's quote: What's unusual about the situation? If you can convey to a reader why it's unusual the quote would seem more natural.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Last fix is good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will leave some comments soon, likely on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Paragraph 2 - "channel 62 in Detroit holds the distinction of being the first Black-owned television station" - Why not just "channel 62 in Detroit was the first Black-owned television station"?
Done.
  • Paragraph 2 - "did not fully pan out" - I'd change this to something like "were not entirely successful" to make it more encyclopedic.
I went with "were not entirely successful due to economic and financial limitations" which should better make sense in context.
  • Paragraph 2 - "The original studios for WGPR-TV, still in use by the radio station, have been preserved as a museum and recognized as a cultural landmark, with inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places." - Are you referring to the NRHP designation as a cultural landmark designation? Or is there a separate cultural landmark designation that you're talking about? Usually, the NRHP designation is considered a historic-landmark designation, not a cultural one.
Gotcha. Reworded as a historical landmark.
  • Paragraph 3 - "WWJ-TV held a dubious distinction as the only station directly owned by" - This feels a bit unencyclopedic; I'd go with "WWJ-TV was the only station directly owned by..."
Done.

Prior use of channel 62 in Detroit:

  • "for a total of four years" - Do we need "a total of"?
Done. Went with "for four years".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, I noticed you use apostrophes inconsistently when there is a name ending with the letter "s". For example, I see "Brookes' " and "Bonds' ", but also "Banks's". Per MOS:POSS, these should all end with " 's" if singular, e.g. "Brookes's", "Bonds's". There is an exception for when these names are themselves part of another proper name, e.g. Diggs' Washington Forum.
  • Fixed those two to have 's.
WGPR-TV - Built by Masons
  • Para 1 - "International Free and Accepted Modern Masons" - I would add a link to Freemasonry somewhere. Also, was this particular sect largely composed of black members?
  • Para 2 - "WGPR-TV would thus become" - per WP:WOULDCHUCK, I would change this to "WGPR-TV thus became"
  • Done.
  • Para 2 - "telling Jet" - Probably worth noting that this is a magazine catering to the black community.
  • I went with "Jet, a nationally known weekly magazine aimed at the Black community"
  • Para 3 - "Construction took nearly two years, in part because lenders were unwilling to loan money to finance the station's start-up" - Construction of a transmitter and studio?
  • Altered to "The construction process"
Signing on with a local focus
  • The serial comma is used inconsistently. For example, I see sentences both without the comma (para 2: "I Spy, Rawhide and Up and Coming"; para 3: "James Brown, The Gap Band, The Time and Jermaine Jackson ") and with the comma (para 2: "The Abbott and Costello Show, Get Smart, and Felix the Cat and assorted B-movies").
  • Those should largely be straightened out. I removed the "and" before "Felix the Cat" as it felt slightly awkward.
  • Para 2 - "Consequently, channel 62 leaned heavily on local program production, much of it from scratch" - to specify, these were created by channel 62 itself?
  • Correct. Reworded to "...much of it created from scratch by the station."
  • Para 2 - By the way, it would be interesting if you had info on why these shows never aired (e.g. did executives scrap the shows, or did the producers themselves not follow through with creating these shows>)
  • Even if the station hadn't lost a great deal of money in their first year alone (expounded on more in the following section), the volume of local output was to have composed up to 90 percent of the station's programming lineup; that ratio was and remains impossible to achieve even in good economic conditions. I inserted the following... "Local production would account for 90 percent of WGPR-TV's entire schedule, an amount unheard of for the market's larger and more established stations." with an existing citation.
  • Para 3 - "Scene co-host Nat Morris was originally hired in 1972 for WGPR-FM and was simply given directions to play music" - Should it be "was given directions to simply play music", since "simply" modifies "play music"?
  • Reworded to "...was simply given directions to play music on the program as if he were a disc jockey, with the cameras focusing on the dancers throughout." If it isn't clear enough (this is about The Scene, not the radio station), I can revise further.
  • Done.
  • Para 4 - "In the area of news, WGPR-TV's promise" - Is there a better way to word this, like "The promise of WGPR-TV's news department"? It seems somewhat awkward.
  • Fixed.
  • Para 4 - "Big City News targeted Detroit's urban population and eschewed the suburban audience, which was more interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks" - Just to be 100% clear, it was the suburban audience that was interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks? If so, I would say something like "Big City News targeted Detroit's urban population, eschewing the suburban audience that was more interested in crime reporting that disproportionately covered Blacks".
  • This is correct, and fixed.
  • Para 4: "One area of Big City News was technically innovative: it was the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely" - I would cut "was technically innovative: it", e.g. "One area of Big City News was the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely".
  • I also chopped off "One area of" as it didn't make grammatical sense, so the sentence reads "Big City News was also the first television news operation in Detroit to use videotape for news-gathering purposes, eschewing film entirely."
Financial and technical challenges
  • Para 1: "Amyre Makupson's situation was not unique, as the station's early months were very rough. Technical failures were common; broadcast hours were cut back; and programming plans were curtailed after just one month when Banks felt the station was losing too much money" - I would condense this to something like "The station's early months were very rough: Technical failures were common..."
  • Done.
  • Para 1: "at the end of (1975)" - Usually I use [square brackets] to indicate something that isn't in the text, but I guess MOS:BRACKET doesn't say anything about what happens if the quoted source itself uses parentheses. Interesting.
  • Para 2: "Substantial downsizing and reorganizations took place at WGPR-TV: the news department was reduced from twelve people to six[21]: 42  and Blocker departed after less than a year on the advice of a doctor[29] while Sharon Crews left at the end of 1976 to join WGHP-TV" - Per WP:CINS, shouldn't there be a comma after "twelve people to six" and "advice of a doctor"? Ironically, I'm citing Sammi's own essay for this.
  • Fixed. I think Sammie Brie was having me fix this one lol.
  • Para 2: "Altogether, payroll was trimmed from $35,000 a month to $18,000 a month" can be condensed to "Altogether, monthly payroll was trimmed from $35,000 to $18,000".
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "few White-owned business were" - I think it should be "businesses".
  • Fixed.
  • Para 3: "Detroit's decreasing overall population and concurrently growing Black population—which by 1976 was larger than either Louisville, Kentucky, or Nashville, Tennessee" - Does this mean that the black population was larger than the total populations of either Louisville or Nashville, or that the black population was larger than the respective black populations of each city?
  • The total populations (see here). Reworded.
Turning to religion and creativity
  • Para 1: "generating $36,000 monthly" - Was this the amount The PTL Club paid, or was this the net income after expenses were subtracted from the amount paid?
  • The amount paid (see here). Redone to "By 1977, The PTL Club purchased 24 hours a week on the station, with the ministry paying $36,000 on a monthly basis."
  • Para 1: "Various ethnic groups also purchased airtime on WGPR-TV. ... Channel 62 also aired shows aimed at other ethnicities including" - The second instance of this seems a bit redundant. As such, I would say "Channel 62's other shows included Dino’s Greece, Polish Panorama, and Romanian Variety; ...".
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "Horror host Ron "The Ghoul" Sweed" - I recommend rephrasing this so the two links are not right next to each other per WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • I went with "Ron "The Ghoul" Sweed, a local horror host..."
  • Para 4: "By the eighth year" - Given that it is a full 13 paragraphs since the station's founding is mentioned, you should probably clarify which year this is.
  • Reworded to "By 1983, after eight years of operation, channel 62 finally turned a profit and offered over 60 hours a week of local programming." The source didn't specify the exact year but it is easy to deduce.
After Banks's death
  • Para 2: "No sale materialized, and after a judge" - I'd put a comma after "and", since "After a judge ruled ... share in the market" can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Tenicia Gregory—who Mathews replaced as general manager—then sued Mathews" - Shouldn't it be "whom Mathews replaced", since "whom" is the object of that clause?
  • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "Mathews, who had no background in broadcasting and admitted to Ebony magazine that he was relying on people who were "competent and loyal" in his new job,[75] took over the station as the marketplace for television stations began to cool after several recent purchases were now deemed to have been at inflated prices; consequently, Mathews declared the station was not for sale." - This sentence is pretty long, so I recommend splitting it.
  • Split at the semicolon.
More later. It may take me a few days to go through this given that it's a long article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: These changes should be accounted for. =^-^= Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 01:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes and controversies:
  • Para 2: "as little as $35 for thirty seconds" - I personally would add an {{inflation}} template here (even if it's in a footnote). $35 in 1987 is probably worth more than twice that today due to inflation.
  • Para 3: "Its programming rarely attracted significant viewership or community attention, with one exception: talk show Strictly Speaking, which was most famously hosted by Shaun Robinson." - Any idea how many people watched this? You mention community attention for this show but don't talk about viewership.
  • @Epicgenius: This needed a rewrite of sorts in lieu of not having ratings data for the station, but there was a good amount of local media coverage for the program, much more so that most of the station's efforts. It has been rewritten to: "One of WGPR-TV's local programs, the topical talk show Strictly Speaking, attracted significant community attention as the decade ended. Shaun Robinson joined channel 62 after graduating from Cass Technical High School and Spelman College; she initially appeared as a Big City News reporter but soon fronted Strictly Speaking, where one media outlet dubbed her "our own Oprah"." Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "it aired CBS's The Pat Sajak Show in late-night" - Is there a word missing here, or is "late-night" short for something like late-night programming?
  • Para 4: "WGPR-TV did lose carriage" - Why is this "did lose" and not "lost"?
  • Para 5: "be granted back pay and the reinstatement of their jobs" - Similarly I'd go with just "be granted back pay and reinstated".
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Handled all of these items but Strictly Speaking which I leave to @Nathan Obral. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CBS comes calling:
  • Para 1: "The deal came on the heels of CBS losing the rights" - Can this be rewritten without the figure of speech "on the heels of"? That phrase doesn't sound too encyclopedic.
  • Reworded to "The deal came after Fox outbid CBS for the rights to National Football Conference football games..."
  • Para 1: "Over a three-month period," - Why not something like "over three months"?
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Frank Adell. Adell was interested in CBS, but CBS offered him a poor deal" - To avoid having "Adell. Adell" and "CBS, but CBS" in such close proximity, I'd rephrase the second sentence.
  • Redone to "CBS also contacted WADL (channel 38), an independent station owned by Frank Adell, who was offered a poor deal despite his interest in CBS. Adell sought five years and compensation, in line with other deals the network was making with new affiliates, while the network merely offered him one year without any compensation payments."
  • Para 4: "but Arabo would not have been able to sell advertising to make a profit, causing him to decline the offer" - I'd condense this to something like "but Arabo declined the offer as he would not have been able to sell advertising to make a profit".
  • Fixed.
  • Para 5: "Joel Ferguson, who had been rebuffed in 1986, joined forces with Bing and Roy Roberts, an executive at General Motors, to propose operation as a Black-owned CBS affiliate; Ferguson claimed he had offered $31 million for channel 62 weeks before the Masons took the $24 million CBS bid[115] but Mathews claimed no such offer was ever made, saying, "There was no one else in line when CBS came to us"." - This sentence is quite long and should probably be split.
  • Split at the semicolon.
  • Para 5: "Representative John Conyers promised to pressure the FCC to reject the sale" - By the way, did sources ever mention whether he pressured the FCC to reject the sale, or whether the FCC took any action?
  • Given his ranking in Congress at the time, if he had been successful in lobbying the FCC to review the deal, there would have been coverage. Reworded to, "Representative John Conyers criticized the sale, believing that channel 62 could retain existing Black-focused programming if it remained Black-owned."
Legacy of WGPR-TV:
  • Para 2: "19 television stations were owned by African-Americans" should be "Nineteen television stations..." per MOS:NUMNOTES. Same thing goes for "300 surviving episodes" in para 5.
  • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "Byron Allen, a Detroit native, currently owns or operates 30 television stations" - as of when?
  • The number as of this year is 34 stations but press coverage on his most recent purchase counted it to 36. Sammi Brie and I think it was an erroneous count based on an FCC filing. For now, I worded it to "over 30 television stations as of 2023..."
  • Para 3: "which remain as the home to WGPR-FM," - I think "as" can be dropped.
  • Done.
  • Para 4: "The William V. Banks Broadcast Museum" - Was this at at the Detroit Historical Museum, the studio building, or somewhere else?
  • The studio building. Reworded to, "The former studios, renamed the William V. Banks Broadcast Museum in honor of WGPR-TV's founder..."
  • Para 4: "The achievement turned somber when Karen Hudson-Samuels died on February 9, 2021," - Does the source specifically mention the NRHP listing having occurred prior to Samuels's death? If not, I'd remove "The achievement turned somber when".
  • It did in source: A week before she died came a crowning achievement: On Feb. 1, the first day of Black History Month, the National Park Service announced it had granted the museum a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's official roster of important historic sites.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New name, new power, but no news:
  • Para 1: "making fun of the high channel position" - Was a high channel position bad?
  • It was very bad; in fact, it was one of the main reasons why the Fox-New World deal happened in the first place, to improve Fox's visibility by being on lower dial positions. Local press coverage referred to channel 62 as a "last resort" and "dire" for CBS specifically due to the channel number.
  • Para 2: "CBS signed a lease to move channel 62 to Stroh's River Place as temporary office space" - I would rephrase this as "CBS signed a short-term lease for office space at Stroh's River Place, moving channel 62 there". I gather from paragraph 3 that the lease was later expanded, so I wouldn't say "temporary office space".
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "Because of this, the station had to use the studio facilities of WTVS for Detroit: Making It Happen, a town hall meeting on January 31, 1995, with former WXYZ-TV anchorman Bill Bonds as moderator. Bonds's presence was as a freelancer as he signed a contract with WJBK-TV the next day" - I am confused as to why the second sentence is relevant to WWJ-TV. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say that Bonds was a freelance moderator? (Or maybe not even mentioning his freelancing status?)
  • I agree, it doesn't fit. Removed the second sentence and freelancing reference.
  • Para 2: "ratings for the Evening News declined precipitously" - Do we have any figures?
  • Para 4: " the tower would also be used" - Per WP:WOULDCHUCK, I would change this to "later, the tower was also used".
  • Done.
  • Para 5: "That April, CBS had felt the pain of not having more than a bureau with one correspondent in Detroit." - To me, "felt the pain" seems a little unencyclopedic; I'd suggest "experienced the drawbacks". I admit that's a bit more boring, but it's also more professional.
  • Reworded as such.
CBS-Viacom merger and 62 CBS News:
  • Para 1: "In 1999, Viacom, owner of WKBD, acquired CBS. In a number of markets, this combination created newly permitted duopolies between established CBS stations and UPN outlets." - The only other mention of UPN in this article is in the "CBS comes calling" section, where it is mentioned that Paramount was preparing to launch UPN. Thus, it may not be apparent why this created a duopoly between UPN outlets and CBS stations; one would have to know that Viacom is related to (or rather, absorbed) Paramount. As such, I would clarify this a bit.
  • I redid this to "Viacom, the corporate parent of Paramount and owner of UPN affiliate WKBD-TV, acquired CBS in September 1999. In a number of markets, this combination created newly permitted duopolies between established CBS stations and UPN outlets. However, in Detroit, WKBD was larger and had a functional local news department." As part of this, two sources were added to help explain this further (source one p1, p2) (source two p1, p2)
  • Para 3: "general manager Mike Dunlop and Viacom parted ways in August." - Why not just "general manager Mike Dunlop left Viacom in August"?
  • Done.
  • Para 4: "In September 2002, rumblings surfaced that Viacom was about to pull the plug on the WKBD–WWJ news operation—the last newsroom Viacom inherited from Paramount that was still operating[172]—which were met by lukewarm responses from executives" - What was met with lukewarm responses from executives? The WKBD–WWJ news operation, or the fact that it was about to be canceled?
  • The rumors of the closure. Reworded to "In September 2002, rumblings surfaced that Viacom was about to pull the plug on the WKBD–WWJ news operation—the last newsroom Viacom inherited from Paramount that was still operating. These rumors were met with lukewarm responses from executives after being contacted by a Free Press reporter."
I will finish this in a day or so. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"First Forecast":
  • Para 1: "That same year" - I'd change this to "That year" or "The same year".
  • Para 1: "The station's local output would consist" - Could this be "The station's local output consisted"?
  • Done both of these.
CBS News Detroit:
  • Para 1: "vice president/general manager" - Per MOS:SLASH, this should probably be changed. Do you mean that Watson is a vice president and general manager?
  • Yes. This is not uncommon in TV. Changed.
  • Para 3: "In January 2022, Paul Pytlowany, an employee of WKBD since 1988 and the director of local production and community affairs for WKBD and WWJ-TV since 2017, was named the founding news director" - Is it necessary to describe Pytlowany's credentials here, or would it be sufficient to mention that he was a 34-year employee of WKBD? (This is just a question, not a request to shorten the sentence; I won't force you to condense it.)
  • It's an unusual background for a news director, which is a specialized position. People that are NDs in a market like Detroit usually come from having ND'd other stations.
  • Para 4: "By year's end, the launch plan had changed, owing to supply chain- and pandemic-induced delays:" - Do you know how supply chain and pandemic-related issues would change the launch plan?
  • Reworded to be more faithful to source.
  • Para 4: "The morning newscast premiered early on February 20, 2023, to provide coverage of the shooting at Michigan State University,[204] before fully launching on March 6, co-anchored by former WDIV-TV anchor/reporter Sandra Ali and also featuring extended streaming-only segments." - I recommend splitting this into two sentences.
  • Split.
Local programming:
  • Is Michigan Matters the only original program that WWJ-TV produces?
  • Outside of local news, yes. When this article was rewritten, the news department was a future tense item, so this is kind of a standalone item. Gonna leave this to Nathan as I am really not sure how I'd want to structure or place this.
Technical information:
  • I know it might be customary for other TV station articles, but it still feels strange to have the "Subchannels" subsection be the only content in the "Technical information" section. Perhaps we could get rid of the subheader and/or add further info about this, if possible.
  • Removed the header here.
  • Also, I would suggest combining the two paragraphs, which are pretty short.
  • I added some info that should have been in paragraph 1 (repack). Paragraph 2 is thematically separate and I don't think combinable with paragraph 1.
@Nathan Obral and @Sammi Brie: That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Addressed nearly every item. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I think all issues have been satisfactorily addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • There appear to be a number of books (eg [14]) and journal articles (eg [15]) that aren't included here - what was your approach to sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been tricked, Nikkimaria! Putting this here in bold because this will trip up non-topic reviewers: References to WWJ-TV in material prior to 1995 are actually in reference to WDIV-TV, which was the original WWJ-TV until 1978. Both of the links you provide are talking about that station, not the one at FAC. In the process of writing this article, I had to fix a Commons category that contained 1970s material mentioning channel 4 (not 62) and write WorldCat to fix an error that commingled channel 4 and 62 items in the same OCLC entry. This sort of thing is why we discourage linking to redirects among call sign-titled pages, for instance. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is also not without some precedent in the topic field... it's not common, but it's also not a terribly unique situation. There exist two stations that have used the WHAM-TV call sign: WROC-TV from 1949 to 1956, and the current WHAM-TV from 2005 onward. Similarly, there are two WSYR-TVs: WSTM-TV from 1950 to 1980; and the current WSYR-TV from from 2005 onward. In both cases (and such was the case with the two WWJ-TVs being derived from WWJ radio), the calls were applied from WHAM radio and WSYR radio. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond to the second piece of this, the sourcing mix for most of my articles is primarily newspapers and trade journals. This station is unique in that it requires an additional set of publications, primarily from the Black community (see Jet and Black Enterprise which this article has), and its cultural influence has resulted in secondary source coverage not typical for US broadcast stations. Academic journal articles like the one from The Velvet Light Trap that is included are an utter rarity in this field. In another FA (WBPX-TV), I was lucky to find a book with in-depth coverage of part of its history. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

[edit]

I aim to make comments over the next few days. - Generalissima (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts

I would like to say that this is an exceptionally well-written article. The prose is really engaging and it feels like reading a professional work about the station. I have seen that a source review has been done, and that you have made significant improvements from the reviewers on bits of prose that was otherwise cumbersome, so I have just a tiny little bit still to cover!

  • "testified before the United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications..."
    • Do we need to specify United States here? This massive proper-name blue link disrupts the flow of the section. Wouldn't "Senate Commerce Subcommitee on Communications" be better?
  • "In 2021, Bruiser Brigade, a Detroit hip-hop collective led by Danny Brown, released an album titled TV62, a direct reference to WGPR, with the station's historic butterfly logo featured on the cover."
    • Due to the large number of short segments separated by commas, this sentence was a little confusing to read at first glance, although I don't necessarily know how to resolve it.

Having read through it several times, I cannot find any other mistakes - previous reviewers have been quite thorough! Great job so far, you two. Generalissima (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications". @Sammi Brie, any thoughts on the Bruiser Brigade sentence? Maybe it should be rephrased? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 15:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome, thank you for the changes. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

The nomination is coming up on eight weeks old. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 03:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to finish my review within the next couple hours and expect to support! Apologies for taking so long. Generalissima (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, any update on the review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs It looks like she just completed it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (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) 18 November 2023 [18].

Phoolan Devi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoolan Devi (1963 – 2001), also known as the Bandit Queen, had a rather unique life. She went from a very poor rural beginning in Uttar Pradesh to being a notorious dacoit (bandit). Her fame grew amongst the lower castes in India whilst she was on the run since she was seen as a Robin Hood figure; she was also involved (to at least some degree) in the Behmai massacre. She negotiated her surrender to the authorities and spent eleven years in prison. Her charges were dropped so she could become an MP in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of India's Parliament, then she was shot to death whilst incumbent. It's quite a story, made more colourful by her tendency to change how she recounted the events of her life to suit different situations. The film Bandit Queen made her globally famous although she herself objected to her depiction and at first wanted it banned in India. This article was improved by a helpful review at GA (by @Larataguera:) and useful comments at PR from (@Alanna the Brave:, @SusunW: and @BennyOnTheLoose:). A note on naming conventions - after several discussions it was decided to refer to her consistently as Phoolan Devi. All constructive comments welcome! Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK

[edit]
Collapsed comments


  • "sexually abused repeatedly" Didn't this happen after her marriage? Actually, this entire sentence is nonsensical; her marriage and the kidnapping (which was followed by sexual abuse) are separate incidents and mentioning them together portrays them as clearly leading to each other. You should have one sentence about her marriage and maybe later troubles, and then another about her kidnapping and how it eventually led to her joining the dacoits.
    she was sexually abused by (at least) Puttilal, the second son of the village leader, the police (probably), Babu Gujjar, Shri Ram Singh and the Behmai Thakurs Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those were still after marriage (as opposed to current phrasing, which implies some occurred before marriage), and none of those are directly related to her joining the dacoits, which is also implied by the current phrasing.
    I see what you mean, I think, so I've switched the two things around to make " After being married off at the age of eleven and being sexually abused by various people, she joined a dacoit group." Mujinga (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without facing trial" Wasn't she awaiting trial? This isn't clear in the body either, see below.
    i'm glad you are reading the body, since I always read the lead lasty after the reading the article. she didn't face a trial in 11 years Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But she was awaiting trial, right? So shouldn't that be mentioned?
    the sentence is " spent eleven years in Gwalior prison, without facing trial", would you prefer " spent eleven years in Gwalior prison, awaiting trial."? I don't see much difference to be honest Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The former implies some sort of arbitrary detention; the other implies that she was just awaiting trial.
    I'm not sure if I agree with that rationale, but added "awaiting" if its clearer than facing Mujinga (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moxham reported that she then renounced Buddhism" When, immediately after converting? Why?
    sources are a bit of a mess here...
    Arquilla says "She had become a Buddhist "to escape the perpetual damnation of the Hindu caste system"" based on Cuny, and Rambali, The Bandit Queen of India, viii.
    Moxham says: "earlier in the month Phoolan had decided to convert to Buddhism" and "Phoolan had now decided not to convert to Buddhism"
    ToI says "slain samajwadi party mp phoolan devi and her husband ummed singh had embraced buddhism at the famous "deekshabhoomi" here, according to former general secretary of all india buddhist conference (aibc) dr bhalchandra khandekar." Mujinga (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't any of the sources provide a timeline for when she renounced it? AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    nope Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused them many problems" What problems? Presumably financial hardship, so mention it.
    this summarises "Phoolan Devi's uncle and his son (her cousin) stole land from her father ... Her family was compelled to live in a small house on the edge of the village; the uncle and son continued to harass the family and to steal their crops, aiming to drive them away from the village ... Maiyadin ordered her to leave, and when she did not, he beat her into unconsciousness; the village leader then decreed that her parents should also be beaten ... Phoolan Devi's mother told The Asian Age that she was still fighting to regain the land which Maiyadin had stolen from the family ... Maiyadin pressured the family to ask Puttilali to take her back ... In January 1979, Maiyadin destroyed the family's crops and began to chop down a neem tree on their land. When Phoolan Devi threw stones at him and wounded his face, she was arrested by the local police and detained for one month" etc Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop quoting the article as a reply, I read the article already. I'm saying mention what kinds of problems (eg financial hardships) were caused in the lead.
    we need to have common ground to discuss on, not someone saying IDONTLIKEIT. I'd say "many problems" summarises the issues much better than "financial hardship", if you look at the various things that happened. also would you mind signing your posts please? it would make replying easier Mujinga (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man Singh" Again, who is this?
    sentence reads "Phoolan Devi managed to escape and formed another gang with Man Singh" - I could say "the bandit Man Singh" but is that not obvious? Mujinga (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But how did Phoolan Devi know him? Was a previous acquaintance or just some random bandit she happened to meet? AryKun (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit complicated. According to Sen's account, Phoolan Devi went to see the gang leader Mustaqeem and Man Singh was part of that gang. She wanted to join Mustaqeem's gang but Mustaqeem didn't want a woman in his gang so it caused tensions. Man Singh became attracted to her, she rebuffed him, then she realised after months she couldn't stay in Mustaqeem's gang so she asked Man Singh to form a gang with her, he was at first cold then decided to break away with her. Mustaqeem endorsed their decision. Mujinga (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else (GRuban) also flagged this up so I've changed it up Mujinga (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by order of the central government of Mulayam Singh Yadav" You probably mean state government, MSY has never led a government at the Centre. Also, you need to explain why this happened; MSY's government was in power in UP, and Devi was incarcerated in MP.
    source only says "In 1994, the government of Mulayam Singh Yadav, leader of the Other Backward Castes, withdrew criminal cases against her" - I haven't been able to find more info in english language sources Mujinga (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was...Shobhawati Devi." Irrelevant.
    sentence reads "She was not the only illiterate MP, joining others such as Bhagwati Devi and Shobhawati Devi" - this seems like useful info to me, thinking in terms of the general reader Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this useful? It's trivia. You don't even mention her literacy anywhere earlier in the article, because it's irrelevant.
    growing up illiterate in rural India is not uncommon, to become an illiterate MP is Mujinga (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, plenty of illiterate MPs, as illustrated by the other examples you cite; more importantly, you don't mention her literacy anywhere earlier, so this just seems like a random factoid. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The family was illiterate" is mentioned earlier; the source here only mentions Bhagwati Devi and Shobhawati Devi Mujinga (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "politician, who became a Member of Parliament before being assassinated" would be better as "politician who served as a Member of Parliament from Mirzapur". We can mention her assassination later in the lead, it isn't a defining characteristic of her or something that is super-widely known.
    i would disagree her assassination is not a defining characteristic Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a defining characteristic, the defining characteristic is her dacoity.
    for me the definining characteristics of Phoolan Devi are outlaw / MP / worldwide fame / assassination Mujinga (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC

'* "the river" Indefinite article or mention the exact river.

  • "one Other Backward Class" OBC isn't a caste, it's a administrative grouping.
    this came up at PR, the source uses OBC Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then might have to be rephrased, no-one uses OBC as a singular noun as currently done in the article. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. It's been really hard to get advice on naming conventions for this article, happy for any constructive comments on this point. The source says "A total of 20 persons, including 17 Thakurs, one Muslim, one Dalit and one belonging to the OBC". So shall we say "one person from the Other Backward Class"? Whilst we are on the subject, is the later statement "she was generally popular among Other Backward Classes" working for you? Mujinga (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given land with their goat and cow" Implies they already had a goat and cow?
    The quote in The Atlantic reads: "My other conditions were that all my cases be tried together in Madhya Pradesh in special courts; that the land that was my father's and was stolen by my cousin be rightfully returned to him; that my brother [he was then fourteen] be given a government job; that my family be resettled in Madhya Pradesh, on government land; and that they be accompanied by my goat and cow." Mujinga (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then clarify that it's "her" goat, not "their" goat.
    ok Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Mallah...Shudra varna" Overexplaining, the audience most likely to read this article (Indians) already know what caste is. We wouldn't have an explanation of Jim Crow laws in an article about a Black American from the 1940s.
    Yeah this is going to be contentious and has already been discussed/edited several times. Since WP:INDIA has been invited twice to look over the article and several active members made edits, I assume the current version is OK, but .. happy to hear other opinions. I just want the article to be accurate. I disagree with "the audience most likely to read this article (Indians)" - if this article is featured on the front page of english wikipedia I'd hope people from all over the world will see it. Having said that, I'm ofc open to improving the article Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one front page appearance this may have aside, the vast majority of readers will know the obvious things we're explaining; just say that Mallahs are Shudras, and let the hyperlinks explain the rest for people who don't know what the caste system is (also, I think pretty much everyone at least knows this, even in the West). AryKun (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am far from being an expert on this topic of caste and this has already been rewritten by others who presumably know more than me, so hopefully other people can reply as well to help improve this sentence Mujinga (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is written for a global audience and we can't assume that the reader knows what the caste system is. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the...criminal charges." How is this worth mentioning in the lead? You don't even mention the SC setting aside the dismissal of the charges before this.
    i'm summarising the article? Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you don't mention the charges being reinstitute earlier, while you do mention them being set aside; to someone who just read the lead, these charges are reappearing out of nowhere. Also, if she died unexpectedly, wouldn't it be obvious that the charges hadn't been dealt with before her death?
    for me the lead reads ok since she surrendered, she awaited trial (on charges), the charges were dropped and at the time she died the charges had been reinstituted. that chrononology works for me Mujinga (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning India in her birthplace is pointing out the obvious, just Uttar Pradesh is enough.
But it is so obvious as to be pointless; you wouldn't insert "George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut, United States" to that article, would you? AryKun (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No probably not, but it's a different case Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Again, an unnecessarily Western-centric perspective. AryKun (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a US former president and Phoolan Devi are comparable in stature? Mujinga (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some other random white people we don't mention the country for (one of them's French, so it isn't just because we're the English Wikipedia either). AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty WP:OSE. We can't assume that the reader knows the names of different states in India. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we can expect them to know where Wyoming or New South Wales is? In any case, OSE is about deletion discussions; for content, “we do this in all our other articles” is a perfectly valid for consistency. I’d say this is exactly the kind of thing SYSTEMICBIAS is about; even on an article primarily of interest to Indians, we’re assuming the reader knows nothing about India, when we wouldn’t make this assumption for an article about a person from the Anglosphere, as shown in the random FAs above. AryKun (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a few things going on here. As I understand it, (1) your rationale here AryKun is that it is systemically biased to say Uttar Pradesh is in India in the body since most readers will be Indian and will already know this fact. In support of your rationale, (2) you give some other FAs which don't use the country on first mention of location in the body. Further, (3) I take it you are also saying since we already know Phoolan Devi is Indian, it's overkill to say she was born in India, but that's a stylistic point and I might be wrong there.
On point 1, the way I see the systemic bias is the other way round, wikipedia editors assume we all know where New York is for example. Yes Indian readers know UP is in India, but on a global perspective I'd say most readers won't. I would argue one way to counter systemic bias is to have more FAs about things and people from different cultures than Western Europe and Northern America, so having Phoolan Devi on the frontpage is working towards that. We both want to improve the article I hope, so then it's finding the middle ground to move forward.
On points 2 and3, for me I prefer to write the lead summarising everything in the body so that if someone skips the summary they still get all the cited info. I don't know if it necessarily helps to look at specific examples you gave or not, I can though:
  • "George Walker Bush was born on July 6, 1946, at Grace-New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut" - since he is a former US president I'm not sure if US needs stating.
  • "Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors was born in Langley Burrell, Wiltshire,[2] on 28 July 1903 into a family of Herefordshire gentry.[3] " - I'd say adding England or southern England after Wiltshire would be helpful
  • "Lemoine was born in Quimper, Finistère, on 22 November 1840, the son of a retired military captain who had participated in the campaigns of the First French Empire occurring after 1807. " - since the French Empire is mentioned I don't think we need France here
  • "Philip Hoffman was born on July 23, 1967, in the Rochester suburb of Fairport, New York." - NY is generally agreed by convention to be commonly known enough not to need a country identifier. Is that in itself systemically biased? Well that's another question.
  • "Stephen Russell Davies was born on 27 April 1963 at Mount Pleasant Hospital in Swansea." - I'd say adding Wales would be helpful
  • "Tolliver grew up in Boyd, Texas, where he attended local schools." - I'm on the fence if Texas needs geolocating here
To give some of my own examples from FAs which do identify by country in the body:
  • Olive Morris was born on 26 June 1952 in Harewood, St Catherine, Jamaica.
  • Mary [Queen of Scots] was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Scotland, to King James V and his French second wife, Mary of Guise.
  • Emma Goldman was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Kovno in Lithuania, then within the Russian Empire.
  • Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O'Connor [Lorde]was born on 7 November 1996 in Takapuna, New Zealand, a suburb of Auckland, to poet Sonja Yelich (Croatian: Jelić) and civil engineer Vic O'Connor.
I personally don't think everyone reading wikipedia knows where UP is, but I'm from Europe so that's my perspective, which might well be institutionally biased. On the other hand, wikipedia has a global audience so just as we shouldn't be writing articles about North American people from a North American perspective, we shouldn't be writing articles about people from India from an Indian perspective. This says nothing about your particular point of view by the way, I'm trying not to assume very much about that. Mujinga (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phoolan Devi...Party in 1996" I shuddered reading that comma splice, would be better as "After the charges against her were set aside in 1994, Phoolan Devi was released from prison and joined politics, standing as a Member of Parliament as a member of the Samjwadi Party in 1996".
    I prefer my version, happy to hear other opinions Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure it has a comma splice; it also reads a bit overly rushed, like someone's just trying to get their thoughts out. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worldwide fame" seems peacock-y, maybe "fame outside India".
    this summarises "Phoolan Devi's fame throughout India continued to grow after her death, and the controversy surrounding the Bandit Queen film had already ensured that she was globally famous; she has become a legendary figure, alongside other outlaws such as Ned Kelly, Sándor Rózsa and Pancho Villa" Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it sounds kind of peacock-y in wikivoice, at least to me. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to rephrase, still trying to work out a good way of saying this. Her fame is unusual Mujinga (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to oppose this right now. There are just too many issues here. Just going to note a couple points below where there may be factual, DUE, or comprehensiveness issues.
    oh that's a shame, hopefully we can get there! i've been able to answer/reply on the above in ten minutes Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you haven't actually addressed any of the substantive comments, just the minor prose and grammar related issues. The actual comprehensiveness and DUE issues still remain unaddressed, or have replies that are just quotes from the article I just read. AryKun (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I am a bit baffled by that reply, could you be more specific so we can improve the article collaboratively? Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tributes were...Janata Dal." Irrelevant, this is more or less every party in UP with a lower caste base of support. AryKun (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    irrelevant to you perhaps but worth including for the general reader? Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hypothetical general reader is too Western-centric and apparently has no knowledge of India; like I said, this just pointless platitudes (two of the parties delivering the platitudes aren't even electorally relevant in UP), and UNDUE in this article.
    I don't doubt that you have more knowledge about India generally than I do, but your rationale here doesn't persuade me that the article would be improved by removing this sentence Mujinga (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is politicians being politicians and doesn't really strike me as important enough to mention here. AryKun (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison, imagine a Representative in the US saying some civil rights activist was a pretty great person while campaigning in a majority-Black area; it's just fishing for votes and not noteworthy enough to be in the article. AryKun (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this comes back to the discussion of systemic bias we had earlier - I appreciate you know more about Indian politics than I do but for a global perspective I think the article gains more from having this included than it excluded Mujinga (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about bias or anything, I just don't think politicians fishing for votes 20 years after her death is notable enough to mention in the article. Even the source you're using says "Though neither Tejashwi nor Paswan have indicated that their parties may contest the upcoming Assembly elections in UP", since these two parties aren't even particularly important. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still seems worth mentioning to me that tributes were made. If the politicians in question weren't going to contest elections then it seems it wasn't just about vote-grabbing Mujinga (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of the dung cakes now strikes me as undue; since using dung cakes for fuel is a common thing to do, I don't think we should have a photo of the dung cakes, which makes it feel like it's something highly unusual and indicative of their poverty for people unfamiliar with the region. AryKun (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well again, would it improve the article to remove the picture? it's quite hard to illustrate it Mujinga (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe put in a photo of a pearl millet field; dung has negative connotations and putting a photo of dung cakes would probably make non-locals think that it was because of their poverty, when it's actually because dung is just a common fuel source in the region. AryKun (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check out images of millet and chickpea fields previously (and just did again) - I'm not really finding an appropriate image unfortuately. I find it fascinating we seem to have very different views on what systemic bias means here. Could it be resolved by finding a source to back saying that dung is commonly used as a fuel? I just checked the Sen and Moxham but they don't say anything along those lines. Mujinga (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; this seems like an appropriate contemporary-ish source. AryKun (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I've accessed this through the wikipedia library and will give it a read Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    expanded slightly Mujinga (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

[edit]
  • File:Phoolan_Devi-Bandit_Queen.jpg needs a more expansive FUR
Thanks Nikkimaria, I'll look into both of these issues Mujinga (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Hopefully these issues have been resolved. Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One remaining issue with File:Non-free_picture_of_Phoolan_Devi.jpg. The "respect for commercial opportunities" field is meant to explain why this usage does not replace the original market role of the work; the current parameter does not explicitly do this, it only explains what that role was. If that can be tweaked a bit this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "This copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but too low resolution for commercial use. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." Mujinga (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Choliamb

[edit]

The Legacy section of the article currently states that Phoolan Devi: The Bandit Queen, the opera by Shirish Korde and Lynn Kremer, had its premiere at the University of Boston in April 2010. The source cited for this statement is incorrect: the premiere actually took place at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, on April 15, 2010, a week before the production moved to Boston. See my comment (with sources) on the article's talk page. – 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

many thanks @Choliamb: for pointing this out, I'll look into now Mujinga (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Mujinga (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • spotchecks not done
  • Footnote 2: how can this be dated 1991 if the edition is 1995?
  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
  • FN8 is missing page numbers
  • Fn11 is missing author
  • Pugazhendhi is missing publisher and location
  • What makes The Times of India a high-quality reliable source? See WP:RSP
  • FN2 is published 1991, revised and updated 1995
  • I've gone through and hopefully fixed that issue
  • Why US in FN5 but not FN4?
  • FN8 - looking into this so not done yet
  • FN11 - good spot! added
  • "Pugazhendhi, N. (1984). Phoolan Devi (in Tamil)" is all I've got. Should I remove it?
  • Yes, per WP:TOI "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". I've used it seven times, I would say as a news source for an Indian citizen it seems ok - is there any instance that seems unreliable? Most uses also have other cites, this one is standing on its own - "Munni Devi again claimed in 2018 that Devi had been murdered on the order of Umed Singh and argued that Sher Singh Rana had been framed by a government conspiracy". Happy to chop that one out?
  • FN46 typo fixed
Mujinga (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately if a source is classed between no consensus and generally unreliable, you're going to need a strong argument to support it being considered high-quality for our purposes, and I'm not seeing that here. You say it seems ok - is there something in particular you're basing that on, other than that we're not relying heavily on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll go through the ToI refs in the article now - what I meant was that an Indian newspaper covering an Indian person seems "matter-of-fact reporting" to me, but I appreciate you could reply that ToI is "generally unreliable for factual reporting on any topic with political ramifications". Mujinga (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All ToI links chopped or replaced Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria could you take another look please. I'm hoping that both image and source review are a pass, please note I have added a few more sources. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. On sources, looks like there's still a Times ref present. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry which one are you talking about? Mujinga (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN33. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Ok. Could you ping me when you have a decision. Possibly duck the issue entirely? Eg 'and one other person'.
Ok.
changed to Ary Kun's suggestion
  • "and had to shoot her way out." No she didn't, eg she could have surrendered. Please rephrase in encyclopedic language.
    agreed, rejigged Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and still armed with a Mauser rifle". Why "still"?
    it was a condition of her surrender she remained armed in case of any hijinks - this was unusual in that she was surrendering herself but stayed armed, so she was still armed with the rifle rather than surrendering it (if that makes sense) Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, but if you are to use the word "still", a summary of that needs to precede its use in the article.
I've removed it now Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first paragraph of "In culture" may work better in the previous section. If only to avoid having readers wondering what her religious conversions and lapses have to do with culture.
    previous section is "political career" but I like your suggestion below to rename the section, so moved Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dictated her autobigraphy I, Phoolan Devi". Is it known when?
    I don't have the book to hand right now, but we do it was published in 1996 so I think between 1994 and 1996. Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads "Phoolan Devi received £40,000 from Channel 4 and dropped the complaint. She then dictated her autobigraphy". I assume the date she received the £40,000 and the date of publication are known, so you have your range for the dictation; could this be included in the article?
done Mujinga (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear: the source states that Sher Singh Rana "claimed he had shot at Phoolan Devi", yes?
    I obviously have failed to communicate the central point here which is that the police didn't believe him when he surrendered himself to justice and said he was the assassin. I'll go back to the source and rephrase Mujinga (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    archive.org isn't working for me right now so i'll have to come back on this Mujinga (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    rejigged, hopefully clearer now Mujinga (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rana ... struggled to convince police that he was present at the scene of the crime". Is it known why he would want to?
Just checking that you have seen this.
I think this is resolved by the clarification that he surrendered but let me know if you need more Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok. (Maybe 'prior to'?)
sure! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to comply with the MoS. If you would like me to copy edit the offending phrases into compliance, let me know.
yes, please do! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The section "In culture" is not a summary of Phoolan Devi in culture, but almost entirely about one film. Consider renaming it "Bandit Queen film".
    great suggestion! naming this section has been tricky and that works :) Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Unnao and Varanasi, the local authorities blocked the installation of the statues." What happened in the other 16 districts?
    interesting question, I'm now deep in the research Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was quite the political kerfuffle, no statues were installed but the proposers retaliated by offering 50,000 small idols of Phoolan Devi, so rejigged, thanks for the prod to look deeper Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tributes were paid to her by Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) and Tejashwi Yadav of Rashtriya Janata Dal." When?
    2021, added Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selected works": the book title should be in title case.
    I've consistently used "Bandit Queen" as a capitalised name throughout the article, so I'd rather keep it here as well Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it. Let me know if it's an issue.
ah now I understand, thanks!

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to responses. This is ticking along nicely. Ping me when when you're ready for me to have another look. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will do! Mujinga (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I think I've replied on everything now, thanks for the suggestions! Mujinga (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good going. I will now reread the whole article to see what further nits I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know here if you disagree with anything, don't understand something, or I get something wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits! I would only query whether it's correct to say "member of parliament (MP) for Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh" instead of "Member of Parliament (MP) for Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh" since I thought it was capitalised when the constituency is given, as for example in Caroline Lucas - "has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Brighton Pavilion since the 2010 general election." Mujinga (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
[edit]
  • "When the two men could not be found". What two men?
  • "She was celebrated among Dalits for ..." Could we have a brief explanation of what a Dalit is.
  • "Phoolan Devi was charged ... twenty-two murders". You say earlier that only 20 people died.
  • "two Nishad parties laid claim to Phoolan Devi's legacy". Political parties? If so, perhaps insert 'political'.

And that's all I have. Great work. (What's next?) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two men are " Sri Ram Singh and his brother", with the whole bit reading "She returned to Behmai with her gang on 14 February 1981; speaking through a loudhailer, she demanded that the villagers hand over Sri Ram Singh and his brother, then the bandits went from house to house looting valuables.[2]: 150–151 [17]: 324  When the two men could not be found, twenty-two Thakur men were lined up at the Yamuna river and shot from behind". I think that's clear enough as is?
  • Writing about anything related to caste seems fraught with difficulties, so I've tried and anyone is welcome to improve
  • Hmm yes that's a good point. Sen says: "She is charged with 48 major criminal offences, including 22 murder charges, kidnaps-for-ransom and the looting of villages throughout the area" and I would have said that it must be the 20 Behmai murders and two carried out elsewhere, but in the next sentence Sen says "More specifically, she is accused of killing 22 high-caste Hindu men from Behmai, a remote hamlet that few have heard of, just south of Delhi." So it seems Sen has wrongly written 22 instead of 20. I'll have to check for other sources on this to confirm.
  • Added "political" Mujinga (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild There does seem to be confusion in the soources between there being 22 and 20 deaths at Behmai, although there is general agreement that she was charged with 48 crimes total, so I've cropped it to "48 crimes, which included kidnapping, looting and murder".
    Re what's next, nothing springs to mind unfortunately! Perhaps another heist, but I think I'd prefer to concentrate on increasing the representation of women at FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indira Gandhi needs work. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]

BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

I'll try and have a proper look over the next few days, but I don't think I'll have much to say. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose I hope you don't mind me giving you a prod on this? Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of instances of "Devi" rather than "Phoolan Devi": in Behmai massacre, Surrender, Political career (x2), caption for the Biswas image, Assassination (x2), Legacy (x2). Please check whether these should be amended.
    Cheers that's very helpful. I have doublechecked and I think I've got them all now Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who became a member of parliament before being assassinated - I quite often see statements about people doing things before they died (rather than afterwards). Consider rewording, but no objection if you decide to retain this form.
    haha it does make me laugh when you put it like that :) I'll change to Kavyansh.Singh's suggestion Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the Mallah subcaste forms part of the Nishad caste, two Nishad political parties laid claim to Phoolan Devi's legacy" - maybe reword as the two parties laying claim doesn't necessarily follow?
    true, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are varying accounts of her life because she told differing versions of events in her life. - maybe reword to avoid using "life" twice?
    thanks for noticing that, it seems as points are discussed and new edits are made, new errors creep in! hopefully we'll get there soon. cheers for the comments :@BennyOnTheLoose Mujinga (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, have you addressed Benny's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just seeing them now, thanks for the return prod! Mujinga (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga and BennyOnTheLoose: and also Gog the Mild, who read this section; please have a look at the instructions at WP:FAC. The {{tq}} template should not be used at FAC, as it slows down the whole page. I've switched a few of them, but please review throughout, as right now these templates are rendering the entire FAC page not accessible to all, which slows down reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be ok now, thanks to whoever sorted it! Mujinga (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the article has moved on a bit since I last looked, and I have nothing else to suggest. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dwaipayan

[edit]

I have not read the full article yet. It seems to me the prose is not up yo the mark. I did a mild copyedit, only a couple of paragraphs. The article likely needs copyediting by some experienced editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Gog the Mild has just completed their copy edit! Any other comments welcomed, I've added the year where you asked and if you wanted to improve this edit about Dalits please feel free Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reviewer's copy edit rather than, say, what I would have done if I had picked it up at GoCE. So where possible I went with the existing text. That said, for me it now gets over the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard" bar. Of course, other points of view are available. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment Gog and thanks for the edits Dwaipayan, I've made some edits in turn Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • who became a member of parliament before being assassinated. — Of-course you can't become MP after being assassinated. It may be just me, but this phrasing seems a bit odd. The way we put it, it seemingly implies that she was assassinated just after a few days in office (like the case with William Goebel). Would it be an improvement if we say something like, "who served as a member of parliament until her assassination"? There may be more better ways to put it, I am by no means an "expert" on prose, but, its just my opinion ...
    it's good point, also made by BennyOnTheLoose above and I'll change to your suggestion Mujinga (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a deal-breaker for me, but do we really need the state of in "a village in the state of Uttar Pradesh". We have already linked UP.
    I think it's doing more help than harm there, although I'm also not fussed if you want to change it Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this massacre the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh resigned — My reading of MOS:JOBTITLE suggests that 'chief minister' should not be capitalized. Check for other instances of the same throughout the article.
    Yes it seems during the course of the review there have been various opinions on this, so it needs standardising again. I'll try to make it Chief Minister when a title and chief minister when a description, which is how I'm reading JOBTITLE Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and being sexually abused by various people — by various men, I guess.
    since everything is so vague on this point, I'd prefer to keep "people" although I take your point it probably was all men Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we have a bit of inconsistency with the usage of Oxford comma. her family grew chickpeas, sunflowers and pearl millet. v. offered 100 Indian rupees (equivalent to ₹400 or £4.20 in 2023), a cow, and a bicycle to her parents. v. places such as Devariya, Kanpur, and Orai. v. kidnapping, looting and murder. Kindly check for the entire article.
    I've standardised to no oxford commma Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard practice in Biographical articles is that after introducing the subject, they are referred by their surname in the text. That, however, is not an absolute requirement, and only thing we look for is consistency. I see that for most of the article, we have referred to the subject by her complete name "Phoolan Devi". Exceptions to this are Instead, her mother sent Devi to stay with a distant relative. Same goes with 'Mala Sen'. We have already introduced her in the third para of early life, and for much of the text, she has been referred by her last name. In the last para of early life, however, we have Mala Sen asked her if she had been raped, again repeating her full name. Kindly check this for the entire article, and do let me know if I am misinterpreting something.
    Regarding Phoolan Devi, there's been quite a lengthy debate on the naming convention and we've settled on using her whole name, so thanks for pointing out there were a few "Devis". Regarding Mala Sen, it's a different issue in that the name "Sen" seems to me rather confusing unless it is clear that we are referring to Mala Sen, so I've used "Mala Sen" when mentioning her again and "Sen" when she has just been mentioned, I hope that makes sense. It certainly isn't standard practice but I think if I only used the full name on first mention, it would be confusing. Not particularly stuck on this rationale though. Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • beside the Yamuna river — 'r' in river should be capitalized, I guess.
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director of the Women's Feature Service — Shouldn't we mention their name as well?
    not sure here, the director is/was Anita Anand, who is neither Anita Anand nor Anita Anand (journalist) Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phoolan Devi was charged in absentia with — We haven't italicized the term in the lead
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • then prostrated herself in front of Arjun Singh, Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, with 8,000 people watching — check for JOBTITLE, and with 8,000 people watching should be with approximately 8,000 people watching
    Now I have added "the" then the capitals are justified, as I read JOBTILE. Added approximately Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phoolan Devi faced the 48 criminal charges — We have been already told this
    yes and i want to emphasise that the charges made in absentia were then held, happy to try to make that clearer if needed Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kanpur district court — Should be 'Kanpur District Court'
    done Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Assassination of Phoolan Devi should be a redirect to the assassination section of this article
    done Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 13:30" — 13:30 where? Specify IST
    ok Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ashok Roy made the 1984 film Phoolan Devi — Our article says 1985. Of-course that has nothing to do with this FAC, but can you just recheck the year.
    aha I was a bit mystified here but the wikiarticle is the about the 1985 hindi film, not the 1984 bengali one. same director and Rita Bhaduri starred as Phoolan Devi in both!? so I've moved the link Mujinga (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work! I can only imagine how hard it must have been to research and write such a complex subject. I sort of agree with @Dwaipayan, and have tried to be a bit nit-picky, so apologies for that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Will respond later today or tomorrow Mujinga (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comment about it being a complex subject, it is really is. The nitpicks have been really handy, sadly I've run out of time today but hope to finish off tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Kavyansh.Singh, I've replied on everything now, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try revisiting this within a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second read
  • another wife who enjoyed mistreating her. — Not a major issue, but if we could rephrase it as "another wife who often mistreated Phoolan Devi.", I think it would be a bit more encyclopedic.
  • Indian feminist groups were recording many — "Indian feminist groups recorded many". Sounds better?
  • Do the sources discuss Phoolan Devi what we claim her to be in the infobox: a "Human rights activist"?

Looking much better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grnrchst

[edit]

Hope it's ok if I leave some comments on this. This article looks fantastic and I know you've put a lot of work into it, so I'm more than happy to give it a look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "She became a heroine to the lower castes for being a Robin Hood figure who punished her rapists and evaded capture by the authorities." Sentence structure here is a bit odd on first glance. Consider a slight rewrite?
    Damn I made an answer here but wikipedia went down earlier and it must've got lost. I see what you mean and suggested "When she punished her rapists and evaded capture by the authorities, she became a heroine to the lower castes who saw her as a Robin Hood figure" Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was assassinated outside her house by Sher Singh Rana" What motivated the assassin?
    I'd rather not get into it in the lead I think because it takes the focus away from her Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which told her life story in a way she did not approve of." Might be worth saying why she didn't approve of it? Even a little detail would go a long way in clarifying what she didn't like about it.
    This sentence has been scrutinised a lot over the FAC, I'm not sure what to add, but feel free to put in a detail Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "Given names vary between texts" Worth clarifying that this is about the village, as I was confused by the term "given name" which I usually see applied to people. Maybe move the explanatory footnote inline with the village name itself?
    good point, hopefully resolved by removing "given" Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hindu caste system in India" Hrm, this is potentially problematic. The Indian caste system isn't limited to Hindu faiths, nor are all Hindus believers in it, and there are different understandings of what it is. I would recommend either dropping "Hindu" as an adjective or linking instead to the Hindu varna system, if it's necessary to be specific.
  • "Indian society is divided into four castes or social classes." Again, this is describing the varna system. "Indian society" implies something much broader.
    same as above Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the uncle"; "the family". The use of "the" here is a bit odd. Why not use "her"?
    I don't know any more I just want this FAC to be over hahaha, I'm sure you can relate :) "the uncle and his son" reads better to me than "her uncle and his son" but I wouldn't be at all fussed if you wanted to change it. Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devi's full name is used a lot in this section, is there a reason for this?
    this is another thing that has been discussed at some length and whilst it does read awkwardly, the consensus seems to be to use "Phoolan Devi" at every mention rather than using a contracted version Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puttilal had taken another wife who enjoyed mistreating her" His new wife enjoyed mistreating Devi?
    yes Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the parental home" Again, shouldn't this be "her parental home"?
    again I prefer the but please change it if you want to Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recording many instances of women being attacked and murdered by men" Do we have more specific figures than "many"? Gender violence is a big issue, so I think showing the magnitude may help.
    Sen doesn't give figures, only a few horrendous examples Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The director of the Women's Feature Service commented" Might be worth a wee clarification that this was specifically in relation to Devi's case.
    Sure! Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bandit Queen
  • In the explanatory footnote, you should probably use semi-colons instead of commas to separate different author's depictions
    Sure, done. I get the impression Dwaipayan isn't keen on semi-colons but I think they work here Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vikram Mallah and Phoolan Devi fell in love." Think this could be moved earlier in the paragraph, so just after it mentions Vikram killing Gujjar, as it would contextualise their relationship better than having it after details of the gang's exploits.
    Hmmm. I agree the setnence is a bit jerky, but it was a bit of a saga apparently, Vikram Mallah at first was attracted to her and she wasn't interested, then feelings blossomed over time, not sure how much of that needs to be in the article. Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    rejigged, see what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They found and punished Puttilal" Punished how?
    Sen quotes Phoolan Devi saying: "All through this I was beating him black and blue, using the butt of my rifle, my hands, my feet. “We tied up Puttilal and his wife Vidya and we left the village with them. I wanted to kill them in the vicinity of the Sikandra police station and leave a note that this would be the fate of any man who married two wives. “When we were barely a mile from the police station, I changed my mind and decided not to kill them but to let them live to tell the tale. This time I beat them both, so much so that Puttilal lost two of his teeth and I broke his arms and legs, before leaving them there, tied together, with a letter to the daroga [police inspector], claiming responsibility for the act."
    In putting that down I realised perhaps you are asking punished in what sense, so could add "violently"? Mujinga (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thouhgts I made it: "They located Puttilal and punished him violently" Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was celebrated by most of the Indian mainstream media" How are we defining "most"?
  • Spotcheck: Only The Guardian describes her as "India's answer to Robin Hood". Neither BBC News nor Signs describe her as such. Only BBC News mentions the Indian media, which it says "glorified [her]" and "wrote tirelessly of her exploits". This sentence should probably be rewritten, as it seems like their might be some synthesis of sources here.
    yeah I think you're right about it needing tweaking and actually last time I read this through, "most of the Indian mainstream media" did seem a strange turn of phrase. BBC does say "one of India's most famous outlaws" though. signs p125 introduces her as "Phoolan Devi, a legendary lower-caste woman dacoit in India who was known for raiding villages with her gang and redistributing wealth from upper-class, upper-caste landlords to poor landless villagers" which I would take as summarisable by "a Robin Hood figure" but now I'm wondering if that's a helpful comparison. in any case removed "by most of the Indian mainstream media"
    added Seal as another explicit Robin Hood reference Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was seen as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga" By who?
  • Spotcheck: Journal of Religion and Violence seems to say she was seen this way by "the down-trodden" (dalits?), and that she saw herself this way. BBC News source verifies the thing about the doll.
    yes the "down-trodden" indeed so after a bit of rejigging i hope it's clear it's the Other Backward Classes mentioned in the previous sentence Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye that reads much better now :D --Grnrchst (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think the first couple sentences of the second paragraph could be condensed a bit, so as not to take focus away from Devi.
    It's difficult because the information here then explains why the Behmai massacre occurred and why it had such massive repercussions, so I can't see what to chop out Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Behmai massacre
Surrender
Political career
  • "Hindu caste system" As per above, should clarify that this is the varna system and probably delink caste system in India.
    same answer as above I'm afraid - I'm happy to discuss but loathe to change what seems to be generally agreed to be ok Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was she able to regain her seat? (More info about the elections would be good, if there's sourcing for it)
    It's a good question, I'm not really finding anything here, I'm afraid Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she later renounced Buddhism" Any reason given for why?
    no, like many things in this article the more you look the less you find haha Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bandit Queen film
  • If Devi disputed the accuracy of the film, does she also think similarly of Mala Sen's biography? Or was it that loosely adapted?
    this is another tricky one .. Phoolan Devi was interviewed by Sen and was broadly ok with the resulting book, then it was adapted and although Sen got the credit it was actually her exhusband Farrukh Dhondy who adapted it and "jazzed it up", then the director Shekhar Kapur imposed his narrative on it. so the film isn't a reflection of the book whch is quite nuanced Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding some information about the release and reception of Mala Sen's biography. This section could then be expanded into "Media depictions" or something?
    hmm yes this is an interesting one, I'll do a source sweep Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    still busy with this Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it does seem strange to me but can't find very much on this. a lot of people refer to it but don't really say much about it. i could only find one review. maybe the book became more famous after the film. Mujinga (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination
  • Is it common to contract "rupees" to "Rs"? I've not seen this before.
    thanks for noticing that, it's a hangover from removing the templates - rupee talks of "Indian rupees (₹) and Pakistani rupees (Rs. )" Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Devi is an example of a Third World postcolonial subject who is aware of the racist and patronising Orientalist attitudes that First World analysts have of her" Could you explain further? What attitudes specifically?
    First time round I said "Media theorist Sandra Ponzanesi sees Devi's life as an exemplary case of a postcolonial subject attempting to preserve their agency in the face of an Orientalist gaze" and was asked to make it clearer. I'm mot getting much from the article reading it again but I think generally the point is that Phoolan Devi is avoiding being pigeonholed as the vulnerable poor lower caste person with no agency and also being the lower class hero with no imperfections. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashok Roy made the 1984 film [...]" As these films were made and released during her life, it may be worth moving up into the proposed "Media depictions" section.
    I'm fine with you making changes, I think I'm getting article fatigue at this point so I don't have the headspace for structural changes. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the paragraph about the court case will be updated as it progresses.
    pretty much everyone is now dead or close to death, so I'm not sure if it will ever get to the judgement stage, what a farce. Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also in 2021, tributes were paid to Phoolan Devi" Did anything prompt this series of tributes?
    they're marking twenty years since her assassination, which is in the text but probably a bit buried if you didn't clock it Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    made that clearer Mujinga (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is a wonderfully-written article that has taught me a lot about this very interesting person. My comments are mostly minor, but there's a few cases I think where the article is potentially falling short of a quick-support. Ping me when you've responded to these and I'll be happy to take another look. Excellent work, as always! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I'll hope to reply soon Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still busy with replies, could I ask you to give an opinion on Kavyansh.Singh's second round query on tense as well? Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst Thanks a lot for the queries, it prodded me to search for info in new ways, although I haven't dredged up a huge amount more. I've answered on everything, we might need to discuss still on some points. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (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) 17 November 2023 [19].

Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After several months of deep diving and a couple years of tinkering, I am reasonably sure that this is the most comprehensive account that exists anywhere of Whitman's lectures. I think it's ready for FAC. Happy to hear any feedback. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. My inputs here may be a bit patchy.

  • First sentence: how about 'The American poet Walt Whitman gave a series of lectures on ex-US president Abraham Lincoln between 1879 and 1890.'
  • In any event, use 'between ...', not "from ..."
  • "The lectures began as a benefit for Whitman". What does this mean?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked the phrasing a bit Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several poems in the president's memory." Should probably be 'President'.
  • "the 1855 release of Leaves of Grass. The brief volume released in 1855". Do we need telling the year of release twice?
  • "sometimes in close quarters." Does that work in USvar? BritVar would have 'at close quarters'.
    • It doesn't sound *wrong* to me, but "at close quarters" sounds better.
  • "The historian Stephen B. Oates argued that". It is usual to present author's opinions etc in the present tense. (Which I find odd, but no onw pays any attention to me.)
    • I pay attention to you!
:-)
  • "Whitman worked his New York Sun article into a readable format." Why was the version printed in the Sun not readable?
  • Suggest linking benefit.
  • "the lectures were usually attended only by those who could afford tickets." Any chance of rephrasing this. Especially in the light of the first part of the sentence.
  • "in Ford's Theatre upon the night of the assassination." "upon"! Really?
    • well, not really
  • "An ad for his Elkton, Maryland, lecture". I think 'advertisement' would be more encyclopedic.
  • Notes: it is not normal to give page numbers in line, that is what citations are for.
    • I agree, but I think it works effectively to provide the link to the book in the note, rather than adding the name and the citation (I try to avoid the citation within the explanatory footnote when possible). I've done it before (for instance, here), but if you don't think it works am happy to change both.
Bleh! On one level I am not too fussed, but it definitely is not "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", so I think it needs to go.
*fine*. I'll do it. But not because you asked. Because UndercoverClassicist did below.
  • "Sources contemporary to the lecture are similarly conflicted." I think you mean 'in conflict', or perhaps 'Sources contemporary to the lecture similarly conflicted'.
  • Link pit.
  • "paid Whitman the $350 when he reached New York". If you are going to say "the $350" you need to introduce it.
  • "While Whitman had not seen Lincoln's assassination, he interviewed Peter Doyle". How or why would Doyle's account be useful?

Welcome back. It is good to see another lovingly researched article on Whitman. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild, I think I've addressed all of these points through edits. Let me know if there's anything else or something not adequately handled. Much appreciated, as always. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They centered around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln". Maybe 'the assassination of Lincoln', as he has now been introduced in full in the previous sentence.
  • I think removing "in the President's memory" is a retrograde step. A reader is liable to be left wondering why Whitman read out some random poems and what the "such as" alludes to.
    • I'm not sure where you mean.
Ok. You have changed "in the president's memory" to "in tribute to the fallen President". Fair enough.
  • Lead: "sometimes included readings of poems"; article: "Whitman brought a "reading book" with him to the lectures that contained fifteen poems he read at their conclusion." Seems contradictory, as the latter implies that poems were read at every lecture, and "sometimes" only at a minority.
The contradiction is still there.
You are, as always, correct. I am currently knee deep (again) in sourcing and basically, we don't know because we don't have complete accounts of every lecture. Thinking of the best way to phrase it, but leaning towards "usually" with an EFN.
Flattery will get you everywhere. I wasn't sure if it was that or contradictory sources. I hesitate to comment without having read the sources, but yeah, something like 'usually' in the lead and article and an efn commenting on an absence of evidence ruling out a categorical 'always' sounds appropriate.
Or, you could go with " Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
That's actually what I was going for with the several contradictions that have been pointed out here and below :P Whitman would like things not lining up!

A couple of responses to your responses and three new points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've responded to all the above Eddie891 Talk Work 22:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've gone ahead and used "often", which is what the Encyclopedia of Whitman uses as well. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
added alts. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added tag, was definitively published by 1896 ... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

No promises on timing, but I'll try to get to this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image captions shouldn't have a period/full stop unless they are complete sentences.
    • Seems like most of the images here were in need of full stops rather than having extra ones, unless I'm mistaken. Should be added
      • I still see some extras. For example, the first image has the caption The cover for a program from one of Whitman's lectures on Lincoln.: that's not a full sentence (it doesn't have a verb), so shouldn't have a full stop/period. The second likewise. The programme does need two full stops, because the second sentence is complete (even if the first isn't), but the announcement and the ticket should not have them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get a sense in the lead that we're really talking about one lecture, that he gave or tweaked multiple times, but I'm not sure it's really clear either way.
  • Whitman (left) and Lincoln (right) c. 1854 when they were 35 and 45 years old respectively: we need at least one comma here; I'd stick one after 1854 and consider another after (right). Mind you, you could also delete right, given that there's only two images.
  • Although they never met: suggest something like "never spoke" or "were never introduced"; if I'd seen someone at close quarters, I'd feel I was lying if I said I'd never met them.
    • I think never met is the best description, because I want to avoid the implication that Lincoln was particularly aware of Whitman. Cut "at close quarters" because I don't think it's necessary and might confuse more.
      • I think the current framing works.
  • the fallen President: minor, but we might be channelling Whitman's emotions or WP:PUFFERY a bit with fallen.
    • cut the word
  • and delivering one as early as the 1850s.: do we know anything more about this lecture or its circumstances – and why he then seems to have done no more for nearly three decades?
    • Not... really. I'd assume Whitman would have struggled to find respectable places that would let him (or want him to) lecture there. He also may have gotten distracted with Leaves of Grass & similar poetry work. Added a date and place to the lecture, but I don't think it's worth going into much more detail, and the secondary sources don't talk a lot about his lecturing efforts in the decades that followed, unfortunately.
  • the physician Silas Weir Mitchell attributed this paralysis was attributed to a ruptured blood vessel in Whitman's brain: something's gone awry here.
    • revised
  • Money made from these lectures constituted a major source of income for him in the last years of his life: I'd give Whitman's date of death here, as many readers will otherwise go to look it up and lose their flow.
    • added
  • associated increase in a perception of Whitman as a more respectable figure: the double comparative is awkward: suggest losing the more.
    • cut
  • Can we have the dollar amounts contextualised somehow, if only via the inflation template, perhaps in footnotes?
    • working on
      • I think the problem might be that inflation doesn't tell the whole story, so I'm not sure if it would be really helpful. For instance, for the dollar ticket, {{Inflation|US|1|1887|2022}} gives us 33. Still doesn't, I think, make it really clear how innaccesible the lectures were for most people, because it was just so much less common to have spending money as well.
        • I think of the inflation template as a last resort: when I can, I much prefer to put in a more reckonable figure as context. Could we find, for instance, some sense of what an average person's pay was during this period, or a sense of what else you could get for a dollar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed it. The available sourcing is super murky on what people *could* have afforded versus *wanted* to spend money on, and I don't think we lose out on much by instead saying that the lectures were generally only attended by members of high society, instead. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We introduce practically everyone outside the table, but then don't introduce new people within it; I'd nail WP:NOTPAPER to the mast and introduce them all, personally.
    • Working on
      • Introduced all, but grouped the authors as just 'authors', if that works?
  • Whitman was described by the scholar Merrill D. Peterson as : a bit of a contentious one, but I'd generally expect the past tense for scholarship to cover broadly historic views (in other words, people who knew him); if we mean broadly current views, I'd expect the present. See later with Gregory Eiselein too.
    • Should be all done
  • Demodocus, a divine bard: Demodocus is only metaphorically divine. If you feel it appropriate, you could add some context here: Demodocus tells the glorious but tragic story of Troy, leading Odysseus - who was there, and is listening in disguise - to give away his identity by being moved to weep.
    • Hm, I cut some stuff to hew a little closer to the sourcing. I think more context would go beyond what the sourcing says.
    done Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally began by "downplaying his ability to handle the emotionally challenging task that lay before him": this is a rhetorical commonplace known as (a) captatio benevolentiae: you might wish to get that term in there.
    • I agree, but since the sourcing doesn't use the phrase am not inclined to add
      • That's a reasonable call, though our sources don't have the same audience and editorial considerations as we do (they don't necessarily have to be understandable to a broad audience, for example, or to follow other aspects of the FA criteria): there's plenty of parts of the MoS and other guidelines that draw a distinction between articles being built on sources and articles looking exactly like those sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, and I'll go through the sourcing and see if I can justify to myself making the connection more explicit. But if none of them draw the connection between downplaying and catching goodwill (though that's definitely what it is), I'd say it's too much of a stretch. Will get back to you on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing it there. I'd lean against adding a link. But if you feel super strongly I will do it. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • condense—A nationality: I think MOS:CONFORM would like us to decapitalise that A, with apologies to Whitman.
    • Done. Whitman would hate the idea of conforming...
  • Suggest introducing briefly who Anacreon was; one of these things in the list of poets is quite unlike the others.
    • Working on
      • Should be done
  • Whitman revised the text of "The Midnight Visitor" that he delivered.: I'm not sure revised is quite the right word for "changed someone else's work": "made his own alterations to"?
    • done
  • as tickets were too expensive: the image to the right seems to suggest that they cost fifty cents; could that be put in and contextualised? I imagine many readers will see that picture and be slightly confused, as that doesn't immediately appear a lot of money today.
  • in religious silence, for its sudden grace notes, vibrant tones, hymnlike progress, and Olympian familiarity seemed at times the whispering of the stars: may wish to wikilink grace notes, hymn and Olympian.
    • Done
  • Whitman's lecture was intended to give the impression of presenting a very factual account: appropriately where "O Captain, My Captain" is involved: could very be removed or replaced with something more precise?
    • cut
  • Whitman's lecture ... They were delivered: antecedent doesn't match pronoun.
    • Fixed, hopefully
  • Note C: a long note with lots of citations written out in prose. Suggest moving these to footnotes, as has been done for the NYT: e.g. Loving writes that Carnegie was not in the box that he paid for.[footnote: Loving 1999, p. 450].
    • Done
  • emphasizing a final "triumph" for Whitman: I don't think we can use emphasizing ("making more apparent or obvious") like this.
    • Agreedm went with represetnign
  • delivering the lecture regularly became "vital to [Whitman's] permanent achievement of [fame].": less ambiguous as regularly delivering the lecture (otherwise, did he deliver it regularly or did it regularly become vital?).
    • Good point, done that
  • What's the being edited out or summarised by [fame] in the final quotation?
    • literally, "fame". Blake says something along the lines of "the lecture was a performance of fame and was vital to his permanent achievement of that state." (Not a direct quote, but I just read the relevant passage an hour or so ago and that's exactly what Blake is saying).

A cracking article: most of these things are minor and largely matters of taste, and I am perfectly happy if we end up disagreeing on them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I'll respond throughout the week. Currently taking a deep dive into the sourcing... Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above, a few I'm still working on. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for taking a look. I have responded to most of your queries directly, a few questions. Not sure what to do to make the prices more understandable. I might be able to dig up something like average salaries in NYC in the late 19th c. for comparison? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, I've suggested exactly the same thing further up: another good approach is to find something else that you can get for about the same amount, or much less (for example, if a dollar would pay your rent for a month, say as much). UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, I think I've responded to your points above. I think the best way to avoid all the confusion over the ticket price is to say the opposite, which is equally true. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks good to me; I'm perfectly happy to disagree on a few issues and you've made a sensible case in every instance where we do. Nice work and a fascinating article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Whitman, who had long aspired to be a lecturer, gave his first lecture in New York City's Steck Hall on April 14 the following year. Over the course of the next eleven years, he gave the lecture at least ten more times," To vary the wording, can se say, "gave his first talk" or use another synonym?
  • Done
  • "that the poet Richard Watson Gilder also supported the idea" probably Glider is important to this tale not as a poet, but as an influential editor.
  • Changed description
  • "John Hay". Perhaps the significance of Hay's attendance could be explained in that he was one of Lincoln's secretaries and was in the course of publishing (with John Nicolay) a major Lincoln biography. As Hay knew Lincoln intimately, Hay's presence likely gave Whitman nerves.
  • Yes, I think a source goes into more detail about the importance of that. As long as it isn't Epstein, I will find and incorporate.
  • I think it was. But I added Hay's most relevant connections.
  • Some of the groups of references are out of numerical order. Did you intend that?
  • Should be ordered
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk)
Got one point to respond to in more depth, the rest should be done Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, all your points should be addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt. Is there anything else? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris

[edit]
  • "the physician Silas Weir Mitchell attributed this paralysis was attributed" - can we avoid this repetition?
  • cut the last two words
  • "Silas Weir Mitchell attributed [...] and in May he gave up on plans for delivering the lecture that year" - it wasn't Mitchell who gave up on these plans
  • Clarified
  • "Ad for Whitman's Lincoln lecture" - "ad" is a bit slangy, can we use the proper word?
  • Done
  • "However, he also told" => "However, Whitman also told" (the most recent man mentioned was Carnegie, so "he" is ambiguous
  • Done
  • "Whitman's lecture was intended [...] They were delivered" - subject jumps from singular to plural
  • Fixed

Source review: Pass (no spot checks)

[edit]

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • I don't supposer Edward Whitley (environmentalist) is the co-author of Whitman in Context.
    • Unfortunately not, this is a Lehigh University professor.
  • Recommend Wikilinking Philip Callow, Charles Glicksburg, Jerome Loving, James E. Miller, David Nasaw, William Pannapacker, and Horace Traubel.
  • Buinicki book: Iowa is not capitalized.
  • Callow book: Internet Archive link is broken
  • Larson book: Google Books link goes to a particular page. I recommend the shorter link to the overall entry.
  • Same comment for the Pannapacker book. Recomment this link instead.
  • Miller book: the book with that ISBN was published 2006, but there was maybe an audiobook version published in 2007. Which are you citing?
    • Assuming you mean Nasaw. It's the 2006 edition
  • Grier book: The Google Books link goes to volume 3. Is this a source listing for an entire multi-volume work or just volume 3?
  • Some of the ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not. I recomment standardizing their appearance.

Aside from the comments above, the sources are all formatted properly and complete. The sources are all published by academic publishers, written by academic authors, and/or held by academic libraries, so they all seem legit. Given how many of them there are, and how many different authors there are, the source list seems to represent a reasonable breadth of scholarship. Many sources are reasonably new and a few are older as well. Many are focused right on the subject and others are pretty close to being focused right on it.

Thanks for having a look, I think I've addressed all of these. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Glicksberg is still not Wikilinked. Is that not the right Charles Glicksberg or did you miss that one? And you were right about Nasaw vs. Miller. Other than the very minor matter of Wikilinking Glicksberg or not, I see all my comments above are addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just linked him, It's because I used author-link instead of editor-link Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'll look at these in-line citations next. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In footnote C, why use sfn for Krieg and Kaplan, but harvnb for Nasaw? I think the footnote would read more clearly if converted to sfn.
    • Just a mistake, should be standardized
  • Why are some of the cited books and academic articles written out in the Bibliography with short citations in the References section, while others are written out in their entirety in the References section? According to WP:FACR 2C, you need consistency, and I recommend going with the short format for all citations with page numbers.
    • Should have gotten the rest of the journals into the bibliography.
  • Aside from the above, I think the Moyne citation should be more page-specific than the current 10-page range.
  • Citation 6 for "CENSORED": It appears that the page of the online exhibit you are citing is called "Banned, Burned, and Bowlderized". Perhaps that should be the web page title, you should move "CENSORED: Wielding the Red Pen" to the website name, and you should make University of Virginia the publisher.
    • Done
  • Pannapacker 1998: I recommend adding an archive link.
  • I think the Griffin citation should be formatted like the Pannapacker 1998 citation.
  • Same for the Eiselein citation.
    • Added archives and format
  • Citation 57 "Notes": the link brings you to page 219, but you want 211, so I suggest switching to this link. Same for the archive link.
    • Changed the actual link, archive.org tells me that the link 'doesn't exist', so can't changei t.
  • Is there a relevant web page to link for the Moyne article and/or the Walt Whitman Review?
    • No, has not been digitized. It's the old Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, but we have no wikipedia article for it :(
  • Same for the 1887 Washington Post article. Perhaps newspapers.com?
    • Added proquest ID, that's the best I can find
  • Citation 70 for Whitman's speech notes: This should mention the Walt Whitman Papers in the Charles E. Feinberg Collection, of which this document is a part.
    • I'm not sure what change you want here. The blog itself isn't a part of the collection? We have a link to the collection in external links
      • After your last round of edits, the citation in question is now number 71: Whitman, Walt. "'Death of Abraham Lincoln,' notes". Library of Congress. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Because this is a manuscript item in the Feinberg Collection at the Library of Congress, I think the collection name should be included. Otherwise, the citation suggests to me that it is for an article published by a publication called Library of Congress, which is not the case. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Amended the citation. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golden 1988: the original link isn't working for me. You? The archive link works fine.
    • Works for me?
  • Pannapacker 1998 could use an author-name Wikilink.
    • Done
  • Is Arthur Golden the same one as Golden 1988?
    • I don't think so, no.
  • In note C, there appears to be an extra space between Blake and a comma.
    • Done

Aside from the comments above, I find the citations listed in the References section to be formatted properly. One of my comments above is about the inconsistency of formatting, which is the largest issue, I think. The sources listed here but not in the Bibliography all seem reliable and so they further broaden the breadth I acknowledged above in the Bibliography section. There are a few primary sources in the References section, but they serve only to complement and reinforce secondary sources, so their use seems aligned with WP:PST. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Dugan Murphy, I have responded to all your points above except the one about narrowing down the page range of Moyne, which I will specify as soon as I can get to the library and look at the book. The Walt Whitman Review articles are not, to my knowledge, digitized. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got one lingering comment above (formerly citation 70, now citation 71). Everything else is addressed, except for adding a page number to Moyne, which I trust you'll do later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy, I've responded to that point and just specified Moyne to two pages. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. I'd say this nomination passes my source review. I haven't done any spot checks, but otherwise, these sources and citations look great. I have an FAC of my own that is in need of reviewers. If you are willing to chime in, it would be a big help. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance if you make time to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [20].

Nyctibatrachus major

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a bit short on FAC-ready bird articles, so we have this nice frog instead. It's not super well-studied, but there is a fair bit more literature it than most frogs, and I'm confident that this is the most comprehensive summary of that literature available. AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Illustration is missing alt text
    • Added.

Support from Jens

[edit]
  • depositing eggs on – I suggest "which are placed on" to make it easier to read (I felt that the current formulation disrupted reading flow)
    • I reworded the sentence by moving some clauses around; see if it's better now.
  • fertiliser overuse – Is "overuse" covered by the sources? I think it is not a trivial point, because this would imply that normal fertiliser doses does not harm the frogs. (You could argue of course that fertilisers are almost always overused by modern agriculture, and I would agree, but then the "overuse" is misleading).
    • Krishnamurthy et al. 2006 says "indiscriminate application of nitrogenous fertilisers in agricultural fields, especially in the breeding season, will adversely affect tadpole development and survival and could cause a decline of anuran populations in the Western Ghats", the first part of which I think is equivalent to overuse. I will note that no source says "overuse" specifically though; the two studies mostly just talk about the very high levels of nitrogen-based fertilizers used in the Western Ghats and its possible negative effects.
  • from "Wynaad" and "Malabar". – Why are these put in quotes? I am sure you have a reason for that, but it is not apparent to the reader (at least not to me).
    • Archaic terms that people don't use anymore and are somewhat ambiguous; the first at least can reasonable be assumed to mean Wayanad, but the latter is jus nebulous and could more or less refer to the entire southwestern Indian coast.
  • they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty – "as" missing
    • Fixed.
  • Some studies have found a slightly different relationship, with major being sister to gavi, and acanthodermis being sister to that clade.[9] – really "some studies"? You only cite one.
    • Reworded.
  • Within the genus, it is sister (most closely related) to a clade – I think this (and what follows) needs author attribution. Or is it established consensus?
    • Attributed.
  • The following cladogram shows relationships within this clade based on a phylogeny by a 2017 study: – Reflecting which of the two phylogenys that were discussed in the previous text?
    • Clarified.
  • The species has had its DNA barcoded.[10] – Very short one-sentence paragraph. Can we have a bit more here? What are the implications of this barcoding, what were the results?
    • No implications I can find; the original report basically just says "this can now be used to identify the frog more accurately", which seems a bit obvious to me. I also can't find
  • The sides of the stomach are light grey, – but the stomach is an internal organ. You appear to describe skin color?
    • In the sense of "belly"; replaced with that word.
  • most of their time in aquatic environments, – maybe "most of their time in the water" but have it more plain, avoiding unneccessary complexity?
    • Aquatic environments include for eg rocky areas in a stream, which is not the same as in water. I don't think aquatic is a particularly complicated word.
  • inhabit the same microhabitat as it. – "share the same microhabitat."?
    • Reworded.
  • N. major mainly feeds on insect larvae and other frogs – adult frogs, or frog larvae?
    • The report says "subadults", so probably does eat adults; I think this is clear from the way the sentence is currently phrased.
  • I agree that we urgently need a range map. It is very important.
    • Added.
  • That is all from me; nice little article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jens Lallensack, replied to all your comments inline. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz

[edit]
  • "species of frog in the robust frog family..." maybe "species of robust frog in the family..."
    • I think the current phrasing emphasizes the fact that the family itself is called "robust frogs" better.
  • "31.5–52 mm (1.24–2.05 in)" I got called on this too: the inches have more sig figs than the millimeters. Should be "31.5-55 mm (1.2-2.1 in)"
    • It's actually 52.0, changed in the article to reflect that it does have 3 sig figs.
  • "It also has a variety of grey or brown markings" I think this could be elaborated upon slightly here in the lede. Are these all over the body? What shape are the markings?
    • They're mostly just random markings; it is a frog, after all, it doesn't have a distinct pattern or anything.
  • "Females lay multiple smaller clutches" smaller compared to what?
    • Changed to "small".
  • "classified as being vulnerable..." add "to extinction" perhaps? That may be redundant, though
    • I think it's a bit redundant.
  • "Threats to the species include habitat loss" repeats the previous sentence. Perhaps could be "Other threats include increased human presence..."
    • Habitat degradation is different from habitat loss; the first implies that while the habitat is still there, it is getting worse in quality, while the second means the habitat has completely disappeared. The fact that both terms link to the same article is somewhat unfortunate in my view.
  • "... synonymised with N. major by the herpetologist R. S. Pillai in 1978..." is there a reason given for the synonymization, or for why S.K. Dutta disagreed with it?
    • Added Pillai's reasoning; I can't find a copy of Dutta's book anywhere, but I'll see if I can find it anywhere and try to add something.
  • "The species has had its DNA barcoded" personal preference but maybe "The species had its DNA barcoded in _____"
    • Done.
  • "The species can be distinguished..." I think the semicolons here should just be commas; they are not separating complete clauses, only items in a list
    • I used the semicolons since each of the items in the list is really long and I think the semicolons makes it easier to read.
  • "ovoid" to "oval-shaped" or some other more common verbiage
    • Apparently "ovular" can't be used to refer to shapes, so went with "roughly egg-shaped".
  • Perhaps split the habitat and distribution section into two paragraphs, with one for habitat and the other for distribution
    • Having them together is standard usage; the section also isn't particularly long or anything, so I'd prefer to have it together.
  • "Insects known to be consumed" is a highly passive construction
    • Reworded.
  • "...may be due to the fact that these two species inhabit the same microhabitat as it" I'm not sure what, but something seems off to me with this clause
    • Reworded per Jens' suggestion.
  • Commas for 4-digit numbers are inconsistent. In the conversions they are there, but when they are typed out they are missing
  • 8 Added commas.
  • "sub-lethal concentrations" what concentrations would those be? I guess I'm wondering where the threshold between the frogs being fine and having "adverse effects" is
    • Concentrations up to 5000 μg were used in the study, but this isn't like a bright line, lower concentrations are also fatal, just less so. I have mentioned the LC50, which is a much more measurable and relevant metric.

That's all I have for now, thank you for the article! Fritzmann (message me) 13:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the range map; Cephas based it off the IUCN assessment, which is a bit dated; consequently, it includes portions in Maharashtra that were probably reported in error. I've clarified this in the caption, but I'm not comfortable removing them from the range map since there's no recent sources for an accurate map, and SYNTH-ing together recent reports with the old IUCN map seems like OR to me. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

[edit]
  • In 2011, the herpetologist S. D. Biju and colleagues re-examined the specimens from which the species was described, and concluded that several of these actually represented species distinct from N. major; they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" as the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty. I recommend moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph so that it is in chronological order.
    • Done.
  • Was any etymology/reasoning given for the choice of specific epithet?
    • Probably just cause it's big, but no reason stated as such by Boulenger.
  • The lores and area around the tympanum... Please add (area between the eyes and nostrils) after "lores" as a quick explanation.
    • Done.
  • No tadpole pictures?
    • None that I could find.

And that's all for now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it again and saw no further issues. Support Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta

[edit]

Lead

Hi AryKun, in your suggestion above you have quote marks - "robust frogs". These don't seem to have made it into the current version of the article. Is there any reason? Also, if you are going to state this in the lead, it needs to be as a summary or copy of something in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common name, I don't think it needs quotation marks. I haven't seen any other articles use them. It's also mentioned in the body as "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae". AryKun (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation marks, thats fine by me; I just wondered why what you had proposed immediately above had not made its way to the article.
To my mind "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae" cannot reasonably be summarised as "a species of frog in the family Nyctibatrachidae, commonly known as robust frogs". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on the second point (both convey the same information, the common and scientific names of the family), but I've changed the wording in the body to match that in the lead. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, courtesy ping AryKun (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grayish in color" and then next sentence "dark greyish-brown upperside"; "color" and "colour" both used … please audit article throughout and commit to an English variety
    • Changed to Indian English.
  • "When preserved in ethanol, it is mostly greyish-brown to grey, with whitish sides." why is this factoid in the lead? Is the alcohol-pickling colour predicted to be useful or interesting to the average reader?
    • Preserved specimens are quite a common thing to be described in scientific descriptions and are always like the second thing described in amphibian papers.
  • "Sexes can be told apart by the presence of the femoral glands" when I hover over the link for femoral glands, it redirects to femoral pore, and that article says that this organ is present in certain certain lizards and amphisbaenians, but does not mention frogs
    • Yes, that's a problem with the redirect and something I don't want to fix because it's work.
      • Another source I checked says that frogs don't have femoral pores, but have femoral glands, mucous glands and granular glands. I think this needs further investigation. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Femoral gland as a concept seems to be well established (one of the studies cited is literally about that), but I guess the redirect should be deleted until someone writes a separate article since the reptile and amphibian femoral pore/glands seem to be different things.
          • Please delete the redirect and I'll write up a short article on femoral glands in amphibia. Esculenta (talk)
  • "at elevations of 0–900 m" why not "up to 900 m"?
    • Changed.
  • link clutch
    • Done.

Taxonomy and systematics

  • taxonomy is a subset of systematics, so the heading seems redundant
    • Standard heading, doesn't really seem like it's worth changing.
      • Really? It's standard to have a redundant heading? I just checked every frog/amphibian FA and the only one that has this "standard" heading is Mini scule, written by you. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed. I have apparently been using the non-standard heading for every article I've ever written; can't remember where I picked it up, but of all the luck.
  • Boulenger described some places as "Wynaad" and "Malabar"; what are these places called now (or link to their current names)?
    • See discussion above; Wynaad can reasonably be interpreted to mean Wayanad (although the administrative borders have changed a lot) and Malabar could mean pretty much the entire southeast Indian coast.
  • I think for context it would be a good idea if you mentioned that Boulenger also circumscribed the Nyctibatrachus in the same publication he described this species. Was it the only species in the genus at the time? Also, I don't see in the protologue where it says this species was designated as the type, did Boulenger not assign one?
    • Added. Subsequent designation, see the ASW page.
  • link pupil, common ancestor
    • Done.
  • R. S. Pillai, S. K. Dutta, S. D. Biju – why not give their first names, as with other researchers mentioned?
    • No real reason, I don't really see a reason to make it consistent either.
      • You see no reason to make the article formatting consistent? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think we harp on about consistency over every single thing way too much; you can change it if you want, I'm not really tied to it.
          • This is because WP:WIAFA dictates that FAs follow the MoS, and a read of the MoS itself reveals a constant harping on the need for within-article consistency over mostly every little thing. Esculenta (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I hate the MOS, but changed.
  • "The species had its DNA barcoded in 2010." please tell the reader why this is important
  • I just saw your reply to Jens above. The point of barcoding might be obvious to you without further explanation, but we can't assume our readers will have the same understanding. From reading the paper, I would summarize as follows:
"This technique, which allows conservationists to accurately identify even small tissue samples of the species, provides a precise method for species identification, crucial for conservation efforts. Such identification is essential in the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot where this vulnerable and endemic amphibian resides. The barcoding not only aids in resolving taxonomic uncertainties but also supports the management and preservation of genetic diversity within the species' populations. Additionally, the development of species-specific microsatellite markers offers tools for assessing genetic variation and population dynamics, further informing conservation strategies for this species." or something like that
That's a bit long; shortened and added to the article. AryKun (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology

  • Shouldn't start paragraphs or sentences with an abbreviation (several instances)
    • Seems fine to me; I don't like the idea of redundantly writing Nyctibatrachus major again and again when the genus is unambiguous.
  • the protologue mentions that the species has "vomerine teeth in two straight series, oblique in the young, much behind the level of the choanae". why leave this info out?
    • Not important for either the general reader or the specialist; the general reader won't be able to use this, and all the recent papers on Nyctibatrachus frogs use the combination of characters in "The species can...the nostrils" to key the species. I don't like using very old descriptions as determiners for what information to include for this reason; unlike modern descriptions which focus on effectively being able to key the species, old descriptions tend to have a hodgepodge of whatever characters that particular author observed.
      • Sucks to be the reader who wants to know if this frog has teeth. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • We now know that the frog has teeth.
      • Personally, I like to add tidbits mentioned by earlier authors, as they tend to give interesting details left out by later authors who prefer to formulate compact species diagnosis to key out species. BTW, I did see some later descriptions of the frog that did include details of the teeth, and other things that have been left out of this article's short description, so I don't agree with your statement "Not important for either the general reader or the specialist". Esculenta (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • more info in the protologue but not in the article: males have two vocal sacs (I checked, and male frogs usually have either 1 or 2, so why not include this?)
    • Added.
  • the upper eyelids are covered with tubercles
    • See above.
  • the throat has longitudinal folds
    • See above.
  • article says it's large for its genus; for context, what's the size of the next-largest congener?
    • Idk which species is the next largest or anything, but the Bombay night frog grows to a comparable size. None of the sources have a list of the frogs by size or anything, so just mentioning that its large and the exact length next to it seems fine to me.
      • Seems like an oversight to me that the relatively large size of the frog is proclaimed in the third sentence of the lead, but the article doesn't give any other context later in the article. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have any sources I can use for this; it's not like any sources have the median size of a Nyctibatrachus frog or anything.
          • Have you not read Biju et al. 2011 (your very first source)? Here's the information: the largest exemplars of the "large" size class in the genus Nyctibatrachus (defined as 41–77 mm) were
Nyctibatrachus karnatakaensis – SVL 63.8 mm
Nyctibatrachus acanthodermis – SVL 62.2 mm
Nyctibatrachus grandis – SVL 62.2 mm
Nyctibatrachus gavi – SVL 49.5 mm
  • In the section on "Parental care behaviour", it helpfully says that N. grandis is "up to SVL 77 mm, male", so now we know where the upper boundary of the largest size class comes from. So this should be enough information to be able to mention the next-largest congeners, and a useful place to insert the maximal recorded SVL length (not currently in the article). Esculenta (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adde context about size of the large group in the genus.
  • link metamorphosis, modulation, kHz
    • Linked.
  • do we know how long the tadpoles remain as tadpoles?
    • No sources seem to mention this, which is odd considering that they've experimented on the tadpoles.
      • From the source Krishnamurthy et al. 2006: "In the control tadpoles, the Gosner stage increased steadily over the period of the experiment, and the tadpoles had metamorphosed into froglets by 98 days". Esculenta (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice catch, added. Clearly had not read the source thoroughly enough.
  • I don't think the link to Spectral band (from "frequency band") is helpful. How about "frequency range" or "range of frequencies"
    • I think "band" is a common enough word when used for frequencies; in India at least, I've seen it used often when talking about spectrum allocation.
  • subsection "vocalizations" isn't a part of "Morphology", so maybe the section should be titled "Description" instead?
    • Changed.

Habitat and distribution

  • The term "evergreen deciduous forest" might be a bit confusing, as "evergreen" and "deciduous" usually refer to two different types of forests
    • "deciduous forest" is linked, so I think evergreen can reasonably be read as modifying that whole term (deciduous forests that are evergreen).
  • link microhabitat earlier (I see it linked later), canopy
    • Done.

Ecology

  • "When disturbed or threatened, it rushes…" previous sentences talks about the frog in plural form, so "they" would be better here
    • Done.
  • link testes, pigmented
  • it says the eggs are pigmented, but does not say what colour they are
    • Source doesn't say.

Conservation

  • you can't convert land to agriculture. You can, however, convert land to use for agricultural purposes.
    • A testament to my writing skills this; fixed.
  • "to farms which experience high levels" which->that
    • Done.
  • link nitrate
    • Done.
  • might be more layman-friendly to use the more explanatory term "median lethal dose" rather than LC50 (or use both with the latter term given parentetically)
    • There is the gloss "concentration at which 50% of exposed tadpoles die", so I don't really see a reason to change.
  • are the redlinked journal titles (some duplicated links too) in the reference list helpful to the reader, or annoying? (this reader thinks the latter) If the former, why isn't "Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of India" also linked?
    • I think they might be notable enough for one of our journal micro stubs; linked BZSI for consistency.
  • "When disturbed or threatened, they rush into the mud of the streambed…" source Pillai 1978 directly contradicts this statement: "Seldom did they try to bury themselves in mud and none tried to leave the water and take shelter in the matty undergrowth that grew next to the water's edge." Esculenta (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm citing Daniels 2005: "It dives in on disturbance kicking and scrambling through the mud and debris at the bottom and remains submerged for a while before surfacing. If it senses danger it immediately resorts to the same behaviour". I'd be inclined to give more weight to Daniels than Pillai, since his books is still the most comprehensive work on Indian amphibians, but I'll add a small bit about Pillai's findings if you want.
  • "preferring streams with low air and water temperatures" Krishnaturhty et al. 1992 state that the frog is found in water between 18.0 and 24.5°C, which doesn't seem particularly low (particularly where I'm from). How about just giving this temperature range and let the reader decide if that's low or not?
    • No, the sources do say it's low; it's also a relative thing, 18.0 and 24.5°C is definitely quite cool for the location.
      • the problem is, when a reader like me sees "low water temperatures", I think it's probably less than about 15°C. This potential assumption confusion could be easily resolved in the article by giving the actual temperatures. Esculenta (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added temperature range, kept "low" since that's how the sources describe it.
  • why not mention that the femoral glands seem to vary in size/structure depending on the season, and what implication this has (Krishnamurhty et al. 1992)
    • Added.
  • IUCN source mentions that the estimated extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2; seems like a useful addition to Habitat and distribution, no?
    • No, it's just the cut-off for being classified as Vulnerable. They don't actually make an estimate for extent of occurrence or actual area inhabited, so it seems a bit misleading to put that in when the actual range could be much different.
  • needs a fix: "... may be due to the fact that these all of these species"
    • Fixed.
  • I think the article should mention somewhere that the region the frog lives in is a biodiversity hotspot, particularly for amphibians Esculenta (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't really seem relevant to the species. We'd basically be putting "the WG are a biodiversity hotspot" in the article of every species that mostly occurs there then when that doesn't really have much to do with the species.
      • The status of a region as a biodiversity hotspot is not just a general fact but an important piece of information that can enlighten readers about the ecological significance of the species and the potential conservation challenges it faces. This context could be important for understanding why conserving Nyctibatrachus major, and other endemic species like it, is important, and I don't understand the reluctance to let the readers know this info. You could just mention the detail strategically in the habitat or conservation section, eg. "The species is endemic to the verdant slopes of the Western Ghats in southern India—a region renowned as an amphibian biodiversity hotspot—spanning across Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka." Esculenta (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is just a general fact, it isn't important to conservation for the species specifically or anything. It isn't a flagship species, so mentioning the hotspot thing is unnecessary and would seem shoehorned in. It'd be like mentioning that Madagascar is a hotspot with high levels of endemism on every article on a species endemic native to Madagascar.

Having read the taxonomic review by Biju et al. 2011 I think there's some more information that should be in this article:

  • the fact that "(George Sprague) Myers (1942) attempted to stabilise the nomenclatural status of the genus" by setting this species as type. Myers 1942 is not used in the article, but it is conveniently available here. This source should be included as important in the taxonomic history of this species.
    • Added.
  • "Examination of the type series revealed that it contains more than one species" this statement from Biju et al. clearly states what the taxonomic problem was and why a lectotype needed to be chosen avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty (i.e, "… nomenclatural application of the genus Nyctibatrachus to a single type species"); the wiki article is unfortunately not as clear.
    • Tried to make clearer.
  • I noticed there's no section on "Similar species", but the Biju et al. review of the genus have several instances throughout where they compare the morphology of this species with others in the genus (including in the species description itself). Other GA- and FA-level species articles have similar information, and I don't see why that information isn't included here (especially when it's laid out nicely in the main source). Esculenta (talk)
    • Biju compares the species to seven others in the genus on the characters already mentioned in "The species can...the nostrils". It would be repetitive to keep saying "N. major differs from species A in x, y, z, from species B in w, x, y, from species C in q, w, z" when we can just give all of the characteristics that together diagnose the species as a key. If someone is bothering to check the presence of grooves on the toe discs to tell it apart from one species, I'd think they'd check for all the other characteristics while they're at it to make sure it's major.
      • But the reader doesn't know from this brief diagnosis the identity of other species it differs from. How hard would it be write something more explanatory like this:

Nyctibatrachus major could potentially be mistaken for several related species within its genus, such as N. dattatreyaensis, N. humayuni, N. indraneili, N. jog, N. karnatakaensis, N. petraeus, and N. vrijeuni. However, several distinctive characteristics aid in its identification.

Nyctibatrachus major can be differentiated from N. petraeus by the morphology of its digits. In N. major, the third finger disc lacks a groove and is 1.8 times wider than the finger itself, while in N. petraeus, this disc is markedly wider at 3.3 times the finger's width and both the third finger and fourth toe discs have a dorso-terminal groove. Furthermore, males of N. major have a head that is broader than it is long, contrasting with N. petraeus males, whose heads are as wide as they are long. The proportions of the thigh and shank in N. major are equal, whereas in N. petraeus the thigh tends to be longer than the shank.

When compared to N. vrijeuni, N. major once again shows distinctions in the third finger and fourth toe discs; N. vrijeuni's fourth toe disc has a notched distal cover as opposed to the rounded cover found in N. major. The head dimensions in N. major are also wider than they are long for both sexes, which contrasts with N. vrijeuni, where the head width and length are approximately equal. The limbs of N. major are proportionately equal in length, differing from N. vrijeuni where the thigh is longer than the shank."

Named the species it could be confused with, but don't see how adding species by species comparisons would improve the article. That's two paragraphs on two species; for the 7 species Biju mentions, you'd have to add 7 paragraphs, completely destroying the balance of the article. The article is meant to be an encyclopedia-style summary, adding tons of excessive, redundant information more suited for the journal article would not be appropriate.
  • I found out (Biju et al. p.8) that in this genus, "Black or bluish-black liver is externally visible on the ventral side through skin in life", and that this darker colouration is visible in the ventral view image ... might be educational to highlight this. Esculenta (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.

Source review

[edit]

I'm not knowledgeable about the field but I can see no red flags for source reliability.

Otherwise I see no formatting or link errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, see response above. AryKun (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 10 November 2023 (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) 15 November 2023 [21].

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

[edit]
Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1948, Twentieth Century-Fox released The Iron Curtain, a spy thriller based on the story of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko. The Soviet Union was, predictably, unhappy with the film, and sought its suppression. In "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" (Tomoff 2011, p. 135), the Soviets sued in the New York Supreme Court (New York's trial court). The suit was based on the film's use of the music of several Soviet composers, including the eponymous plaintiff Dmitry Shostakovich. The filmmakers used the works, which were in the public domain in the United States, without the composers' permission and they credited the composers in the opening credits. In court, the composers argued a novel theory in United States law: that their "moral rights" in authorship had been harmed because Fox had associated their art with a political message with which they disagreed. The court ruled in favor of Fox, holding that although moral rights exist, the court lacked a standard to adjudicate the claim and that the strong public policy favoring free use of the public domain outweighed authors' rights to control use of their works. The case has received limited discussion in the legal scholarship, with some commentators agreeing with the court, and others finding its decision lacking. After doing a bunch of research to bring this up from a strugling stub (thanks to Davidships for bringing this case to WP:LAW's attention) to GA in very quick time, with a thorough review by CurryTime7-24, I feel that this article comprehensively summarizes the history of this case and the academic response. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Voorts, all done, an interesting read and well-written! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk: All comments addressed. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will try to take a look at your nom. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Mujinga: Comments addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts nearly there, a few nitpicky responses Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: I've responded. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nice one - just the Zabatta query now Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, switching to support. Will be cool to have a law-related article on the front page! Mujinga (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "before Justice Edward R. Koch of the Supreme Court (the state's trial court)"> It would be cleaer to give the court's full name.
As it stands, most readers are liable to assume that you mean the US Supreme Court. Even subsequently reading "in New York County" is not likely to shift this perception in a large proportion of non-US readers. Plus you currently have the flow-breaking parenthetical clause. Maybe 'before Justice Edward R. Koch of the New York Supreme Court in New York County', followed by either a separate sentence or a footnote explaining that in New York State the supreme court is the state's trial court?
How about this: In May 1948, attorney Philip Adler argued the composers' motion before Justice Edward R. Koch in New York County's trial court, the Supreme Court. Edwin P. Kilroe represented Fox.<current cites>
That works for me.
Apologies, you introduce him in the previous sentence. I am not sure how I missed that.
It may be worth stating this in the article. Your call.
Done.

A nice article. I do worry that parts are written in specialist legal jargon, rather than the more accessible style appropriate to a general encyclopedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the feedback. I have one reply above. As for anything you think is too jargony, please let me know and I'm happy to work on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases which I think are a bit technical for a general audience, and so could do with either explaining in line or rephrasing, include

  • bring suit
  • At argument

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Clarified and made the above change as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just wanted to check in and see if there's anything else you'd like me to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's good proactivity - chasing reviewers for further comments - but I have none and have already indicated my support for the article being promoted to FA. I look forward to donning my TFA coordinator hat and discussing when it might appear on the main page with you. How would some time in February suit? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If June 7 (the date of the decision) isn't taken, I think that might be fitting. (I kind of wish I had held off for October 1, but I don't think I could've waited a full year.) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Will have a read through in the moments to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eddie891, I just wanted to see if you'll still be taking a look at the article. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Will hopefully get on it tomorrow. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not today. If not, I promise promise promise that by the end of Friday will have commented. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make that saturday.
  • "first Cold War production of the United States film industry" What is meant by "first Cold War"? The first production during, or about, the cold war? I think this sentence could be taken either way
    • The source cited, Baldwin, describes it as "Hollywood's first Cold War effort". Other sources seem to describe it as the first true Cold War propaganda film out of Hollywood.
  • "from Khachaturian's Gayane" might be worth defining this as a ballet
    • Done.
  • "placing one of the composers' records on a phonograph" which composer?
    • Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. Added that and a cite.
  • was the whole soundtrack based on these composer's works?
    • Yes (and I've clarified that).
  • "Upon the film's release, pro-Soviet organizations organized protests, accusing the film of being pro-war" how so? On another note, this really relevant to this article?
    • I think it's relevant as background because the scholarship cited in the article describes the lawsuit within that context, as part of a multi-pronged strategy to contest the film.
  • " in a letter to the editors of Izvestia, the composers wrote that the filmmakers, whom they called "American reactionaries", had stolen their music" are we sure that the composers themselves actually wrote the letter, as opposed to had their names signed on it?
    • The secondary sources cited describe it as being sent by the composers.
  • "Leeds asked Black to send a telegram from the composers formalizing their objections;" I think it's kinda odd phrasing to write about leeds the company talking to Black the person. do you have a name for the person calling the shots from Leeds?
    • I do not.
  • "During the month of April, Black and Fox also consulted attorneys; Black's lawyer advised her that Fox could likely use the music, notwithstanding whether they obtained a license, while Fox's counsel determined that although the law supported their position, there was a limited chance that they would not prevail in court." Is there any reason this is better as one whole sentence rather than being broken up? The longer a sentence is the more readers will struggle with comprehension
    • Fixed.
  • How did all these organizations know the composers' work would be used in the film before it was released?
    • That's not clear to me from the secondary literature. It seems like Helen Black was the first to find out, and my educated guess would be that she likely had sources in Hollywood and music licensing.
  • " Black was unable to obtain a telegram from Soviet officials," this has already been established with " but did not receive a response". Suggest removing.
    • Done
  • "Leeds declined to issue the license," Do we know why?
    • That's not clear from the secondary sources, but my educated guess would be that they didn't want to get involved in what could potentially become an international incident. Amending my answer. Per Tomoff 2015 (pp. 26–27), Leeds wanted $10K for a license, Fox countered with $3K, and Fox later reported that it had agreed to $10K, but both Leeds and Black denied that claim. I don' tthink it's worth going into that back and forth in the background section.
  • "Fox proceeded with publishing the film" Publishing feels like an odd word to use here
    • Changed to distributing.
  • "In May 1948, " before or after the film first premiered?
    • I haven't seen a specific date for the filing of the lawsuit. It was before.
  • There are two instances where two paragraphs begin with the same introductory phrase in a row. Can we vary it at all?
    • Yes we can.
  • ""a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" what does this mean? What is the significance? I don't think it's great to just drop a quote that is somethat complex with no explanation
    • Clarified.
  • "They also did not argue that the filmmakers had improperly modified the compositions." Would it have mattered if they had?
  • why is just distortion in quotes here: "public "distortion" of the composers' belief" but not in other places?
    • Removed the quote.
  • Who wrote the Harvard Law Review article? Are they notable/relevant?
  • "and contended that the composers' moral rights were harmed by the political use of their music" The 1940 harvard Law Review article contended this?
    • Clarified.
  • The aftermath section feels unduly short. What was the tone of coverage? When did the French court decision happen? How did fox and the composers respond to the decision?
    • I'll work on adding some more newspaper sources in here.
  • "that typifies the rejection of moral rights claims by United States courts." So has this happened a lot subsequently?
    • It's happened in several cases since then; I'm not an expert on it, but the secondary sources cited in the article describe other cases, and the sources cited at the end of that sentence describe it as consistent with further moral rights jurisprudence in the U.S.
  • How did you decide what scholarly sources you will describe in what way? You inconsistently include the year of source and the profession of the authors.
    • I included the year when it was around the same time of the decision, because it's relevant how commentators responded to the decision at the time of the decision, as opposed to how later commenters have looked at it with the knowledge of further legal developments. Regarding the issue of profession, some of them are law student notes in law reviews (which I would argue are as reliable as law review articles written by professors because they undergo the same review process), and for some of them, I don't know the profession.

An interesting article. That's a first round of comments above. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891. Replied to the above. I'll see what I can find for the the Aftermath section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified widespread press coverage to be that it was widely reported by publications, which aligns more closely with Platte (2022). From my own search, it appears that UPI and the AP both covered the case, and that was widely syndicated in the US. I've also added more information about the French case. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick my nits on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My nits have been picked satisfactorily. If Elcobbola shows up to give his seal of approval, this will be a rock solid FAC, which I would support, so it may be worth waiting one or two days for him. Nice work !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting looks pretty consistent for me and all the sources I see seem appropriate for the topic and for a FA. I don't think The New York Times should have an ISSN, though. It seems like most inconsistencies in source formatting can be "credited" to the different information available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN removed. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just wanted to confirm that was your only issue and this otherwise passes. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat of a lack of a spot-check, this seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments from Kavyansh
  • Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. is a landmark 1948 New York Supreme Court decision that is was the — is or was?
  • Not really something of concern, but is there a reason we say "Hollywood" in the lead, but "United States film industry" in prose?
  • as "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" by asserting — MOS:CQ
  • in New York County's trial court, the Supreme Court — By no means am I an "expert" on prose, but would an {{emdash}} work better than a comma here? I had to view one of the previous version of the article to understand that "the Supreme Court" is "the state's trial court". Feel free to ignore this point if it is just me.
  • The law professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan wrote in 2011 — We have already introduced this person, do we need to repeat their complete name again?

Just a few drive-by comments. Interesting article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed everything. No reason for the difference between Hollywood and US film industry, other than to change things up. The trial court / Supreme Court language has been worked on in a couple of reviews here so I'd prefer not to change it again. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Kavyansh.Singh. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. My concerns have been resolved. There we just some drive-by comments, and I don't intend to support or oppose on basis of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I just wanted to see if you had anything else. Thank you for taking the time to review. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (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) 11 November 2023 [22].

Albona-class minelayer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a class of Italian and Yugoslav mine warfare vessels of WWII that, like many Yugoslav ships, served under additional flags. In this case, the Italian Social Republic and Nazi Germany. Originally laid down for the Austro-Hungarian Navy, they were incomplete in November 1918, and Italy had three completed in 1920. Yugoslavia had another five completed in 1931, and all eight saw service in WWII. The Yugoslav ships were captured first by the Italians, then by the Germans, who both used them on operations against the Yugoslav Partisans. The original three Italian ships did not survive the war, but three of the Yugoslav ones did, and two of them were involved in the 1946 Corfu Channel incident in which two British destroyers were seriously damaged by mines the Yugoslav Navy had laid on Albania's behalf, killing 44 British sailors and injuring another 42. This article passed Milhist ACR back in 2019, but has recently been expanded considerably with new books. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..ordered some classes of small mine warfare vessels, some of which.." Not keen on the quick repetition of "some" – could one be replaced by "several" or similar?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Jadranska Brodogradilišta" have a lang template?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of attention to detail. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Malinska class section starts "The Malinska class ships had a relatively quiet career until 1941..", but there is no such caveat for the earlier Albona Albona class section, which makes it odd that it starts in 1941, after we've seen in the table above that they were completed in 1920.
Good point. I had neglected to check this, and have added a bit. Hopefully I've addressed this now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the establishment of the fascist Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) was declared on 10 April, Pleiweiss decided.." This doesn't read quite right, and I think needs another comma after "(NDH)".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arbe was under repair at Genoa when she was captured by the Germans at the time of the Italian surrender in September 1943, was not commissioned by them,[17] and was transferred to the navy of the German fascist puppet state the Italian Social Republic in December 1943." Despite not being too long, this sentence does a lot, and I think would be better split up.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was scuttled during the German retreat from the city on 24 April 1945, and she was salvaged.." I'm not keen on the repetition of "she was" here. Maybe replace the second, "and she was" with "and was later".
cut second "she". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..on 16 February 1944;[22]all reverted.." Missing a space.
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..the German landing ship SF 193 which.." Too many spaces!
Doh! Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, all three were.." I know the sentence goes on to give designations, but this is ambiguous at the point you read it. Which three? Recommend rephrasing.
Yep, it gets confusing. See if this is better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and could carry to 24 SAG-2 mines." Missing a word, "up", I assume.
Yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article, although I did lose track a little bit of which ship was which, they were re-designated so often! Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias! See what you think of my changes in response? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes, and great work overall, happy to support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
is 1.3 ok? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine on the lead image, but the other image is px as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing the "black and white" part. Alt texts should only describe the essential info of a photo, and the color here isn't so important. GeraldWL 08:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thanks Nikkimaria. Just check I've got the sizing right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let’s try that again. Thanks again, Nikkimaria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may cut in: The infobox image caption says the depicted ship is Marjan, but there's large "MN" visible on its hull. Accordding to the table in the article, "MN" was Malinska - or is that only a coincidence? If the two are switched, I'm not sure is the caption correct or the table - both MA and MN could stand for Marjan and Malinska. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well picked up. It is Malinska. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

I never touched any milhist FACs and failed by military history exams back when I was in the institution, so correct me if I misinterpret anything. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 08:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 09:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia"-- I think it'd be fine to use either of them and omit the other name. In this case if you wish to use the full name, there's no need to use the shorter name. Though I suppose using the common name is always better.
The only issue is that one is not the common name, they are both the official name, one until 1929, and the other from 1929. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them both, it is a bit redundant because the first one redirects to the second one, but it doesn't look as odd. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the ships table, you can merge the 29 December 1917, September 1918, unknown, —, and 1931 cells.
  • "Never completed" should be centered
Table formatting done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, thanks. Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the German fascist puppet state the Italian Social Republic"-- I think there should be a comma after state
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article there is inconsistency between numbers: some are in words, others in digits. WP:SPELL09 recommends either making them all the same, or only reserving words for numbers zero to nine.
But MOS:NUMNOTES says "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malinska class or Marjan class" --> "Malinska or Marjan class"
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it has its own article for it, not sure "(German: Kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine; k.u.k. Kriegsmarine)" is particularly important here. In contrast, "(Serbo-Croatian: Kraljevska mornarica; KM)" is important since its abbreviation is what you use for any mentions of KM after that.
Ggood point, trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than piping "Porto Re", it's better to just link Kraljevica
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ganz & Danubius shipyard became Jadranska Brodogradilišta"-- does the source confirm it's now called the Kraljevica Shipyard? It isn't mentioned in the article itself.
Yes one and the same, it has had many names since 1797 or so, under Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslav, Italian and Croatian rule. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immediately aft of the bridge was the funnel"-- what does immediately aft mean?
Behind. Linked earlier at first mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crew consisted of 29 officers and enlisted men." Was it really all men?
In that day and age, yes. The Royal Australian Navy didn't permit women to serve on warships until the 1980s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two tonnes were only followed by long tons, but the third has short tonnes. Also "145 tonnes" --> 145 t"
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Ammiraglio di Divisione"-- add paranthesis with the translation divisional admiral, and link the transl. Not all readers speak Italian, and you can't really expect them to have to open the link to understand its translation. Although now the more that I think of it, I'm not even sure putting the native title here serves any purpose.
I'm always conscious that this is en WP, but in many cases I'm working on Yugoslav, German or Italian topics, and translating a foreign rank doesn't work, and/or the equivalent isn't at all intuitive. My go-to example is that a WWII German generalleutnant was actually equivalent to a US/British major general and the German rank of generalmajor was equivalent to a US brigadier general and UK brigadier. Don't get me started on Waffen-SS ranks... Tends to be more confusing rather than less in some cases. So I tend to either translate/or equivalent rank in a note, or do it this way. I'm happy to move the link in this case, as there is a direct equivalent which is a direct translation, but I do tend to try to be consistent within articles, and the Yugoslav ranks aren't as equivalent or easy to translate, and I see some of those are coming up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see the difficulty in this, as I've faced similar problems in other topic articles. The links addition looks great in my opinion, and judging the other similar articles it should be fine now. GeraldWL 08:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laid 21 defensive minefields in the northern Adriatic, consisting of 769 mines." 21, then suddenly becomes 769?
A minefield is a barrage or pattern of mines in one location, consisting of a few or many mines. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How did I not notice mine and minefields! Thanks for clarifying.
  • "lieutenant commander junior grade", or "junior lieutenant commander"?
another difficulty in translating/equivalence. I've piped it and created a redirect to the Yugoslav ranks page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was an ethnic Slovene." I'm not sure the ethnic Slovene part is important, since the other people mentioned do not have their ethnic background stated.
Yes, because in this situation, a Croat would have been unlikely to act against Croat rebels Unless he was a communist, but in any case a Slovene would have had no desire to join an independent Croatian fascist state. Do I need to state this explicitly? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to add a footnote or something, yeah. I'm sure I'm not the only nonMilhist reader who wondered why is his ethnicity noteworthy. GeraldWL 08:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thanks to her shallow draught"-- pretty sure thanks (WP:OP-ED) can be changed to due.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also mounted a Breda M37 8 mm"-- no need to include 8 mm in the link and piping it
True, rm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "250t-class torpedo boats"-- don't exclude the torpedo boats part off the link
torpedo boat is linked in the first section of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the German fascist puppet state the Italian Social Republic"-- same with lead cmt
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should in situ be italicized?
    • Just jumping in on this one: not, it shouldn't: per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. Likewise, musical tempo markings, and terms like minuet and trio, are in normal upright font. Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries." Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Harrias is correct. Not needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link flotilla
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look at a Milhist ACR, GWL. Your fresh eyes are appreciated. Let me know what you think of my responses and edits? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Peacemaker, and apart from the comments this is a wonderful read, especially since I have not read a milhist article in full for a long time (except for some of the short ones). I'll support this nom after the fn is added. GeraldWL 08:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what Freivogel says about him and his motives in-text. GWL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better now. Supporting this article as promised! Keep up the good work around here. GeraldWL 09:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot-checks not done.

  • Ensure uniformity in the placement of dashes within ISBNs. For example, in "978-1-4738-2756-1" and "978-1-59114-544-8," the position of the dashes is inconsistent.
The thirteen-digit number is divided into four parts of variable length, each part separated by a hyphen. they are not supposed to have the same number between each hyphen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 37 - is it necessary to have p.224 mentioned twice? It can be seen both in footnotes and references.
Sure, removed from the long citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G’day FrB.TG. All done, thanks. ISBNs aren’t supposed to have the same number of numerals in the respective part. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tomobe03

[edit]
  • Freivogel source title seems odd, specifically "Freivogel, Zvonimir (2021). Warships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy 1945–1991. Zagreb, Croatia: Despot Infinitus. ISBN 978-953-366-006-6." - makes no sense as there was no Royal Yugoslav Navy in the period indicated. Croatian title here [23] would translate as Warships of the Yugoslav Navy 1945–1991. I have not located English version yet though. Could you please check if that's a copy-waste from the first volume (1918-1945)? --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sloppy copy and paste. Fixed, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just to note that the above comment regarding the infobox image caption is satisfactorily resolved.
  • It is noted that the Arbe class vessels were renamed after islands of Rab, Ugljan, Šolta, Mljet and Pašman (in Italian). The article would probably benefit from a note that the Albona class ships were named after Istrian towns (in Italian of course), the lead ship (and class) after Labin, and the remaining two vessels after Lovran and Rovinj.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right, but I’d have to rely on WP:BLUE for that, as Freivogel doesn’t explicitly say it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with WP:BLUE (if consenus is there and rules permit) or omitting this if no reference is available. Could not locate one either.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a table in the back of Freivogel that provides all the translated place names. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting per above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

[edit]
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out the Serbo-Croatian name for the navy in the lede. Similarly spell out the abbreviation for the postwar Yugoslav Navy in that section.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link bridge wings
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wreck of Pasman remained on Ist, was stricken on 13 January,[12] and was only scrapped in situ in 1954." This reads oddly as I'd assume that the wreck would remain in place absent any salvage effort.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to assume knowledge. Can you suggest an alternative way of explaining its fate?Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key point for me is that the Germans planned to rescue the crew, nothing about salvaging the ship. I'd just say that the Germans struck the ship in January and that the wreck was later scrapped. It's important to make the distinction between the ship and the wreck as you can't strike a wreck from the navy list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sturm, ready for any more comments if you have time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 16:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay.

  • All this is excessive detail and reword the remainder appropriately : "Aft of the gun on the rear section of the forecastle were arranged the captain's cabin on the starboard side and the pantry on the port side. Between the two was the galley, directly below the enclosed steering bridge, which was topped with an open navigation bridge on which a searchlight was mounted. The foremast with a crow's nest was attached to the forward edge of the navigation bridge."

and: "Below deck, the bow contained the drinking water tanks, aft of which were cabins for the petty officers on either side of the anchor chain locker. Immediately aft of the petty officer's cabins were the sailor's bunks, underneath of which the boiler water and fuel tanks were located. A transverse bulkhead between the sailor's accommodation spaces provided support for the gun. The engine room containing the boiler and engines was located under the galley and was covered by a low superstructure with ventilation cowls. The engine room was separated from the hold by a bulkhead that supported the deckhouse on the KM ships. A workshop was located in the stern."

Not sure I agree, to me the internal layout of the ship seems germane and of interest to the general reader. Happy to go with the consensus from the other reviewers: @Harrias, Gerald Waldo Luis, and Tomobe03:. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Sturm's point, but I'm pretty ambivalent either way. In a relatively short article, I'm comfortable with the detail being provided. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many other ship articles discuss the internal layout? Few to none, AFAIK. And most authors don't cover the internal layout like you've done, generally contenting themselves with a cutaway diagram or deckplan. Freivogel certainly didn't in his book on A-H torpedo boats which covers ships roughly this size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrisas. Well Sturm, surely that is a matter of choice for those who write the articles, and perhaps as result of the lack of information about the internal layout in the sources consulted? Freivogel may not have provided this level of detail in his book about A-H TBs, but he does provide this level of detail on these ships (and others, for that matter) in his book on the ships of the KM, which is of course where I got it. I don't have a cutaway diagram or deckplan (and Freivogel doesn't provide one), so a description is what I've added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. But I don't think that this is encyclopedic and won't be supporting or opposing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a link for funnel and rework that bit into the general description or the engine section
I disagree. The way the section is organised is the external appearance then the internal layout, dimensions and power, armament then completion info. While the funnel is obviously tied to the power, the funnel location is part of the external appearance, which contrasts between the Italian and Yugoslav ships not only in terms of the height of the funnel, but also the deckhouse and mainmast. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was predicated on deleting all the excessive detail listed above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call. Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, a few nonmilhist comments...

Description and construction

  • aft of the petty officer's cabins were - these (this and next two) are all plurals so move apostrophes ie officers'?
  • the sailor's bunks, - ditto
  • sailor's accommodation spaces - ditto
  • were the sailor's bunks, underneath of which the boiler water and fuel tanks were located. - "underneath of which"? maybe just me but that sounds strange. Maybe '... were the sailor's bunks, and underneath these the boiler water and fuel tanks were located.'
These are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew consisted of 29 officers and enlisted men. - move this to end of para ie after all the tech stuff (or is that the normal order?) Also just checking, crew number was same for layers and sweepers?
Yes, moved. Yes, no mention if different crew numbers except for Pasman in Germans hands, where there were 30. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hulls of MT.138–MT-143 were - should that be a dot before 143?
yes, whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • complete by October 1918 but were never completed - any other word to avoid 2x complete?
Good point, varied with "finished". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Service history Albona class

  • Between 6 June 10 July 1940, - insert 'and'
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While British and Greek submarines operated in the Adriatic during this period of the war, they laid few mines there - clarify who is "they", the Brits and Greeks or RM
Good point. Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • smoke apparatus - link Smoke screen?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malinska class

  • The Malinska class ships had a relatively - add hyphen
Of course. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • suffered from boiler failure - is "from" needed?
No, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Yugoslav version, which doesn't have an article. I'll have to look to see if there is enough in sources to create one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943, was not commissioned by them - needs 'but' or 'and' before "was not"?
added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 8 November she was almost ready for service as part of the 11th Security Flotilla.[33] On 20 December 1943 she - move 1943 back to 8 November
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a crew of 26 German and four Croatian sailors - both numerals or both words per MOS
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as hostages.[34]Pasman - insert space after ref
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find to question, regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks so much for your review, Jenny! All done I think. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM, all looks fine to me (I only know two words, might as well use them: vrlo dobro!). One tiny question below which doesn't affect, so am happy to s'port. Have a good weekend. JennyOz (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny. I'd rather keep the template with the Yugo class names in the Yugo ships template. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 10 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2023 [24].

Nestor Makhno

[edit]
Nominator(s): Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Nestor Makhno, a Ukrainian anarchist revolutionary who led the Makhnovist movement and its insurgent army during the Ukrainian War of Independence. I spent a good portion of last year researching Makhno and expanding the article, completing a peer review from fellow editors and a good article review from someone with expertise in the subject matter. Having remained largely stable since then, I am confident that it is now ready to be featured, and am looking forward to any comments and feedback that people involved with the FAC process may have. Best regards. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The map is difficult to read due to lack of contrast between the numbers and background colour
  • File:1921._Нестор_Махно_в_лагере_для_перемещенных_лиц_в_Румынии.jpg: when and where was this first published and what was the author's date of death? Ditto File:Makhno_en_1918.JPG, File:Yakov_Aleksandrovich_Slashchov.jpg, File:1920._Штаб_Повстанческой_Армии_и_комсостав_обсуждает_проект_разгрома_врангелевцев,_Старобельск.jpg, File:Nestor_Makhno_and_his_Lieutenants,_Berdyansk,_1919.jpg, File:Makhno_1925.jpg, File:Нестор_Махно_с_дочерью,_Париж.jpg
  • Honestly I have no idea. These images were taken around or even over 100 years ago, in states that haven't existed in many decades. I have looked through my sources, but the only information I have on the images is the identity of the subjects of the photographs, and the location and the date the photographs were taken. I have asked @UnknownVolin to see if they know any further information about the identity of the photographer(s) and the details of the photos' publication. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1906._Нестор_Махно.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:1909._Группа_анархистов_Гуляйполя.jpg, File:NestorMakhno.jpeg
  • As above, I know when and where they were taken, but I'm not sure about when and where they were published. Will wait and see if UnknownVolin knows any more on these details. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried looking into it further, but as I expected, I haven't been able to find any information about the identity of the photographers or details about the photos' first publication. In a couple cases, I've found an institute or museum that maintains an archive with the photos in them, but that's as far as I've managed to get. I'm not sure what else I can do about this, to be honest. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note there's two new images (one rejigged) and to respond to "I'm not sure what else I can do about this", it might be the time simply to remove the images which have issues. Shame, but it makes sense that anything on the front page should be squeaky clean Mujinga (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, on the new image (File:Makhnovia.svg) with the caption "Map showing the territory of the Makhnovshchina at its largest extent, following the battle of Peregonovka", it's not clear to me what the two areas shaded light red and dark red are depicting. Mujinga (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd attempted to clarify what this map is displaying. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one! Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst, can I draw your attention to Nikkimaria's comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Apologies for late response. I've attempted to rectify the license tag issues, but I'm not sure what more I can do about the author and first publication details. I've already attempted looking into this matter as far as I can, but digging up this kind of obscure information isn't an easy task. It's like trying to catch smoke. I even spoke to a subject-matter expert who has been through Russian and Ukrainian archives in order to find information on this subject, and they only knew of a couple cases in which the photographers and publication details are known. And they've already published a number of these photos in their book, without bumping into any century-old issues over authorship or publication credits. If there's more I can do, please let me know how. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Mujinga noted, if you're unable to verify the accuracy of the license tags, it may become necessary to replace the images with ones with clearer status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What images with clearer status? You've raised issues with almost every photograph in the article! Is it policy to assume bad faith with every single photograph taken over a hundred years ago during an insurgent civil war? Are you suggesting I just purge the article of all its images because I don't know who took them? Literally what can I do that will actually improve this article and not just make it worse? The prose comments and source checks on this review have been endlessly helpful, but this image review has been nothing but a stress headache for me... --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is compliance with criterion 3, which reads in full: "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." A featured article is supposed to represent wikipedia's best work and I do think this article is nearly there, but unfortunately if the copyright status of some images can not be established then it would be better to remove them. I agree that in one way this does not improve the article since illustrations add to text, but on the other hand we can then all agree it's an example of wikipedia's best work. Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These images are in the public domain. Everybody uses them as such. I can't help but find it utterly absurd that Wikipedia is willing to copyright troll itself to such an extent that it goes further than accredited historians and published authors, not to mention every other website on the internet. Let's have a look at some of these:
  • Lead image: 1921. Нестор Махно в лагере для перемещенных лиц в Румынии.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Kingdom of Romania in 1921. It was created 2 years before the country's first copyright law was passed; 6 years before Romania signed the Berne convention; 13 years before Makhno's death; 35 years before the Socialist Republic of Romania declared non-artistic photographs are not protected by copyright; and 70 years before the public domain cut-off date for photographs. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
  • Early years image: 1906._Нестор_Махно.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Russian Empire in 1906. The Russian Empire was never party to the Berne Convention and has no legal successor state. The image was never copy-written and has no legal country of origin. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
  • Revolutionary activity image: 1909._Группа_анархистов_Гуляйполя.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Russian Empire in 1909. The Russian Empire was never party to the Berne Convention and has no legal successor state. The image was never copy-written and has no legal country of origin. It is unambiguously in the public domain.
  • Agrarian activism image: Makhno en 1918.JPG. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian State in 1918. It was taken 16 years before Makhno's death; 38 years before the retroactive public-domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 55 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 78 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
  • Alliance with the Bolsheviks image: 1920. Штаб Повстанческой Армии и комсостав обсуждает проект разгрома врангелевцев, Старобельск.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1920. It was taken 36 years before the retroactive public domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 53 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 76 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
  • Anti-Bolshevik rebellion image: Nestor Makhno and his Lieutenants, Berdyansk, 1919.jpg. This was a non-artistic photograph taken in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919. It was taken 2 years before most of its subjects died; 15 years before Makhno's death; 37 years before the retroactive public domain cut-off date in Ukraine; 54 years before the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention; 77 years before Ukraine signed the Berne convention. Public domain.
I would do more, but I'm exhausted. That headache thing wasn't hyperbole. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this is frustrating, but we need to be able to demonstrate that the images are free in the US as well as in their country of origin; just saying that everyone acts as if they're free isn't sufficient. Each of these currently has a tag for US status that relies on publication, not just creation, before a certain date; as far as I can tell from the information provided, none of those tags can be verified at this point. If we're not able to identify first publication, can we identify one early enough to confirm US status per the Hirtle chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the United States just claims all photographs, from all countries, even of people that never set foot on its soil, as its property under its own copyright laws? Brilliant. Well I guess I'll have a look at this wee chart, see what hoops I have to jump through. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can help here, two thoughts: (1) What if we just remove the images that have unclear copyright to close this review and pass the FA criteria, then continue the discussion on the talk page, adding images back as necessary? (2) Commons cares about the copyright in the country of origin and the country of its servers (the US). The Ukraine licenses appear well researched per what you said above (I recommend copying this research into the file descriptions for posterity) and the US license is likely {{PD-US-unpublished}} if there is no evidence of first publication, i.e., 120 years since its creation. This would mean that most of these images (after 1902) are technically not clear of copyright in the US. (And yes, this is needlessly rigorous for Wikipedia to arbitrate alas is the truth.) This is what I meant in the peer review about the copyright for these images being a pain. :) czar 15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar: I find it incredibly objectionable that for this article to be considered one of "the best", I would have to intentionally make it objectively worse. That is a disgraceful precedent for an FAC review. I'm also astounded that almost every image in this article is being considered for removal, solely because of an assumption that they must be secretly copywritten in the United States - an assumption circularly based on an absence of evidence. Despite having no evidence of them being copywritten, this assumption is driving me to ridiculous lengths just trying to find any information whatsoever about a single image; one that is already being used everywhere by everybody because it is so obviously unambiguously in the public domain in everything but the on-paper technicalities of some country an ocean away.
    The files of these images have been circulating the internet for decades and the photos themselves have been circulating for decades more. Are they all copywritten? Has everybody from websites, to zines, to published historians been infringing somebody's copyright for decades? The lead photo isn't even published the same way in different sources, with some using a backgroundless version, or one where Makhno's face seems redrawn weirdly. The earliest version of our lead photo (with the background included) that I can find published in my paperback sources is actually in Sean Patterson's 2020 book. Does he now, without knowing, own the copyright to this photo? Or is it actually owned by one of the countless random websites (including wikicommons) that published it before him? Or is it actually owned by one of the (dead) people that published the backgroundless and/or doctored versions beforehand? Or do they each only own individual copyrights to the specific photographs from their specific collections? I have an endless number of unanswered questions because obviously I am not an expert in United States copyright law, nor did I think I would be expected to be when I started writing about a Ukrainian. I'm twisting myself into knots over this.
    Please tell me there is a third way forward with this that doesn't involve me (a) sabotaging the quality of the article or (b) degrading my mental health looking for something that I don't think anybody knows or cares about outside of this review... --Grnrchst (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most would agree that US copyright law has devolved past the point of fairness, but that is another discussion. I'm happy to answer the above background questions if you'd like but we should probably take that to another talk page. Realistically, I don't think it's worth spending more time trying to find first publication evidence when the holding archives and associated academics also haven't already identified where the images were used. Most are likely unpublished (i.e., still in copyright) or first published in a non-English (Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian) publication outside our search engines. The fastest resolution is to remove or replace the images with those known to have copyright clearance. I think we can replace a few of them but yes this means that most of the Makhno ones cannot be verified as published. (I wrestled with this for the photographs in Kronstadt rebellion—see its talk page—and had started a conversation on the Makhno infobox portrait last year.) Requiring free use media was an early Wikipedia decision meant to make sure any copies of the encyclopedia would be truly free from copy restrictions. This means some rich material cannot be included, but so is the case copyright and fair use in most articles. And the biography you've painstakingly written is able to stand without them. czar 21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]
  • Hi Grnrchst, good to see you at FAC, and I can see loads of work has already been done at GA review and PR. I'm going through the article making queries on prose, all quite minor so far but because it's quite a long article there's a number of comments so I've put them at Talk:Nestor_Makhno#FAC_prose_comments_from_mujinga - Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one for all the replies @Grnrchst: - most have been answered and some it seems best to see what other reviewers think so I'll list them here now and maybe someone else will give comments Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few issues still open or up for debate in my opinion:
    Use of nestor (first name) instead of makhno (surname) in early life section
    "Map of Southern Russia " issue (as discussed above)
    Batko vs Bat'ko
    A map of battle locations would be useful
    Add a selected works section?δ
    Phrasing of "A bullet wound in his right ankle threatened amputation" Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that last one, must have missed the comment. I'll have to have a look at the mapping issues. The map workshop didn't respond to my last request, and the creators of the southern russia map haven't responded either, so perhaps I'll need to throw a few together myself. :/ -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have made it clear before that I'm very close to supporting. "Batko vs Bat'ko" and the amputation phrasing are both resolved now. I'd still like to hear another opinion on the other issues. Mujinga (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining issues:
    Use of nestor (first name) instead of makhno (surname) in early life section - resolved
    "Map of Southern Russia " issue (as discussed above) - resolved
    A map of battle locations would be useful - another image has been added but needs clarification, mentioned above in images
    Add a selected works section? - if nobody else is flagging that up, it won't stop me supporting Mujinga (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the Makhnovshchina map. As for a map of battle locations, what exactly are you proposing? Like is this supposed to be a map for each battle? A map of Ukraine with location markers of battles that have happened? How many battles? Which battles? Grnrchst (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I meant more the addition another images satisfies my request. I was suggesting earlier a map of Ukraine with some signifcant places as regards to Makhno marked on it. Mujinga (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So in sum, happy now to support, excellent work! Mujinga (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do about this to invite more people into the discussion? Honestly it's quite discouraging that my first ever FAC, which I've put countless hours into and which people on the FAC project encouraged me to submit, has received so little attention. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to FAC, I'm sure you'll enjoy it here.[sarcasm] FAC is built to support topics with wide popular appeal, so nominators with more obscure topics are often sent packing. This is especially the case with longer articles, which reviewers are more apprehensive about committing to. I've taken to posting notices on relevant WikiProjects whenever I have a new FAC, and I'll advertise my own candidates when I review others, like I just did below. Some editors will also ping frequent reviewers in a given subject area that they've had positive experiences with (given the understanding that there's no expectation or obligation, of course). I also see Mujinga's comments above; responding to existing comments quickly can also help demonstrate "movement towards a consensus to promote". Like many areas of Wikipedia, FAC has its own politics and norms. I don't understand some of them myself, but what can you do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. A lot of these suggestions would be very helpful on the project's front page. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the helpful advice from Thebiguglyalien, if you didn't already do this I'd suggest contacting on their individual talkpages the people who commented at GA and PR - they'd prob be pleased to see the article at FAC! Mujinga (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm too late at this point but my PR reviewers were @Czar, @Asilvering and @Arms & Hearts. I already spoken to my GA reviewer about this FAC review. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, I don't really know anything about FAC and I'm pretty slammed up until the end of the month, so I can't help on this "3 or 4 days" timeline - but it's surely worth pointing out that the thorough GA review was done by an academic expert on the subject. If it's good enough for an academic with direct expertise I can't imagine I'd have much to quibble over. -- asilvering (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the very belated response Grnrchst – I'm also unfortunately lacking in time and expertise, but glad to see this moving forward. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will probably duplicate some of the advice above, but my boilerplate response to this type of query is:

    Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

    Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

    Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information. All of this would be very helpful to have on the FAC project's front page. The culture of the project really ought to be explained up front, rather than just expecting newbies to figure it all out by themselves. That I was strongly advised to seek a mentor, none of whom would give me the time of day, but I wasn't told any of this until the FAC was close to being archived, is quite frustrating. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: might we consider adding a sentence, or even two, on seeking reviewers to the instructions? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I would take out the bit about mentoring, because it is rarely a good way to get feedback prior to nomination. I'm not sure about adding info to the instructions because I think this needs to be kept concise and it seems quite long as it is for new nominators to read through.Any additions are likely to be missed inside the big wall of text. IMO the best course of action could be first shortening the instructions, then adding something about the most effective way to get reviews (that is, reviewing others' articles). (t · c) buidhe 14:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't see this addressed in the FAC intro text, I've added a line on gaining support through pre-reviews to the proposed first-timers' welcome message. czar 16:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I'll have a review of this posted within a few days. In the meantime, feel free to review my own FAC for Barbara Bush if you're interested in the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

  • Some of the sections in this article are very long. If there are more than 5–6 paragraphs in a row, then consider making a new subsection.
  • At about 9500 words, the article as a whole is quite long. There are some places that go into a lot of detail about every little thing that he did. When possible, condense any blow-by-blow accounts into brief summaries. At a certain point, too much detail can obscure the main points, and I did find myself losing track of where Makhno was amid the other happenings at certain points.
  • It's tough to say, because there are different levels of detail, and there's no clear line where it's too much. After reading the article, nothing stood out as totally irrelevant or unreasonably detailed, so I won't count this against the review. But if you wish to shorten the article at any point during or after FAC, it would just involve removing minor details and rewording passages in a way that describes the main idea instead of listing everything that happens. If you think that all of the information in the article should stay, then maybe 9500 words is the right amount. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "however" can almost always be deleted to improve sentence flow without changing the meaning
  • Is there a reason why this article uses the spelling "otaman" instead of the spelling used at the article for ataman?
  • He's described as "young" several times in the earlier sections.
  • How many times were Makhno and his movement supposed to be "liquidized"? It appears three times in the article, but it's oddly specific.
  • Some of the sources are on the older side. I see a few from the 1980s, a few from the 1970s, and one from 1935. I don't know what the standard is for recency of sources at FAC, but uses of Chamberlain (1987) [1935] might need a close look.
  • I wasn't aware that the publication date of sources was such an issue. Chamberlin was a historian and his book was published by a university press, is the date of its initial publication really a problem? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • the Makhnovshchina (loosely translated as "Makhno movement") was a predominantly peasant phenomenon that grew into a mass social movement. – This doesn't actually say what it is. Is it a nationalist group? A revolutionary communist group? The fact that he tries to "guide" its ideology suggests that it's not necessarily the latter.
  • The lead says that he was involved in "a number of controversies". But the body indicates that false accusations of antisemitism are the only real "controversy" he was ever involved with outside of factional/ideological disputes with other anarchists. Does the body fully represent public opinion of Makhno and what he was praised or criticized for, and by whom?
  • from tuberculosis-related causes. – So he didn't die from tuberculosis itself?

Early life:

  • At only seven years old, the young Nestor – Redundant. I suggest removing "the young" since the same phrase is used later in this section
  • Do you know if Imperial rubles can be adjusted for inflation into modern rubles?
  • Is Ivan's quote relevant? Its inclusion made me think that it was going to be referenced again later in the article.

Revolutionary activity:

  • How was Makhno specifically involved in the Black Terror? It starts by mentioning the Black Terror and landowners/police, but then it jumps to expropriations for just a few words before moving on to propaganda, and none of it actually mentions Makhno.
  • Makhno was named by an informant as having participated in the robbery of a post office cart, but there was never enough evidence to convict him. This is alluded to in the section, but not explicitly elaborated. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • including Makhno himself in August 1909 – Can we cut "himself"?

Imprisonment:

  • A few words saying who Kropotkin was or what Mutual Aid was about would be helpful. Even if it's just something like "the anarchist text"
  • Clarified Kropotkin as "the Russian anarchist communist theorist"
  • took the young anarchist under his wing – Idiom
  • did not break his revolutionary zeal, with Makhno vowing – This language is a little too strong

Agrarian activism:

  • sought to seize – The alliteration makes this read awkwardly
  • becoming infamous throughout the region – Infamous to whom?
  • Makhno subsequently disarmed and minimized the powers of local law enforcement – How did he do that?
  • All this made him become known – Wordy
  • During this period Makhno, participated in – Unnecessary comma

Journey to Moscow:

  • the newly established Cheka – I suggest describing what this is so the reader doesn't have to click the link
  • where he found local anarchist intellectuals more predisposed to slogans and manifestos than action – This comes close to judging them in wikivoice.
  • who wished Makhno well – Is this relevant?
  • applied to the Kremlin – This wording seems strange. Did he send in a formal application to be considered for some papers?
  • Lenin showered Makhno with questions – Seems a little too informal
  • and admitted his mistakes regarding the revolutionary conditions in Ukraine – Comes close to judging Lenin in wikivoice. We shouldn't definitively state that something is a mistake.

Leader of the Makhnovist movement:

  • Armed with a fake passport – "Armed" feels a little strong
  • advocated for – I used to do this all the time, it turns out the "for" is unnecessary
  • narrowly escaping capture – In what way? How narrowly?
  • "was forced evacuate Huliaipole"
  • provoked a vicious retaliation – "vicious" is in wikivoice here

Commander in the Red Army:

  • due to the front requiring his attention – Awkwardly worded
  • Makhno still respected freedom of the press – This doesn't really add anything since it already says he allowed negative coverage of himself to be published. It gives a sense of puffery.
  • rejecting his demands out of hand – "out of hand" can be cut without changing the meaning.
  • "Kamenev too was greeted by Makhno and his new wife Halyna Kuzmenko" – We're getting into the nitty gritty of the Bolshevik leadership's thoughts and actions regarding Makhno, but we're glossing over his marriage to another prominent revolutionary?
  • the powerful otaman Nykyfor Hryhoriv revolted against the Bolsheviks – MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • Kamenev sent a telegram to Makhno, asking him to condemn Hryhoriv or else face a declaration of war. – This seems like a severe escalation. The impression I got from the previous paragraph was that they weren't great allies but that they were allies nonetheless. Am I missing something?
  • How strong is the sourcing Hryhoriv was antisemitic? Even if it's not a BLP, MOS:LABEL should still be considered. If multiple high quality sources explicitly describe him with the word antisemitic, then it's not an issue. If the sources are less clear on this, then the article should clarify that antisemitism is a charge put against him by Makhno.
  • Just to quote from the sources:
  • "From late April, the area under [Hryhoriv's] control became increasingly restless, as peasant soldiers looted and pillaged, shot commissars and committed pogroms in a chain reaction of impatient violence. (Darch 2020, p. 56);
  • "[Makhno] attacked [Hryhoriv] as an anti-Semitic predator and a traitor to the revolution" (Darch 2020, p. 57);
  • "Makhno demanded that [Hryhoriv] should account for the pogrom that he had organised in May in Elisavetgrad, and for his other anti-Semitic speeches and actions. (Darch 2020, p. 68);
  • "The Jewish Makhnovists were disgusted at [Hryhoriv]'s continued anti-Semitism." (Malet 1982, p. 41);
  • "[Hryhoriv's] character was very mixed: some sympathy for the oppressed peasantry, authoritarianism, nationalism, the predatory instinct of a robber chief, anti-Semitism." (Malet 1982, p. 138)
  • "On 5 August 1919, Izvestiya reported the killing of [Hryhoriv] and quoted the resolution at the meeting afterwards, in which one of the charges against [Hryhoriv] was anti-Semitism." (Malet 1982, pp. 168-169)
  • "One author lists Struk, [Hryhoriv], and Shepel as responsible for many of the pogroms of 1919." (Malet 1982, p. 169)
  • "[Hryhoriv] was fiercely anti-Jewish and responsible for numerous pogroms, especially in the province of Kherson, which had a large Jewish population." (Peters 1970, pp. 68-69)
  • "[Makhno] accused [Hryhoriv] of being a counter-revolutionary, a pogromist and an enemy of the people. (Peters 1970, pp. 69-70)
  • "On the 4 May [Hryhoriv]’s men (then part of the Red Army) launched pogroms against Jews and Bolshevik commissars. The leadership asked Grigorev immediately to put an end to the situation. [...] After some hesitation, he decided to side with his soldiers. [...] [Hryhoriv's men] killed Russians and Jews in their thousands." (Shubin 2010, p. 174)
  • "One can agree with [Hryhoriv]’s biographer, Viktor Savchenko, that “[Hryhoriv] proved to have no talent as an officer, lacking as he did the ability either to plan a military operation or to predict the consequences of his actions, and being moreover in a permanent state of anti-Semitic rage”" (Shubin 2010, pp. 174-175)
  • (Shubin 2010, p. 176)
  • "The first encounter left no doubt as to [Hryhoriv]’s intentions: “When [Hryhoriv] said . . . do you have any Yids, somebody answered that we did. He declared: ‘then we’ll beat them up’”, recalled Chubenko. (Shubin 2010, p. 179)
  • "Makhno also issued a proclamation concerning the assassination of [Hryhoriv], in which he said: “We have the hope that after this there won’t be anyone to sanction pogroms against the Jews." (Shubin 2010, p. 180)
  • "It proved impossible to overcome the anti-Semitism of [Hryhoriv]’s men, and soon Makhno was forced to dismiss these extra troops." (Shubin 2010, p. 181)
  • "[Hryhoriv] accused them [Bolsheviks] of deceiving the people, to be sure, but arguing on the basis of the many Jews belonging to soviet bodies, he systematically equated Jews and Bolsheviks. His units were credited with several pogroms (massacres) against Jews." (Skirda 2004, p. 125)
  • "Many of Grigoriev's former soldiers were discharged for insubordination, for they had been infected with anti-Semitism and were bereft of any revolutionary consciousness." (Skirda 2004, p. 127)
  • "Let us recall also the main reason why [otaman Hryhoriv] was executed: for having ordered pogroms." (Skirda 2004, p. 339)
I could go on, but I think you get the point. While I understand the drive to be neutral and to properly attribute statements, I think there are times when we ought to say things as they are. Hryhoriv was responsible for antisemitic pogroms and personally expounded a number of antisemitic canards. To avoid saying he was antisemitic would be intellectually dishonest. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was gunned down in his place – Is "in his place" necessary?

Against the White Army:

  • A lot of this section is about the broader political and military context, with Makhno's role in it only being a secondary subject. This should be limited exclusively to Makhno and then any context that's absolutely essential for the parts about Makhno to make sense.
  • I can make some cuts, but to be honest, I think that the majority of the context included here is necessary. I don't see any points where it deviates substantially from Makhno's biography. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • brought with it attacks against region's Mennonites, notably including – add "the", remove "notably"
  • research by Canadian historian Sean Patterson has indicated – The current wording makes it seem like Patterson's understanding supersedes the others. Is it possible for a question like this to have a definitive answer?
  • Patterson's work is the most comprehensive on the subject. Out of the cited sources, he's the only one that actually looked into anti-Mennonite attacks in any real depth. I can re-arrange the sentence, in order to make it seem less conclusive. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makhno refused, and the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee – Needs a comma
  • Once recovered, Makhno immediately began – How about "once Makhno recovered, he immediately began"
  • wreaking havoc on Bolshevik positions – A little dramatic
  • Despite the outcome of the Starobilsk agreement – It should be clearer what the Starobilsk agreement is referring to
  • who greeted him as "fighter of the worker and peasant revolution, comrade [Bat'ko] Makhno" – Is this relevant?

Anti-Bolshevik rebellion:

  • which had been reduced to a fifth of its original size and absent its commander – Wording
  • Despite direct orders from Vladimir Lenin for the Red Army to "liquidate Makhno", the insurgents led a guerrilla campaign in the face of their encirclement. – "Despite" suggests its the Red Army actively choosing not to follow his orders.
  • consequently splitting up his contingent into a number of smaller detachments and sending them in different directions – Why?
  • At this time, Makhno was wounded in the foot – How was he wounded?
  • call it off due to comprehensive Red defenses – What makes a defense "comprehensive"?

Exile:

  • Red Army attacks followed them – It doesn't feel right to attribute the pursuit to the attacks themselves
  • How severely was he wounded? This makes it sound like a few minor injuries that he could quickly heal from, but it also says that he was literally shot in the neck.
  • Is there any reason why this first paragraph is separate from the Eastern Europe section? Ukraine is considered East European, and Romania sometimes is as well.

Eastern Europe:

  • Makhno decided to make a break for Poland – This feels informal
  • Makhno subsequently attempted – Can we cut "subsequently"?
  • he was under close police surveillance and arrested and interrogated – Two ands
  • Makhno attempted suicide in April 1924 and was hospitalized by his injuries – A bit morbid, but do we know the attempted method? It might be relevant in context of the type and severity of his injuries.
  • I wouldn't give full details, but the severity of his injuries might be relevant. Do we know how long it took him to recover or whether he was permanently injured? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source doesn't really go into much further depth. This was just one of many injuries he had sustained at this point, so it would be hard to pin point any one as having a long-term effect. Later in his life, one of his friends described him as effectively being a walking corpse of scar tissue and tuberculosis. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makhno and his family were allowed to move to the Free City of Danzig. Here, Makhno was swiftly arrested by the Danzig authorities – So he was not actually allowed to do so.
  • Makhno's anarchist comrades – Unless "comrade" is an actual rank or title, allies or supporters might be a better word.

Paris:

  • because of an old bullet wound in his ankle – Is this the same injury from when he was shot in the foot earlier? If so, the connection should be made.
  • exacerbated his resentment of those anarchists – The link here seems unnecessary. Links shouldn't be used to comment on or add anything to the sentence.
  • about the "good old days" in Ukraine – This makes it seem like scare quotes. It should probably just be rewritten in formal language.
  • in a Russian restaurant – Russian cuisine doesn't need to be linked here. This section as a whole has some MOS:OVERLINK issues.
  • with Schwarzbard's subsequent trial bringing to light – idiom

Later years: Failing health and death:

  • By this time, Makhno was succumbing – By when? This is the start of a new section, so it should give a general idea of where we are now.
  • to physical and mental illness – Of what types?
  • unsuccessfully attempting to apply for permission – Unsuccessfully attempting to imply suggests she didn't even get to the point of actually implying
  • also came into a serious personal and political conflict with Volin – This seems relevant to Makhno's life
  • ended up being unsuccessful – How about "were unsuccessful"

Personal life:

  • Is there any reason why this isn't integrated into the rest of his biography? Both the main biography and the personal life info would benefit from the context of the other.
  • The personal life section has been separate from his biography since before I started editing the article. While I see how the first two paragraphs could be integrated into the biography, I'm not so sure about the third and fourth ones could. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the last two paragraphs make it tricky. Personal life sections are a common layout choice, so I won't hold it against the article simply for existing. Maybe the last two paragraphs could be moved to the end of "Later years" or somewhere in "legacy", but it's up to you whether to make any changes here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Makhno himself was forced into exile by the invasion of the Central Powers in early 1918, Makhno managed – Two Makhnos

Legacy:

  • where a statue of the Bat'ko stands – It seems laudatory for the article to address him by his honorific in wikivoice.
  • In the late 2010s, the Huliaipole City Council was preparing to request – How does one "prepare to request"? Is this still in the works?
  • It was preparing documentation to request the return of his ashes from Paris. This interview was given in 2019. Since then there has been a global pandemic and since early 2022, Huliaipole has been on the front line of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so I think the city council has had greater priorities than the repatriation of Makhno's remains. As far as I'm aware, his ashes are still in Paris. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be everything. Let me know if everything has been addressed or if you have any other thoughts about any points here. I'd say take your time on this, but as you know, FAC doesn't really give you that option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I think I've addressed everything the now! Let me know if there's anything else I can do and I'll see about getting it dealt with. Thanks for the comments, they're very much appreciated, even if this FAC ends up getting archived. :) Grnrchst (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst, everything looks pretty good now. The only things that still need attention are ones that I replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Ok, I think I've addressed the remaining points. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There were a bunch of minor issues that needed looking at, but overall the prose here is some of the highest quality on Wikipedia, exceeding most featured articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

czar

[edit]

Thanks for the ping. Based on my peer review and the activity since, this is one of the most impressive articles I've seen researched and written on Wikipedia. I won't let it go archived. Review incoming. czar 13:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copyediting for concision in the text as I go. Consider the following as rhetorical questions—as long as it's clarified in the text, no necessary need to reply.

Issues of clarity

Extended content
  • "20 rubles over the course of the summer": What is this detail, in context? Edited
  • "Mennonite-owned estate near Huliaipole": Why is this detail important? Can't we just say he worked on a nearby estate over the summer? Edited
  • "punishment-cell conditions" Does this mean solitary? If so should just say so
  • "He found himself off-balance" His life or his physical locomotion? Assuming the latter and editing
  • If using the term "libertarian" in the European way, should footnote or otherwise explain the difference to a global audience, lest they think more economic libertarianism than anarchist libertarianism
  • "his activism kept him too busy to focus on his marriage" Is this a euphemism to mean that he didn't focus on his marriage at all? Or would it suffice to say that his activism superseded his marriage (and what effect did that have?)
  • Who rallied around the slogan "Land and Liberty"—Makhno, or the local peasants, or another group?
  • "Committee for the Defense of the Revolution ... organized armed peasant detachments" Where? In Huliaipole or elsewhere?
  • Unclear which era the boundaries in the red map represents. A contemporaneous map from the era or a modern map would be helpful. The numbers aren't very visible in this map and it's missing context of where this rests in modern Ukraine and Russia.
Nicely done! I personally was thinking more of the overall places of interest, such as the military conflicts in that section, so added a second battle map for that. czar 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede covers more of the Makhnovshchina than Makhno himself. Surely context on the the former is needed, but the lede should still orient around Makhno's life as it's the intro to his biography. Early life and imprisonment, legacy should all be outlined there, even if those parts are subordinate to the current contents.
Looks great. I've pared it down to be more about his life (as his biography) and less about his army/movement. czar 23:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that the text "where he learned from Peter Arshinov" be edited to include the answer to the question "What did he learn from Arshinov?" (maybe change this particular phrase back to the way it was written by Grnrchst?) Michalis Vazaios (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Arshinov's lede mention as lacking detail on its importance in the article. If anything would make more sense to mention his later relationship with Arshinov. czar 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Red Army high command responded by attempting to rein in Makhno's influence over his detachment." What made them turn so fast? Were they responding to his telegram or something else?
  • "warrant for his arrest and for him to be tried" Tried for what?
  • This is a reasonable question, but one I find quite funny, as the charges levelled against people by Bolshevik tribunals were often quite spurious and vague. In this case Makhno was accused of being a "criminal" and a "traitor"... --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye but it was a different body that declared him one. Previously it was the Bolshevik's Revolutionary Military Council that declared him an outlaw, whereas this time it was ostensibly the Ukrainian government doing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If one of your masters should ever strike you, pick up the first pitchfork you lay hands on" What is the importance of this quote? If Bat'ko Ivan was influential, better to just say so. This implies that Makhno got his militancy from Bat'ko Ivan. Removed
  • I strongly disagree with this being removed, as it was indeed quite influential on Makhno's ideological development. Per Skirda 2004, p. 19: Batko Ivan related the episode to young Nestor, treating him to the first words of rebellion he had ever heard in his life: "... No one here should countenance the disgrace of being beaten ... and as for you, little Nestor, if one of your masters should ever strike you, pick up the first pitchfork you lay hands on and let him have it. ..." This advice, at once poetic and brutal, left a terrible mark upon Nestor's young soul and awakened him to his dignity. Henceforth he would keep a fork or some other tool within reach, meaning to put it to good use. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it clear that Skirda is being literal with his interpretation, keeping a weapon within reach? It just needs context as otherwise the quote alone sounds like a poetic foreshadowing when what matters most to a reader is knowing how Batko Ivan (and/or that quote in particular) materially influenced Makhno enough to mention in this article. czar 17:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, whether or not he kept a weapon on him isn't as important as these being "the first words of rebellion he had ever heard in his life". Cutting out the quote is effectively gutting the moral of the story, so right now it just abruptly ends with Ivan leading the strike. I've added it back in with an attempt to clarify the importance of these words. Let me know if anything still needs changing. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, I'm still left wondering why it's important. Did anyone else mention the importance of this quote in his life? I.e., "left a terrible mark" how? It reads like Skirda's rhetorical flourish without some detail on how historians know the quote made this mark. czar 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skirda's the only biographer that actually fleshed out this period of Makhno's early life in any depth. Darch, Malet and Peters each spend barely a page on it, while others leave barely a paragraph. It was certainly important enough that Makhno himself emphasised it in his own memoirs of his early life, which is where Skirda is drawing from here. Sorry if I'm being a stickler on this one, it's just always stuck out to me as a pivotal moment in his early development. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm still missing what makes it pivotal. If the source definitively said (and we relayed) that this quote was a pivotal development in Makhno's ethics, then the quote would be self-justifying. We're currently left to infer that and, based on the source, it may or may not be true. czar 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Hryhoriv paragraph is a good example of where it can be made way more concise—how much of this detail with Hryhoriv is important to understanding Makhno's biography. Would it not suffice to say that Hryhoriv led an uprising, the Reds asked Makhno to denounce, Makhno demurred and ultimately denounced Hryhoriv after the pogrom evidence, and the Reds turned on Makhno? With this other detail on how Makhno replied and how Hryhoriv originally wanted to ally, it goes into detail that has more to do with geopolitics than Makhno's personal biography. The timeline also gets fuzzy with when he meets with Hryhoriv later—did he denounce the pograms in May (before Trotsky flipped out) or in July (in-person)?
  • 'still considered the White movement to be the Makhnovists' "main enemy"' Did the article ever explain why?
  • "When Hryhoriv reached for his revolver, he was gunned down by Oleksiy Chubenko." This is missing some key detail from Chubenko's article, that Hryhoriv was taking aim at Makhno? And who was Chubenko (Makhno's diplomat)?
  • "a discriminatory policy": What is this adjective meant to mean?
  • When pursued by the Cossacks towards the end, a map would be helpful for those unfamiliar with the city names

Curiosities

Extended content
  • Do the Old Style dates need to be in prose or can they go in the footnote?
  • If the birthdate is wrong in sources, it's better to have a footnote with that discussion rather than a hidden comment, as someone is bound to come along and contest it without knowing the context.
  • The full vital range is already covered in the infobox and prose, so can save some space in the lede by removing it
  • How could someone be "a model student" at the age of eight in a timeframe less than a year (since he goes truant later)? Seems unreasonable as a conclusion.
  • Hrm, perhaps the term "model student" was a bit strong here. Any ideas for neutralising it a bit? For reference, Skirda calls him a "good pupil", but I don't want to copy his words. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the years passed" how many years?
  • "When political prisoners were released during the February Revolution of 1917" Why does this need 10 citations?
  • "After spending a few days in the Volga region" Why is this important?
Gotcha. Might want to merge those two articles if it's not an independently notable concept then. czar 10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for merge discussion czar 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving only a few hundred survivors" If that many remain, how many died in the rout?
If it was a pivotal military victory, enough to mention that a few hundred survived, then it's worth explaining its magnitude, however best to do so. Otherwise I would remove that a few hundred survived and there's enough context to know it was a major military victory without naming numbers. czar 10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With southern Ukraine brought almost entirely under insurgent control, the White supply lines were broken and the advance on Moscow was halted." Why does this need eight citations? Surely two or three would be sufficient for these claims? Eight becomes arduous to verify.
  • My instinct with this was that the claims here - a) rapidly bringing half a country under one's control and b) halting a massive enemy offensive on a neighbouring country's capital - are both rather big, and are made even bigger when a direct consequential link is made between the two. So I wanted to make it clear that this was consensus across sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Red Army had planned to break the alliance with the Makhnovists" Why? To consolidate power or something more specific?
  • A bit of both really. Skirda 2004, p. 244 points to them desiring to consolidate and maintain power, as they believed they had been appointed with "an historic social mission of capital significance to mankind's future", and thus that the ends justified any methods. Darch 2020, p. 118 points out the upcoming Fifth All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, which the Makhnovists would have been able to participate in under the Starobilsk agreement, and that the Bolsheviks would have wanted to eliminate any potential opposition before it convened. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

czar 17:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC); additions 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Lenin questioned him extensively about Ukraine, which Makhno answered, even as Lenin bemoaned that the country's peasantry had been "contaminated by anarchism".' What is the effect of this sentence meant to be? He answered? Is Lenin's response relevant or trivia?
  • Lenin's meeting with Makhno is quite an important moment in establishing the relationship between him and the Bolsheviks. It gets a couple pages in most biographies, a whole chapter in Skirda's and even Makhno himself dedicates it a chapter in his own memoirs. I tried to keep it down to summary style as much as possible, but may not have succeeded too well at that. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a notable topic in of itself? Then some details could be split off into a separate article that could be linked. The article could give the details on this meeting that are elided here making the sentence not particularly informative. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's independently notable. Just personally, I'd find it a bit odd to write a dedicated article about a conversation between two people. But also, Colin Darch has noted that while it's a notable part of Makhno's biography, Lenin's biographers usually don't cover it. So while I think it's important to bring up here, I don't think it's something that has relevance outside of an article on Makhno. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is a biographical overview, would it not suffice to say directly the role this Lenin meeting had on the Makhnovist association with the Bolsheviks? A summative sentence would be more helpful than the nuance/detail of what they discussed, unless that detail is going to be specifically recalled later for great effect. czar 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summative thoughts

  • Copyedited the text down some 300 words but it's still a bit lengthy at 59 kB of prose. There are a few paragraphs, particularly on military history, that can be shortened by focusing on Makhno's role rather than the RIAU's play-by-play. My Hryhoriv note above goes into a little example of this. I don't see this as a block of the FAC criteria but it does make the article a more comfortable read, considering that much of that RIAU material can be ably covered within that dedicated article.
  • This said, the article's citation depth is impressive. The thorough GA review (done by a Makhno scholar) was enough for FA status to my eyes, so we're really just cleaning up at this point. Some of the main source advice from that review—to replace Skirda with Darch wherever possible—has been taken up. It does at least seem, however, that Skirda has been bolstered by Darch and other sources rather than necessarily replaced. I noted some citations above that contain more than a handful of citations. Generally only the most controversial of points would need that many citations and even then they would be best accompanied by source quotes at that point, since it becomes so onerous to verify the claim. Generally if two or three sources are sufficient for the point, so are the sources cited in-line beyond that just for redundancy? Those could use some cleanup.
  • Finally my lede comment above stands re: representing the breadth of the article. Otherwise I feel comfortable supporting on prose once these last points are wrapped up. Nice work on bringing the Makhno series of articles out of dusty old tomes and onto Wikipedia.
    Hi Czar, re this comment, do you feel able to formally support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grnrchst, there are some unresolved comments above from when you were away for when you have a moment czar 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Grnrchst, wanted to make sure you saw this czar 22:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, I've trimmed the most egregious 10-length citation down a little. I'll have a comb through the extra-lengthy citations to see which bits I can afford to trim. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one else steps in for the source review, let me know and I'll do it

czar 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I've left some unresolved/outstanding threads above that I feel would improve clarity, but I don't believe they stand in the way of promotion on the general criteria. Excellent, meticulous work! Congrats on this triumph. czar 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from nominator

[edit]

This has been a very thorough review and I'm grateful to everyone that has participated. @Mujinga; @Thebiguglyalien; and Czar, you have all given very helpful prose notes and I have tried my best to respond to each of them to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I have not been at my best when doing this. A few days before the coordinators tagged this for archival, spurring me to rush to bring other people in on this, I suffered a pretty bad degradation in my health that has kept me from being as on top of this review as I would have liked to have been. I attempted to press forward, but it hasn't been easy, and now I'm beyond the edge of exhaustion. As much as I would have liked to see this review through to the end, I desperately need to take some time off for the good of my health. I'll still be around for the next 24 hours or so just to round things off, but after that, I need to focus on myself for a few weeks. If that means this review getting failed... well that would be a massive disappointment, but there's nothing I can do about that, unless the coordinators are happy to extend the time limit. C'est la vie. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source review seems to be the major obstacle before consensus to promote can be reached. If this does end up getting archived, then the current reviewers (including myself) would presumably still support its promotion when you renominate so long as nothing major comes up in a source review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes although the three prose reviews all look like they are heading towards support, as Thebiguglyalien says there needs to be a source review (also with spotchecks as you are a new nominator) and the image review needs to be wrapped up. I doubt that will happen in 24 hours, so perhaps it's best to withdraw the nom and re-nominate when you have more time/energy? I think it will pass eventually, but IRL stuff is always more important than a website. I've already supported and I would expect to support again in the future. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the source review but I'm not sure I can fully turn it around in the next 24 hours—is that a hard, personal deadline? If you need to step away for a bit, the coords will probably close the nomination but really it's just a formality since the re-nom would be starting with three supports. Wishing you the best for your recovery and here to help any way I can—just let me know. There's a lot to be proud of in completing this article and it'll still be here when you get back. czar 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With three supports there is no great time pressure from a coordinator point of view. Especially with Czar's offer to do the source review. All seems to be well and this appears to be heading towards a routine promotion in the fullness of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grnrchst, I note your recent activity on Wikipedia, so I hope you don't mind me giving you a nudge. On a skim, what seems to be outstanding before a coordinator goes through with a view to closing is addressing a couple of outstanding points from the image review, addressing BigUgly's outstanding points, most - or possibly all - of which are in "Summative thoughts", and commenting on Dudley's closing point. If you could manage that and then ping {{@FAC}} that would be helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Bigugly already supported. Did you mean @Czar? Because they haven't been online in a few days, I'm still waiting on responses from them. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did, apologies. It is not unusual for them to be inactive for a few days. You have pinged them, so let's see if they get back over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Ok. I've got support on prose from Mujinga, Thebiguglyalien, Czar and Dudley Miles. I've gotten support on sources from Czar. And I've purged the article's photographs, in order to comply with the image review. Am I done? Or do I need to do more? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • In general, as I mentioned above, the majority of the source review already happened in the GA review, which was performed by a Makhno scholar. That the Skirda source should be replaced by Darch in the name of quality ("I agree that Darch is the best English language work out there at the moment") was my main takeaway. And it appears to have been painstakingly applied.
  • I haven't checked diffs for whether Darch is just supplementing Skirda or if the Skirda refs were replaced (which would be my recommendation). But suffice to say that the article is very much packed with {{sfnm}} refs, which complicate the source verification process. On one hand, they can be seen as bolstering all claims, but the reality is that most claims do not need more than one source (i.e., Darch) for verification unless contentious enough to require two high-quality sources. On the other hand, the chances that someone has the ability (nevertheless inclination) to verify all sources to verify all parts of the claim approaches zero. I highly recommend paring down the number of sources per ref.
  • As mentioned above, almost no claim needs 10 sources in its ref. And if it does, it might as well contain quotes at that point (to aid in verification) if the claim is so contentious.
  • Ref location link formatting should be consistent: Either link all or link none; err towards linking none since so much is already linked in the ref—fixed
    • (Location parameters end up being an anachronism from old citation formats since the identifiers are enough information for finding the accurate volume; having the publisher listed in the book ref is normally enough.)
  • Book ref formatting looks good—made some adjustments where a parameter or two were missing
  • Some editors request removing duplicate identifiers, so where ISBN is the gold standard for books, can remove the other identifiers. OCLC is universally helpful IMO so not touching that, but LCCN is redundant to OCLC—removed

Before I continue with the spot check, what makes the following sources high-quality?

  • Rus-history.com (marked by reviewer script as unreliable)
  • Greydynamics.com [28]
  • Can say the same about most of the loose sources in the Legacy section. The newspaper sources can be presumed okay but there are a lot of blogs and analyses that do not appear to come from vetted sources—are there no better sources available? The bar for sources at FAC is a bit higher ("high-quality" criterion 1c) than the rest of the encyclopedia.
  • Also the refs in the Legacy section can use consistent formatting—some have the location but not others. Looking for general consistency.
  • Some of the books in non-English languages are missing title translations, for consistency (the Russian titles have translations)

czar 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar I've translated some of the titles. My Russian isn't good enough to do the ones that remain. Is the "some have the location but not others" still an issue? I only found the one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 329, 330, 338, and the Polish source still need translations (to be consistent with other translated refs). Looks like the Bibliography has locations so all good. czar 16:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translated the titles. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the sources in the Legacy section remains the biggest outstanding sourcing issue, per comments above czar 00:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look around for more clearly high-quality sources and get back to you on this. Can you point me to some of the ones that you think look unreliable so I can find better replacements? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ones above: Rus-history.com, Greydynamics.com, and Militant Wire, Popular Front; generally the ones that do not have an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking czar 23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Rus-history.com. I'll have a look at the others and see if I can find anything to replace them. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Grey Dynamics. I wouldn't call them unreliable, as they cite their sources throughout and everything I've seen of them seems to be well-researched. But to be on the safe side, I decided to remove the citations to them, as they're not well-established. I cut the sentence about "Neo-Makhnovist" sympathies, because as far as I'm aware, this term was coined by a South African anarchist-turned-white nationalist for Anarkismo.net and doesn't have much actual use elsewhere. I also cut the thing about green anarchist patches, as it seems to have been sourced from a Twitter post by Jake Hanrahan (in which he uses the fake term "Free Territory" *sigh*). And for the info about "Makhno's bow", I replaced the Grey Dynamics citation with one to the source it was citing - the more clearly reliable Agence France-Presse (mirrored on a partner website). --Grnrchst (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: unreliability, for a GA review, it might not come up, but for FAC, the question is what makes it "high-quality" (1c). I think the case is harder to make with this source. czar 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went over the Popular Front source, and it appears that Hanrahan ascribes Makhno's influence to Revolutionary Action, without them actually saying it themselves. Cut until I can find a better source. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up cutting the sentence about patches and flags, as I decided it was relatively uninteresting. Militant Wire is a relatively new web publication with unclear reliability, while the other source was a Ukrainian magazine that I've not read before so can't establish its quality. The other place Militant Wire was cited was also already covered by The Guardian, so there was no problem removing it there.
I've now cut all the ones you've explicitly highlighted here. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. So same question then for the other publications without clear backing (what makes them high-quality sources for FAC)? Liva.com.ua, Nashfilm.ru (and, to a lesser extent, Evrejskaja Panorama).
Separately, a bunch of the refs need cleanup for consistency: some periodicals have ISSNs and others don't, one or two entries have a location or publisher listed while similar entries don't. My suggestion would be to remove the ISSNs from the newspapers and blogs and only use it for journals but ultimately your call as long as it's consistent throughout. Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism is missing identifiers.
I also left a note above about claims that have 5+ or even 10 sources listed—is there a reason for doing that or why two or three sources wouldn't have sufficed? czar 22:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed liva.com.ua, nashfilm.ru and evrejskaja panorama, added more ISSN numbers and added the identifiers to Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Will have another look over for standardisation. I'll respond to your note on the larger Sfnm tags separately. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, of the 210 multi-citations currently in the article: 78 are 2-length, 54 are 3-length, 47 are 4-length, 13 are 5-length, 9 are 6-length, 2 are 7-length, 6 are 8-length and 1 is 9-length. I'll start from the longest one and work my way down, leaving ones for claims that I think need more robust sourcing as I go. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started by deciding to remove inline citations to Kantowicz 1999. Honestly, this citation being in the article still was a relic of a previous version before I had started working on it. It was largely cited in lengthy multi-citations, and its only single citation - to the claim that Makhno was seen as a "social bandit" - wasn't important enough to keep by itself. I've moved the source to further reading, as it may still be worth checking out for some readers. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making further trims to lengthy citations, I've gone through and cut sources that aren't cited elsewhere within the same paragraph, which I hope will help more with verification. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've brought it down to 13 at 5-length, 11 at 6-length, 4 at 7-length and 3 at 8-length. So at least now they're consistently decreasing in frequency as they get longer. There's a couple cases where I think more citations are justified, but I can try whittling the rest down further. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, any thoughts on this loose source added by a new user during the FAC review?[29] I guess there's no problem with it, but strikes me as odd to add a loose source in for one little detail already covered by others. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was already sourced sufficiently so agreed with moving it to "Further reading". I can't personally vouch for the journal's reliability but they have a code of ethics and an editorial board of credentialed academics. czar 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. By eye, the citations look standardized and justifiably reliable. Further source reduction would be a boon for the reader but is optional/beyond the FA criteria. Nicely done. czar 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

[edit]

Can I ask for photos or copies of the pertinent pages of the books mentioned in my list above? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst is this something you can do so Jo-Jo can perform an adequate check? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ay! Sorry, I missed this. I could provide select quotes from the sources for each of the spot checks? Like for 10 and 63, the pagination is definitely correct and the quotes I'm pulling from are definitely in there. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, such quotes could work. Or if you enable emails or upload somewhere (not Wikipedia), via screenshots, that would be even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll try to get back to you with specific quotes soon. For now, I've found online paginated copies of some of the sources:
Hope this helps. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four days late, but it seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Born into a peasant family in the fervor around the 1905 Revolution". This implies that he was born around 1905.
  • "he settled in Paris with his widow and daughter". She was his wife not his widow at that point.
  • "Makhno quickly joined the revolutionary fervor". This is ungrammatical, I suggest "joined the revolutionary movement".
  • "had been outlawed by the Tsarist authorities". It is unclear what outlawed means in this context. If they were expelled from the area, you should say so.
  • "Following years of imprisonment, in March 1917, the 28-year-old Makhno returned to Huliaipole". This repeats the previus sentence.
  • "Makhno bore witness to the rising hostilities between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Bolsheviks". "bore witness" normally means in court. Maybe "Makhno witnessed the rising hostilities between the Ukrainian nationalists and the Bolsheviks".
  • "Kamenev too was greeted by Makhno and his new wife Halyna Kuzmenko". You have not said at this point that he had divorced his first wife. This should be clarified.
  • "the powerful otaman Nykyfor Hryhoriv". What is an otoman?
  • "Taking his own 2,000-strong detachment north at a pace of 80 kilometers each day". He marched 80 kilometers a day? That is impossible.
  • "After his return home in 1917, the two met and became a couple,[311] living together on a commune where Makhno contributed." "became a couple" is ambiguous. It could mean that they lived together unmarried. If they married you should say so. If they did marry, did they both go on to remarry without divorcing? You should clarify this.
  • "The Bolshevik government sent an agent provocateur to entrap Makhno and force his extradition by embroiling him in a plan to launch an insurgency in Galicia." Presumably the Bolshevik government of Ukraine and the entrapment was successful, but both these points should be confirmed.
  • While Galicia was populated by a Ukrainian minority, it was actually thought to be the Russian Bolshevik government that was involved in the plot. Per Darch 2020, pp. 133-134: "the Polish authorities kept a close eye on the dangerous revolutionaries, and came to the conclusion that they were plotting with the Bolsheviks in Russia to foment a separatist uprising in eastern Galicia in order to reclaim it as Soviet territory."; Malet 1982, pp. 185: "the Polish authorities did intercept his correspondence: they concluded that he was involved in a nationalist plot to stage a separatist uprising in Eastern Galicia, then under Polish rule, and join it to Soviet Russia."; and Skirda 2004, pp. 268-269 "Not that Moscow had remained idle [...] It commissioned one of its agents, Ya. Krasnovolsky, who had been keeping tabs on the Makhnovists since Romania, to suggest to Makhno that he lead an insurgent movement in eastern Galicia, a region populated by Ukrainians but arbitrarily awarded to Poland under the Treaty of Riga." In any case, I've clarified this. I'm not sure how to further clarify that this plot was successful in getting Makhno charged by the Polish government, I thought it was already pretty clear. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see that the sources you quote say that the Bolsheviks were trying to entrap Makhno and not genuinely trying to foment an uprising. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On entrapment, from the same sources... Darch 2020, pp. 133-134: "The Soviets attempted a complex plan to tempt Makhno and his comrades into an anti-Polish conspiracy, creating grounds for a stronger extradition claim."; Skirda 2004, pp. 268-269: "[...] Not that Makhno's answer unduly surprised the Bolsheviks; their object was merely to compromise him in Polish eyes so that the latter would expel him to Russia. There they themselves would see that he got a hospitable welcome in the Cheka's dungeons. They arranged for their agent to fake an escape attempt on the night August 2-3, 1922 and for him to be caught in possession of documents which, he would "spontaneously" confess, had been addressed by Makhno to the Soviet diplomatic representative in Warsaw, Maximovitch." --Grnrchst (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late 2010s, the Huliaipole City Council was preparing to request the return of Makhno's ashes from France, as part of a campaign to attract tourists to the city, declaring Makhno to be part of the city's brand." "preparing to request" sounds odd. Do you mean that they never made the request? If so, I do not think it is worth mentioning.
  • Per Darch 2020, p. 164: "In early 2019, [...] Ishchenko revealed that the city council of [H]uliaipole and the district administration of Zaporizhzhia raion had been preparing the necessary documentation to request the return of the ashes of Nestor Makhno from the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris to the town of his birth" It's possible that the process hasn't yet been initiated, or was stalled, as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine have been far more immediate concerns. I can confirm that Makhno's ashes are still in Paris, but I do think it's still worth mentioning, as the repatriation of remains is no small request. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I think that the article should spell out that Makhno was still married to his first wife when he re-married, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my previous response on this issue, none of the sources talk about Makhno and Vasetskaia "still being married". Vasetskaia lost contact with Makhno and assumed him to be dead after a while, with both later remarrying. "Spelling out" that they were "still married", despite sources saying nothing of such a fact, would just be adding novel synthesis based on nothing but assumptions. I'm not going to do that over something so minor. It's not happening. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst could you please have a look at the WP:FAC instructions, and remove all of the {{tq}} templates from tthis page? They are slowing down the entire FAC page from loading. And could you please remind anyone else who is using them to please stop; they are making the entire FAC page inaccessible. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per FAC instructions, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I still need to do anything? Idk, this seems like a problem with transcluding every single review onto a single page. Of course that's going to be unsustainable. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be taking a look shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2023 (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) 11 November 2023 [30].

Len Deighton

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Len Deighton is one of those authors who you wish would publish more (he's in his mid-90s and hasn't published a novel since the mid-1990s, so it's unlikely he'll start up again now). Best known for The IPCRESS File and his trilogy of trilogies Game, Set and Match; Hook, Line and Sinker; and Faith, Hope and Charity, he's also published several cookery books and works of history, particularly military history. For all that, he's a private person who gives very few interviews and about whom not much is known. Still, I've covered what there is to be found about him. Any comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. How exciting. Placeholder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does "beef bourguignon" Have two upper-case Bs?
  • A depressing lack of images. Nothing to be done about that?
I recall from the distant past seeing a photograph from the 1960s [?] showing Deighton chatting with senior Luftwaffe veterans, including Galland and - I think - Fink. I cannot now find it and we probably couldn't use it anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not: as he's still alive we can't use non-free images of him. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "works on history and military history". I believe you of course, but cannot offhand think of any non-military-history history he has written.
Ah. I vaguely recall reading the latter, long, long ago. Never heard of the former, is it any good?
Never managed to get hold of it. It's something of a rarity, so maybe when I have a couple of hours to kill and I'm up near the British Library I'll have a look over it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had several jobs before becoming a book and magazine illustrator—including designing the cover for first UK edition of Jack Kerouac's 1957 work On the Road." So designing a book cover was prior to "becoming a book and magazine illustrator"?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog - looking forward to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1967 Deighton was successfully sued for libel over his London Dossier. In 1968 he was sued by David Stirling who led Operation Bigamy in 1942 over at article Deighton wrote about it for the Sunday Times; it was settled for "substantial damages". Either worth a mention? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Keeper of Prints and Drawings". Lower-case initial letters?
  • "In 1940 ... Deighton witnessed the arrest of ... Wolkoff was detained as a Nazi spy"> Perhaps mention that there was a war on?
  • "he learned to fly and became an experienced scuba diver and excellent shot with both rifle and pistol." ... and ... and ... and ... And I would insert an additional "an".
  • The "Works" section seems weak, with nothing at all on his non-fiction and his non-spy fiction only mentioned in "Adaptations". Given that this output was extensive and well received I struggle to see this getting over the "it neglects no major facts or details" in its current state.
Eg reviews of his military history works repeatedly comment on how the many drawings in the text help to illustrate (groan) his points. Worth a mention?
  • See below on the 'critical reception of Fighter' point. I try to keep the 'Works' sections for overviews of the topics as a whole (ie. from the point of literary criticism, where they pull together threads and patterns from all the works together). Reviews don't do this, and are - to my mind at least - better left on the book's article unless they are particularly notable (such as the quotes from A. J. P. Taylor and Albert Speer). I'm also trying to avoid having details of his timeframe in the biography and then just repeating the same books but with reviews in a Works section. It may work for a longer article, but not one where there is so little information in the public domain about the man himself. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am not entirely convinced by this, but let me reread with this is mind.
No probs. There is no guidance on the MOS on how writer biographies should be dealt with, and therefore zero advice on how best to deal with someone who has a multi-faceted writing career, so any input you have is welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While studying he held a temporary job in 1951 as a pastry chef at the Royal Festival Hall."; "while he was at art school and working as a porter in the restaurant of the Royal Festival Hall, where he occasionally assisted the chefs in preparing dishes." There seems to be both repetition and possible contradiction here.
  • "as coming from his time at the advertising agency, when he was the only member of the company's board". He was on an agency's board of directors? This doesn't seem to fit with the earlier rather 'gig economy' description "Much of his work as an illustrator was in advertising—he worked for agencies in New York and London—but he also illustrated magazines and over 200 book covers". Also, singular versus plural.
In the first quote "agency", in the second "agencies". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was at an agency (singular) in London where he was on the board, but worked at another (therefore second, plural) in NY. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a work that described itself as "a real London guidebook". The book described the hostels". Optional: A synonym for one use of "described"?
  • "by amending the claim in unsold editions". Is it known how this was physically done?
  • Not that I can see, even in unreliable sources. The current source say "They had agreed to make suitable amendments to all unsold copies in their possession". I assume something along the lines of an erratum slip, but not even antique book selling sites clarify the point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book described the hostels owned by Lord Rowton as being doss-houses for down-and-outs." Did it? That first edition is vanishingly rare, but I have a source which says "the suggestion according to the courts, that his descriptions associated the hotels with doss houses for vagrants ... The issue seems to be perhaps that, by describing these hotels in between chapters discussing vagrants, cheap hotels and 'poor districts', the impression was given that these hotels were somehow just up-market doss houses. In UK libel law, it seems, the merest "suggestion" of doss houses and cheap prices is enough to build a case for libel."
  • "Publishing career: 1961–": the stuff on the critical reception of Fighter would, IMO, fit better in "Works".
  • That would give what is supposedly an analysis section something that only contains reviews. The Novels section is from third party analysis of his works made some time after the works were published, so his work is viewed at a distance by literary critics from a certain point. That's different from just giving what reviewers thought about individual works at the point of publication. Reviews are, I think, best place on the book's article, except where they suggest something a little out of the ordinary. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly with the genesis of SS GB.
  • Currently the comments on Deighton's books comes across as a bit of a ragbag of factoids rather than a considered analysis of them. I am probably being over harsh there, but something is missing.
  • Another factoid, but it may be worth mentioning that Nehring once commanded the Akrika Korps?

I am going to pause here and await responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, all your points addressed - hopefully satisfactorily, although we'll see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, that mostly seems fair enough, if a bit frustrating in some cases. There have been a few changes since I started reviewing, so I'll give it another read through and see what further nits I can pick. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2
[edit]
  • Should that be 'Deighton attended the Saint Martin's School of Art and the Royal College of Art'?
  • "Other topics of non-fiction military history."
  • "favourably compared with his both his contemporary John le Carré"
The "both" was fine. It was the "his" before it that was the problem.
Doh! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it is likely that". Tim would say that you were slipping into US English here.
  • "according to the journalist Jake Kerridge". Do we need the in line attribution?
  • I quite like the Writing career section now. (Although I was startled to read that Blitzkrieg was a "history of the rise of the Nazis and the fall of France". I shall have to re-read it in this light.)
  • Part one of the book takes you back to 1914 and works through the brownshirts, night of the long knives, etc right up to the invasion of Czechoslovakia for part 2
  • I have been looking into this quite a lot over the last week or so, and could probably stretch to a section on cookery books, but still nothing on the MilHist part outside individual reviews. (I'm really not saying it to annoy you MilHist types, honest!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I bought a copy when it was first out, still own it and have read it several times. Even used it as a source! Deighton was neither an academic nor had gone to the right schools, plus his analyses could be read as running down the more traditional approaches, so he didn't get analysed nor even much reviewed. To my way of thinking several of the reviews contain chunks of analysis; no doubt other ways of thinking are available.
  • I still think there is a place for a comment on his use of numerous sketches in his non-fiction, but I am probably in a minority.
  • Adaptations: how come "Bullet to Beijing (1995) and Midnight in Saint Petersburg (1996)" get their release dates added, but " The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin, Billion Dollar Brain and Spy Story" don't?
  • "A public school are fee-paying institutions"

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog - much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Along with a few others who have commented here, I always look forward to your comments at "my" FACs, and this time is no exception. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Анна_Николаевна_Волкова.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death, and is it possible to translate the source? File:Michael-Caine-1967-Helsinki-b.jpg needs a US tag and information on first publication, plus the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, I'm trying again with two different images. One of these is on an FA, so should be OK. They are:
File:Maugham retouched.jpg
File:Graham Greene angol író, 1975 Fortepan 84697.jpg
Can I ask you to cast your eye over these ones please? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks very much! Your assistance is, as always, hugely appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Here we go, without having read the other comments, so forgive me if there's any overlaps.

  • Maybe link spy novel in the lead
  • Thank you for the footnote about Wolkoff - as a nosy reader I wanted that tidbit :)
  • What's an emergency school?
Added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal but you have some duplicate links to WW2 and Churchill; I removed one to WW2 already as it was quite close to the first, but the others are farther down (para starting "In September 1967") and I didn't want to pull them in case they were deliberate.
  • For those who aren't offhand familiar with French geography (and since his stay in France has not been mentioned previously), can you provide some context for the Dordogne?
  • Suggest linking Philip Marlowe
  • I might suggest a footnote to clarify the difference between grammar school vs public school; for those without familiarity with British schooling and class systems, Deighton's explanation might be a touch confusing
  • The paragraph beginning "In September 1967" is entirely about the Snowdrop article and outcome, with Playboy tacked on at the end. I would suggest splitting Playboy off, then combining it with the two small paragraphs starting In 1968 and In 1970, to give you one mid-size paragraph
  • Do we know why Taylor advised Deighton to write Fighter?
  • Original publication year for Blood, Tears and Folly? Otherwise having the 2023 date there feels odd
  • Also feels a bit odd to have the 2023 date for his last history book but not his last novel
  • I think we cover that in the 'personal life' section ("After completing Faith, Hope and Charity in 1996..."), but if you think we should put something in somewhere else, just let me know and I'll sort it out. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I can see the argument for both ways - putting his retirement at the end of career makes chronological sense, but putting it into personal life lets you end with it and keeps it with the context that he didn't actually like writing. I'm content to leave it as-is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might link literary festivals
  • I quite like the Works section with analysis and critique, as distinct from the usual bibliography without any context. Some of this should be summarized for the lead, however, which currently doesn't have any of it
  • "the project was not forthcoming." I'm not sure about this wording. As an adjective, forthcoming can mean upcoming, available or ready, or willing to talk. None of those really feel like they work here.
  • Any word about the Samson novels? Did the project fall through? I assume so if stuck in dev hell since 2013, but it feels untidy to leave that dangling.

That's it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks PMC! Mostly done (the easy ones, at least), but a few others still to cover. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PMC, All done where I can, I think. I can't find anything about either why Taylor advised him to write, or an update on Clerkenwell films, but the rest is sorted. If you've any comments on any of the changes - or see anything else to be addressed - I'd be delighted to hear about it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from Ian

[edit]

Brief comments so not recusing at this stage but a quick scan made me wonder if it's a bit on the laudatory side...

  • We have several positive quotes on works but when we come to Blood, Tears and Folly there's naught although WP's article describes it unflatteringly (there might be more to it than that of course).
  • Could we trim the second sentence from Speer? Aside from us hardly being able to trust a word he says at best of times, the second part is just fluff anyway...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Both those bits sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "he designed the cover for first UK edition" => "he designed the cover for the first UK edition"
  • "the family lived in Gloucester Place Mews near Baker Street" - if the family lived at what sounds like quite an upmarket address, do we have any info on why young Leonard was born in a workhouse?
  • The source doesn't say. Both his parents were in service and the upmarket address was (I think) the staff part of the house - although that last bit is OR, but the source doesn't cover why the workhouse. Maybe it was closer than a hospital? I'll try and do some looking into this point, but he's a fairly private individual who has given only a handful of interviews, so information about the man himself is scant. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a rather unreliable source we're not able to use: "When Dorothy went into labour with Len, she was turned away from her nearest hospital in Marylebone, London, as it was full. She was sent instead to an infirmary that had originally been built to care for the poor of the adjoining workhouse." It's the only place I can find this explanation, so it could be the usual DM fabrication, or be sourced to something I can't find at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his work with the SIB he learned to fly, became" => "During his work with the SIB he learned to fly and became"
  • I don't think it's grammatically correct as it stands. Essentially you have two "actions" he did: "During his work with the SIB he [1] learned to fly, [2] became an experienced scuba diver and an excellent shot with both rifle and pistol." ([2] is all one action) The absence of an "and" between the two makes it read like a third thing is coming, but then it doesn't. It's like saying "During his life John F. Kennedy fought in WW2, became US President." The sentence isn't "complete". Does that make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that "Writing career: 1961–" would be a better section heading, as he didn't do the actual publishing himself
  • "Deighton was commissioned by The Observer to provide a weekly "Cookstrip" for the paper's magazine" - "cookstrip" has a capital C mid-sentence here, but in the lead it didn't
  • "withdrew with suggestions made in the book" => " withdrew the suggestions made in the book"
  • "The historian Allan R. Millett considers the book" => "The historian Allan R. Millett considers that the book"
  • "The novel used appendices and footnotes which, according to the film academic Alan Burton" - you just mentioned him in the previous sentence so "according to Burton" would be fine here
  • "The academic George Grella considers [....] and provides "a convincingly detailed picture" - it isn't Grella who provides the detailed picture
  • "Burton considers The IPCRESS File is" => "Burton considers The IPCRESS File to be"
  • The claim that Saltzman came up with the name for the character does not agree with Harry_Palmer#Origin_of_the_'Harry_Palmer'_name - which is correct?
Thanks Chris - part done, with a couple I'll look into more closely. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Commenting per request with the usual pedantry and nit-picks. Only a few for now; I'll hopefully have some time to give it a proper look over in the next couple of days.

  • works on history and military history: can this sentence be reworked to remove the inelegance here? We wouldn't say "books of recipes and Chinese recipes". Perhaps "works of [social? general?] and military history"?
  • He wrote one on the assassination of JFK and one on the history of dirigibles up the Hindenburg, so a little disparate. I've gone with "history, particularly military history". Does that work for you? Alternatively, we could just go with we could go with "works on military history"? - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On which, I don't think we mention any of these history works in the Works section, which is a little odd. I appreciate that there's a parent article for his bibliography, but a brief mention would be appropriate for comprehensiveness.
  • His history works have not been subject to the same overview as his literary works have. I try to keep 'Works' sections for the 'meta-review' where threads and patterns from all the works can be pulled together by the secondary sources, but there isn't anything like this for the history side, unlike the fiction side, where there is this higher-level analysis in the secondary sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deighton attended art school in London, and graduated from the Royal College of Art in 1955: I would put the name of St. Martin's back in: otherwise, this just looks like a wordy way of saying that he went to the RCA, since that's in London.
  • He had several jobs before becoming a book and magazine illustrator; he designed the cover for the first UK edition of Jack Kerouac's 1957 work On the Road.: purely for prose elegance, I would rework this: as currently phrased and weighted, it sounds as if the second clause should be explaining his several jobs before illustrating books.
  • which was published in 1962, and was a critical and commercial success: need to lose the comma here.
  • Deighton was born in a workhouse in Marylebone, London, on 18 February 1929: I know we're at the end of the workhouse era here, but my mind went to Oliver Twist: I was a bit surprised to hear that he had two parents who seemed to be fairly upstanding members of society. Perhaps some explanation is due here - did workhouses also double as hospitals?
  • The only explanation I can find on this is from a non-reliable source we're not allowed to use: "When Dorothy went into labour with Len, she was turned away from her nearest hospital in Marylebone, London, as it was full. She was sent instead to an infirmary that had originally been built to care for the poor of the adjoining workhouse." It's the only place I can find this explanation, but I'll keep looking for something that we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found something which explains the local hospital was full. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolkoff was detained as a Nazi spy and charged with stealing correspondence between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.: was she guilty? If not, detained as a Nazi spy certainly casts that aspersion.
  • "a major factor in my decision to write a spy story at my first attempt at fiction".: as my first attempt?
  • was trained to be an excellent shot with both rifle and pistol: a bit WP:PUFFERY, I think, unless he was a really excellent shot (did he win any prizes or carry on in the sport after being demobbed?)
  • enabling him to study at the Saint Martin's School of Art: the article on that school doesn't put a the in front of it; is that normal in sources?
  • Following the publication of a cartoon cookery illustration in the Daily Express in 1961, Deighton was commissioned by The Observer to provide a weekly "cookstrip" for the paper's magazine: clear enough what is meant, but worth another look for prose and polish: the surface reading of this is that The Observer asked him to write for the magazine of the Daily Express.
    Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deighton came up with the concept: from what we've just read, it sounds as if he was told what a cookstrip was, and instructed to make them.
  • steps he undertook: I've never seen that phrase before (and neither has Google Books): suggest took.
  • Deighton considers the character not as an anti-hero, but "a romantic, incorruptible figure in the mould of Philip Marlowe".: I would put a date on when he gave this judgement, since there's about over a century of possible thinking and mind-changing time in play.
  • who was called by the name "Harry" once, although the character says he does not remember whether he had used that name: this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me: could it be explained in a little more detail? Who calls him that?
  • Suggest wikilinking grammar school and public school in the quote, especially as public school will be obscure to our American readers.

Stopping here for now. Reading well so far. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of getting through the article, I'm going to just plough on: can't immediately see anything in your replies with which I'd wish to quarrel, but I'll go back over and give it a proper second look at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For accessibility, text in French (e.g. Où est le garlic) should be in a lang template.
  • Note d: MOS:FIGURES would encourage five and 12 to be either both in words or both in figures.
  • Any way of finding out the first names of M. Rand and H. Lockston?
  • the hostels owned by Lord Rowton were doss-houses for down-and-outs: this is pretty heavy BrE: at least doss-houses might be worth a bit more explanation (not least because doss is slang for "sleep", so a doss-house sounds like it simply means a place to sleep).
  • The problem is that a doss-house is a particular type of lodging with no real synonym. There's no WP:commonality of term we can use on this (given the American term is a "flop house". I've linked to try and explain the difference, as the only alternatives I can see are to go inline: "...were doss-houses ("flop house" in American English)"; put the same 'translation' with a wider explanation into a footnote; or link the term to the Wikitionary.
    I can swap "down-and-out" for homeless without too much of an issue. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about defining it in plain English in a footnote? Neither term is very common, either in BrE or AmerE, so even many native speakers will only be guessing at precisely what it means: explaining it simply with "flop house" would be to clarify the obscure with the obscure, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September that year he wrote an article in The Sunday Times Magazine about Operation Snowdrop, an SAS attack on Benghazi during the Second World War. The following year David Stirling, the leader of the raid, was awarded substantial damages in libel from the article: Without getting into trouble, can we gesture at what he said about Stirling? This introduction might perhaps give him slightly short shrift, given that he founded and led the whole SAS show, not just an individual raid.
  • Deighton was the interviewee on Desert Island Discs in June 1976, where he was interviewed by Roy Plomley: better simply as was interviewed on Desert Island Discs in June 1976 by Roy Plomley?
  • After being advised to by the historian A. J. P. Taylor,: I think we really need to do so, but it might be punchier and clearer to put the concrete action first.
  • "censured by some for including interviews with German participants": this sounds like it should be very easy to verify: having it as a quote like this suggests that it's in doubt. Is it?
  • Blitzkrieg, his history of the rise of the Nazis: Hawkey's or Deighton's?
  • I notice that Deighton seems to have been rather chummy - or at least popular - with rather a lot of high-ranking Nazis. Did that ever raise any eyebrows?
  • His final history book is Blood, Tears and Folly: if we're going to give the subtitle, the link should cover that, too. Slightly tricky phrasing given that he's still alive: I'd still probably say was, but wonder whether last history book to date is... is better - he could theoretically write another.
  • the division of the book into different theatres of war, rather than a purely chronological history: needs a look for grammar: contains the implied but ungrammatical sentence the division of the book into ... a purely chronological history

Stopping here for now, just above "Works".

  • Personal taste, perhaps, but I'd be inclined to start this section with a mini-lead, summarising the key aspects of Deighton's oeuvre so that we have a sense of the overall wood before diving into the individual trees. That would give us an opening to better satisfy MOS:LEAD by bringing his historical work into the most sensible part of the body text. I did something like this for Panagiotis Kavvadias, whose archaeological career mostly divided into certain key areas but refused to be conveniently chronological.
  • as it brought in "a more insolent, disillusioned and cynical style to the espionage story: is Burton talking specifically about IPCRESS here? We've established, but then slightly lost, a link to The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.
  • gave a sense of authenticity to the work: are these footnotes written form a real-world or an in-universe perspective? Either way, but particularly for the latter, verisimilitude might be a better word (that is, the novels don't necessarily look like what real espionage looks like, but they look like what the reader imagines real espionage to look like).
  • Does JLC need linking twice in two paragraphs?
  • Grella considers Deighton to be "the angry young man of the espionage novel: this seems to be crying out for a comparison with another author... Fleming, surely?
And, surely, his establishment peers (at least in other novels) like Bond - or has that not been an aspect of the reception of these works? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a some reference somewhere, but it may have been insignificant. I'll have a look over the sources again to see if I can see anything useful. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • either the producer for two of the three films, Harry Saltzman, or the actor Michael Caine came up with the name: might reorder for elegance: get the long epithet (the producer for two of the three films) to the end if possible. I might bring the fact that Caine played Palmer up to be his introduction.
  • which Palmer is breaking eggs: the present continuous doesn't read quite right to me here: any problem with breaks? Fowler would thank you.
  • The first trilogy of his Bernard Samson novel series: I would always restate the name in a new paragraph, so that it stands alone as a complete idea.
  • Although Quentin Tarantino expressed interest in filming the trilogy, the project was not forthcoming: perhaps worth being a little clearer that filming means "turning into feature films" rather than "doing the camerawork for", since the trilogy was filmed in that latter sense.
  • The nine Samson novels were in pre-production with Clerkenwell Films in 2013, with a script by Simon Beaufoy.... and have presumably since been cancelled, unless they're being incredibly slow about it?
  • Who knows...! I presume so, but there has been no news about it since. I suppose it's possible they still have the rights to continue doing it, but there's been no news about it since the first announcement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very nitpicky, even for me, but I think a link like a five-part TV miniseries is best if it covers the a, per WP:LEASTSURPRISE: it's clearer that it refers to a specific five-part miniseries rather than the concept of five-part miniseries.
  • four broadcasts of two-hours: need to lose the hyphen: how about four broadcasts, each of two hours, between...?
  • In Letters from Burma: I would briefly introduce what this book is. I'm not sure if ASSK has quite reached the point where "the politician" is a slightly disingenuous label (cf. "the politician Nelson Mandela" or "the politician Saddam Hussein", depending on your perspective).
  • Given her slightly contentious image, I think "politician" is probably the most neutral tag we can put onto her (it is, after all, correct, even if not the full story). That is, unless you have a better idea of something we can use that covers her better? - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-nine Novels: needs three capitals, I think: weirdly, it has them on its cover and in its article, but not in its title.
  • was reading it at the time: the time of what?
  • I love that you put all of his Desert Island Discs choices into a footnote.
  • Image thoughts: perhaps some of these people involved in his work, its adaptation and reception could be pictured? Michael Caine circa the right period, for example?
Hi UC, how's this looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support; thanks for the nudge. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero drive-by comment

Mostly just a drive-by comment, since I have some time this morning. Why is Northwest Vision and Media a high-quality RS? That is the only source that I could quibble with. Great work SC! --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guerillero. I think it is probably okay, but I've swapped it out for two stronger ones anyway (the BBC and The Times - both much better ones). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, back soon! JennyOz (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, just when I was thinking about giving up reviewing... This was a great read! I've had trouble keeping up with your changes tonight so forgive me if some of these comments, suggestions and questions have already been addressed.

I'm delighted you enjoyed it - and I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes you don't stop reviewing. I look forward to your comments - as I do to three or four others - as being some of the better reviews to get. I know the article will only be much better after your attention. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • add Briteng template

ibox

  • intentionally person, not writer?
  • Not intentionally - it was like that when I got here... swapped out
  • left out first wife intentionally?
  • Yes. Less is more, and his notability is based on his writing, not the number (or names) of his wives.

lede

  • He had several jobs before becoming a book and magazine illustrator, when he designed the cover - not sure about "when", would a semicolon be better?
  • miniseries Game, Set and Match based on - why no link?
  • dramatisation of his novel Bomber. - 1970 novel

Biography

  • I could finish the boko without giving him - typo book
  • and Où est le garlic, a collection - add a translation in brackets?
  • copies in three years.[18][19] [20] The - space between refs
  • (1967)— after which he published - is that space after em dash meant to be there?
  • "The book suggested the hostels owned by Lord Rowton were doss-houses for the homeless.[e] He and the publishers Jonathan Cape were sued for libel; they apologised, withdrew the suggestions made in the book by amending the claim in unsold editions and paid substantial damages" - who sued him and JC? (not owned by the linked Lord Rowton, he died 1903)?
This fellow has a clip re Harris and others v. Deighton and others i.e., William Barclay Harris chairman of Rowton Hotels and Frederick Albert Shearing, managing director. (Same Times piece?) So change to "hostels owned by Lord Rowton" to hotels operated by Rowton Houses/Hotels. (or similar)?
  • He explained in court - swap "He" to Stirling (last name was Deighton)
  • General Sir Alan Brooke. General Sir Claude Auchinleck - swap full stop to comma
  • the historian A. J. P. Taylor. - these initials are split across lines on my screen, add nbsps per MOS:INITS
  • This was followed in 1978 - Fighter was followed (ie new para)?
  • his final history book is - last or latest?
  • would have improved by wider research - been improved (or Engvar thing)?
  • According to Adrian Flowers's photography archive, Ysabele's surname was de Ranitz. If that's not usable as a source, it might help in a search. (And perhaps someone on that site might donate a low res pic - worth an email?)
  • writing was "a mug's game" that - not sure how well that term is known, (used in US?) it has a Wiktionary entry if necessary

Works

  • producing work; in 1976, said "I like the research better - needs 'he' after 1976?
  • in contrast to the upper class and ineffective senior members - compound hyphen upper-class

Adaptations

  • All feature the Deighton character who was unnamed in the books but was given - all feature the books' unnamed character but was given
  • for a scene in which Palmer breaks eggs into a bowl and whisking them - tense whisks?
  • the first trilogy of his Bernard Samson novel series - intentional italics on character?
  • made into a thirteen-part television series by Granada Television in 1988 - name it again ie Game, Set and Match?
  • Although Quentin Tarantino expressed interest - had expressed?
  • for a a five-part miniseries, broadcast - dupe "a"
  • broadcast a real time dramatisation - compound hyphen real-time?

Note d.

  • Observer Food Magazine - Observer Food Monthly per captions (and why work=The Observer when story is in Guardian - not a reprint from before 1993 acquisition?)
  • (now Note f.) Ah, of course! But... I'm still confused re the name of pub'n (you have "printed monthly in the Observer Food Magazine"), in the 3 captions it is "Observer Food Monthly", not Magazine? JennyOz (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer magazine does a monthly food version every month, but it's still the "Observer Food Magazine", even though they sometimes call it "Observer Food Monthly" inhouse. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Buckton location=Detroit, MI - Michigan? are state abbreviations okay?
  • Burton Wilmington, DE
  • Macdonald Detroit, MI
  • Macdonald, Gina - tweak alpha order
  • Twigg, Melissa - alpha
  • Parini, Jay - editorlink
  • Symons, Julian - authorlink

Categories

  • Members of the Detection Club - not mentioned in article nor in Detection Club but is on his bibliography
  • People educated at William Ellis School - not in article? though he is listed on here with a ref
  • add cat/s for cookery books and illustrators?

Misc

  • Works - does seem strange this section includes Novels but not cookery books and other
  • His history and cookery works have not been subject to the same overview as his literary works have, so if we include sections on these, all we'd have is either a litany of titles and publishing dates, or a mini quote farm from various reviews. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • also wrote Len Deighton's French Cooking For Men per here or is it a retitle?

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz, all as on point as always - and thank you! I think I've covered everything, but if I've missed anything please let me know. There's only one question, which is about the state abbreviations: should we not be using those now? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, I've added a few responses above and sorry, a couple of last minor questions...

  • He has a works template but is a category not warranted? (Fleming and le Carre have one)
  • Note f again "Deighton wrote five cookery books in total" - I'm slightly uncomfortable with the tense here for a living person bio - we can't know if anything is final. Maybe tweak this to 'Deighton has written five cookery books in total? (he was still doing cookstrips with son Alex in 2021)
  • categories - he was doing things after 2001 so needs cat for 21st century British writers or similar?
  • The only dated ones are novelist and RAF personnel. Obviously not in the RAF for years, but his last novel was in 1996 (although I always keep hoping for another one at some time...!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deighton was born in Marylebone, London, on 18 February 1929" - unusual for you in a bio not to repeat full name after lede? I can't access refs 1 and 2 so cannot tell if his middle name Cyril per lede is referenced?

That's enough nitpicking from me! Very happy to add my s'port now as none of my new comments are particularly important. Oh and thanks sincerely for your kind words. JennyOz (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny! All sorted! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2023 (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) 10 November 2023 [31].

Easy on Me

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of its release, I am back with another Adele article. This time, it is her ubiquitous 10-week-long number one smash hit "Easy on Me". The song took the world by storm and garnered immediate critical acclaim upon release. Even when 30 disappointed at the Grammys, "Easy on Me" managed to take home the title for Best Pop Solo Performance. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SN. Good spot. Addressed on the other nom's page. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris

[edit]
  • ""Easy on Me" went number one" => ""Easy on Me" went to number one"
  • "She performed the song at the 23rd NRJ Music Awards, her television specials, and the concert residency Weekends with Adele." => "She performed the song at the 23rd NRJ Music Awards, on her television specials, and at the concert residency Weekends with Adele."
  • "Greg Kurstin produced and co-wrote three tracks on Adele's third studio album, 25 (2015),[1] which included the song "Hello" (2015)" - is it really necessary to restate 2015? Clearly a song from an album was released in the same year as the album.......
  • "Kurstin produced the song and engineered it with Alex Pasco and Julian Burg. He plays bass guitar," - "he" here is ambiguous given that three men were named in the previous sentence
  • "Ocado noted a 26 percent increase in tissue sales in the United Kingdom and, along with the cool weather, connected this to the release of "Easy on Me" - this sentence needs re-arranging as it kinda implies that the release of the song led to the cool weather
  • "She talks with someone on a cellphone" - as the article is (presumably) written in British English, this should be "on a mobile phone", because that's what we call 'em :-)
  • "BBC News' Mark Savage opined the transition" => "BBC News' Mark Savage opined that the transition"
  • "after he passed away" => "after he died"
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am not fully convinced the inclusion of the music video screenshot is justified. The current justification for its inclusion is that it is illustrating how this music video references and compares to others done by Adele, but I do not think the screenshot really does that. If a reader has not seen any of the other Adele videos, I do not think this screenshot would help them as there is nothing to help them visually connect this scene to other media. Non-free media usage is restricted to only when a point cannot be made with the prose alone, and I think this topic can be discussed in just the prose without losing anything.
  • I am still uncertain about the screenshot. The source link should be updated, but my primary concerns is that this is two separate screenshots from two separate music videos stitched together. I view this as two distinct instances of non-free media usage even though it is a single image. I would think that would require greater justification for inclusion. I am curious if any other FAs use images like this (i.e. two separate non-free images put into one).
  • As much as I love having screenshots and the like in the article, I keep going back to my original point of if this is really necessary. Not to sound rude, but are side-by-side screenshots necessary to show Adele sits in a chair in two videos? I would think this would be an instance of prose being enough to convey this point. Apologies again if this comes across as rude or blunt. Just to be clear, if an image reviewer or a reviewer who has more experience in images than myself disagrees with me or thinks that I am just over-thinking this than I would be more than happy to admit that I was wrong so feel free to reach out to others about this to get a second opinion.
  • Also on a separate, but somewhat related point, the article says this music video received comparisons to "Hello", "Rolling in the Deep", and "Chasing Pavements". The prose goes into the first two instances, but I am wondering if a brief part could be added on how this video references "Chasing Pavements". Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parade critic's comment goes a little further than just saying Adele sits in a chair in both videos, she actually suggests that they might even be the same chair. Copyrighted images have been used in certain cases for comparison purposes (even FAs like "Shake It Off" for example). This is the only non-free file used in this article (other than the standard use of the artwork) so I would have to disagree that its use is excessive. But I really appreciate you expressing your opinion on this (and hopefully this part isn't too big of a problem). I have updated the file rationale and unfortunately the critic making the "Chasing Pavements" comparison did not elaborate.--NØ 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation is different than the one for "Shake It Off" though. In that instance, it is a comparison between a non-free image (File:Taylor Swift - Shake It Off music video screenshot.jpg) and a public domain image (File:Funny Face (1957 poster).jpg). I was more so curious on if there was an FA example with two non-free images being used in this type of comparison. Because again, while these two screenshots are put into one image, I would count them as separate because they are separate screenshots from separate music videos. I will wait and see how other reviewers feel about this, but I am just not convinced about this. I still find the use excessive for the reasons I have outlined above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the awards and nominations should represented as prose rather than as a table. I have looked at other song FAs like "Your Power" and "Blank Space" which present this as prose.
  • The lead and the article use "ex-partner". Why not use ex-husband? I just find that "partner" can be ambiguous, and I was not sure why the more exact word was not used instead.
  • I would link mixed since it would be consistent with mastered getting a link.
  • I have a question about this sentence: (During an interview with Vogue, she revealed that Kurstin worked on the song.) Is it particularly relevant to know when Adele told the public that she collaborated with Kurstin on this song? It does not seem notable to me since they already worked together in the past. It also feels repetitive at this point so this collaboration was already established earlier.
  • This is probably a stupid question, but what are "audience impressions"? It might be worth adding a note to the article (with a source of course) to explain it to unfamiliar readers like myself.
  • I have added a note which hopefully somewhat explains this. I find the information I was able to find being extremely limited kind of odd... This seems to be a rare jargon used by only Billboard/the music industry.--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the note. I completely understand how frustrating that can be. I ran into similar experiences when I had to put notes to describe an industry showcase or radio testing. A lot of these instance of music jargon can be very insular so it is more annoying to track down high-quality sources to define them, and I would imagine that this instance would be even more difficult since this one seems even more insular and specific than the ones I had to track down. I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the citation usage in the "Critical reception" section. There is a note for this sentence, (Some thought it was a typical Adele song.), but this is the only instance a note is used. For similar sentences like, (Some commented on the production.), a note is not used so it seems inconsistent.
  • I used the note for the typical Adele song comment because a lot of the critics that had that opinion didn't say much else about the song to include in subsequent sentences. So I thought their names should be included in the form of the note so readers know they had this opinion. Whereas for "Some commented on the production", the critics who did this are all mentioned by name and included in subsequent sentences.--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance for the nitpick-y note, but the word "thought" is used in both contexts when Nick Levine is discussed, and I think it would be best to change one instance to avoid that kind of repetition.
  • I would be consistent if the note goes before or after the citation. Note A is put after the citation, but Note D is put before it.
  • If possible, I would avoid repeating the word "directed" in this part, (who had previously directed the music video for "Hello", also directed the one).
  • When introducing Weekends with Adele, shouldn't the years that the residency took place be mentioned? It might be helpful to give readers a clearer understanding of when this occurred.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have a lot of respect for you for tackling an article on such a big song. When my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Not going to lie, I am not a big fan of this song, as it just did not connect with me, but I did enjoy the music video. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful review, Aoba47. I believe I have taken care of most of the comments; just waiting for the music video screenshot to update with the side-by-side comparison. Honestly, I am not a huge fan of this song either. It does not have the same flavor as "I Drink Wine" and I might have preferred that as the lead single. And I did procrastinate on this article forever...--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! I am honestly still on the fence about the screenshot. Apologies for dragging this out. Also, I put in an additional comment in my response about the image (i.e. how this video references the "Chasing Pavements" one). I will read through the article in full again later today. I agree that I would have preferred "I Drink Wine", but I completely understand why this song was chosen, and it was ultimately the right choice based on how well it performed. And just to be clear, you have done great work on this article. I am really enjoying what you are doing with the Adele articles. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find any further to comment on. I will just wait to see how other reviewers respond to the music video screenshots. I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong, but I would prefer to wait to see other editors, particularly those with more image experience and expertise than myself, respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I wanted to inform you that I have removed the screenshot in question.--NØ 08:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

That should complete image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request and caveat that this isn't a type of article with whose source I am deeply familiar with (especially as far as WP:BADCHARTS is concerned). What kind of source are "Columbia Records (2021). 30 (Media notes). Adele." and "XL Recordings (2015). 25 (Media notes). Adele."? What makes "Adele's New Song 'Easy On Me' Out 10/15" a reliable source? I presume that i (newspaper) does not share the (un)reliability of the Daily Mail? Source formatting is largely consistent and the necessary information is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. The Columbia and XL sources are CD booklets of the albums, considered reliable sources for songwriting and production credits. Stereogum is used for the uncontroversial claim that the song starts with piano instrumentation, which should be okay since the critic, James Rettig, is a reputed author who has written for sources like Billboard and Spin magazine. The i critic, Fiona Sturges, has likewise been published in reliable sources like The Guardian and The Independent and should be fine for a subjective critical opinion on the song. Regards.--NØ 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is a pass, with the caveats above regarding no spot check nor any familiarity kept in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

The article seems to be in good order and in solid shape IMO. Not much else to comment on, just a couple of minor suggestions.

  • and depicts her moving out of the same house the "Hello" -- perhaps add "where" the "Hello" music video was filmed
  • Perhaps wikilink Spotify on the first instance.

Great work as ever, so I am supporting this excellent article for promotion. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I think mentioning the videos were filmed in the same house is important due to the perception by some as a sequel, whereas the location of the house is non-essential to the plotline and may constitute excess detail for the lead. Done on the second point.--NØ 17:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Sorry for the confusion, I meant to say it could be written as moving out of the same house where the Hello music video was filmed just for better flow Pseud 14 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely flows better. Done as suggested.--NØ 18:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So they have. Yep, you can launch another one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all have a great weekend! NØ 01:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this soon. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several instances of WP:SEAOFBLUE which I would like to see fixed before considering closure:

Additionally, I made some copyedits here. Please check them to see if I messed something up or accidentally changed the meaning of something. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits all look A-OK and the SOBs (lol) should all be handled now! Regards, NØ 19:18, 10 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2023 [32].

Marie Sophie Hingst

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 07:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Sophie Hingst (20 October 1987 – 17 July 2019) was a German historian and blogger living in Ireland who falsely claimed to be descended from Holocaust survivors...and there's your premise, isn't it? But it's not an explanation, and some things, hard as you try, you never know how to explain. Hingst was a successful blogger whose narrative revolved, in part, around her experience as a German Jewish woman and what it meant to grow up raised in part by survivors. The trouble with this narrative is it wasn't hers; she was a pastor's granddaughter from Martin Luther's hometown who sent fabricated records to Yad Vashem. When a journalist at Der Spiegel uncovered her background, he published a biting exposé -- and she was found dead weeks later. The resulting coverage across two countries started a firestorm about journalistic ethics, the intricacies of identity politics, and cultural differences between DACH and Anglosphere societies.

This article took well over a year to write, and might be the most challenging one I've worked on. dewiki had an article since 2019, but I wrote this from scratch and was finally able to mainspace it earlier this year. I'm more than comfortable that it's the most comprehensive Anglophone resource on Hingst's life and the discussions she inspired. This is a complicated article, a 21st-century biography for someone complex and contentious. I think it's as ready to nominate as it'll ever be. I hope it is. Vaticidalprophet 07:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for myself here. Should comment within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Without having read all of Gog's commentary, so forgive any repetitiveness.[reply]

  • "Hingst was found dead in her apartment on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31. Her fraud and suicide..." this phrasing feels odd. First we omit the suicide and then we state it without introduction as if it's already been stated.
    • Getting to this one now I was very busy for a few days, and now have the flu, so responses might be hit-or-miss still, because Gerald Waldo Luis also commented on it. This was previously "committed suicide on date", which caused some dispute. I'm happy to restore the prior phrasing because I agree it was an improvement -- "don't actually mention what cause of death in that sentence" was a proposed compromise (I don't use "died by suicide", and "killed oneself" is IMO improperly blunt for Wikipedia-cadence in ways that actually cause the unfortunate implications some people ascribe to "committed"), though I see UndercoverClassicist also has opinions on this wording, so I've pinged them in the loop here too. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's within MoS, so I'm not going to oppose over it either way. Is there another option, such as "She was found dead in her apartment on 17 July 2019. A coroner [or whoever it was] ruled her death a suicide"? It's the committed word I'm keen to avoid, for both accuracy and ethical reasons. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth reading Vati's extensive post on the topic, which he linked above; I tend to agree with his thinking on it. As another point, in natural language, "commit" is not necessarily negative or accusative; you can commit an act of heroism, for example, or commit oneself to a course of action. Neither of those phrasings is seen as negative. "Committed suicide" bluntly acknowledges that it was an act the person undertook, without making a moral judgement or soft-pedalling it. In comparison, "died by suicide" makes it sound like a natural cause of death in the vein of cancer or old age, when it's anything but (try saying "died by murder", for comparison; there's an act there that's being elided). "Ruled a suicide" is even worse, because it implies that there is somehow some doubt and a coroner had to settle the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All very fair and reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vati, this is still in its original state - are you leaving it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the original, if it's considered an improvement. Vaticidalprophet 10:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could split the Dolzeal clause into a separate sentence rather than a semi colon but I won't die on the hill of it
  • This is a minor quibble but the photo of Wittenberg is not the best. How would you feel about subbing something like File:Wittenberg, Blick vom Turm der Schlosskirche auf die Altstadt.jpg or File:Altstadt Wittenberg.JPG (from the German article)
  • Thoughts?
  • "from a Protestant Christian background" reads oddly. "With a", maybe?
  • The entire description of the Holocaust fraud (and her other fraudulent claims) is contained within the "Early life and career" heading, which feels a bit odd and perhaps unduly sympathetic to me. If I was a reader looking at the TOC, I might wonder where the fraud was even mentioned in the article. I would suggest maybe subsections for the fraudulent claims, or at the very least "Early life and career" should be separated from "Blogging and fraudulent claims".
  • Thoughts?
  • "the remainder to not have been persecuted" - I think it's worth noting that not only were the few who existed not persecuted, they weren't even Jewish
  • Might also be worth noting she didn't just contradict history, she contradicted herself - "Second, in the Pages of Testimony, she states that six sons were killed, but in her blog, she claimed that four were murdered." per Doerry
  • The one above this looks like it was actioned, but this one hasn't been responded to.
  • "Teaparties" is usually spelled as two words
  • The sentence about Yucel feels out of place at the end of the para about her fake Holocaust history, especially considering that that activity did not appear to have been part of any deception. Maybe it could be moved up to the end of the first paragraph, and then split that paragraph from "In 2013, she founded...". (This actually then puts you in a better position to section off the fraud stuff as I suggested earlier, as you'd have two paragraphs of "Early life and career" outside of it)
  • Also, we might want to have a year for Yucel's imprisonment
  • If it matters, Doerry says Hingst corresponded with another prisoner in Turkey, but he isn't mentioned here
  • Have any sources (including Sanyal) commented on Sanyal using Hingst in her book? Has Sangal ever retracted or issued an updated edition?
  • Above four outstanding
  • "Hingst was bestowed a winner" I don't think you can be bestowed a winner. You can be named a winner, or bestowed an award.
  • I think the sandwich thing should be its own paragraph, there's enough content just about it that it forms a coherent separate thought.
  • Agree with Gog that the mailing list phrasing is a bit off. How about "Bergner created a mailing list where she worked with other researchers, including a lawyer, an archivist, and a genealogist, to scrutinize the details of Hingst's blog posts."
  • Also, Doerry's two articles actually say that this group independently noticed issues with Hingst and began to communicate. Berger was "one of the first", but not actually the first.
  • Still outstanding
  • "The story chronicled the research on Hingst that found" this clause feels very knotted up into itself, but I'm not entirely sure how I would revise it. Perhaps "The story presented research which indicated that Hingst had falsified her Jewish background, medical work in India, and sex education outreach to refugees in Germany." This version is a bit shorter overall, which may be desirable.
  • "The Der Spiegel piece..." this sentence wants splitting somewhere, you've got three separate ideas going in inside it.
    • Still needs splitting
  • I agree with Gog that DACH needs to be explained in-text as it isn't obvious what it means.
    • I've added some context (I remember the linked article being clearer than it is).
      • I think it would be better to rephrase this in-text as "German-speaking regions of Europe" and not require the footnote at all, since that's what's meant anyway
  • "noting her publication in Die Zeit " maybe revise to "nothing that Hingst had been published in Die Zeit"
  • I have to give the side-eye to the contradiction between "I never falsified anything" and "but my artistic freedom". Did anyone ever call her out on this? It seems ripe for it. (Addendum: I see that Doerry mentions it a bit in his article.)
  • I wonder if we want to mention Doerry's relatives earlier, to give context to the later accusations that this was the source of his displeasure
    • hmm. I read that accusation as too controversial to imply that early, rather than juxtaposing it with the fact a bunch of people went "no, what the hell" at it. Vaticidalprophet 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my issue is that as currently written, we're both stating the accusation and debunking it at once, which can be jarring.
  • "how Hingst should have been stopped from her fraud" - "how Hingst's fraud should have been stopped" maybe? "stopped from her fraud" is awkward
  • I think the context about Yucel should be included earlier - we don't have the length or year of his imprisonment when he's mentioned before, so we could move it there and trim it here
    • Outstanding
  • Ofrath makes an interesting point in his article that isn't discussed here - the timing on Hingst's instability. Scully argued that Hingst was mentally unstable and should never have been exposed in such a public manner. Doerry pointed out that Scully only met her after Doerry had already exposed her, and says that he found her "confident, combative and determined". I think it's worth getting into this a bit, since there's so much emphasis on the appropriateness of Doerry's reporting given Hingst's mental state.
    • Unaddressed, and I think this is significant.
  • Doerry also argues that Hingst's fraud provides ammunition to Holocaust deniers, which I think is relevant to his reasons for exposing her
    • Is there anything more you want here than the "mockery of survivors" line, Premeditated Chaos? I've been thinking about these last comments -- it's very tricky viz. NPOV, but I get where you're coming from. The timeline on her distress is definitely an element I think some of the sourcing...underdiscusses, and Doerry does discuss it a bit. Tricky to think of a good place to slot it in, but there's probably one. (Might be under ethics.) Vaticidalprophet 10:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we necessarily need to quote that exact line, but I think it's worth mentioning something about Doerry's thinking re: impact.
  • I notice that her frauds seem to have an element of a superiority complex in them. She calls a random district in India a slum, she says she had to teach young Syrians "how to appropriately interact with the opposite sex" (which reads a lot less neutrally than providing "sex education"), and even makes claims about her "grandmother's heroic resistance to the constraints of Jewish tradition". See what I mean? It's like, I'm helping, but I'm better than you. I'm part of this heritage, but I'm still going to obliquely position myself as superior to it. This is a delicate point that I'm not sure is discussed overtly in any RS, but it would be interesting if it was.

Okay, I think I'm done. I may give it another read and come back for more. My main point I think is that Doerry seems to be getting a touch of a short shrift here, and I'm not sure that's fair. As always, open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I agree with PMC re the shrifts that Doerry and Hingst seem to be getting, but obviously you can only go with what the HQ RSs say. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the final point, which is very speculative on my part, most of my points are related to what's in the RSs in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After mulling for some time over how best to contextualize Doerry's responses, I've added this paragraph -- how do you feel about it? In the section on the Spiegel piece, I've restructured the first paragraph to avoid overcrediting Bergner and split the long sentence into other long sentences. I've also restructured the early life section somewhat to give more detail on what you asked about her claims, and add the bit about Tolu. I'm not super sure about the subsectioning of that section -- if anything, it's possible the section header could be tweaked, if TOC visibility is the concern? (More mobile-friendly that way, too.) I've tentatively rendered it as "early life, blogging, and career", though I'm not fully certain yet. Vaticidalprophet 11:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think generally it's looking better, with much of my commentary addressed. By and large I'm ready to support, however there are a few things not yet done that I think are worth harping on, if only to get responses from you as to why they're not being done: the imprisonment dates for the Turkish journalist (and moving the details about that to be earlier), the DACH explanation, and the timing of Doerry's relatives being mentioned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was mulling over how best to implement those three, but they should all be handled now (added "in 2017" in the first section re. Yücel, reworded DACH, expanded the paragraph on Doerry to mention Jahn and Seibert). Vaticidalprophet 15:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm satisfied. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • References: English language article titles should consistently be in either sentence or title case. (How they appear in their original is irrelevant.
  • "Marie Sophie Hingst (20 October 1987 – 17 July 2019) was a German historian and blogger living in Ireland". I think that the last three words need either tweaking or qualifying.
    • Pre-GAN this was "German-Irish"; Kusma's excellent GA review pointed out that this was probably not her self-identification or legally the case, so I tweaked it to there. It's possible this is also a suboptimal phrasing, but it might be a bit too much in the lead to give the exact dates. Will ponder. Vaticidalprophet 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend 'was a German historian and blogger who lived in Ireland from 2XXX' or similar. I consider the additional 10 characters well worth it. (And it is not as if there were not plenty of other material in the lead which could be thinned, if that were considered necessary.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done a little later, but still in the first few sentences -- is this okay? Vaticidalprophet 10:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, no. It is not something on its own that I am going to oppose, but it gives a worrying lack of clarity in the first sentence of the lead.
Sorry for the delay on this reply, Gog the Mild -- was wrapping up other comments. A few days ago when rereading the lead I ended up feeling the relevant clause was superfluous, as Hingst's expatriate status is clarified two sentences down. Have responded to all the rest of these now as well. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she fabricated a Jewish background". Is it known (approximately) when she first did this?
This doesn't seem to have been addressed, and linked: the paragraph starting "Hingst had no Jewish ancestry on either side of her family", do we have any dates we can add here? Even approximate ones?
  • "the official memorial" → 'the official Holocaust memorial'.
  • I assume that you are deliberately not linking Holocaust?
  • "sparked discussion of the role of identity politics." Optional, as it may be just me, but having read that several times I keep thinking that it is a longer sentence which has somehow lost its last few words.
  • "college-educated". What does "college" mean in this context? Does the word mean the same thing across the English-speaking world. I assume that you are communicating that her family's education level was basic?
  • What is a "high school"? Could it be linked?
    • Responding to both this and the college education one at once -- the German secondary education system is complex, and the English and German Der Spiegel articles give different levels of detail. I've tweaked "high school" to the more international "secondary education"; from the German version of the article it strongly implies to me she attended Gymnasium, but that may or may not be clear enough to put in the article. Similarly, Doerry's English article refers to her family as "college-educated" (here =university rather than =secondary school, which I've clarified -- both Doerry and I are, apparently, rather Americanized here for people whose homelands' education systems don't work that way) while his German article says Akademikerfamilie, which...I am still trying to determine exactly how to translate that ("family of academics" is fairly literal but I don't think the Anglophone implication of "family in academia" is accurate). The implication to me is that both are trying to gesture at a relatively privileged background, but because they speak in terms of education, I'm not comfortable extrapolating that to socioeconomic status. I think another source gives non-overlapping detail and will see what can be used there, and have queried some native speakers on how best to read the original word. Vaticidalprophet 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better, IMO.
  • "studied history in Berlin, Lyon, Los Angeles, and eventually Dublin". At what level. Is this because her family moved?
    • This was as an adult/in tertiary education, have specified. (The source is unclear on the precise timeframe, and in particular what was undergraduate vs graduate study; Wikidata makes a confident call but, as is classic Wikidata, does not source it.) Vaticidalprophet 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It now seems clear. Thanks.
  • "Der Tagesspiegel reported in June 2019 that it had 240,000 "regular readers", and Hingst was awarded "Blogger of the Year" in 2017 by the Die Goldenen Blogger [de] (Golden Bloggers) association." Any chance of this being recast in chronological order?
?
Done. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Gentile". Or, better, replace it with non-jargon. ('non-Jewish'?)
Does gentile have an upper-case g? If so, why?
After further discussion, this was ultimately replaced with "non-Jewish". Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
?
Done. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a hospital ... that treated patients". Erm ...
  • "consultant". In much of the world "consultant" in medical parlance means Consultant (medicine).
    • You know, I'm not entirely sure what exactly she was supposed to be. I'll check back if Sanyal's book says anything more precise. Vaticidalprophet 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is all Sanyal's book says. I agree it's a bit of a grand claim for her age around the time she supposedly did it, even in context. Given I couldn't find a clear idea of what she actually claimed to do, have just removed the relevant part, making the phrase "working at a doctor's office in Wittenberg, where she specialized in responding to anonymous sexual education questions from refugees". Vaticidalprophet 10:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, nice wording.

Engrossing stuff, well told. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and the compliment! I've responded to a number of these and will look through for others/dot i's and cross t's/etc. Will respond to the next section soon. Vaticidalprophet 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she created a mailing list examining the details". I think this needs tidying up. It reads as if the mailing list did the examining. I am unclear as to who did what and what part the mailing list played.
Sorry, but it still doesn't work. Any reason for not going with a simple 'Working alongside a lawyer, an archivist, and a genealogist, she examined the details of Hingst's blog posts with other researchers'?
That's fair, and has been implemented. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the first half of 2019, research by Bergner, Doerry, and archivists from the Stadtarchiv Stralsund led to the conclusion ..." How about 'Research by Bergner, Doerry, and archivists from the Stadtarchiv Stralsund through the first half of 2019 led to the conclusion ...'?
  • "on Der Spiegel in German and English." Are we talking about a website?
In which case perhaps 'on Der Spiegel's website in German and English'?
I'm still a little unsure about the potential implication it was never in print, but implemented. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer 'other news outlets across the German-speaking parts of Europe', but ok.
It ultimately ended up with this wording. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.
  • "Deniz Yücel, a Turkish-German journalist who spent 336 days incarcerated in Turkey under suspicion of espionage, was in contact with Hingst via postcards during his imprisonment." We know this, you have just told us. Suggest removing the repetition.
    • hmm. Gog the Mild, I think I've addressed everything at this point, but this one I've been thinking about. I don't have reader navigation data for this specific article, but the fact readers tend to read in chunks/don't necessarily look at every section is a known quantity, and tracing off what I can (clickstream data, anecdata of people I know and readers of similar articles) I'm somewhere around "~every reader looks at 'Death and aftermath', but at least some skip earlier sections". Probably less than the average article, but the average article is extremely skipped-around ("60% of readers read the lead alone, most of the rest read one section" is the classic take-away from it). I'm a bit hesitant to introduce Yücel in this section with no context if I can assume some significant proportion of readers are skimming-at-best his actual introduction. I also agree it's a touch awkward for readers who are actually sitting down top-to-bottom, though. Vaticidalprophet 04:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. (I'm not saying I am fully convinced, but you raise solid and defensible points and it is "your" article.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VP, how are you getting on with my last few comments? In any event, could you give me a ping when you're ready for me to have a look at your responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I'll start on the ref-standardizing now, then get to the last handful. I'm still unwell, but trying to get to things reasonably quickly now I'm back home. Vaticidalprophet 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries VP, it was intended as a reminder, not a nag. In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some come backs above. Usually where I have not left a comment I am content with your response and/or action. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After wrapping up all the other reviews, I think these are all addressed now. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Saving a space here. GeraldWL 10:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand lessgooo! I don't really catch any big issues so most of my comments are just links or specific words. Overall it's pretty well-written! I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 04:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Alt texts should be brief. "A woman with glasses and greying brown hair looking to the left, in a professional headshot-style photograph" can be "A woman with glasses and greying brown hair looking to the left". Blind readers don't need to know about the technicalities unless it's an article about the photo
  • "German historian and"-- I don't reaallyy see any part in the article that says she's a historian with actual history publications. ROMDRO is a personal blog. Though I see that "she was a fellow at the" institute, it's not detailed what works she did, or if she ever made any publications other than ROMDRO and PhD theses.
    • Well...'historian' is a reasonable title for someone with a PhD in history, in "first sentence of the Wikipedia article" contexts. PhDs are pretty big deals :) She went into industry in a not-obviously-relevant way, but this is not at all uncommon for people with PhDs in the humanities, and many still self-identify with the fields they pursued for a decade. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably link Holocaust and Protestant, and New Delhi
  • "Her fraud and suicide" --> "Her fraud and death, which was ruled a suicide"-- since you didn't detail about this the previous sentence
  • "present-day eastern Germany"-- readers (like me) might actually confuse this with the eastern Germany, which is the German Democratic Republic. I think just saying "present-day Germany" is fine
  • "from a Protestant Christian background"-- should prob use the redirect in lieu of piping
    • Eh, you usually shouldn't explicitly bypass redirects that already exist, but there's no reason not to avoid them in the first place, and several reasons to (managing page views correctly, avoiding redirect vandalism, not having the rug pulled out from under you if something changes). "Don't bypass existing redirects" is a statement about the merits of that particular action, not about the merits of not redirecting in the first place. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the genocide"-- link to Holocaust
  • On the other hand, backstory might be unecessary to link
  • Suggest lengthening it to "Auschwitz concentration camp", it is also a town in SW Poland
  • For the redlinks that don't have the interlanguage link or merely has a Wikidata link-- are those notable enough for a redlink?
    • I trimmed a lot of redlinks in GAN; the ones that are retained I'm fairly confident in, at least to "this could reasonably have an ILL, a mention in a list, or some other context" as well as ones that can clearly have articles. (The Sanyal book was redlinked more recently, but NBOOK is not a high standard and it has more than enough reviews.) Vaticidalprophet 05:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "across the DACH countries"-- suggest adding a footnote explaining what DACH is, so readers don't have to click the link just to understand it
  • "A German Wikipedia article was created, describing Hingst as a "blogger and fraudster"." It just feels random that this suddenly appears. Suggest altering to "The exposé also prompted the creation of a German Wikipedia article describing Hingst as a "blogger and fraudster"."
  • "and worried he might be the last person to see her alive." This is chilling to read...
  • Quote box: link Yellow badge and Nuremberg Laws, and ebay
  • Link Anglophone
  • "unable to bear the media "shitstorm"."-- might be useful to add footnotes to all the originally-german quotes like "Original: blabla..."
    • I'll reply to all comments later (across all three of you, Gog, and PMC), but one quick and unexpectedly funny note -- "shitstorm" is the original German (Ihr Herz und ihre Seele haben den shitstorm, der über sie nach den Artikeln im SPIEGEL und im Tagesspiegel hereingebrochen war, nicht ertragen können, for full sentence). It's a loanword, and as I understand it slightly less vulgar than it is in English. Vaticidalprophet 05:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the last sub be more specific, titled "Identity politics"? Identity is pretty ambiguous.
    • Gerald Waldo Luis, thoughts all-around now? I'm trying to go for a relatively broad section header on the last one intentionally -- there are a couple different lenses there amongst the people who wrote about this, so only "Identity politics" would be too narrow -- but I think all of these have been responded to for a few days. Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of comments coming in amid my arrival I initially postponed my support just to have the other comments resolved. I took a last look at the article and it looks all neat; with two (I think?) supports right now I'm happy to support myself. GeraldWL 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Likewise saving a space: expect to hold off until Gog and Gerald have concluded. A fascinating article and subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting: it's a cracking article. I have disagreed at a few points with the nominator, but every decision made here is reasonable and supported by evidence and good sense: I have no doubt that the article satisfies the criteria fully and does justice to an extremely difficult topic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • German-language titles and words should be in lang templates, to allow the Wiki software to categorise the page properly and screen readers to correctly parse them.
    I tend to put enwiki links into the lang template, but not ILLs (suspect that a template in a template will upset the software somehow). Put the whole link in: {{lang|de|[[Currywurst]]}} UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all the langs should be done now (and discovered lang has an italic=no param, so removed the italics on an existing one where they were contextually inappropriate). Vaticidalprophet 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very small nit-pick, but Die Goldenen Blogger means the Golden Bloggers: we should therefore introduce them as such and avoid constructions like "the Die Goldenen Blogger...".
  • I appreciate that the photograph isn't formally dated, but could we say something like (c. 2019 or taken in the late 2010s? The info page gives "late 2010s" and there's no reasonable view that it could be (for example) from the 1990s, going by the rough age of the subject.
    • hm. I uploaded the image and am not sure when it's taken; the date on the image page is mostly "because the image upload wizard really, really wanted an origin". I agree it's certainly what it looks like, but it's a bit OR for wikivoice, I think. Vaticidalprophet 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though in that case I wonder whether the caption does more harm than good (by suggesting that the date is somehow contentious or unclear, when in reality we just haven't found it). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hingst maintained the blog Read On, My Dear, Read On, where she wrote about her supposed Jewish background and identity, along with her experiences as a German expatriate in Ireland, where she moved in 2013; the blog received hundreds of thousands of views, and she was awarded "Blogger of the Year" in 2017 by the Die Goldenen Blogger [de] (Golden Bloggers) association.: long sentence: any reason not to break at the semicolon?
  • leading to the destruction of her reputation: what exactly does this mean, in concrete terms? A bit close to MOS:IDIOM, I worry.
  • German coverage focusing on ... how she should have been stopped earlier: two things here - first, "with X..." phrases are almost always neater and clearer as new sentences ("German coverage focused on ... while Irish coverage ..."). Secondly, "she should have been stopped earlier" is a matter of opinion: we therefore need something like "argued that she should have been stopped...". Was this a universal opinion of the German press?
  • Related to the above, the next sentence start "while Irish coverage focused" is currently grammatical, but would be fixed by removing the with phrase.
    • I think the two of these were an attempt at avoiding or removing a semicolon (I think the clause works better in a connected sentence than a disparate one, just barely). It's now a semicolon and has been cleaned up more in a later diff to fix the broken grammar/too-many-semicolons that caused. Vaticidalprophet 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Better now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • sparked discussion of the role of identity politics.: what do we mean by this - in society or in this case? More precise phrasing would help here.
    An improvement: might still be worth a bit of thought (what were, for instance, the competing claims? It sounds like we're trying to euphemise or talk around a clearer if more controversial point here.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marie Sophie Hingst was born 20 October 1987: born on, surely?
  • studied history at university in Berlin, Lyon, Los Angeles, and eventually Dublin, where she moved in 2013. She attended Trinity College Dublin, where she completed a PhD in history; from 2015 to 2017, she was a fellow at the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts and Humanities Research Institute: I am somewhat confused here:
    • We've already said that she studied history, so PhD in history seems redundant. Might consider replacing university with universities.
    • When was she at Trinity - from 2013? I wonder whether starting a new sentence for everything Dublin-related would be clearer.
    • I don't think it's normal for a PhD student to be a fellow: did she complete her PhD before 2015? That would seem astonishingly fast.
      • "Studied history at university" has been reworded to avoid repetition. I agree the timeline is...strange. She certainly seems to have finished the PhD, and to have moved to Dublin in 2013, and to have been a fellow in that timeframe. I blinked at it myself, but I'm not sure where the break is (starting the degree somewhere else?). Vaticidalprophet 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Der Tagesspiegel reported in June 2019 that it had 240,000 "regular readers",: the blog or the newspaper?
  • who committed suicide: MoS allows this, but advise died by suicide or killed herself unless extremely strongly attached to the current phrasing: suicide is not a crime, so it cannot be committed, and this phrasing is widely considered unhelpful by suicide-prevention charities. Discussed above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hingst reported 22 alleged Holocaust victim relatives: can we rework this a bit to remove the huge pile of modifiers?
  • in Auschwitz: explain what this place was per WP:POPE and MOS:NOFORCELINK.
  • Her grandmother reportedly... who reported this - just Hingst? If so, framing like this creates the misleading impression that this "fact" was more widely known, and perhaps even true. It might seem repetitive, but I would keep banging the drum that all of this existed only in Hingst's mind.
    • It's tricky. I'm trying to be very careful terminology-wise here, because there's definitely a failure mode you see in some articles (it's agonizingly common in pseudoscience) where the author crosses well past writing a reference work into writing an explication of the subject's issues. I think "reportedly" here is enough, given how many adverbs are used throughout this section in general. Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which she was able to give to Yücel after his release: simply gave? (Separately: seems odd to give him copies of postcards she had already sent him, but that might be an oddity of the subject rather than the article).
  • founded a hospital in New Delhi that provided sex education.: unless it also did other things, we probably wouldn't call it a hospital.
  • writing for Die Zeit about her experiences under the pseudonym Sophie Roznblatt: writing under the pseudonym, or about her experiences under the pseudonym?
  • At the time of the Der Spiegel publication in June 2019, she was working at Intel in Dublin as a self-described "disruptor", a role she ascribed to her success on social media: do we know if she had a more official job role, or indeed, given her history, if she worked for them at all?
    • Oh, she definitely did (keeping her job/it trying to accommodate her through the media firestorm was part of the Irish Times article). I think the official title is something like "project manager". Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • on Der Spiegel : things are usually published in magazines or on their websites.
  • her claims of providing medical treatment in India: this seems to have changed: she was previously only providing education.
  • There's an RFC somewhere (I forget where, but it came up during one of my nominations) that we shouldn't make ILL links to Wikidata, as the information there is not considered reliable.
    • I've read the RfC -- there's a bit of a telephone game here. ILLs were specifically carved out as an exemption from the general consensus-against, in that the closer considered there to be no clear conclusion about them either way (I've heard even this disputed by a few who think it found active supporting consensus; they were discussed fairly little compared to Wikidata links in general). Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • that had granted her platforms: is this (and "outing") still considered slightly slang-y in English? Would "published her work" be accurate?
  • criticising Anglophone writers who attacked the severity of the German coverage for not realizing how offensive her claims were in Germany: this is a matter of opinion, so we should frame it as such: "criticising them for..." implies that it's a fact.
  • Meier and Schneider justified these reports in the public interest: not sure this is quite idiomatic: "argued that these reports were justified as in the public interest"?
  • Schneider noted that due to the extent of the fraud, it would not have been possible to anonymize the fraudster: MOS:SAID would advise a more subjective word than noted, which implies that this was absolutely true: we'll never know, as nobody ever tried it.
  • n. Claas Relotius had then-recently been fired from the publication: awkward phrasing: could we give a date, and perhaps something like "two years/three months/five minutes before the publication of their article on Hingst"?
    • Have clarified this as occurring in 2018.
  • critics accused the focus on Hingst of being an attempt to launder the magazine's image: they probably made their accusations against the magazine, rather than the focus, so I would frame as such: "accused the magazine of trying to launder its image..."
  • the prior researchers who had also uncovered her fraud: who were these?
  • was in contact with Hingst via postcards: I knew that he received postcards from her; this reads as if he sent them, too.
  • In a column for Süddeutsche Zeitung: the Süddeutsche Zeitung
  • I'm a little concerned that the article goes into too much depth on some of the responses to this issue, particularly when it's citing an article's view of the matter to that article itself. There's no inherent problem with doing so, but it raises difficulties with WP:DUEWEIGHT: we cover things in proportion to their prominence in secondary sources, but it's difficult to do that when we don't have e.g. a third researcher commenting on Emcke's view of the situation. I would encourage cutting these summaries down to the absolute bare essentials.
    • Circling back to this one, because I've been dwelling on it. UndercoverClassicist, are there any particular ones you feel are overdetail? I've generally aimed for what comes across as representative of "next-level-up" analysis (e.g. Emcke's inclusion is primarily because Rosh considered her one of the major sympathetic journalists, giving only one example of the "Irish vs German perspective", etc). This is the one remaining query, and I'm not entirely sure about it or how to address it. Vaticidalprophet 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there are major problems, as such, but what catches my eye: the entire paragraph on Deniz Yücel is cited to Deniz Yücel, and he gets a slightly but definitely greater amount of space than any of the journalists that preceded him and were cited to secondary sources. The same is true of the last paragraph in that section on Doerry: I can see the argument that he's important to the story, and so deserves more space, but that also opens up the point that he's involved in the story, and so it would really be better to have the facts filtered through independent reliable sources. What do you think? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ​The Doerry paragraph was added after other FAC commentary felt his perspective was very underweighed. I feel that paragraph is in a fairly complex place -- it's a little less one-level-up covered than some other aspects of the situation, but it's also meaningful from a neutrality perspective and from the perspective of not misinterpreting Doerry's very delicate role in the situation. I tend to land in inclusion from what's at least arguably a BLP perspective as well as an NPOV one (it'd be easy to fall into unintentionally being more negative towards Doerry than may be indicated). For Yücel I feel the coverage of the postcards themselves make his opinion relevant, even if it's a little more primary -- this was added during the GAN-FAC interregnum, and I felt after reading his article that it was a significant enough element for its absence to be retrospectively a significant gap. I'm less confident about the latter than the former, though. Vaticidalprophet 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to fall in with that judgement: very reasonable and eminently sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Following this, I've made a few more tweaks for some miscellaneous comments (here and here); otherwise, I think I've addressed the lot of this. Is there anything else that comes to mind? Vaticidalprophet 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ofrath too compared Hingst and Dolezal, but more cuttingly: not sure the word cuttingly is neutral enough for Wikipedia's voice.
    • It's a very cutting comparison (and arguably an unexpected defense of Dolezal). To quote: Her invented biography as she narrated it (all traces of which have now been taken offline) was offensive not only because of the act of misappropriation, but because it was wrought with clichés and basic inconsistencies that suggest little genuine interest in the experience of being Jewish [...] Having misappropriated a family history of persecution and suffering, she then used it for her own purposes. This, of course, suggests a rather sinister perception of how Jews in Germany engage with their past – as if Jews were seeking to take advantage of history for their own ends. I certainly want to get across the "tell us what you really think" impression it gives off. I'm happy to consider another way to put it, though. Vaticidalprophet 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest we quote part of it, then: perhaps described Dolezal's story as "wrought with clichés and basic inconsistencies that suggest little genuine interest in the experience of being Jewish". Show, don't tell is my thinking here: if we simply tell the reader it's "cutting", that's a completely subjective judgement and they have no particular reason to believe us; if we show it by quoting the material that brought us to that judgement, however, it gives the reader more credence, and is both more engaging and more convincing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Vaticidalprophet 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Micha Brumlik ... juxtaposed Hingst with fraudsters: suggest compared with or contrasted with, as he probably didn't physically place her next to them.
  • contemporary to the Holocaust contemporary with.
  • Should Ebay in the quote box be MOS:CONFORMed to eBay?

Source review - pass

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN5 appears to be a republication - is it authorized?

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

A very interesting article. Only a few nitpicky comments from me.

  • The image of Wittenberg at the top of the early life section looks badly tilted off of level to me. A look at commons suggests this as a higher-quality alternative.
  • "Hingst attended secondary education at the Liborius-Gymnasium in Dessau" reads awkwardly to me.
  • "Gentile": though Gentile can be capitalised in English, MOS:CAPS says that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" and I don't think "gentile" meets that bar.
    (Butting in) As I read all of those guides, they all say it can be capitalised or at most that it's usually capitalised: that's lower than consistently (=almost always). With my Latin/grammar pedant hat on, "Jews" is capitalised because it's a proper noun for a group of people; there's no group called the "Gentiles" (just as we don't capitalise the N of "non-Jews"), and the word comes from the Latin common noun gentes ('peoples'). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-rendered this as "non-Jewish" to sidestep the capitalization question entirely. Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book was described as commercially successful": I don't have access to the source so I can't check what it says, but do we have reason to doubt that the book was commercially successful? Why don't we just say "the book was commercially successful"?
    • I'm not sure in absolute terms how it did; only Yücel and Doerry really refer to its commercial performance, and don't discuss specifics. Doerry in English calls it "a surprising hit", so I've tweaked this to quote him directly. Vaticidalprophet 15:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suspicions were raised about Hingst's claims by readers, who noticed "inconsistencies" in her claims": avoid repetition of "claims" here?
  • "Bergner contacted Der Spiegel journalist Martin Doerry": in other cases the article avoids the false title in this construction. (Including in the lead, where we have "In June 2019, the Der Spiegel journalist Martin Doerry..."
    • My view on the false title debate is "valid in moderation, but awkward if overused". I think the use here is defensible; I've avoided false titles when referring to the active participant of a sentence, but here that's Bergner, not Doerry, and intentionally avoiding the construct feels to me that it lengthens the sentence without providing additional value. These things are very subjective, of course. Vaticidalprophet 15:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Caeciliusinhorto! Replied to all of these, enacted most, queried two. Vaticidalprophet 15:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UndercoverClassicist above about the letter of MOS:CAPS re. "gentiles", but I really don't care that much about the letter of the law here; other than that all your changes look good and I'm happy to support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

What a fascinating and rather sad story. Beautifully put together too. Just a couple of niggles from me

  • "Dublin, where she moved in 2013": As the sentence is currently written, she made a physical movement while being in Dublin, which I know is not what you mean. Grammatically she moved to Dublin, or "where she settled in 2013", which would mean less framing.
  • "the Auschwitz concentration camp": I'm not sure you need the definite article here, although I don't push the point.
  • "The book was "a surprising hit": says who? (I think you need to identify the speaker/writer here)
  • 'focused on "exposing" Hingst's fraud': is there any need for the scare quotes?

That's it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comments, SchroCat! Made tweaks here. I felt "exposing" in quotes expressed that Yücel was skeptical about the value of such a focus, but it could go either way, so have tweaked. Vaticidalprophet 13:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy with those. I've not heard about this woman or her story before, so thank you - fascinating stuff. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2023 (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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2023 [33].

Adamson Tannehill

[edit]
Nominator(s): TfhentzTfhentz (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Biography of Adamson Tannehill (1750-1820), military officer, politician, civic leader, and farmer. Tannehill had a significant role in the American Revolution as captain and commander of the longest serving rifle regiment of the war. He was an early leading citizen of Pittsburgh and a distinguished Pennsylvania politician who held several local, state, and national appointed and elected offices, notably including one term as a Democratic-Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1813 to 1815 and president of the Pittsburgh branch of the Bank of the United States. He also served on the founding boards of civic and state organizations. He was active in the Pennsylvania state militia, eventually rising to the rank of major general in 1811. Moreover, Tannehill served as brigadier general of United States Volunteers in the War of 1812.Tfhentz (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
  • Hi Tfhentz, and welcome back to FAC. Just noting that as it is more than fourteen years since you nominated an article at FAC, and things have changed a bit in the interim, I would like this article to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing n addition to the usual source review before being considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog the Mild, Thanks very much for the note. Things have changed a bit, indeed, since I last posted a nomination at FAC! For the better, I must add. I look forward to the spot check you mention and will respond as expeditiously as I can during the process. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog the Mild, Could you let me what still needs to be completed to get my FAC, Adamson Tannehill, over the hump and be designated a FA? I've got three supporting reviews, including yours. Spot-check reviewer Jo-Jo Eumerus has approved all my revisions based on his/her comments. Finally, after all the trying that seems appropriate, I cannot get Harrias to finish off his much-appreciated source review. Which leaves me where? Just curious. I appreciate all your help! Tfhentz (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Tannehill_1776_commission.tif is mistagged
Corrected; both image files should be good to go now.Tfhentz (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When and where were these first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one has been published before, as far as I know. Both are from Pittsburgh archives from whom I've either gotten permission to use (the 1776 officer's commission) or is specifically described as usable for educational purposes "with authorization from the credited copyright holder" (Fort Pitt drawing). Tfhentz (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I see the issue. I cannot find a master list of licensing tags to choose from. The licensing tag I used (published before 1928) was based on advice I got via a Wikipedia query. I was told that what I used was good enough. This is not correct, so if you would please direct me to a list of licensing tags, I'll select the appropriate one and correct the issue. Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from 54129

[edit]

A few words, perhaps, could be cut. I don't see any MOS violations or other quick fails of the criteria. Prose review only, as of this timestamp.

  • Opening sentence is a mouthful; it could be split without losing anyone.
  • "Captain and commander". One's linked, the other not. Reason?
  • The lead states that "Tannehill and members of his family" moved to Pittsburgh, while the body only mentions his brother? Suggest just AT's move to Pittsburgh is enough for the lead.
  • "served as brigadier general": was he the sole BG?
  • You mention "early Pittsburgh" or equivalent four times; if civilian government began in 1771, is "early" perhaps a little subjective?
  • I think the MOS enjoins us (blessed if I can find it) to open paragraphs with a surname rather than "He".
  • Perhaps link tobacco plantation.
  • Early years: that's a shed load of Adamsons and Tennehalls in the same small para. Difficult to see what can be done to it though.
  • "earliest years" > youth and upbringing.
  • Do family records indicate or do they state?
  • Link Contental Arrmy for the first time in the body too.
  • Expand "Capt.", "Col.", etc., throughout.
  • Link commission.
  • "In mid-June the same year (repetition of 1776)
  • "at which time" > when
  • In November 1776 (because: new para)
  • "However, those members of the unit not taken in the battle, including Tannehill" > "The remainder, including Tannehill".
  • Lose unnec. words: "continued to serve, participating in the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the Forage War of late 1776 and early 1777" /split sentence > "Around this time they were admin..." per MOS:SEASON.
  • "due to the diminishment of their rifle regiment": as in, losses incurred?
  • "Tannehill was detached from the Provisional Rifle Corps" > "Tannehill was detached from his corps"
  • I assume an honorable discharge? Either way, it's worth linking.
  • "1781 reorganization of the Continental Army": it would be nice to clarify if possible that this was due to massive cuts rather than a problem with the regiment itself?
  • "to name just a few": editorializing.
  • "and owned a tavern"?
  • "large buyer": was this an official thing or is it a quote?
  • Per MOS:DASH, em-dashes should not be spaced.
  • "Green Tree Tavern (and inn) and resided in the" > "Green Tree Tavern and inn, residing in the"
  • "In about 1792"; mmm. I think "Around" is usually preferred to "about".
  • The bit about his house and political meeting could be clarified; was it the area that " was popular as a local center for political meetings" or his house? In which case, was it already a popular house for these meetings before he moved in? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious!
  • In a similar way, are these social meetings in another building at all related? So he's holding political meetings in his house and socials next door?
  • You might want to attribute that description of him more precisely; does the source say "generally"? Otherwise, someone will probably ask for a source demonstrating that that is the view of the majority.
  • "starting in 1788 by order of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania": suggest that's useful in a footnote; mentioning something's formation 20 years earlier is a redundancy.
  • "Soon thereafter during the War of 1812" > "After war broke out in 1812, Tannehill was elected" (and link Wo1812 again—see MOS:DL).
  • "...elected brigadier general of a brigade comprising four infantry and rifle regiments of Pennsylvania volunteers in United States (federal) service": repetition of brigade and can condense e.g. "...elected brigadier general commanding four infantry and rifle regiments of Pennsylvania volunteers". (Also, is "United States (federal) service" necessary?)
  • How comes his career was so brief in 1812, any ideas?
  • Woooah. There we were, nicely moving through his career in neat chronology, and all of a sudden we're back in 1794! :) Some sort of splitting/redivisioning of the sections is probably needed. A one-paragraph section on "War of 1812" might be unpopular, but otherwise, paras 2 and 3 should probably be moved to earlier in the article ("Early public career" to say 1800, and then this section, retitled "Later public career". Perhaps.)
    Enough from me for now, see what you can do with this sectioning business, what you think. @FAC coordinators: might advise also. Interesting feller, though; thanks for writing him up. Serial 16:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for such a thorough review. I followed the vast majority of your comments, deleted unnecessary words in many places (most based on your suggestions), and shortened sentences where the meaning would not be compromised. The idea of splitting into the two sections, "Early public career" and "Later public career," is a good one, and I followed your advice. For the most part now, this keeps things in chronological order. Specific responses to your comments are:
  • You mention "early Pittsburgh" or equivalent four times; if civilian government began in 1771, is "early" perhaps a little subjective? Pittsburgh was incorporated as a borough on April 22, 1794. I’m differentiating pre-1794 from post-1794. Good catch, though. I deleted all but one “early” mentions.
  • Early years: that's a shed load of Adamsons and Tannehills in the same small para. Difficult to see what can be done to it though. It gets a bit tangled, I know. I revised the text a bit to address this.
  • Expand "Capt.", "Col.", etc., throughout. By U.S. military style, abbreviated rank precedes full name, whereas full spelling of rank precedes just the surname.
I have revised all military ranks to full spelling. Thanks for catching this! Tfhentz (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lose unnec. words: "continued to serve, participating in the battles of Trenton and Princeton and the Forage War of late 1776 and early 1777" /split sentence > "Around this time they were admin..." per MOS:SEASON. Added “in the late spring of 1777” instead to clearly put it in time sequence.
  • I assume an honorable discharge? Either way, it's worth linking. Detachment does not involve being discharged from the service, and there is no link to the verb “detached.”
  • "and owned a tavern"? No; doesn’t go with “was a tavern owner and vintner.”
  • "large buyer": was this an official thing or is it a quote? A quote.
  • The bit about his house and political meeting could be clarified; was it the area that " was popular as a local center for political meetings" or his house? In which case, was it already a popular house for these meetings before he moved in? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious! I modified text. I think I fixed it by rephrasing.
  • In a similar way, are these social meetings in another building at all related? So he's holding political meetings in his house and socials next door? Yes; that’s what the sources state. Bowery was an open-air pavilion where July 4 celebrations were annual events. House was for political get-togethers.
  • "Soon thereafter during the War of 1812" > "After war broke out in 1812, Tannehill was elected" (and link Wo1812 again—see MOS:DL). Done, but I used “After the War of 1812 broke out…”
  • How comes his career was so brief in 1812, any ideas? Revised -- because he was in command of volunteers (distinct from regulars and militia), his unit was organized for only a short period—only when it was needed in western front of the war: in PA.
Let me know if you don't see eye-to-eye on these responses. I'll be interested to see how you like the new restructuring of the latter part of the article! Cheers.
Tfhentz (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the message, Tfhentz, and I apologise for the tardiness of my reply—apparently, I hadn't watchlisted the page, and combined with the memory of a goldfish...! Anyway, I like what you've done. The page is in manageable chunks, maintaining chronology but clearly demarcating the important areas of his life. That's probably the most tricky part of a biography―to me anyway―and if you don't mind me saying, you dealt with it very well. Your answers to my points are wholly exceptional, by the way; much of my thoughts, apart from general concision, were opinion or suggestion, and there's always the AmEng/BrEng complications too  :)
    (TL;DR) This is a fine piece of work, and I am happy to support it's promotion to featured article status. Cheers! Serial 15:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Page ranges need to consistently use an ENDASH rather than a hyphen.
    • Done.
  • I'm not keen on the way the references are split if you're not using a template format that shortcuts from the short citation to the full citation, it makes it very difficult to find the full citation based on the short one. There are lots of templates that makes this straightforward, but they would change the functionality significantly. I will make it clear that such templates are not a requirement of the criteria.
    • Reorganized references.
  • A few of the short citations have "v." notation, but this isn't reflected in the full citation, which I find difficult to rationalise.
    • I added volume numbers in References section to match citations.
Also, dates (years) are used in the citations to differentiate multiple references with the same author/editor. I replaced all "v." designations in the citations with dates/years for consistency with other references. Tfhentz (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full citations are inconsistent in how the location is formatted, we have, for example, "Pittsburgh", "Norwood, Mass.", "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", while others omit the location completely.
    • Revised for consistency.
  • Year ranges in titles need to use ENDASHs, per our MOS, irrespective of how the source material formats them.
    • Done.
  • Initials should always be spaced unless there is an exceptional reason not to: "A. B." not "A.B."
    • Done
  • We should always use straight quotation marks and apostrophes: " and ' not curved ones “ and ‘.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the references, particularly the web references, need to make it clear who the author and publisher are, as this isn't always readily evident from the text provided. This needs to be done in a consistent format, which is why most FAs will use citation templates. (But again, the criteria does not require them.)
    • Revised; done.
  • Be consistent about title capitalisation: some titles use title case, some use sentence case.
    • Done.
  • Ref #54 doesn't provide a specific page number.
    • Revised; done.
  • Why does the full citation for "Wright, Robert K. Jr. (1983) link the title to Google books, but none of the others do? Be consistent.
    • Revised.

There's a lot of tidying to be done here, so I'm going to pause before moving onto other stages of the source review. That the article uses a different format to most modern FAs is not an issue, but we need to be able to clearly and obvious find a full citation based on the short citation, and all need to be formatted consistently. Feel free to ping me with any queries. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, I have revised the References in Adamson Tannehill and have followed all your suggestions for revision. I had a bit of trouble reformatting the References for consistency, but I believe I have neatened things up considerably. Please note that several of the web-site and archive citations do not have a publication date, but they are otherwise formatted so that they are consistent with the other publications. See what you think. Thanks very much. Tfhentz (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've seen this, and will follow up when I can. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Thanks for the note. Tfhentz (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, Sorry to ping you, but could you possibly take a look at my Sources revisions when you have a chance? I think (hope) you'll find the Sources listings much cleaner and in line with your great suggestions. I've concentrated on consistency this time. Thank you. Tfhentz (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm currently holding off pending the spot checks below, as these might result in other source-related changes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, The spot-check revisions you were waiting for are now completed and approved by Jo-Jo Eumerus, so all is ready for your review of my revisions of the References. I believe this is all that is left before the Corrdinator approves my article for FA status. Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better now in terms of consistency. A couple more very minor tweaks:

  • Check through all the short references. Most finish with a full-stop, but a few omit it; make sure they're all consistent.
  • You have sharp eyes – good catch. I've added periods at the end of selected citations.
  • Ref #1 and #57 appear to be the same; it would be easier if only one of the pair was used (using the ref name parameter.) Same for #4, #45 and #70. Might be others.
  • I've grouped-up all of the repeated citations.
  • "Kellogg, Louise P., 1917, .." The year should be in parentheses, not commas.
  • Corrected.

Other than that, I'm relatively happy. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, I have made all the revisions you requested. Thank you for all your help in getting the article in shape! Tfhentz (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, all good now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • He is representative of... I don't see anyplace in the body which says that. Is that just your evaluation (i.e WP:OR?)
    • Deleted that sentence.
  • Tannehill was among the first volunteers to join... I don't see where it says this in the body.
    • Supported in the main text. See last sentence of “Early years.”
  • He achieved the rank of captain This could just be my unfamiliarity with most things military, but later on you say "received the brevet rank of major." Is that just ignored for this purpose?
    • Added text on "brevet rank."
  • as commander of the army's longest serving rifle unit of the war. I think we're talking about Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment? That article says "It was the longest serving Continental Army rifle unit of the war.", but it's not in the body of this article, so it needs to be added if the lead is to include that.
    • Deleted this passage.
  • Tannehill and members of his family settled in Pittsburgh I see where the body says he settled in Pittsburgh, but no mention of his family.
    • Deleted mention of his family.
  • He was an early leading citizen of Pittsburgh and a distinguished Pennsylvania politician The body doesn't say anything about "leading" or "distinguished", at least not using those terms. Who said he was those things?
    • Deleted the two adjectives.
  • The overall tenor of the lead is that he was a wonderful person. MOS:LEAD requires a "neutral point of view", so you should also mention his extortion conviction.
    • Added text on extortion.
Early Years
[edit]
  • born to John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson I'm curious (and thus assume our readers might also be curious) why his parents didn't have the same last name. Were they not married?
    • "Adamson" is Rachel's maiden name.
  • John Tannehill's great-great grandfather... I'm not sure what the official style is, but when I'm talking about multiple members of the same family, I generally use their full name when initially introduced, then just their first name. So, "John's great-great grandfather..." and "Adamson's maternal grandfather..."
    • Revised as suggested.
  • No known portraits of Tannehill exist since this section is chock full of Tannehills, better to call them by first name, i.e. "No known portraits of Adamson exist".
    • Added "no known portraits of him exist."
Revolutionary War service
[edit]
  • Tannehill served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, initially as a sergeant in Capt. Thomas Price's Independent Rifle Company[8] (later commanded by Capt. Otho Holland Williams), one of the original ten independent companies of riflemen from the frontier regions of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia authorized by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. I know FA is fond of long sentences, but I think this one's a mouthfull. Is there some logical way to make this into two sentences? Or, maybe trim some detail? For example, "(later commanded by Capt. Otho Holland Williams)" doesn't tell us anything about Tannehill, so is it necessary here? Maybe just a full stop after "and Virginia" and leave off the rest, for the same reason?
    • Deleted parenthetical phrase in main text and added O.H. Williams info in figure caption where he’s also mentioned.
  • Image caption. I know I've been chided in other reviews for wanting sources for image captions (despite FA not requiring them), but I'll go out on a limb here and object to "Tannehill carried the commission throughout the war primarily to prove his officer status if taken prisoner". Lacking a source, that's just speculation as to why he carried it. I would have the caption describe the document, then move the statement about why he carried it into the body with a WP:RS.
    • Deleted this passage.
  • newly organized, elite Provisional Rifle Corps who says they were elite? Is that in the cited source?
    • Deleted "elite."
  • Tannehill was detached from the rifle corps links to Detachment (military), which talks about a detachment being a unit, not a person. Is this the correct place to link to? Also, this is another of those mouthfull sentences. For example, does it help in understanding Tannehill to know that Rawlings had been part of a prisoner exchange?
    • Deleted link. Split into two sentences. Deleted passage involving Rawlings being part of a prisoner exchange.
  • Tannehill advanced to the rank of captain this could be said more simply as "Tannehill was promoted to captain"
    • Done.
  • by late 1780 he commanded, drop "he".
    • Done.
Relocation to Pittsburgh
[edit]
  • "large buyer" I personally think the way you have this cited at the end of the sentence is fine, but I believe the MOS wants a citation directly after the quoted term.
    • Done.
Later military and public career
[edit]
  • Tannehill was elected a brigadier general again, maybe just I don't know anything about military stuff, but are you promoted to the lower ranks but elected to brigadier general?
    • As opposed to officers in the regular army, officers in the United States Volunteers (and I believe the militia) were elected by the soldiers. Stated "promoted" in source cited. Seems strange these days, though.
  • Tannehill, a Presbyterian, served as a trustee of the First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh I'm not sure you need to explicitly tell us he was a Presbyterian if he was a trustee of a Presbyterian church.
    • Deleted "a Presbyterian."
U.S. House of Representatives
[edit]
  • Although Pittsburgh was a stronghold of the Federalist Party does the cited source say Pittsburge was a "stronghold"?
    • Yes, on p. 13 in the source.
  • Tannehill served from March 4, 1813, to March 3, 1815,[69] and as a U.S. Representative, Tannehill cast a total of 322 votes and missed 30 How about "Tannehill served from March 4, 1813, to March 3, 1815,[69], casting 322 votes and missing 30"?
    • Done.
  • Link to Democratic-Republican Party the first time it's used.
    • Done.
  • receiving 49.5 percent of the vote in his district, no need to say 'in his district". Where else would be be getting votes?
    • Deleted as suggested.
Death
[edit]
  • Adamson and Agness Tannehill had no children, just say "Adamson and Agness had no children" Is it really "Agness" with a double "s"?
    • Done and corrected.

OK, that's it for me. I only read this for prose quality, and most of what I noted is minor. Nice work. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thorough prose review. All were great suggestions. I'm not sure what you mean by "you need "alt=" for all of your images." Could you please elaborate?
PS, you need "alt=" for all of your images. RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great review! I think it improved my text a great deal. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup
[edit]

Thank you for the ping on my talk page; my apologies if I was holding this up. Regarding your changes:

  • In the lead, the bit about "among the first volunteers", The text in "Early years" says the unit was one of the first, which isn't the same as he was one of the first. I suspect that back in those days, units were formed of people all from one area that joined up all at the same time, but that's WP:OR.

I have shortened the citation to a single page (“p. 275”). On that page, the reference lists Adamson Tannehill as a sergeant in the company and that he enlisted on June 23, 1775, which makes him among the earliest to volunteer. I revised the “Early Years” sentence to “At the age of 25, he was among the first volunteers to enlist in one of the earliest American military units to form…” to indicate that he was among the first to volunteer. Thanks for catching this!

  • Rachel Adamson: the phrasing here is odd. You say "born to John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson" Either repeat the last name for both: John Tannehill ... and Rachel Adamson Tannehill" or for neither: "John ... and Rachel Adamson Tannehill". Doing one and not the other makes it look like Adamson is Rachel's last name. Oh, wait, this is confusing. They took the wife's maiden name and made that the given name of the son? That's odd. Or maybe that's just how things were done back then? So, when you say Adamson's maternal grandfather I'm not sure if you're referring to Adamson Tannehill or to Rachel Adamson. This needs to be clarified; perhaps my original suggestion was just wrong, given this.

Adamson Tannehill's first name was his mother’s maiden name, and it was also therefore his maternal grandfather’s surname. But I added “Tannehill” to Rachel’s name to clarify things (I hope).

  • "Tannehill served in the Continental Army...", this was still kind of wordy; I cut some bits that I didn't think were essential.

Looks good.

  • BTW, as a generalization of my "drop he" comment, if you've got a sentence like "subject verb ... and subject verb ...", if it's clear from context that the two subjects are the same person, you can usually drop the second one.
  • "elected a brigadier general" the source doesn't say elected. Oddly enough, I don't think the source even makes grammatical sense. It's a bunch of semicolon delimited clauses, but "brigadier general of Pennsylvania Volunteers in the United States service from September 25 to December 31, 1812" doesn't have a verb at all. But in any case, you used "elected" because of your knowledge of how these military units worked. That's WP:OR. So we either need a source saying he was elected, or change the text to say something more generic like "was" or "served as".

You may be looking at the wrong reference. I cite only “Wilson, p. 401” for the “elected a brigadier general” sentence. See top portion of p. 401 in the reference. There it states that “Adamson Tannehill was elected general of the brigade; Jeremiah Snyder and John Purviance were elected colonels of the infantry regiments…” But I changed it to “served as” in the article to avoid confusion. The other reference I'm guessing you looked at (“United States Congress”) with all the semicolons is a bio. from Congress, so I assume that it’s a reliable source.

Ah, yes, I was looking at 58, I should have been looking at 57.
  • "Although Pittsburgh was a stronghold..." You're citing a chapter that's 30-something pages long. Please provide more specific citations, i.e. {{rp}} or similar.

Not sure what you’re looking at -- I cite only two pages in the reference (pages 13 and 37). Both pages support the article statement.

Yeah, I may have been looking at the wrong one again, sorry about that. I find this style of referencing confusing because you have to do a double-lookup, but I know WP:FACR says it's acceptable, so I'll just quietly sulk about that.
    • PS, I see two other similar examples that also need more specific citations:
      • Maryland Historical Society (1927), v. 22, pp. 275–283

Fixed to just page 275 in the reference.

      • Wright, pp. 153-165

Fixed to just page 153 in the reference.

  • As for alt=, people who are visually impaired can read wikipedia using software that does text-to-speech translation, i.e. a screen reader. The alt attribute of the image tag provides text to be spoken when an image is encountered. See MOS:ALT. For example, for the infobox image, I'd use an alt text something like Photograph of tombstone. Engraved text reads "Sacred to the memory of / Gen'l ......

Perhaps I’m just stupid, but this revision has got me stumped. I tried a few variations in the figures in my article, with no luck. Would it be possible for you to make the changes for me? I would greatly appreciate it if you would!

I'll come back to address the other things when I have time, but I'll get to this one first. When I said "image tag" I was talking about the <img> HTML tag that ultimately gets generated. But that's not what you see in the wiki editor, so my bad. From the wiki viewpoint, what you're working with is the [[File]] link. I did one as an example: Special:Diff/1179233734. For {{Infobox officeholder}}, there's a "alt" parameter that does the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your second look! Tfhentz (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I think we're down to you just need to write alt texts for all the images. I'll also think about the "Early years" section a bit more to see if maybe there's a better way to keep all the people sorted out better. RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ALT= text to the three remaining figures and slightly modified the ALT= caption you kindly wrote for me. I am not sure I placed the text in the correct place in the tombstone caption because the caption script is not the same as in the other three captions. If you could check that, please, I'd be grateful. Let me know if all is good now. Thanks very much again for all your insightful help! Tfhentz (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additional copy edits to alt texts. There's no need to repeat the caption in the alt text; the reader has access to both. The alt text is supposed to describe the image itself. Overall, this is a very nice piece of work. I really don't have much interest in military history, yet you've managed to tell a story that kept me engaged. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I also note that you've been working on this article for 16 years! That's true devotion; I wish I had the patience to work on a project for that long. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The total duration is 16 years, but there's quite a hiatus within that span of time. I just decided to go for "the big one," i.e., Featured Article status. Tannehill is not a relation of mine; I just found his history fascinating (as a fellow Pennsylvanian). You current reviewers/editors are a great bunch! You've all greatly improved the article. Tfhentz (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

[edit]
  • 4 Don't have access to this, but which edition are you referring to?
I’m referring to the 1903 edition, so I deleted the 2004 reference of Coe to avoid confusion. The two editions say the same thing about this, and other points made in my article. I originally added the later edition only to provide further source information.
  • 10 Where does it mention the siege of Boston?
I base this on the fact that Tannehill’s unit was at the Boston siege and that Tannehill was in the unit at that time (but all that is too complicated to cite) – an indirect reference at best, I guess. Therefore, I added Coe (1903), p. 3 as a reference here because she specifies that Tannehill himself was present at the siege. BTW, Her internal reference is a document written by Tannehill’s brother at the time of his death (obituary), not from her 1903-aged memory, so I believe this is a reliable source. The obituary states that he was promoted to third Lieutenancy in the company while lying before Boston.
  • 14 Don't have access to this.
The Heth (May 18, 1777) document states Mr. Taunyhill [sic] to rank as First Lieutenant in consequence of a Vacancy that happened on the 15th Nov. [signed] Danl. Morgan Col. 11th Va. Regt. November 15 (1776) is the retroactive date of his salary.
  • 16 The source says "probably" detached, not definitively?
It is not stated explicitly as fact, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is. Nevertheless, I added “probably” to the sentence in the article to avoid possible confusion.
  • 18 This mentions neither his name nor the purpose of his assignment.
I added Hentz pp. 139–140 to support this.
  • 20 Fits, but the date isn't clear - the article says July, the source implies either April or June.
The correct date (July 29, 1779) is specified on the previous page of the reference. So, I added this page (p. 895) to the citation. The April 1, 1778, date represents the date from which his pay was retroactively paid, not his formal date of promotion.
  • 21 Don't have access to this.
I didn’t retain a scan of this 1780 return of the regiment, so I deleted it and replaced it with Hentz, p. 141, which does support it.
  • 25 Is "brevet" specified somewhere?
No, but it is understood in the reference, but I’m guessing this won’t work for a FAC. Therefore, I deleted this sentence, the source, and a previous mention of it in the article.
  • 32 Don't think that this says he was a large landholder?
The reference doesn’t use the words “significant landholder.” However, I felt it necessary to add this as a paraphrase of the quote “large buyer" of land lots because this quoted phrase is a bit awkward. I intended them to be synonymous.
  • 37 I presume the rest of this is supported by the other source.
Yes.
  • 38 Don't have access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain.
Not sure what the issue is – I can access the page via the article/citation link I provide.
  • 42 Don't haveagreed to attend access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain. Also, I don't think we archive Google Books links.
Okay, per next comment.
Good catch. The Dahlinger citation states the January 1801 date (based on newspaper sources), whereas the other citation specifies “December 20, 1800.” I don’t know which is correct, so I’ve deleted the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania citation.
  • 52 I presume the rest of this is supported by the other source.
Yes. In fact, they are redundant, so I deleted the unpublished one of the two citations.
  • 58 OK
  • 61 Don't have access to this.
I could not find a web link to this book. I have a hard copy, though. It reads For the encouragement of our useful manufactories, the members of the Pittsburgh Tammany Society agreed to attend their next meeting entirely dressed in Homespun. Dated 1812. I cite this passage simply to show that a Pittsburgh Tammany Society existed.
  • 63 Don't have access to this, although I'll need to check whether this is in the public domain. Not sure that these primary sources are ideal for the first sentence.
Okay per next comment.
Okay
  • 64 Bit too closely paraphrased from the source, I think.
I respectfully disagree. I do use the words “stronghold” and “prosper” (ideal word choices!), but not much of the rest of the published text. At least I don’t mean to. I’ll rephrase if you insist.
  • 71 That doesn't seem to credit Tannehill for the success?
Not specifically, but it does credit the bank for success, which is what I’m stating.
  • 72 See my point on 4.
I deleted the 2004 reference of Coe to avoid confusion.

Up front: I'll be asking for page photos or other indications that the source supports the content if it's offline. You can send them per email to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your source review. I'd be glad to send you my offline sources. How do I get your email address? Tfhentz (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need to enable yours at Special:Preferences first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe copypaste the relevant bits of the text of the source somewhere, say Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adamson Tannehill/archive1? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have enabled my email address, but I don't see how to access yours. I can copy/paste to this FA talk page, however. Tfhentz (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, Thanks for your thorough review of my sources. I have addressed all your comments above. Let me know what you think and if there's anything else you need. Tfhentz (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I still think #71 is a bit too close to SYNTH/OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I can fix that, but I'm not sure which part of the statement is in question: "the bank generally prospered under Tannehill's short period of leadership" or he "helped further advance Pittsburgh's business and industry"? Or is it both phrases? Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the combination, which implies to a lay reader that he should be credited for this strong performance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree, now that I look at it more closely -- hard to be objective after having read the article 1000X! I deleted the whole sentence. I trust all is okay now. Thanks for your review. Tfhentz (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes the spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Book ttiles should be in title case.
Done.
  • Image caption: "by Mrs. E. C. Gibson". MOS:CREDITS states "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article."
Deleted "by Mrs. E. C. Gibson".
  • "eventually rising to the rank of major general in 1811." I am not sure that "eventually" is needed.
Deleted “eventually.”
  • Nor "Moreover" in the following sentence.
Deleted "Moreover."
  • "starting in 1817". Until?
Added “until his death in 1820”
  • Link extortion.
Done.
  • "he was among the first volunteers to enlist". Is it known, even roughly, when this was?
I know it to the day, but rephrased to “…, serving from June 1775 until 1781.”
  • "This regiment-size force". Is it possible to give - somewhere in this section - what the complement of a regiment of the Continental Army was?
I added “of about 500 men.”
  • Should the last sentence of "Early years" not be in "Revolutionary War service"?
I moved the sentence as suggested and rephrased it a bit.
  • "He was admitted as an original member of the Society of the Cincinnati in the state of Maryland when it was established in 1783." This does not fit well into a section titled "Revolutionary War service", and is two years after his war service concluded. Perhaps move it to the next section.
I respectfully disagree. Tannehill’s inclusion as an original member of the Society of the Cincinnati is so inextricably linked to his Revolutionary War service that it deserves to be in the “Revolutionary War service” section.
You are allowed to disrespectfully disagree. :-)
  • "settled in the frontier area of Fort Pitt (settlement of Pittsburgh)". I struggle to make sense of this. Did he settle in Fort Pitt; in the general area of Fort Pitt, which was on the western frontier; in Pittsburgh? Or something else?
I revised it to “Tannehill settled in frontier Pittsburgh…”
Link frontier? (At first mention.) And Pittsburgh.
Both are now linked at their first mention.
  • "engaged in agricultural pursuits". What does this mean?
Revised to “engaged in farming”
  • "Green Tree Tavern and inn". Should that be an upper-case I?
In the sources, it is variably called the “Green Tree Tavern” and “Green Tree Inn,” but not called the “Green Tree Tavern and Inn,” but I capitalized “Inn” anyway to avoid confusion.
  • " which was popular as a local center for political meetings." Was it already popular for such meetings before Tannehill moved there?
No; Tannehill built Grove Hill. I revised it to “he moved to his new Grove Hill estate, which became popular as a local center for political meetings while owned by Tannehill …”
  • ""to hail with joyful hearts the day that gave birth to the liberties and happiness of their country." Known as a "popular man and an astute politician". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
The first quotation is more of an observation, isn’t it? I deleted “Known as a popular man and an astute politician" because this is not the opinion of a contemporary of Tannehill’s.
Ho hum, go on then.
  • "Pittsburgh Fire Company". Which did what?
I could not find any further specifics. I assume it was a kind of formal bucket brigade to fight structure fires in the city.
Ah, an American usage. Well, if there is no further detail I suppose you can't even link to fire company.
I linked it to "Fire department."
  • "Early public career": in the first paragraph, is there any reason why events are not retailed in chronological order?
The information related in the sentences beginning “In March 1790, Tannehill had unsuccessfully solicited a public appointment…” is more of a secondary thought to the main topic sentence: “Tannehill began public service no later than 1794…” That is why I ordered them that way in the paragraph.
  • Link Allegheny County; mention that it was the administrative area which included Pittsburgh.
Done.
  • "after being convicted of extortion". Did the court impose any punishment other than his dismissal from office?
Yes, excellent question. He was reprimanded and fined $50, according to the source listed. I added these details to the article.
  • "two shillings". I thought that dollars and cents had become the units of currency in 1792.
The source states “two shillings.” In the very early days of the US, especially in remote areas, several types of currency/coinage were commonly used, if made of silver or gold.
  • "two of the most unprincipled scoundrels who ever appeared before a Court of Justice" and their "false swearing and vile slander". See above re quotations.
I modified the text to make it clear that these are Tannehill’s words.
  • "serving as a lieutenant colonel in the Westmoreland County militia". Any reason why he didn't serve in Allegheny County?
I haven’t been able to determine the reason for this. Because the whole area was so remote, I assume Tannehill served an adjacent county where he was needed.

That's all I have. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great observations and suggested revisions! Thanks very much. Tfhentz (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure to help out. A couple of comebacks above. If I haven't commented against a response it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your comebacks. Again, many thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, My most sincere appreciation for archiving the sources in the article! Above and beyond. While I've got you, where can I access a master list of all the licensing tags for figures used in articles? I still need to "fix" a couple of my figures. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2023 (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) 6 November 2023 [34].

Marshfield station

[edit]
Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most complicated junction of the Chicago "L", and the station that served it. The last nomination timed out with little feedback, but after focusing my efforts on other topics and a quick lookover from Dylnuge I feel that this is one of the best "L" articles – indeed, one of the best articles – I have ever written and am quite excited to bring it to FAC again. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Hey there! I'm gonna provide image review and some prose review, though I'm sure mine won't be as comprehensive as the other folks here so hope you're fine with it. I've divided each comments with invisible comm. GeraldWL 09:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Nothing to comment on the licenses and alts, they look just neat
  • I was kind of iffy on the caption abbreviations at the infobox image, but it seems fine as it is there. Probably could lengthen AE&C at the infobox's "March 11, 1905" part
    • Not done; I think abbreviations are fine in an infobox and they're introduced in the lead anyway.
  • The map at History has sandwiching issues, normally the solution is to just leave the align to right.
    • Not done, as I feel that would make things even worse by pushing both the map and infobox to the right; I feel sandwiching is the least of all evils here.
  • "Marshfield was a rapid transit station on the Chicago "L""-- suggest putting "system" after this for clarity; you could reduce the need for readers to read another article just to get back and understand your article.
    • Not done; we don't, for example, say "London Underground system" or "Paris Métro system".
  • "The companies forming the CER trust"-- remove "CER" since it's repetitive
    • Done.
  • Suggest linking Right-of-way (transportation) since many could confuse it with the right of way
    • Already done in the body, done in the lead.
  • "of the Marshfield station" --> "of Marshfield" per consistency with the other mentions of the station
    • Changed to "traffic at Marshfield".
  • "See text before 1924"-- what text?
    • The whole West Side -> Metropolitan -> Metropolitan -> CER (but still technically Metropolitan) spiel, which is too long and complicated for an infobox.
  • "A further branch to Humboldt Park"-- "A further" can be put out of the link pipe
    • Done.
  • "1895 Review, p. 264" ref is repeated twice in paragraph 1
    • Since they're not immediate neighbors, didn't do anything about this.
  • "1895 Review, p. 267" ref repeated twice in paragraph 2
    • Removed the first "neighboring" duplicate ref.
  • "Moffat 1995, p. 134" repeated twice in paragraph 3
    • Similar to above, no action taken since the second ref is corroborated by the 1895 Review whereas the first one is not.
  • Suggest linking Railway electric traction
  • "including Marshfield. Upon its opening, the Metropolitan became the first revenue electric elevated railroad in the United States" --> "including Marshfield, making the Metropolitan the first revenue electric elevated railroad in the United States"
    • Not done, both for length and because it to my eyes links the eleven stations to the railroad's being the first electric revenue elevated railroad in America.
  • "The similarly-named Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company was organized in January 1899 and assumed operations on February 3 of that year." Kind of confused of this sentence here, since it's only mentioned here, and in this art., it said that company was (1895-1899), so there's contradiction in time.
    • You're confusing "railroad" and "railway"; in any event, that article is a stub, so I wouldn't rely exclusively on it for information.
  • "Metropolitan's tracks and Wells Street Terminal and the Metropolitan"-- suggest comma after "Terminal" to avoid confusions with the two "and"s
    • Comma added.
  • Is "hotly" not informal?
    • Descriptive and vivid, yes, but perfectly adequate for Wikipedia as the Chartwell and other articles show.

I'll continue later since I'm zoning out a bit; I'll get back later.

  • "especially from mayor Edward Joseph Kelly"-- I thought "M" in mayors are typically capitalized?
    • Since this is a false title, rather than a true one, lowercase seems more appropriate.
  • "led to the Dearborn plan being adopted in 1938"-- "Milwaukee-Dearborn" would provide more clarity
    • Only the Dearborn part is mentioned in the papers, and adding Milwaukee would be clunky.
  • "the eventual Interstate 290 or "Eisenhower""-- since there are no further mentions of "Eisenhower" I suggest removing this
    • "Eisenhower" is in the lead several times (not to mention its ubiquitous usage in Chicago).
      • I'm not sure if its ubiquitous usage matters, since its article itself uses the name "290". Per the article, the name "Eisenhower" only refers to its "portion of I-290 from I-294 to its east end". I'm not a Chicagoan so you can correct me here. If the lead's referral is Eisenhower I don't think it should affect the Closure part, but if that's of concern here, the lead can be changed to Interstate 290 as well to reflect the overall name.
  • Why is Plan of Chicago italicized in its article, but not here?
    • Italicized.
  • "adhere to a trunk-and-branch model"-- what's a trunk-and-branch?
  • Suggest enlarging the image a bit using "upright"
    • Done.
  • "has led to descriptions of the junction as "actually consist[ing] of two junctions""-- saying that "it's one junction but it's actually two" is quite confusing for me. You could say that this complexity "has led some to believe that the junction..."
    • My point was that it was commonly referred to as a single junction, but Weller and Stark note that its configuration led to its being "actually" two junctions.
  • The last three sentences of "operation" para. 2, has two repetitions of "CA&E trains". I think that after the first mention, you can just say "the trains" since it's presumed readers know what train you're talking about.
    • Rewrote the sentence
  • Why is the inflation forced at 2021?
    • Because that was the upper limit until recently, updated to 2022.
      • I recommend removing the year parameter so that every time the template is updated, it is also updated here. You don't want to find yourself having to change that single digit annually.
  • "Ashland's streetcars were replaced by buses on May 11, 1952, for weekends"-- why the comma after 1952?
  • "For the part of 1954 it was open, Marshfield served 135,928 passengers. For 1953, Marshfield was in the exact middle of the main line's ridership, surpassing Racine and Franklin/Van Buren but underperforming Canal and Halsted." Why 54 then 53?
    • It's a transition from absolute ridership statistics to the ridership rankings. I've broken the paragraph up to clarify this.
  • Why omitting the "Railroad" out of the wikilink?


  • Image review -- licenses are appropriate and really neat rationales. Good choice of images too, however quoting WP's page: "If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood." The first image alt is sufficient-- only suggest removing "viewer's", but the second is quite complex. Since the car and the junctions are the main elements, you can just say that "an approaching wooden train awaits the departure of another train at the rightmost platform." GeraldWL 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did some pruning of the second alt (decided not to touch the lead alt since egocentric terms like "left"/"right" can get confusing). I also did not know that {{Inflation}} let you simply default to the latest year, hopefully it gets updated frequently enough so that my auto-updating year trick still works. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • between Aurora and the Garfield Park branch's station on 52nd Avenue - "station on 52nd Avenue" is a red link, and I don't see a particular reason; this seems like the kind of thing to pipe to another article
    • WP:REDLINKs are perfectly acceptable as long as there is reasonable expectation that the article will eventually be created, which I believe that article has (in fact, I might create it later today).
  • the publicly-owned Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would not be created - WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, change to "wasn't created until..."
    • No contractions on Wikipedia, but otherwise done.
  • on a Milwaukee-Dearborn subway that - use an endash (– to copy) like in the station's own article
    • Good catch, thanks!
  • Although this idea engendered considerable - "engendered"? Might just be me, but that's a new word- perhaps a wikt link?
    • I think it's the best word, but if it's too arcane "generated" might be a second best.
  • Might just be my opinion, but a good bit of "Closure and demolition" doesn't talk about the station. The first paragraph doesn't even say "Marshfield" until the very last sentence. Perhaps some pruning could be done
    • You're not the only one who's raised similar concerns at my "L" station FACs, but I believe that some context is in order for the demolition of Marshfield to make sense.
  • I'm surprised to find no track layout diagram, like in the infobox for 21st Street–Queensbridge station. It'd make sense under "Station details"
    • It's in the infobox.

That's all from me, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • The lead goes into excessive detail. It's about 13% of the length of the body. Looking at it another way, the body is 16480 characters, which is at the low end of MOS:LEADLENGTH's 15-30k range, suggesting "Two or three paragraphs". The second paragraph, which talks about the history of the Metropolitan line, could be eliminated entirely. Go over the rest, trimming whatever bits are part of "a summary of the most important contents of the article". You could probably end up with about half the size of the current lead.
  • In general, rephrase sentences to avoid repeating words. For example, in the first paragraph of the lead, you've got ...which then diverged into three branches: the northwestern Logan Square branch, the western Garfield Park branch, and the southwestern Douglas Park branch. That could be shortened to "...which then diverged into three branches: Logan Square, Garfield Park, and Douglas Park". I see 17 uses of "construct" (and variations); a greater variety of vocabulary would make for more interesting reading.
    • (follow up) I'll stand by my statements above that the lead should be shorter. The idea is to grab the attention of the reader and tease them into wanting to read the rest of article to get additional details. I get that a railfan would find everything in the lead exciting, but you're writing for a more general audience, not for railfans. I would concentrate on the things that make Marshfield Station special. I mentioned the second paragraph in my original notes. It has nothing to do with Marshfield specifically; it would fit equally well into any article about anything related to the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad. RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]
  • one northwest to Logan Square, one due west to Garfield Park, and one southwest to Douglas Park, link smaller bits of text to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • As designed, the Metropolitan's operations comprised..., this implies that what was actually built was different from what was designed. Is that correct? I'm not seeing anything that explains how they differed.
  • Reading through this entire section, it's interesting and well researched, but very little is actually about Marshfield station. There are some bits and pieces which are, mostly that the junction at the station required more complicated switching. Other than that, it seems like it would fit just as well into an article about any of the stations on the Metropolitan main line with almost no changes.
    • As said below, I disagree with this assessment – the station needs to be placed in its proper context, and most Met stations had nothing to do with the AE&C/CA&E. I could possibly see some trimming of the "Closure and demolition" section, but even that still has enough Marshfield-specific information, such as its status during the demolition, that it could be kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Station details
[edit]
  • This is the heart of the article, and should be given greater prominence compared to the History section (which, as noted above, could be cut extensively).
  • Metropolitan's station houses had central heating and basements. I'm having trouble picturing how a station on an elevated rail line could have a basement.
  • Three switches existed at this interlocking, all of which were hand-thrown by 1952 I'm not sure what "by 1952" means in this context.
Operations
[edit]
  • By 1898, this schedule was updated. Another odd use of "by". Perhaps "In 1898 the schedule was updated..."? Also, move "during night hours" to the beginning of the sentence, so it's not a surprise when you get to it.
  • The paragraph starting Unlike other elevated railroads at the time... doesn't say anything specific about this station. It's all generic to the Metropolitan line, so I'm not sure what it adds to this article.
Neighborhood and connections
[edit]
  • A streetcar ran on Ashland Avenue... as above, this seems generic to the Metropolitan line, and doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding of Marshfield station in particular.
    • Actually, the streetcar route was perpendicular to the Met line, so Marshfield was the only station served by it. Combined with the Van Buren line, I think this furthers the understanding of the neighborhood of this era, another part about my spiel of providing greater context than the station itself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ridership
[edit]
  • ridership steadily increased throughout the following decades, delete "throughout the following decades"; it doesn't add anything.
  • less than four million annually starting in 1949, and declining in that period of time simplify to "less than four million in 1949, and declined after that".
  • Faced with this onslaught. Does the source use the word "onslaught"? If so, quote it. If not, find a less WP:POV way to say that.
    • The CA&E was never especially profitable, and the brutal combination of factors that led to ridership declining, and the changing economy of the post-war US, was described by Weller and Stark as making the CA&E's demise "inevitable" (their word, not mine), so I think any POV used by that word is appropriate and if anything necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall impression
[edit]

I think the writing in general could be tightened up and probably end up at about half the current length. See WP:FACR: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail".

Ouch! RoySmith, this sounds as if you think that the article is not currently ready for FAC, and that you feel it would best be withdrawn to be worked on off-FAC with a view to eventual resubmission. Is that the impression you intended to give? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after my last foray into an "Oppose" that needed to be walked back, I wasn't going to be so bold, but... Maybe it's best to get another opinion from somebody with more review experience? RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm certainly biased here, I will point out that this has received two supports and Mr. Smith hasn't yet cast an oppose !vote. Do the coordinators believe that a week is available to fix his concerns? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, I believe that many details not directly related to the station are useful to have to put it in broader context, so I creatively differ from Roy in that regards. I'm sure we can strike a balance, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]
I wanted to clarify what Roy's view of the nomination was, I am aware that despite their great Wikipedia experience they are relatively new to Wikipedia. As you say, there are two supports, so given Roy's comment above there is no immediate time pressure on the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John M Wolfson, do you believe that you have now addressed Roy's concerns? If so, perhaps you could invite them to have another look? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Through the miracle of my watchlist, I'll consider myself invited. I'll take another look. Before I do, however, I'll preface this by saying as I'm obviously new to FAC, I'm not sure how much weight by comments should carry. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worry ye not Roy, weighing input is part and parcel of the coordinator's role. And yours is likely to given more weight than you are modestly suggesting. Eg, you prompted me to have a hard look at the lead and Mr Wolfson is being very constructive in their responses. I don't know to what extent this allays your concerns in this area. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I came into this movie at Special:Permalink/1173388907 and comparing that to the current version, I see things have been tightened up a bunch. I grew up on Strunk & White, so the desire to cut words is deeply ingrained. Anyway, I'm good. RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of notes marked by "(follow up)". My main concern at this point is that the lead goes into excessive detail. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "when it, alongside the main line and the Garfield Park branch, was demolished to make way": suggest "when it was demolished, along with the main line and the Garfield Park branch, to make way"
  • "With interruptions and financial issues, it operated its lines until 1911": this seems a bit compressed. Do you mean something it "It operated its lines, with interruptions, until 1911", and also that it had financial issues during this time? If so I think I'd cut the financial issues mention unless the reader can be shown why it's relevant here.
  • "Substantial revisions to the lines that had been constructed by the Metropolitan had been planned since the 1930s. These projects ended up replacing the Logan Square branch with a subway to go directly downtown, and substituting a rapid transit right-of-way in the median of the Eisenhower for the main line and Garfield Park branch." Suggest "Substantial revisions to the lines that had been constructed by the Metropolitan had been planned since the 1930s, and led to the replacement of the Logan Square branch with a subway to go directly downtown, and the substitution of a rapid transit right-of-way in the median of the Eisenhower for the main line and Garfield Park branch." But I'm also not sure that "had been planned" is the tense you really want here -- "had" implies the narrative is positioned at a point later than that, but in the past. The previous sentences talk about earlier events, so I think it would be better to convert this to tenses that work as linear narrative.
  • "but retrofitting the third rail proved an easy task outside of the switches of the main line": I think "outside of" is an Americanism; I know this is AmEng, but how about "but retrofitting the third rail proved an easy task except for the switches of the main line".
  • "and has been described as being "the most elaborate and complex junction on the Chicago elevated system" as late as 1948": I don't think this quite works. If you have "has been described as ... as late as <date>" you're implying that more than one source said such a thing, which I would guess is a true statement. Once you give a specific quote you have to rephrase because the surrounding words now imply that the identical phrase ("the most elaborate...") was used in more than one source, the latest of which was 1948. You could fix this by paraphrasing instead of quoting, if as it seems there were multiple sources saying this, and optionally tagging on the quote and date for emphasis.
  • "The expenses incurred in constructing the Metropolitan's vast trackage would catch up to the company": suggest "catch up to the construction company", since otherwise finding the right antecedent for "company" takes a second's thought.
  • Would it be possible to add a line to the map in the history section showing the AE&S? I'm a bit lost in the paragraph starting "The interurban..." as I have no idea where Aurora and Garfield Park are; I don't think they have to be marked on the map but just showing the line would give me a bit of orientation.
  • "was not created until 1945, nor assumed operation of the "L" until October 1, 1947": suggest either "was not created until 1945, and did not assume operation of the "L" until October 1, 1947" as "created" is passive and "assumed" is active, which prevents the parallel construction from working.
  • The "Closure and demolition" section seems to me to mostly contain material not directly relevant to the station. From the point of view of a reader interested specifically in Marshfield station, what would be lost if that first paragraph were cut to "Plans for Chicago to have a subway system to relieve the severe congestion of, if not replace, its elevated trackage dated back to the early 20th century, but the city lagged in building subways. A plan for downtown east-west streetcar tunnels was eventually adopted in 1938, and in 1939 this was combined with a proposal to replace the main line and Garfield Park branch with a section of rapid transit operating through a superhighway (the eventual Interstate 290 or "Eisenhower")These sections of transit would be connected, allowing for the northwest side's rapid transit to be routed through downtown rather than adhere to a trunk-and-branch model. Work soon began on the subway, which was 82 percent complete when World War II forced its suspension in 1942. It finally opened on February 25, 1951, rerouting Logan Square and Humboldt Park trains from Marshfield Junction." To be honest I think it could be cut further (why does the reader of this article care that the plan came together in two steps, in 1938 and 1939, for example?) but I'll pause here before reading further to see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you're not the first person to talk about this, I've decided to make a few trimmings to the section. Hopefully they are acceptable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's definitely an improvement. A couple of things I think could still be cut in that section:
      • The first paragraph gives four sentences of history of the plan for the the Congress Line. It's all good material but an interested reader who goes to the Congress Line article and then looks at each of the station articles on that line isn't going to want all that detail in each station article. A summary highlighting the points that affect this station is all that's needed. Here I think we could cut mention of both Ickes and Kelly, and the fact that the superhighway was "more thoroughly planned in the early 1930s".
      • For the start of paragraph two, I don't think we need the detail about the delays in starting construction. How about "Construction on the expressway and Congress Line was formally authorized in 1946. Clearance of the right-of-way began in 1949 and was largely complete by 1952 ..." The rest of that paragraph looks fine as it all affects Marshfield.
      • In the third paragraph I don't understand the fourth sentence, starting "The CA&E, having long struggled financially". What's the connection between their finances and the rest of the sentence? And what makes this relevant to a reader interested in Marshfield?
      • "after being disallowed by state regulators to abandon rail service altogether": "disallowed to abandon" doesn't work. Perhaps "after state regulators did not allow Metropolitan to abandon rail service altogether" or "refused to allow", but there are other ways to fix this.
      • What's the relevance of the sentence starting "After the change" in the fourth paragraph? I think this is probably OK, just wanted to check my understanding. It's included because Marshfield is where these transfers would have occurred before the change -- is that right? If so I think it's fine as is.
  • The paragraph about the streetcars seems to be more about competition to the Metropolitan overall than about this station in particular.
    As I said above, it's more about Marshfield's neighborhood, thus putting the station in some context, but I can see your point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a bit of relevance, but I think you could cover what matters to the station in one or two sentences. Just saying "streetcars ran on streets X and Y nearby and represented competion to Metropolitan, siphoning its passengers, and that they were replaced by buses on dates A and B" seems like it would be enough. This is a good paragraph for History of public transport in Chicago, or one of its sub-articles, but I think it's too much detail for here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed some of the more extraneous details, including even the competition with the Metropolitan. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I can see why RoySmith suggested above that the article could be shortened, but I think "half the current length" is too draconian. I've mentioned a couple of places where I think cuts could be made but most of the article seems detailed, but not inappropriately so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John M Wolfson, have you addressed all of Mike's points? If so, perhaps you could ping them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have, which is why I was surprised that @Mike Christie: hadn't responded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been much busier than usual in RL. Will try to look at this tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only remaining concern is that I think there's a little too much detail -- you've cut quite a bit already, I know. Rather than give chapter and verse, I've made the cuts I would recommend. Feel free to revert if you think that material really is needed for this article -- I think the cut phrases relate to the line as a whole and aren't needed here but you may disagree. If you revert the whole edit I am still happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On length, and et ceteras

[edit]

Since length seems to be the only WP:FA? criteria that is causing a stir, I'll limit my comments to this. I must disagree with the suggestion that the article is excessively lengthy; it looks big in bytes and characters, but we do not measure with them. We look at it in words. This is less than 3,000 words; if any thing, it verges, in fact, on the short. See WP:SIZERULE, which states that for articles of less than 6,000 words, Length alone does not justify division or trimming. Having read it, while the prose may want to be played with, this is, in my view, down to a variety of language improving the reader's experience. The language need not be adjusted to remove non-existent bloat. In my view, the article absolutely conforms to 1B and 1C and concomitantly criterion 4. 1A, as I said, may well be debatable, but is anyone opposing on the actual quality of the writing? I mean, unless it gets submitted to us scrawled in fingerpaints... Cheers, SN54129 14:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My objections were not based on length per-se, but on "unnecessary detail". RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per se, you suggested it should be half the length. No way is that merely too much detail. And to be honest, more than vague handwaves towards unnecessary detail are required; concrete examples are. You don't have to re-write it, but you do have to present evidence. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss the criteria more broadly, although I'll happily join the discussion at WT:FAC. Cheers, Serial 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes Forgotten Chicago a high-quality reliable source? Railfans' Association?
  • In what cases are you including publisher locations?
  • How are you ordering Works cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgotten Chicago is a reliable source for the purpose and cites its sources and names its authors appropriately. The CERA has been around for almost a century now, and is as close to the "gold standard" as it gets to Chicago-area rail history, in comparison to both primary sources and more "fan" sites like the (unused in this article) Chicago-L.org. I include publisher locations in bibliographic entries whenever they are readily available to me. I sort the Works cited section in alphabetical order based on how the footnotes are named, which in turn is, in descending order, author surname and year > organization acronym and year > description of the work with a year > description of the work without a year. Any edge cases in that respect were decided by me by either aesthetics or whimsy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes Forgotten Chicago "a reliable source for the purpose"? What makes CERA the "gold standard"? Why is the first source sorted with year first while others are sorted by description first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said earlier, FC cites its sources appropriately and is used in the article appropriately as a minor source. CERA publishes books based on original research of primary sources not generally available to the public, and turns such research into coherent in-depth histories of the relevant lines that sites such as Chicago-L.org use for their own articles. There is no reason to doubt its quality, much less reliability, other than issues with which it would be biased, which are primarily focused on the usefulness of transit altogether and out of scope for a specific station, or possibly age (1995), for which case new information is unlikely to emerge for a station that has been gone for several decades. "1895 Review" is year first because "Review" is not the proper name of an organization or author, and "Renumbering Plan" doesn't have a year attached because "1909 Renumbering Plan" seemed a bit too long and unaesthetic for my liking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I was addressing your concern about the sources FC cites being themselves reliable. For FC in particular, it has a staff of historians and editors who presumably either subject their articles to some form of review or else have subject-matter expertise in them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length

[edit]

Recusing to comment.

I am afraid that trimming 17 words, a 4% reduction, does not alter my opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed yet again, but if it is still not to your satisfaction then I'm afraid we might be at an impasse. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let us try to avoid that. Is the following really essential for a summary? "the northwestern Logan Square branch, the western Garfield Park branch, and the southwestern Douglas Park branch." Similarly "The CA&E was a descendant of the Aurora Elgin and Chicago Railway (AE&C), which had become bankrupt in the aftermath of World War I and split into the CA&E in 1921." seems to be at two removes to the main topic of the article. Losing both would still, IMO, leave the lead too long long and too off topic, but I could just about go with it on the grounds that every bell curve has have a data point way out on the right. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the branches, but the AE&C to CA&E transition avoids confusion for the history section, when the hitherto-unexplained AE&C is mentioned before the CA&E. If you are so adamant about this lead, I highly suggest, in the spirit of Wikipedia and all my FACs, taking a stab at trimming the lead yourself. I can see what changes I have an urge to revert, and which ones I can tolerate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned. As a TFA coordinator I generate 6 or 8 blurbs each month for the main page; supposedly each a self contained explanation of the FA's topic and with a hard maximum of 1,025 characters including spaces. Let's see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. if you were to go with all of my suggestions you would be left with exactly the same word count as if you had gone with my second suggestion above. Although word count isn't really the point. You may also wish to consider running the two initial paragraphs together. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your changes were too offensive – I even trimmed a little extra! I was on the fence about re-including the CA&E being on the Garfield Park tracks rather than having trackage of its own, but I thought it's neither necessary and would have to reintroduce the specific branches. I'll pass on merging the first two paragraphs, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw any objections to the promotion of this article. I have not done a full review and so do not feel able to formally support, but feel that the lead certainly meets all FAC criteria. John M Wolfson, thank you for approaching this in a thoroughly Wikipedian manner, it is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (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) 6 November 2023 [35].

Welcome to New York (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As if Taylor Swift was not popular enough, she made a NYC tribute song to keep up with Jay-Z or Frank Sinatra. In my honest opinion, this song will never be considered a NYC tribute classic. But hey, at least the synths are fun to listen to! I believe this article is well-written, well-researched and neutral, and I would appreciate any and all comments. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MusicforthePeople

[edit]

I don't have too many comments; feel free to ignore those you think are more trivial.

  • For the audio link at the bottom of the Infobox, the song title is capitalised as "Welcome To New York" as opposed to "Welcome to New York" as per the rest of the article.
  • in support of her fourth album, Red, – needs the year of its release in brackets since that hasn't been established.
  • landmark of her life – would "in her life" be better?
  • 1980s artists Prince and Cyndi Lauper – I would have put these in alphabetical order.
  • Dan Caffrey from Consequence said – pipe this as ''[[Consequence (publication)|Consequence of Sound]]'' as that's what the publication was called at the time. Pipe it in the reference as well.
  • In Consequence, Sasha Geffen opined – change this in prose and in the reference to Consequence of Sound per above, but don't link it in prose because that'll be overlinking.
  • The A.V. Club needs unlinking in the critical reception section as it is already linked in the previous section.
  • For ref #22 (Boston Herald), author should be Jed Gottlieb (per archived ref).
  • For ref #67 (Clash), author should be Mat Smith (per archived ref).
  • For ref #68 (Billboard), author should Glenn Rowley (per archived ref).

That's all I've got. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I've addressed all comments except where I left my remarks. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fine by me. Support MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The infobox says this song was a promotional single, but neither the lead nor the article say this and there is not a citation to support it. This song may have been released a week prior to the album, but that does not automatically make it a promotional single without any confirmation from the label or more definitive evidence.
  • I took the guidance from WP:SINGLE?. Although some perennial sources say that this song was released as a "single" it is not the case.. and marking it as a mere song would undermine the fact that it was released as a standalone download track prior to the album's release. I therefore think promo single is an appropriate designation here :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. Just because a song was released prior to an album that does not automatically make it a promotional single or even a single of any kind. I have seen instances of songs being released in the lead-up to an album and not being promoted as singles. I know that the promotional single designation is tricky for Wikipedia, but unless there is a citation, ideally one either from Swift or the record label, that explicitly calls this a promotional single, then I do not think it should be labeled as such. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few sources called it a "single" WSJ, MTV, UPI though we both know this is an incorrect categorization. Alas, I am dubious because WP:SINGLE? seems to have been created upon consensus from music editors. The track was definitely used to promote the album as a standalone iTunes track, just that it was not pushed to radio as an official single. Although the prose does not call this a "promotional single" per-se, from an editorial perspective I think the "promotional" label in the infobox is useful to demonstrate that the track received a special release treatment instead of being made available alongside the rest of the album. Ippantekina (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree calling it a single would incorrect categorization as there is seemingly no evidence of it being sent out to radio or any promotion from the record label that it was a single. Thank you the WP:SINGLE? link. I have looked through it again, and I do see the point about "preview tracks" being "promotional singles" and since this was done through a consensus from music editors, I can respect it. This is not an issue for me and would not hold up my review in any way. I am just hesitant about something as a single, even as a promotional single, without some sort of official confirmation or further evidence explicitly saying it, but I do get the argument made for this designation. The issue in this likely me to be honest. I am probably just way over-thinking this so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this "promotional single" designation is sometimes blurry, and I thank you for bringing up a valid point. I think for now the "promo" designation within the infobox should suffice, but I am open to discussion should other editors question WP:SINGLE?. Ippantekina (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for being understanding about it. It is a blurry point, but I do respect consensus and I can understand the rationale behind calling this a promotional single. I think you have a very mature mindset about it, and that is always good to have and something that is inspiring. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lead says that this song was inspired by Swift's 2014 move and since it was released in 2014, wouldn't be fair to say that this song was recorded in 2014 and include that information in the infobox? I am not sure if that would count as original research though if this information is not explicitly stated in a source.
  • That makes sense, and thank you for the response. I should have been clearer in my message. I was more so wondering that since the timeline seemed to lean a certain way if there was a source that explicitly said that, but my comment was poorly-worded. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, (included the track in the set list of the 1989 World Tour), from the lead. The article says that Swift has performed this song elsewhere, including as a "surprise song" on other tours. By only mentioning this tour in the lead, it could give off the incorrect impression to readers that Swift had only performed the song live during this tour.
  • I do not think Nashville requires a wikilink. It is not linked in the 1989 article, and it is a rather recognizable city that I think would go against linking convention on here for well-known cities.
  • For this part, (She came to New York unattached to anybody romantically), why not just say that she was single as "unattached to anybody romantically" seems unnecessarily wordy?
  • For this sentence, (In contemporary reviews, music critics characterized the genre as synth-pop.), I would bundle the citations to avoid citation overkill.
  • This could just be a matter of personal preference, but having the "Release" section just be a single paragraph visually looks odd in my opinion. Again, it could just be a matter of preference so it may be best to see how other reviewers receive this organizational choice.
  • I have a question about this part, (Swift was named an official tourism ambassador for New York City). I remember there being criticism about this choice, as shown in The Seattle Times and The Mercury News, as well as more positive reactions of course. Would that be relevant in this section? I am on the fence, but it is not really about the song and I could see that being a tangent.
  • In this sentence, (The synth production also received some negative comments as being "cheesy" and "lifeless".), it is not clear who is saying those quotes. I would more clearly attribute them in the prose.
  • For this part, (Swift said it "absolutely" made her think), I would paraphrase the quote. It is nothing particularly insightful to the point that it justifies a single-word quote, and the meaning could be conveyed with a different word choice.

I hope this review is helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I do not miss anything. To be honest, I am not a fan of this song, but as someone who unironically enjoys "Shake It Off", I can of course appreciate fans of this song. Not going to lie though, I hardcore rolled my eyes at the part about Swift overcoming her fear of New York City; having the luxury of buying a penthouse in a wealthy neighborhood would do that. Anyway, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I will look into them as soon as I can, and in the meantime I've responded to one of your points above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you needed. I have left a response to your response. I respectfully disagree and I think for something to be called a promotional single it would need a citation, ideally from the artist and/or the record label, to support it. That being said, the promotional single v.s. single v.s. song line is rather murky, which I think adds more reason to have a citation to support when naming something a single of any kind. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, but I could not find any further issues with the article, so once all of my comments have been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your patience! I have addressed all of your comments accordingly. Ippantekina (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in my response. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with your FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

I think it might be due to different geolocations.. either way I removed the YouTube URL as it is not of substantial importance to the article. Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • no issues with source quality
  • PR Newswire ref should be formatted as Template:Cite press release with Big Machine as the author
  • spotchecks not done
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2021.1956270 includes a few sentences about the song but is not cited. I can clearly see two new sentences and/or citations in the article based on this source.
  • this book includes some very useful sentences that can clearly be cited in the article but aren't.

At least two scholarly works are omitted from the article. Please incorporate! Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, I do not have access to the book. Could you send me (via email) the document if possible? Will look at the Taylor&Francis article with my Wikipedia Library membership. Ippantekina (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heartfox, thanks for the source review. I found the two scholarly sources to be very useful and have incorporated them. I've also looked for further scholarly sources but so far these two are the most substantial. Let me know if the source review passes and if spotcheck is required. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions. Waiting on book page number (I can try to visit my university library on Tuesday and get it) and on "Taylor's Version" section. Heartfox (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

I've made some edits here and there to the prose that you can revert if you disagree with. Will try not to screw anything up

  • "gone through media attention for her" — I'm not sure this reads the best with "gone through" since media attention isn't an event that you undergo but more something that just happens to you, if that makes sense
  • "an answer to "Empire State of Mind" (2009)" — as someone who's never listened to the full version of "Empire State of Mind", is it an answer to the song as a whole or some specific lyrics or something?
  • "generated interpretations as Swift's support" — interpretations by whom??
  • "After writing the lyrics, Swift went into the studio with Tedder." — is this bit necessary? I mean, isn't it the standard for every song to have its lyrics written then taken into the studio?
  • "The track is three minutes and 32 seconds long." — I think the numbers need to be consistent (digits vs spelled out) here as per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • "reached the top 20 in Hungary (16),[38] Canada (19),[39] Spain (21),[40] Australia (23),[41] and Denmark (27)." — ...is it supposed to say top 30??

Hope this helps :) I'm excited to listen to this one on 1989 TV, though I can only remember the chorus of this song after listening to it a few times. Good luck with this nomination! Pamzeis (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Could we have the page range for Busa.
  • "and performed it on select dates of her later tours." What was select about the dates? Wiktionary defines select as privileged, specially selected or of high quality.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

The release of the song's rerecording warrants the inclusion of relevant information in the article. Once this is done, the new additions would have to be assessed by a reviewer, possibly one of the current ones, against the FA criteria. The nomination would only be deemed ready for closure after a reviewer has evaluated the new additions. FrB.TG (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, FrB.TG, and congrats on your role as FAC coordinator! (might be a late congrats by now but still :P) Duly noted on the request for the song's rerecording. I'll add it to the prose and will wait for a reviewer on that bit as well. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information for "Taylor's Version" re-recording. Waiting for another review.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What is ' "Welcome to New York" feat" '?
  • References: article titles should consistently be in sentence case, per MOS:TITLECAPS.
Umm. They are still a mix, eg compare cite 34 with cite 32. And you now have nearly all article titles in title case.
Should be fine now. Ippantekina (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Busà: could you give the page range?
done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and performed it on certain dates of her later tours" seems a little clunky. Perhaps ' and sometimes performed it during her later tours'?
Ok, but you need to do something about "certain"; maybe 'some'?
  • Main article: "In the lyrics, a narrator expresses their newfound sense of freedom". In the lead this is attributed directly to Swift: "Swift's relocation to New York City in April 2014. Its lyrics explore her newfound freedom". Which?
freedom, oh, freedom, well, that's just some people talkin' / Your prison is walkin' through this world all alone.

I have not reviewed the whole article, but I have looked at all of the changes since FrB.TG's comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuepoint seems like a suspect source --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was published by the Recording Academy who has a page on Medium's Cuepoint. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of come backs above. If I don't comment, then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all should be done now :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me with the extra information -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, I have looked through the updates to cover the re-release and consider that this has now been satisfactorily included. I have also reviewed some other areas, but not sufficient to constitute a full review. Nevertheless, all the areas I have reviewed seem to be up to FA standard and I found no reason why it should not be promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Why is the Critical reception section included after Live performances and other uses? Most of the critical reviews surfaced upon release whereas the performances were accumulated gradually over time and logically belong below the former section.
  • Hasn't the Taylor's Version received more critical analysis than just the two sources included here? Also the Ryan Adams cover album has received more than 25 critical reviews of which only two are cited here?--NØ 07:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To cite one randomly, PopMatters's Evan Sawdey had some interesting insights that are not included: "Right from the onset, with the sound of seagulls and building string sections, Adams’ tackles “Welcome to New York”, 1989‘s weakest track by a mile, as an open-air acoustic strummer that wouldn’t be too far removed from his 2002 odds-and-sods collection Demolition. It’s a vast improvement over the sparse keyboard sheen of the original, Adams’ additional piano plinks and slight melodic variations giving the tune a warmer, more humanistic treatment, all while thematically echoing back to his own mainstream breakthrough “New York, New York”."--NØ 07:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical reviews also feature retrospective ones for that matter, and for the Adams's version I did a quick check through the Metacritic database and 3 of the 25 reviews mentioned his cover of this song. Will look for ways to incorporate them, thanks for letting me know. Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update Added context regarding Adams's cover. Reviews of the re-recording are fewer as they focus more on the Vault tracks but I managed to squeeze something. Ippantekina (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaranoFan, would you say you're satisfied Ippa's changes in response to your concerns? FrB.TG (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reviewed any of the pre-existing prose but I am satisfied with the incorporation of reviews of the Adams cover.--NØ 15:21, 6 November 2023 (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 November 2023 [36].

Angel Reese

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Angel Reese, one of the top players in women's college basketball, who is best known for leading LSU to its first national championship this year after transferring from Maryland. Reese was the #2 player in her high school class at Saint Frances Academy in Baltimore, Maryland, only behind Paige Bueckers, my first FA. I believe this article meets FA criteria by being comprehensive, well-sourced and illustrated. As with the Bueckers article, it is early in the subject's career but I expect to keep the article updated, having done so since creating it in April 2022 and bringing it to GA soon after. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Drive-by comment

More comments

[edit]
  • "playing above her age group and on boys teams" => "playing above her age group and on boys' teams"
  • Link the terms I mentioned above in the body as well as the lead
  • "a buzzer-beating putback shot" - no idea what these words mean, is there a wikilink that could clarify?
  • "In January 2020, Archbishop Spalding High School head coach Lisa Smith was fired from her position after her private messages on Instagram criticizing Reese's behavior, which her mother felt" - Smith's mother or Reese's mother?
  • "and she became the first girls player" => "and she became the first female player"
  • "She preferred to play with a post player" - what's a "post player"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • Brenda Frese is overlinked
  • Big Ten is overlinked
  • "Following the season, she won a silver medal with the Maryland 3x3 team at USA Basketball 3X Nationals" => "Following the season, she won a silver medal with the Maryland 3x3 team at the USA Basketball 3X Nationals"
  • "She took interest in LSU after Ohio State transfer Kateri Poole, who she knew since high school" => "She took interest in LSU after Ohio State transfer Kateri Poole, whom she had known since high school"
  • "On defense, her agility allows her to guard perimeter players" - what's a "perimeter player"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • "and her length helps" - her length? Isn't height the more normal term when discussing a human being? or does this mean something else?
  • Trash talk is overlinked
  • "Reese's stepbrother, Mikael Hopkins is" => "Reese's stepbrother, Mikael Hopkins, is"
  • "She was the most heralded transfer in the nation and took visits to LSU" - write out the name in full on the first usage with the abbreviation in brackets
  • That's it I think- :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great work. BTW it's really strange as a British person to read an article about US university sport. When I was at university, one of my best friends was on one of the university's sports teams and I think the biggest crowd they ever drew was about 30 people, most of them bored-looking girlfriends of the players, and most of the university didn't even know the game was happening, let alone anyone outside it. It really is a different world...... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Popping in to say that the craziest stat about college sports in America is that 8 of the 11 stadiums in the world with a capacity of over 100,000 are stadiums for college (American) football. Newtothisedit (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newtothisedit: - wow! Obviously here in the UK football (soccer) is the most popular sport but I used to work at a university which didn't even own a football pitch and the matches against other universities were played on hired pitches in a public park. As I said, a very different world....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Holding my spot, I'll give this a read. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are below, give me a ping when you're ready for another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: I have addressed all comments and/or responded below. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/infobox

  • This isn't critical, but I think it would be worth it to crop the infobox image just a bit - it is very long and the bottom 1/3-ish isn't really necessary
  • "where she was awarded with McDonald's All-American" → remove "with"
  • I think NCAA would be worth a link, since it's a US-specific thing
  • Link SEC, since it's US-specific and also because this exists

Early life

  • "Reese was born on May 6, 2002" → add her full name as given in the lead ("Angel C. Reese") with a citation - the middle initial itself isn't cited as is I believe
  • "She played under coach Ron James" → I think a more straightforward way to say this would be "She was coached by Ron James"
  • "high school as five-star recruits by ESPN" → "by ESPN" is sort of awkwardly attached to the end of the sentence, I would add "ranked" after "high school"

High school career

  • "averaged 11.1 points and 11 rebounds per game" → link Rebound (basketball)
  • "win the Interscholastic Athletic Association of Maryland (IAAM) A Conference title" → Is the conference called the "A Conference" or is "A" a classification (i.e., 1A)?
  • "finish the season with a 30–1 record" → I would recommend using {{Win-loss record}} just in this first instance of a W-L style record, so that a reader unfamiliar with this format of displaying wins and losses doesn't have to guess; records after this are good though.
  • I think a redlink for Hamilton Heights Christian Academy would be reasonable.
  • "send the game to overtime" → link Overtime (sports)
  • I would link "scrimmage" to Exhibition game

College career

  • "at the ACC–Big Ten Challenge" → I think "in the ACC–Big Ten Challenge" sounds better since the game was just another home game for LSU and not at some neutral site location
  • "She led fourth-seeded Maryland to the Sweet 16 of the 2022 NCAA tournament" → as far as I can see, this portion of the sentence is not covered by the reference at the end of that sentence
  • "where she recorded 25 points, nine rebounds, three steals and three blocks" → either "25" should be "twenty-five" or use "9", "3", and "3" for the other figures per MOS:NUMNOTES (the bullet point starting "Comparable values nearby one another...")
  • "average a double-double since 1975 when Angie Scott did the same" → "when __ did the same" is redundant when mentioned after saying that she's the first to do it since __ in 1975"; I'd consolidate with "...becoming the first Maryland player to average a double-double since Angie Scott in 1975."
  • Do any sources mention a reason that she entered the transfer portal?
  • "as announced by the program" sticks out in this sentence; if you mean to say that May 6 was the day that the transfer was announced by LSU, I'd recommend rewording to make this more clear
  • I would put "winning culture" in quotes, since it's a direct quote from Reese and because it's iffy as far as NPOV is concerned since it sounds a bit like Wikipedia is saying that, not Reese
  • The first paragraph of the "Junior season" section suffers a bit from WP:PROSELINE and gets repetitive fairly quickly starting with her LSU debut: "On November 7, she made...", "On December 14, Reese posted", and "On January 5, 2023, she scored..." are consecutive sentences and there are several more examples of this later in the paragraph
  • "Reese posted 25 points, 24 rebounds and six blocks in a 66–42 second-round win" → same NUMNOTES comment as above, recommend "6" rather than spelling out the other two
  • Since "First Lady" is linked before Jill Biden's name, I would link President before Joe's name

National team career

  • "In her first game, she posted 11 points and nine rebounds" → same NUMNOTES comment as above

Player profile

  • "Reese has exceptional mobility for her size" → I read through the PressBox source that this is cited to and verified the second part of the sentence (explosiveness-related) but couldn't verify this
  • "Paint" should be linked to Key (basketball) since readers unfamiliar with basketball will not know what this refers to
  • "Reese has drawn comparisons" → You can continue using "she" here instead of reverting to Reese's name

Off the court

  • "Reese's mother, Angel Reese (née Webb)," → use {{Nee}} so the term is linked
  • "She entered the 2023 NCAA tournament" → "This is linked earlier in the "Junior season" section
  • "Reese was nicknamed the "Bayou Barbie" after transferring to LSU" → My instinct is that there is some sort of SEAOFBLUE issue with "Bayou Barbie" but I'm not exactly sure how you would mend that
  • "on the April 8, 2023 episode" → comma needed after "2023" per MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "gesture at the end of the 2023 NCAA Division I championship game and her dispute" → title game is linked earlier in the article body
  • "magazine's annual "swimsuit" issue" → since the article in question is about the "Swimsuit Issue", I would expand the link to include both words, take out the quotes, and use caps: "magazine's annual Swimsuit Issue" since that is the style used in that article
  • "magazine in Los Angeles, wearing a purple string bikini" → remove comma
  • "released on June 1, 2023" → I don't think this is mentioned in the source
  • "hometown of Randallstown, Maryland" → comma after "Maryland" needed per MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • Remove links to Randallstown and Baltimore (both linked in "High school career")
  • "mayor Brandon Scott" → capitalize "Mayor" per MOS:JOBTITLE

Referencing

  • Recommend running IABot to archive sources. I will do some spotchecks after the above has been taken care of.

Note/spotchecks

All of your changes look good, I made a couple of minor edits to fix a few things rather than going out of my way to list them here. Random spotchecks are below:

  • FN 16: "As a freshman, Reese averaged 11.1 points and 11 rebounds per game, earning All-Metro first team honors from The Baltimore Sun." - verified
  • FN 29: "Reese was considered a five-star recruit, the number two player and the top wing in the 2020 class by ESPN." - verified
  • FN 41: "She helped Maryland win Big Ten regular season and tournament titles" - verified
  • FN 45: "As a freshman, Reese averaged 10 points and six rebounds per game. Following the season, she won a silver medal with the Maryland 3x3 team at the USA Basketball 3X Nationals." - verified both sentences
  • FN 77: "The incident drew attention to the roles of race and gender in the perception of trash talk in sports. Reese is Black and Clark is White." - verified
  • FN 83: "Reese was a unanimous first-team All-American: she earned first-team All-American honors from the AP and the USBWA, and made the WBCA Coaches' All-America Team." - verified before the comma, FN 82 verified for the rest of the sentence
  • FN 85: "Reese led the NCAA Division I in total rebounds and offensive rebounds per game and ranked second to Lauren Gustin of BYU in rebounds per game." - verified, though I am worried that this source will update and remove the 2022-23 information at the start of the 2023-24 season. Can this be archived?
  • FN 91: "Reese was named a finalist for the 2019 Under-19 World Cup team before withdrawing to play in the Nike EYBL." - not verified, no mention of withdraw or EYBL
  • FN 105: "Her shooting outside the paint has been labeled as a weakness, and she rarely attempts three-pointers." - cannot access this site due to paywall
  • FN 110: what makes "Her Hoop Stats" a reliable source?
  • FN 118: "She is signed with The Society Management for managing her fashion endeavors." - verified

Overall, all but one or two spot checks look good, just a note for FNs 85, 91, and 110. As for citation consistency, formatting is good for the most part - only thing needing attention is that some have website/publisher linked and some do not (e.g. no links on FNs 3, 18 (can probably just have USA Today), 19, 22, 32, 33, 41, etc.). I have run a couple scripts for dashes and dates, and would strongly recommend archiving the sources (I can do this as well if you'd like). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: All issues are addressed, and I added links to the references. Sportzeditz (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Everything looks good to me so I am happy to support. Again I would strongly recommend archiving sources but I won't hold anything up because of that. Great work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
Hi Eddie, yes, it does please. (Unless Mike disagrees, which I don't anticipate.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drag myself around to it this weekend. As usual, feel happy to ping (relentlessly) Come Monday. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, you're right that I didn't do a spotcheck, but it appears PCN02WPS did one above my source review -- that's why I didn't do one. Does that suffice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does. I am not sure how I missed that. Thanks Mike, stand down Eddie. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • What's the logic behind your choice of when to use the publisher parameter? It's used in only one cite news (FN 74); the rest use the newspaper parameter. Similarly for cite web you have a mixture of website and publisher. Any logical organization is fine, but I can't tell what the choices are here.
  • What makes the following reliable sources? I'm not saying they aren't reliable, just that I can't see the evidence for them on a quick look.

I'll pause there till these are addressed before finishing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just realized that PCN02WPS had already done a spotcheck above, so when these are addressed I'll just need to check links. No other formatting issues that I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest adding the "subscription required" parameter for The Washington Post.

No other issues with links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I'll leave comments, intend to support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "before transferring to LSU. In her junior season," <<<=== Suggest something like ". Reese transferred to LSU in her junior season" to keep Maryland and LSU in separate sentences.
  • Suggest mentioning the NIL deal value and/or significance in the lead.

High school

  • "In January 2020, Archbishop Spalding High School head coach Lisa Smith was fired from her position after her private messages on Instagram criticizing Reese's behavior, which Reese's mother felt included racial overtones by attributing her success to being genetically gifted, were made public." <<<=== Split into two sentences.

College

  • After reaching the Sweet 16 ===>>> In the Sweet 16
  • "trash talk in sports. Reese is Black and Clark is White." ===>>> " trash talk in sports since Reese is Black and Clark is white." (add "since", lowercase "white")

Support regardless, looks ready to promote! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: All comments addressed, thanks for the review. Sportzeditz (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]

I was looking at this with a view to closing, but there are two minor things I would like some clarification on beforehand.

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 November 2023 [43].

Communication

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is a wide topic and includes diverse phenomena pertaining not only to humans but also to animals, plants, and computers. The article may interest you if you have ever wondered about some of the following questions: "Is communication more than the transmission of information?", "How can intrapersonal communication be external?", "Are there important differences between human and animal communication?", "How do plants communicate despite their limited bodily movement?", "Why is communication between members of the same species more common than between members of different species?", and "Why did the invention of the printing press matter in the history of communication?". It is a level 2 vital article so it would be great to get it to FA status or at least to find out which additional steps would be required. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Khascall

[edit]
Disclaimer: This is my first time pitching in on an FA discussion. Full disclosure that I've made a few comments and edits to the article; also my POV is that I'm a Communication PhD candidate and I do a lot of research peer reviews, student paper feedback, etc.....which are different genres; I hope I've appropriately shifted my thinking out of that mindset and into a wikiway but might not have fully succeeded.
Overall, I reviewed this article with respect to the criteria for an FA article: I feel comfortable that this article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. It appears to follow style guidelines, to have an appropriate structure, consistent citations, and media, without an excessive length. I identified a few opportunities for improvement, noted below; I also made several changes to the article itself.
Lead
The lead is at perhaps the longer end of concise; this is not shocking for a broad topic, and four paragraphs is right at the MOS suggested limit not over it, but I do see some opportunities to slim it down. My first swing at this was oriented to the fact that the lead includes numerous examples (at least 8 'for example' type sentences or phrases) -- are all of these needed? A few examples are good, especially when the example is needed to illustrate something surprising or difficult. So perhaps the bees could be dropped, and maybe internal communication with self need not be illustrated with the example of inner dialogue. Or whatever slimming makes sense; at least some of these examples recur in the article.
Structure
The choices of headers look pretty good to me; there's a nice parallelism in the main concepts of the lead and the headers. Now that I see it all laid out, my only question is whether having mediums as a subhead with no text and three sub-subs of verbal, non-verbal, and channels is the right call in the end. Also, again looking at parallel structure: The paragraph under the Human header mentions the verbal, non-verbal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal sections that follow -- but there's no mention of channels or contexts and purposes. Maybe that's fine, just pointing it out.
It does seem like "contexts and purposes" isn't really about contexts and purposes of communication, it's about other category schema not presented -- essentially academic subfields -- which do vary in the kinds of communication and the purpose of that communication, as well as often representing different bodies of theory. I don't have an alternative header to propose, but I do note that the end of communication studies has a similar listing out of various ways to slice and dice subfields. Maybe these should be combined.
Section-by-section edits
I made a range of language tweaks directly in the article because it seemed easier than trying to narrate them out here. Essentially, I noticed heavy use of a few phrases: 'in this regard', 'in this way', 'for example' and 'for instance' -- sometimes these can be dropped with little loss of meaning. Many sentences seem to start with 'It'. Repeating the original noun might be a kindness to future readers and help guard against decay of meaning as other folks come through and make their own tweaks which further separate the pronoun from its noun. I made some minor tweaks with the intention of streamlining and maximizing clarity where I saw solid opportunities.
Citations
I did a full audit of 5 cites (random number generator), i.e. digging all the way to the original source to determine that the referred-to material was indeed located in the claimed locale. No issues found, for the Chandler & Munday (2011) I only have access to the 2020 edition, but that checked out fine. Kaylea Champion (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Khascall: Welcome to the FA process and thanks for your well-thought-out assessments and actionable suggestions. You are probably right that the lead had a few too many examples so I cut down their number to make it more concise. I don't want to remove too many to keep it concrete and accessible. I followed your suggestion and removed the subheading "Mediums". This is more consistent in regard to the other distinctions by having all of them on the same level. The main goal of the subsection "Contexts and purposes" was to present various types of communication that should be mentioned for the sake of comprehensiveness but did not easily fit in anywhere else. Covering them instead in the section "Communication studies" is also a good idea so I implemented your proposal. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sounds great. The FA guidelines say that newbie reviewers should restrict themselves to comments rather than giving a final evaluation -- but, if I were so bold as to be evaluating, I'd be saying pass. :) Kaylea Champion (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -pass

[edit]

Logic was an unexpected and awesome FA effort, so am happy to see another general topic in FAC! I probably won't have time for a full prose review so I'll just review the pics here. GeraldWL 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerald Waldo Luis and thanks for taking care of the image review. I'll try to do my best but image license policies are not my strong side. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved review
* First image wrongly licenses "I, the copyright holder of this work", when it's a derivative of another Commons work.
    • Done.
  • No problem with second pic. Third pic has an ambiguous source only stating "Photo".
  • No problems with pics 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. Eighth pic, author parameter should be you, and move the two users to the "source" part
    • Done.
  • No problems with pics 10-17
  • Now onto the alts. Note that alts must be as brief as possible while being explanatory. "Statue of a conversation between two businessmen" --> "Statue of two businessmen talking"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of two women who communicate using sign language" --> "Photo of two women using sign language"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a conversation between two women" --> "Photo of two women talking"
    • Done.
  • "Painting of a woman engaged in daydreaming" --> "engaged in" can be dropped
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a firefly with a brightly glowing abdomen" --> "Photo of a glowing firefly"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a honey bee on the Cosmos bipinnatus flower"-- the details here can be removed --> "Photo of a honey bee on a flower"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a sales contract inscribed on a clay tablet using pre-cuneiform"-- last three words can be dropped.
    • Done.

Comments by Noswall59

[edit]

I won't be offering a detailed review of this article because I lack the time, but I still check in on FAC occasionally and I was intrigued when I saw this. What I have to say would really belong more at the Peer Review process, but we're here and I'd never have seen this over there anyway.

On first glace, this looks like an impressive attempt at writing about a very broad topic – this is always to be welcomed and encouraged. This seems to me to be a strong contribution with much that suggests it may eventually end up as an FA.

But you hoped to find out whether anything is missing. I am no expert, but I noticed a few things which I thought might be worth including:

  • Advertising and marketing -- I know you have the mention of "business communication" in "Contexts and purposes", but I would say advertising is a really vital aspect of communication in modern life. Perhaps it should be mentioned explicitly?
  • Communication theory -- you have presented a nice summary of the prevailing models for how communication happens and can be defined; you have also given a nice top-level overview of communication studies as a discipline. However, I am not sure this article touches much on theories of communication, which are only briefly alluded to in the "Communication studies" section. I'm not suggesting you go into depth, but is there scope to at least mention some major theories here?
  • Cryptography, secret codes and (military) signals -- I can't see that these topics are mentioned, but they are specific and quite interesting forms of communication.
  • Shibboleths -- I couldn't find this word and it made me wonder whether there is something to be said for the role of communication that is deliberately but subtly exclusionary between insiders and outsiders, or which carries different meanings depending on one's insider-outsider status.
  • Propaganda and obfuscation in political communication -- firstly, you mention propaganda once, but could a little more said on this? On obfuscation, I'm thinking of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language": political language "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind". Is there something interesting to be said here about how some writers consider political language to be less about conveying something clearly than about obscuring truth or avoiding commitment, while appearing to be honest? (Cf: Spin (propaganda)). I know this sounds cynical, but it strikes me as saying something interest about communication itself.
  • Literature, poetry and (especially) music -- it struck me as a little odd that these terms get no mention at all, especially music which is a very special type of human communication, one which conveys a clear meaning through lyrics, but which also communicates in much more complex and non-verbal ways; the abstract of this pre-print had some interesting thoughts: [45]. Is there any more out there on this topic?
  • Flags, symbols of identity, heraldry -- these non-verbal symbols communicate identity, sometimes in very politically charged and contested ways (I'm also not just thinking national flags, but even things like sports colours and badges); flags are also used to communicate messages in shipping.
  • Art -- I don't think art gets a mention; is it a medium of communication? I would argue so, but what does the literature say?

These are intended merely as prompts for your thought; they are not prescriptions or demands, nor should a coordinator read them as objections; I'm happy for you to refute them as you will know more about this topic than me. I know it's a big topic and everyone could have "one more thing" to add; no doubt you've already considered some of these suggestions any way and I may also have missed things in the article - I merely skimmed it. But I'm hoping that at least a few of the points I've mentioned may invite some thoughts and possibly even additions to the article. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Noswall59 and thanks for your short review and all the suggestions. I think all the points you mentioned belong to communication. I implemented some of them, see below. One of the main difficulties with this type of broad topic consists in deciding what to mention and how much information to include. There are countless types of communication and we could probably fill a whole article just by listing all of them. For example, an earlier version of this article mentioned several additional types of communication in the section "Contexts and purposes". But in the process of the GA review, it was decided that this is too much detail for this type of overview article and that it is better covered in the article Outline of communication. My approach has roughly been to follow what is commonly discussed in the overview sources on communication in general for this type of decision.
I added a short characterization of marketing communication to the section "Contexts and purposes". I also added a brief overview of different theories of communication. However, they have nowhere near the same importance as models of communication in this field (see, for example, Cobley & Schulz 2013, pp. 8–9). I further found a way to mention cryptography and flags. I left the others out since it is my impression that these specific forms do not play an important role in overview sources. In theory, they could be included by adding a sentence like "Communication is also relevant to A, B,...." at the end of the section "Contexts and purposes". However, I don't think this would be very helpful to the reader. If there is a Wikipedia article on the specific type of communication, like Agricultural communication, then it could be added to the section "See also".
If you have more observations then please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Phlsph7, I appreciate you taking my points into consideration; I trust you to know best what balance the sources give to each of these themes and will respect that. Glad that at least a couple of those points now get a mention. Best of luck with this -- it's great to see such good work being done to vital articles. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CMD

[edit]

Bravo for taking this on. I'll try and communicate a few thoughts and questions here, please feel free to tell me they're way off-base on this very broad topic. I haven't read any of the sources, just reading the article as is.

Hello Chipmunkdavis and thanks for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term can also refer to the message itself and to the field of inquiry studying these transmissions, also known as communication studies." I'm not sure about this second sentence, it feels like a disambiguation and thus a movement off the article topic. I see what the sentence is trying to do, but it feels awkward.
    You are correct that this is a disambiguation. It should be mentioned somewhere but it's not essential to mention it in the lead. It's currently also discussed in the section "Definitions". I hope this is sufficient so I removed the sentence from the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Communication can be classified based on whether information is exchanged between humans, members of other species, or non-living entities such as computers." Is this the main classification? Intuitively I would've classified communications by mode, which can be shared by humans, other species, and computers. This classification also ignores communication within an individual (eg. along nerves). I see communication within a body is mentioned in Definitions, so I suppose my query is whether this specific classification system is the one to mention in the lead as the classification system.
    There are different ways how to classify communication and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Many overview sources focus either on human communication, animal communication, plant communication, or computer communication. So if one wanted to divide types of communication by mode, this could result in various difficulties on the level of the sources in trying to come up with a balanced way to combine them. There are also different ways how modes can be distinguished (verbal vs non-verbal, auditory vs visual,...) so one would have to decide which one should take precedence. The main classification was already discussed at length before several parts of the article were rewritten, see Talk:Communication/Archive_1#Types_of_communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I added a sentence on communication within an organism on the level of organs and cells to the subsection "Intrapersonal". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I particularly picked up in that archive the prominence of this, but I think a small change would help to just acknowledge the complexity, even a simple shift from "Communication can be classified based on whether information..." to something like "A common way to classify communication is by whether information..." CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wary of the natural selection inclusion in the lead. Communication is important for natural selection certainly, but then so is everything a species is/does in a way, and tying any one piece of communication to natural selection feels very odd. I note this is mentioned in the body, "it is often difficult to assess the influence of such behavior on natural selection".
    The main point is not that communication helps natural selection but that researchers include this criterion in their definition to distinguish communicative behavior from other phenomena since it is often difficult for them to draw this distinction. However, this context is only explained later in the section "Other species". You are probably right that without it the inclusion may feel odd. I removed the reference to natural selection and mentioned instead that the individuals benefit, which is hopefully accessible without this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boldly reworded a plant sentence, attributing their communication strategy just to cell walls feels highly reductive (and some animals use chemicals). there are numerous other factors in play there, and it somewhat begs the natural selection question.
    This is one of the key factors but you are right that other factors are also involved. I think your reformulation works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interspecies communication happens mainly in cases of symbiotic relationships." It feels like there is a lot hanging on this "mainly". Stotting may very well be a springbok communicating with nearby lions. Certainly, when a cat hisses at you and raises its fur it's trying to communicate across species lines.
    Yes, the "mainly" is a key point here. Most of the paradigmatic examples of interspecies communication are from symbiotic relationships but it is not restricted to them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The human paragraph could say a bit more, and perhaps also include a little bit on computing.
    Currently, computer communication has its own section. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to include it in the section "Human". But it would be possible to add references to it where it is applicable. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the lead again, the computing still feels missing. The second paragraph opens with the human/living/nonliving classification, then has a paragraph on humans (cleverly incorporating other classifications), and a paragraph on other living species, but then nothing on nonliving. Just a sentence perhaps at the end of the current fourth history paragraph, something like "These technologies led to new forms of communication within themselves, with data being transferred between devices and within networks." CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, I think I misunderstand your initial comment. That's a good point about mentioning computer communication in the lead. I added a variation of your suggestion to the 4th lead paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not inclined to oppose! A new weekend is approaching, I will look a bit more. CMD (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To re-iterate I am throwing ideas out here as I read through, for consideration not to take as writ.

  • "sound, paper, bodily movements, or electricity", should that be "sound, writing, bodily movements, or electricity"? Or some other word that encompasses drawings that eludes me at the current moment.
    I replaced "paper" with "written signs". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Communication can happen within one individual and between two or several individuals." I asked someone else to have a look at the article and they didn't quite follow what this meant, perhaps there is a way to restructure. The source has a preceding sentence framing differences in scale and complexity (and also notes the interesting point about spatial and temporal differences between modes of communication). Perhaps this article can use the framing of the previous sentence, "sender to a receiver", something like "The sender and receiver can be units within within one individual, be individuals themselves communicating with one or more others, and even larger conceptual bodies such as organizations, social classes, or nations"?
    I reformulated it using the terms "sender" and "receiver". I hope that makes it clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've found the disconnect around natural selection. The wording in the article, "playing a beneficial role in natural selection", feels off as it puts communication in the role of affecting natural selection. Of the three sources I could access two, and the wording they use is "fashioned and maintained by natural selection" and "favored by natural selection", which instead has the implication of natural selection acting on communication. I would suggest that if you like the current wording, changing "natural selection" to something like "survival and reproduction" would keep the intended meaning intact.

CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the additional comments, I hope I was able to properly address them. Please let me know if there are more points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing in Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 58. or Burton & Dimbleby 2002, p. 126. a mention of language as a key distinction, although certainly it feels important. (I don't think verbal communication should wikilink to Linguistics here, makes it appear redundant to the language point.)
    The list of distinctions in Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 58 contains ...verbal or *nonverbal.... It does not explicitly say that it is a "key distinction". I've added Sinding & Waldstrom 2014, p.153, which explicitly says that An important distinction in communication literature is the one between verbal (written and spoken) and non-verbal communication. I also removed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite understanding the distinction between "linguistic form or by means of language", and in general am curious as to verbal communication outside of language. Is this not mentioned in any sources, or does it all (eg. a primal scream) fall under some nebulous classification as "language"? It appears to be partially in the non-verbal communication section as "vocalics". That section also goes onto talk about paralanguage from written language, which is a bit confusing given the previous section (read this all together with next comment, sorry they're overlapping as I'm reading further and going back and editing). The non-verbal section also includes crying and babbling, and the babbling article says it's a precursor to language, so surely that is verbal if language is verbal (and it is colloquially verbal!)?
    linguistic form or by means of language this was not meant as an "exclusive or". I replaced it with "i.e." to avoid confusion. So, according to the main distinction in this subsection, verbal communication = communication through linguistic means. In colloquial usage, the term "verbal communication" is sometimes used for oral communication. This distinction is discussed in the third paragraph. In this sense, crying and babbling might be understood as verbal/oral communication without language (I'm not sure if the sources would agree on that). But this is not how the distinction is used in the academic literature. Crying and babbling are usually classified as non-verbal/non-linguistic communication. For example, from the source for crying and babbling (McCormack, McLeod & Harrison 2017, p. 60): Before babies develop words, they develop prelinguistic (non-verbal) behaviors ... crying ... babbling.... Paralanguage is usually classified as non-verbal communication. I made a slight modification to the paragraph in the hope of clarifying this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to make sure we have the same platform of understanding, the academic literature is clear that when they say "verbal communication" they mean "linguistic-type communication", and you have written the relevant sections precisely in line with this distinction? If so, I don't think this is a problem per se, but it is certainly an initial surprise for me who has not been immersed in the literature. I'm still thinking around this point, but at the moment I would suggest another explanation of this distinction is needed in the Paralanguage part, specifically after the words "concerns the use of voice in communication" appear in a "Non-verbal" subsection. I would also treat this clearly as its own paragraph (splitting off Chronemics onwards), and provide the initial coverage of crying (seems similar to my shouting example) and babbling (feels to me who has not read the literature as between crying and linguistics) in that section with careful wording to reinforce the academic point. ie. explain distress and infant health in the paralanguage paragraph, and just refer to them as examples (ie. "like crying and later babbling") in the paragraph on research. CMD (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are on the same platform of understanding here. Some examples from the cited sources:
    • from Danesi 2000, p. 58: verbal communication is Communication by means of *language
    • from Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 448: verbal communication is Human *interaction through the use of words, or *messages in linguistic form. They also discuss the distinction between the colloquial usage and the academic usage.
    The topic is not easy and you are right that readers who try to understand this section based on the colloquial understanding of "verbal" could get confused. I tried to follow your suggestions to make the academic understanding more explicit not just in the beginning but also during the more specific explanations. I rewrote the part on paralanguage, split off the passage on chronemics, and mentioned crying and babbling as examples that do not require language. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are crying and babbling paralanguage or something else? CMD (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are most likely categorized as paralanguage. I haven't done a detailed research but at least according to this source, crying is paralanguage. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on the overlap with written communication, the section clearly takes language=verbal communication, and thus a "system of symbols" as verbal communication. Assuming this is as later noted the general academic view, and that all the discussion on languages includes the colloquially non-verbal items, I would include that note on the academic distinction at or near the start of that section (separated from the parts on children picking up languages, which seems unrelated). It definitely needs to occur before the sign language sentence. (If sources allow, I would personally opt for a sign language example such as Nicaraguan Sign Language which is as far as I know an isolate and thus more interesting communication-wise, but that's a very minor point.)
    I moved the paragraph on the colloquial usage one paragraph up to appear before the discussion of sign languages. I also added Nicaraguan Sign Language as an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the wikilinked articles, which seem to be about digital communication, I don't think either wikilink in "Interpersonal communication can be synchronous or asynchronous" should be there.
    I removed the wikilinks. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "channels" mentioned in the Channels subsection the same as the "modalities" mentioned in the non-verbal section? They read similarly, and explicitly make the same point of the multi-channel/modal communication being clearer. If they are, more consistent vocabulary would be preferable. If they are different enough to repeat these points, perhaps this could be explained somewhere.
    The ideas are very similar but not identical. For example, if a teacher writes a message on a blackboard and uses their body language to emphasize this message, these are two modalities (writing and body language) using the same channel (visual). Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Channels subsection is in the "Human" section, but seems to stray into more general points including about computing. Should it perhaps be cut down to humans, or separated into a standalone section?
    I agree, the part about the relation to computers is too specific for a section on human communication. I removed the corresponding passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that academic distinction about verbal=language needs to be clarified again in the animal section somehow, as a reader who say is on mobile and opens just the Other species section is confronted with "animal communication is restricted to non-verbal communication".
    I added a short clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related point, I am surprised the animal section has no mention of animal languages. The section as a whole takes a very animal=non-language approach in its wording and framing, which definitely is true on aggregate, but the potential exceptions are there (and the "For many species, the offspring depends on the parent for its survival" phrasing is likely referring to a minority of species, putting it out of step with the overall generalizing language).
    Animal language is similar to body language: they have the word "language" in their names but they are usually not seen as languages when the term is understood in a strict academic sense. However, as also discussed in the article, there is no generally accepted definition of "language", which further complicates this issue. I adjusted the expression For many species, the offspring. I'll stop for now and I'll see later if there is a good way to mention animal languages. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence to mention animal language. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On cell walls, I haven't checked the sources but I don't see how they are responsible for plants not being able to receive signals from motion. That is presumably due to a lack of receptors, and I don't see why theoretically this receptor could not develop in walled cells (cameras have hard walls yet can pick up motions).
    The cited source says: Rigid cell walls generally do not allow plants to send and receive signals that require rapid movement of organs or cells. You are right that, strictly speaking, it is probably not "impossible". I weakened our formulation to reflect this. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What cell walls might do is prevent the sending of auditory information, this is implied later in the first paragraph but it would be helpful to see it explicit alongside visual information.
  • "plant communication researchers often require that there is some form of response in the receiver and that the communicative behavior is beneficial to sender and receiver", from the previous section this also applied to animal communication researchers, so if it is the same point plant researchers should not be singled out and the sentence can make some reference to this already established point within the Other species section. (As an aside, the intentionality not mattering point is a great inclusion that I've never considered before despite seeming obvious now.)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an idle thought, do any sources mention lichens or similar cases? Presumably those involve some heavy and protracted 'communication' of a sort.
    I don't remember reading about lichen communication in particular but I wouldn't be suprised by it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Some animal species also engage in interspecies communication, like apes, whales, dolphins, elephants, and dogs." is tantalizing, I'm upset the main article doesn't give much more on some of these, although I'm not suggesting more go here! One tiny item that could perhaps be added is a bit more on the dog intentionality in communicating with humans, as the current wording feels like it assigns human to dog communication intentionality, but dog to human communication is only mentioned as interpreting emotions, which doesn't accord with the dogs that have to my best understanding very intentionally asked me for food and for pets.
    I reformulated the passage to give more agency to dogs in the communicative process. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only distinction given between LANs and WANs seems to be distance, and I don't see exactly how that distinction affects any of the classifications of communication mentioned so far. PANs CANs and MANs also seem unrelated to the topic at hand.
    The idea of computer networks is central to computer communication and this is one of the main ways how different network types are distinguished. The two overview sources Hura & Singhal 2001 and Stallings 2014 discuss this distinction in their first chapters and also revisit it later. It would be possible to present this paragraph later after the paragraph on communication protocols. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What isn't clear to me from the text is how communication within a LAN is meaningfully different from communication within a WAN, PAN, CAN, or MAN. CMD (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One important difference between LANs and WANs besides distance is that LANs usually establish a direct connection between devices while for WANs, the connection is normally mediated through the public telephone network by using several intermediate connection nodes to relay the data between the endpoints. Other differences would be speed, security, the number of connected devices, and practical usage (like sharing printers and personal files vs accessing websites and sending emails). The distinction between LANs and WANs is the most discussed one. The other types are mentioned mainly for the sake of comprehensiveness. I think at least the difference between LANs and WANs should be mentioned somewhere in the section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link between computer security/cryptography and communication is also not quite clear.
    I added a short clarification about their role for successful communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't quite tell from the text here what the scope of Human-computer communication is. I can read parts of it as only referring to to one-way communication, human to computer, but others parts (eg. graphics) seem to convey some form of 'intentionality' of the computer 'communicating' with the human.
    I added a short clarification about the exchange of inputs and outputs to make this point more concrete. "Intentionality" is probably the wrong word but you are right that this is not a one-way communication but an exchange of information. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some simplex and half-duplex examples in the above section might also be maybe defined as computer to human 'communication', so perhaps they don't fit in the communication protocol paragraph?
    There is some overlap here. The idea behind including them in the protocol paragraph is that the protocol may determine how the systems are synchronized and which type of exchange is allowed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who does not like short form citations in Wikipedia article, the links to page numbers was a real boon, so I'm sad to report that the link in Berger, Roloff & Ewoldsen 2010, pp. 3–4. is just to the gbook.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Communicative competence section reads as if it should be included within the Human section. Within that, I don't think the barriers to effective communication should have its own header as is, it's short and only deals with very specific human-affecting barriers to communication, rather than the much broader possible spectrum of communication barriers.
    Done. I was hesitant to include it in the section "Human" since this section is already very long but it's probably for the best. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section might similarly fit under Human, but it is less clearcut and I can see the benefit from keeping it separate. I might slightly quibble that written communication does depend on human memory and that's why we can't read a whole lot of things, but I do see what this is saying so don't feel this needs to be clarified if you don't have an effective solution easily on hand.
  • Literacy is mentioned as something impacted by the spread of written works (obviously true), but it feels like (a lack of) it might also have been a factor in limiting "the spread of written communication within society". The spread of literacy, and perhaps even more recently computer literacy, the societal aspects of communication history, feel not given due attention in a section which has a reasonable amount of detail on technical/technological aspects of the relevant history.
    This factor was surely there but, as far as I'm aware, the reliable sources usually don't give much attention to this point. One reason might be that the increased speed at which written documents spread was already astonishing despite that. Most attention is usually put on the different technological developments and how they affected people by making new forms of communication available. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a way to mention the relation between new technologies and new skills without emphasizing their role as a limiting factor. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long, but at least I've reached the end of the article. I made a few minor edits here and there, feel free to tweak/revert if I've missed something. I checked a few sources, but definitely a tiny fraction so please let me know if any of my above comments are simply misplaced due to my missing of relevant knowledge. Regarding the FACR, I suppose my biggest concern is the elements of confusion and inconsistency around the linguistic/verbal coverage, which I guess is 1a although the prose is both engaging and professional. I have a few comments that relate to 1b on comprehensiveness, but I'm unsure how strong those are as I've not checked the sources, please do let me know if they're simply not given weight in the relevant bodies of knowledge. Aside from the language key distinction I mentioned the other sources I checked supported 1c, I mentioned a couple of areas where the text seemed to stray slightly off topic (4) but this was minor, no issues jumped out relating to the rest of the criteria. CMD (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this comprehensive review and for all the suggestions. I tried to implemented most of them except for a few, for which I provided a short explanation. I hope these changes were able to make the relevant distinctions clearer. Please let me know if some of the points need further work. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few remaining questions above which I hope might get figured out somehow, and made a few more bold copyedits (whose reversion would not affect this assessment). However, these are now well beyond the point where 1a, 1b, and 1c have been met, and the article meets the "well polished" spirit, so I would support an assessment that the FACR are met. CMD (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! The copyedits help improve the logical structure and having the distinction between the academic and the collocial usage of the term "verbal" right at the beginning is a good call. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Will review soon. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • controversial issues are whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication does not only transmit meaning but also creates it. - might just be me, but the structure of this sentence is confusing; the use of "controversial issues are" makes it seem like an issue itself (at least, that's how I read it)
    I tried to reformulate it to avoid this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-verbal communication happens without the use of a linguistic system, for example, using body language, touch, and intonation. - to my understanding, intonation is the inflection with which one speaks- not non-verbal? Also, "intonation" isn't anywhere else in the article
    Intonation belongs to paralanguage. It is usually seen as a non-verbal aspect of speech and is discussed in the section "Non-verbal". However, you are right that this could be confusing to readers since it accompanies speech. I replaced it with another example of non-verbal communication in this sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wl pets
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

  • many animals communicate within their own species and plants like flowers communicate - there's no "Like __" after animals, so I don't think "like flowers" makes sense here- "some plants" would sound better, or simply cutting plants and just saying "flowers"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One version of this view is given by Paul Grice, who identifies communication with actions that aim to make the recipient aware of the communicator's intention.[15] One question - both sentences start with 'One"- switch it up
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Models

  • An influential classification distinguishes between linear transmission models, interaction models, and transaction models. - what does "influential" mean here? Is the classification influential in the field of comms studies? Or is that the literal name as stated by academics?
    I added "in communication studies" to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Very nice so far, more soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other species

Computer

Will finish soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communicative competence

  • Effectiveness is closely related to efficiency but not identical to it. The difference is that effectiveness is about achieving goals while efficiency is about using few resources (such as time, effort, and money) in the process. - merge: "Effectiveness is closely related to efficiency, the difference being that effectiveness is about achieving goals while efficiency..."
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is "the perceived legitimacy or acceptability of behavior or enactments in a given context". - attribute quote
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7, all done! No issues found in Communication studies or History- this was a very interesting read and an extremely impressive one. Most of my comments were nitpicky gramatical things, so I commend you for the quality of this article. I hope to stop by the Philosophy PR sometime, but I've gotten quite busy IRL, so I can't make promises on that one. In the meantime, if you get a chance, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks for bringing this article forth and improving such vital articles! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for all the useful feedback. I hope I was able to address all the main points. Are you inclined to support or oppose this nomination?
If you find the time, I would appreciate your input at the Philosophy PR. I'll take a look at Appalachian Spring and I hope to have some comments in a day or two. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was waiting on the reply just to make sure everything was in good shape- support now, lovely work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done

DWB

[edit]

Disclosure: I was asked to review this FYI: It's not in my wheelhouse but I will do my best to identify points of interest

  • You refer to I.A. Richards but don't explain who he is. His article suggests he has a few roles so maybe just pick the most relevant one? I think it would possible be "literary critic", so "According to a broad definition by literary critic I. A. Richards,"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver. This will be the same for any other names in the article, although I can see you have done it for people like "Communication theorist Brian H. Spitzberg "
    Done. I went through the article one more time. I hope I didn't miss any names. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again this is not my area of expertise but shouldn't the "history of communication" section be near the top? Like the 2nd section at least? The history section seems to be defining how understanding of communication has evolved which seems more important than the section on models?
    The topic of the history of communication does not play a central role in the field of communication studies, which gives much more emphasis to topics like how to define communication and what its main components and types are. For example, Fiske's "Introduction to Communication Studies" starts with theories and models of communication but has no chapter on the history of communication. The entry "Communication" in Watson's and Hill's "Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies" uses a similar approach. I tried to follow this type of emphasis in the section order. Since the most logical place of a history section in this type of article is either the beginning or the end, I put it at the end. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make clear that dogs/pets learn to "understand" in this sentence "Dogs are able to learn to respond to various commands, like "sit" and "come". They can even learn short syntactic combinations, like "bring X" or "put X in a box"". It makes it sound like a dog can learn to say "Bring x".
    Done. I used the expressions like "learn to react/respond" instead of "understand". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computer communication leads to Computer network, is there a benefit of using the {{main|}} template to direct readers to the main article for this subsection so they can learn more?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the end of the article, it seems comprehensive with the caveat that this type of technical article isn't something I regularly interact with. It makes sense, if it is a little overwhelming at times. I have only evaluated it on the content as I can see Nikki has already done a source review and I am not familiar with image copyright. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkwarriorblake: thanks for going out of your comfort zone to review this article and for your useful suggestions. I hope I was able to solve the main points. Please let me know if there are more things to address. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support based on content alone. FYI There are duplicate links for "intention" and "ethernet". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I took care of the duplicate links. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 4 weeks ago. It has 3 supports and it has passed the image review and the source review. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two supports: My Cat and Dark Warrior. Where am I missing one? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I counted Khascall as a support since she states that the article passes the FA criteria. Please let me know if this is a misinterpretation on my side. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you did that, it seems a reasonable assumption. I have left a note on her talk page inviting the removal of any residual doubt, so let us pause a little and see what happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can start a second nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • History: given "Communication history studies how communicative processes evolved" might it be appropriate to preface "In early societies, spoken language was the primary form of communication" with the estimated time[s] that verbal, pictorial and written communications are thought to have originated? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are good idea. I added a short explanation of the emergence of language and included a sentence on when people started using pictograms. The emergence of more complex writing systems already has a date. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is 40,000 the consensus of the specialist scholars?
There is no clean-cut consensus on the emergence of language. If we have to give one number, then 40,000 is probably the best choice. This is reflected by the formulation "According to some scientific estimates".
The first cave paintings came earlier than the pictograms used in ancient civilizations but it's not clear to what extent they should be understood as forms of communication. Both they and body decoration could be mentioned but I don't think it's essential and the article is already quite long. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not a clear cut consensus it is normal to briefly present the various points of view. So, maybe 'According to some scientific estimates, language developed around 40,000 years ago, although others consider it to be much older' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2023 (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) 1 November 2023 [46].

2020 Missouri Amendment 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~UN6892 tc 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 2010s, referendums to expand Medicaid programs in conservative-leaning American states were met with support from voters. In 2020, a similar referendum was passed in Missouri, requiring the state to expand Medicaid coverage under optional provisions of the Affordable Care Act. While the state legislature initially refused to fund the program, a court decision forced the state to fund it. I initially found this article while looking through articles on similar referendums such as Oklahoma State Question 802 and immediately started finding sources to expand this one. After a GA review by Onegreatjoke and a PR from PCN02WPS, I believe this article is close to meeting the FA criteria. All feedback is welcome. ~UN6892 tc 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
It would. It is often carried out by the source reviewer; if so, they are likely to also do some ad hoc comparisons. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • Opponents sued to prevent the measure from being voted on, but courts ruled in favor of it. - "it" may be confusing, "the bill" or similar would work better
  • related Supreme Court decision seemed to prevent its implementation. - seemed? How does a SCOTUS decision seem to prevent a program?
  • Wl Medicaid first time in prose
  • Wl unconstitutional to Constitution of the United States
  • Wl conservative to Conservatism in the United States
  • What is "United for Missouri"? There's no wl and no title- describe it a bit more
  • They appealed the decision - who's "they"?
  • The header says "Campaign" but multiple campaigns are described in it; IMO, "Campaigns" is more fitting
  • Other groups opposing the initiative included Missouri Right to Life, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and Americans for Prosperity.[5] Other conservatives and opponents - other starts two sentences back to back; mix things up
  • Wl illegal immigrants to Illegal immigration to the United States
  • while conservative, rural areas voted against - making this connection between rural living and conservatism gets dangerously close to editorial bias, unless it's explicitly stated in the source
  • It has been cited as an example - replace "it" with "the amendment" or similar
  • Wl Republican and Supreme Court the first time in the prose

Username6892, that's all from me, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Some comments on my changes
  • For "it", I've changed it to "the measure". Not sure if there's too much of that phrase in the lead now.
  • For the "related Supreme Court decision", I've specified that they refused to grant certiorari to cases involving work requirements.
  • The source specifies that United for Missouri is a conservative organization, so I have added that.
  • I have changed "They" to "The organizations".
  • I noticed that the source had one person (Missouri House Budget Chair Cody Smith) saying what I put under "other conservatives and opponents", so I added his name instead.
  • Aligned the "conservative/rural" part with the source I'm citing, which says "conservative voters in rural areas"
  • For "Republican" and "Supreme Court", the lead has Republican Party (United States) and United States Supreme Court linked
Please review my edits if you can. Thanks, ~UN6892 tc 12:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Username6892, for the links, see MOS:REPEATLINK; it should be linked in the lead and in the first time it appears outside of the lead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I note that the guideline says "it may be repeated if helpful for readers", as well as some examples where it may be a case. However, I am not too familiar with it and a ton of the links which I might add under that guideline seem superfluous. That was not the case with your suggestions, though I ask that anyone else reviewing this article look over that. ~UN6892 tc 02:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Username6892, my reasoning for thinking that "Republican" and 'Supreme Court" should be linked is to clear up confusion from any readers. The first time Democrats is said outside of the lead is linked, but not these other two exclusively-American terms; even then, because "Supreme Court" doesn't use the full name (Supreme Court of the United States) a reader could get it mixed up with the hundreds of other supreme courts around the world. And, if I read an article on an Amendment in Germany, I would be clueless as to the political parties listed and would benefit from links. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I had Democrats linked because it was not linked in the lead and clarified which Supreme Court I was referring to. I have added the links as requested though I would like someone else to review them. ~UN6892 tc 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of linking, note that there are separate articles illegal immigration to the United States, and undocumented immigrants in the United States. This article mentions the latter, so both the wording and linking should be changed accordingly. Specifically, not all undocumented people arrived in the United States illegally. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the new wording. However, both links are the same. I'm considering linking to undocumented immigrant population of the United States. ~UN6892 tc 01:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Would undocumented immigrant population of the United States be a better link than illegal immigration to the United States? I think the former would work better if they were coming from other states while the latter would work better if they are coming from out of the country, though opponents did not make clear what they were referring to so I am not sure. ~UN6892 tc 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more plausible that they would be coming from other states, but either way you know more than I do about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS - source review and spot check

[edit]

Happy to take another look after my PR. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Have you taken another look? ~UN6892 tc 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping - sorry this has taken so long. I'm having a hard time finding complaints with the prose so I'll do a source review. Comments to come shortly. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All FN numbers are from this version.

  • FN 2: Vote totals/results: verified.
  • FN 6: "After a petition gained 346,000 signatures, Governor Mike Parson scheduled the initiative to appear on the August primary ballot." - source says "about 346,000 signatures", which is close enough for me, verified. Might be useful to say that it was originally scheduled for the general ballot in November and moved up as a result of the petition.
  • FN 8: initiative text - verified. Might be helpful to link to the PDF so readers don't have to search through or ctrl-F on the SoS page.
  • "The initiative was campaigned for by YES on 2, which was supported by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, the Missouri Hospital Association, the NAACP, the AARP, the AFL-CIO, and Catholic Charities of St. Louis, among others." -- verified. List of organizations is presented very similarly compared to the source but all are proper nouns so not much can be done there
  • FN 6: "Supporters said most hospital closures were in states which did not opt into the Medicaid expansion." -- verified
  • FN 9: "The initiative was opposed by Republican politicians such as Governor Mike Parson, who said that the state could not afford its share of the Medicaid expansion's cost." -- verified
  • FN 5: "Prior to the vote, No on 2 in August mailed campaign material suggesting undocumented immigrants would come to Missouri looking for Medicaid coverage, despite them not being eligible for Medicaid." -- verified
  • In the last paragraph of "Campaigns", what does FN 6 cover that FN 9 doesn't? From what I can see FN 9 could cover that whole paragraph.
  • "The measure was approved with just over 53% of the vote" -- this seems petty, I'm sure -- but "just" could be construed as OR or as some form of commentary, recommend saying "over 53%" or simplifying in some other way. The second sentence covered by FN 5 there is verified, and I won't hold up the review because of this.
  • FN 9: "The amendment has been cited as an example of the popularity of expanding Medicaid, occurring weeks following the success of a similar ballot initiative in Oklahoma." -- verified
  • "The year following the measure's passage, lawmakers in the House Budget Committee voted against funding the expansion. Following the budget's passage, Governor Parson announced the state would be unable to expand its Medicaid program before the July 1 deadline." -- verified using FN 10, 11, 12
  • FN 14: "Enrollment in the Medicaid expansion began in October 2021, with Missouri becoming the 38th state to opt-in." -- verified
  • FN 15: "Implementation was slow, with only 7% of newly-eligible Missourians enrolling in the expansion's first month, compared to about 50% in Idaho and Montana. The state's outreach efforts regarding the expansion had been much slower than in other states such as Oklahoma." -- verified
  • "The following year, Republican lawmakers proposed requiring that 60% of voters approve of any future state constitutional amendment to make it more difficult for them to pass." -- verified.

Overall, spot checks look good to me. The only thing I'd bring your attention to is being consistent with linking within references: some FN 2, 3, 4, etc., have the website/publisher linked but some do not. Recommend linking Missouri Secretary of State (FN 1, 8), NPR (FN 4), and U.S. News & World Report (15). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: I have implemented all of your suggestions. Regarding FN 6 and FN 9, I initially thought one did not cover Governor Parson's reasoning, though a rereading shows that I missed it in FN 9. Thus, I have removed FN 6 from that paragraph. ~UN6892 tc 12:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along with my prose comments at the PR, I'm happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PCN02WPS, nudge :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry that this has taken so long, school and traveling have prevented me from spending a bunch of time on Wikipedia. I'll do my best to have this done by the end of the weekend. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild (thanks for yet another reminder) - took another look over the sourcing and am happy to clarify that the spot check and source review are a pass; separately, my intent was to support the nomination as a whole based on this and my prose comments at the article's PR, but if that is not appropriate without prose comments here as well I can strike that statement. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PCN02WPS, appreciated. And you supportive comment will be taken into account, although with a low weighting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

After reading the lead a couple of times I'm a bit confused about sequence. I think this is what is being said:

  • The ballot was to expand Medicaid under ACA in Missouri. It passed.
  • Other Republican states had previously expanded Medicaid similarly via ballot measures, and in those states (all or some?) Republican lawmakers added work requirements to Medicaid (including all Medicaid recipients? Even those who qualified before the expansion?)
  • Supporters of Medicaid expansion in those other states then proposed constitutional amendments to eliminate the work requirements. "Future Medicaid expansions" presumably refers to the other states where the expansion had not yet taken place and where these constitutional amendments to eliminate work requirements were proposed to pre-empt the possibility that Republicans would try to pass laws to add them.
  • Opponents sued to prevent the measure being voted on -- I think "measure" has to refer to 2020 Missouri Amendment 2, not the pre-emptive constitional amendments just mentioned.
  • Implementation was delayed by lack of funding but implemented starting in 2021.
  • Republicans tried to roll back the amendment by another constitutional amendment but failed.

Is that an accurate summary? I don't want to comment further at the moment in case I've misunderstood the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct. I should clarify the wording of the lead under your second point but have not thought of good wording as of yet. ~UN6892 tc 03:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my reading of the lead -- I wanted to check because I think it needs some copyediting and clarification, but I didn't want to post comments if I'd misinterpreted it. I think the sequence is confusing. We start with a definition of the subject of the article, then talk about similar measures in other states, without saying whether these were before or after the Missouri amendment (or both). The work requirements issue is mentioned and the counter-plan by supporters, which involved more ballot measures. The next sentence says "the measure", which is confusing since we've just mentioned ballot measures but this refers to the subject of the article again. Then we go back to the work requirements issue, but this time just for Missouri.

Sequencing also seems to me to be a problem in the background section.

  • The section starts by saying the ACA's requirement to expand Medicaid coverage was removed in Sebelius, without first saying a goal of the ACA was to expand Medicaid coverage and that the requirement to do so to continue to receive existing federal funding was because of expected opposition in Republican controlled states. I think that's worth saying because it sets the stage for the fight over whether to expand the coverage.
  • Then I think FN 4's map could be used to give a count of those states that did not voluntarily expand coverage -- eighteen of them. Currently we mention three, which isn't wrong, but the real number is worth telling the reader.
  • I would suggest mentioning the Fairness Project's support of the ballot initiative in Maine in 2017 as well as making it clear that the three states you list for 2018 are the full list -- currently it says "such as", as if there were others that year.
  • The sentence starting "After a petition" doesn't say that this was for the expansion of Medicaid, nor even that it was a Missouri petition -- the previous sentence talks about constitutional amendments in other states, so we need to give the reader the context more precisely.
  • "stating the initiative itself does not fund anything": I don't follow this. Opponents argued that the constitutional requirement was that the initiative should cite a funding source. If initiatives don't fund anything, then the constitutional requirement is meaningless -- presumably the intent is that initiatives force the legislature to fund things?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie. I'll try to address these as soon as I can, though I have a rather tight schedule this week so it might take a while. ~UN6892 tc 01:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'll keep an eye on this page and on the article this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Username6892, is there an update on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild. Apologies for my lack of output lately, I've been rather busy. I think I have some time carved out on Sunday though. I'll go through it then. ~UN6892 tc 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. Be aware that as Sunday will be 20 days since your last edit here you are straining the boundaries of "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have attempted to address most of the points you brought up. The lead has been reworded and all mentions of "ballot measure" or "measure" have been replaced with "ballot initiative" or "initiative" except for the first link. I'll replace that one with initiative if that is preferable. In the Background section, I am not sure whether the justification for Medicaid expansion being a part of the ACA is relevant enough to be in the article. I have made a few clarifications to address the rest of your points regarding the background section. ~UN6892 tc 17:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892, sorry about the slow reply. I've made an edit that I think clarifies the remaining ponits I was confused about in the "Background" section. Can you check to see if the new wording is accurate and supported by the sources? Please feel free to revert any or all of the edits if you disagree. It seemed simply to make the changes and let you review than propose them here. Once you've looked at those I'll take another read through.

One other question: "As of May 2023, no similar amendment has passed in the Missouri Senate." Does this mean that the previous sentence referred to a bill that passed Missouri's lower house? Or was it just a proposed bill that didn't pass either house? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, Regarding your edit, I do not think any particular source connected the court case and the 19 states, and I don't think WP:SKYBLUE applies there, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Regarding your latter question, it was a bill that passed the lower house, though the Senate changed it by lowering the threshold to 57%. I have reworded that section to hopefully make what I meant clearer. ~UN6892 tc 03:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I've removed that part of my edit. Your clarification looks good too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medicaid expansion supporters in other states which had not expanded Medicaid began supporting constitutional amendment proposals to prevent similar restrictions from being implemented." I reread the cited NY Times article, and as far as I can tell the constitutional amendments that were supported in other states were to expand Medicaid; the point of planning to do it by constitutional amendment was that the implementation could not then be modified by the legislature. The source has "Such post-ballot resistance prompted the Fairness Project to revise its strategy for its 2020 Medicaid campaign in Oklahoma. The ballot asked voters to approve a constitutional amendment, which could be altered only by another statewide referendum. The referendum passed in June. The Fairness Project employed the same method in Missouri." This is not completely unambiguous but I can't see another way to read it, and looking at the way the Maine initiative was wording I think it's clear. I've reworded the relevant part of the article to try to clarify; does that look OK? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: It looks good. ~UN6892 tc 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last question.

  • "After the United States Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to other cases involving state healthcare programs with a work requirement, which would effectively prevent one from taking effect, Republicans gave up on the proposed amendment." I read the cited source, and also found this (which appears to be a reliable source despite being a blog, as Cuello is a law professor) and this (linked by Cuello). I see that the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case meant that earlier decisions that work requirements were unlawful would stand. What I don't see clearly explained is what those lawsuits were -- according to Cuello, the Trump administration had approved the work requirements, so presumably somebody else sued to overturn that approval. I think we need a sentence saying how that lawsuit interacted with state work requirements. E.g., if we can source it, something like this would do: "State legislatures in Arkansas and New Hampshire added work requirements to their Medicaid programs in 20??, and these requirements were approved by the Trump adminstration. The Biden administration sued to prevent these requirements from taking effect, and federal courts ruled that the approvals were invalid and that no such work requirements could be added. In April 2022, after the United States Supreme Court refused to review these decisions, Republicans gave up on the proposed amendment." A bit more sourcing than the links I gave would be needed for this so I don't know if this can be done, but I think this would be clearer than what is there now.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie, I'll get to this one tonight. I have an exam today so I don't have much time to look over it right now. ~UN6892 tc 14:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these sources for tonight. Will try to implement tomorrow. [47][48][49]. ~UN6892 tc 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've added all the info there, though please review my wording. I am unsure of the relevance of the time of implementation (the years, not that they were approved by the Trump administration). All other info is sourced to the third source above, however I have little experience with Industry Dive publications. I believe they are reliable ([50] has a link to request corrections and they differentiate press releases from their own news) but would prefer a second opinion. ~UN6892 tc 12:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and thanks for your patience with my slow review. The source looks reliable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: I'm not a regular at FAC but as the creator of this image I'm curious if there's an issue here? The colors for the image were intentionally chosen to be accessible; this is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors § Proposal support levels. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is accessible for the most common colour-blindness types, red-green. But if you have a look at the map in no colour, it is still very difficult to visually distinguish between equivalent levels of yes and no. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a way to achieve that level of accessibility while maintaining the typical style of referendum support/opposition maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elli, you need to ping Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't done FAC much so not aware of the conventions here (also not intending to get in the middle of someone else's nomination). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem Elli. It's a fair comment and it's not getting in the way. And Nikkimaria does a lot of image reviews and I suspect rarely bookmarks them, not something I would expect you to know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to address the distinguishability problem using patterning for yes vs no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Elli, I'm not too sure what the best colours would be for the image. My thought at the moment is to make the "no" colours darker than the "yes" colours. I think that would involve darkening the existing "no" brown and lightening the existing "yes" blue, or doing some sort of spectrum where the median colour is closest to 50-50. Not sure how that would work for dark brown -> light blue. I have thought about doing Black -> white, though it feels a bit too unconventional. That's probably a last resort for if nothing works. ~UN6892 tc 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Nikkimaria here that to make the maps accessible for people who cannot see color, patterning would be a good way to go. Alternatively you could do a color scheme of entirely one color (over the whole range), but I'd prefer patterning to keep the color scheme consistent with other election maps (and keep the map more immediately clear to most of our readers who can see color). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "After a petition to put a Medicaid expansion initiative on the ballot in Missouri gained 346,000 signatures," — Perhaps, "gained around 346,000 signatures"
  • "Republican politicians such as Governor Mike Parson" — We have already described in the article than Parson's first name is "Mike" and he and he is a "governor". I'll suggest not repeating it again.
  • "Parson said he scheduled it in August to allow the" — Is there some way to rephrase it in a better way? "Parson replied that ..."? "Parson, however, asserted that ..."?
  • We have both "NPR" and "National Public Radio" in the sources. One is italicized while the other is not.

That is, perhaps, all there is to say! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username6892: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got to most of these already but was stuck on the 2nd one over my memory of a comment about each section standing on its own. However, I can't find a similar comment here, in the PR, or the GAN so I think I misremembered. I think just saying "Parson" isn't a good enough disambiguation, though I agree that saying the first name is a bit much so I've removed it. Kavyansh.Singh, is the current version satisfactory? ~UN6892 tc 14:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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/November_2023&oldid=1188730401"