Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

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

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Brie Larson[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If you dislike pop culture icons but are a fan of cheese, dolls, architecture, rice, or latex, then there's plenty for you here. If not, I sure won't be clapping for you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Limalok[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about another underwater mountain in the Marshall Islands which was formerly an atoll, similar to the other recent FA Wōdejebato, and has a similar history although it is located in a different part of the Marshall Islands: It's a former volcano in French Polynesia which became first an atoll as plate tectonics moved it north, then it disappeared below the water and is now a seamount at the southeastern end of the Marshall Islands. It's somewhat less known than Wōdejebato but IMO there is enough material on this seamount for featured article status as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A little postscript: While this is my fifth FAC it's the first one where I didn't ask for a pre-FAC prose review so that might need some more prose reviewing than my previous nomination. If folks think that its prose needs more rewriting than what can/should be done in a FAC, just say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Melodrama (Lorde album)[edit]

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Melodrama, the second studio album from New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde (Ella Yelich-O'Connor). It was released on 16 June 2017 to widespread acclaim, earning a nomination for Album of the Year at the 60th Annual Grammy Awards. The majority of the album was co-written and co-produced by Lorde and Jack Antonoff over the course of four years shortly after the release of the singer's debut studio album. It performed moderately on national charts, earning gold certifications in several countries. De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character from the Resident Evil franchise. After an exhaustive [5-month] campaign of contacting everyone who contributed to every single FAC and peer review, I'm renominating this article for Featured Article inclusion. This is a somewhat contentious topic, and I'm aware that fictional character articles have a tenuous chance of being promoted to FA, for one reason or another, so I've tried my best to approach this entire project with the aim of achieving as much consensus from as many contributors as possible. A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available here. I believe I've addressed all of their concerns, even if the majority of them said they wouldn't be available for comment at this FAC. I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: @ProtoDrake: @Adityavagarwal: @Tintor2: @Beemer69: @Sergecross73:. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake
  • Having looked through the article, I think it more than deserves to become an FA. If the others share my opinion, or share it after any edits they suggest have been attended to, then you should have little trouble. I Support a promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment by Tintor2
  • I don't consider myself an expert in these article (well, there are so little FA characters) but I wonder if the first paragraph could introduce Jill rather than wait for the second paragraph to mention her. Appearances could have a subsection simply titled "In the Resident Evil games" to make it more distinct since there is another one titled "Other appearances". Other than that, I give it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your comments. ;) @Tintor2: I've re-arranged the lead and added the requested sub-section heading in 'Appearances'. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am not sure that “developer” and “publisher” needs to be linked in the lead’s first paragraph. Same with the link for "heroine".
Replaced both of the former with generic term "company"; removed link to "heroine".
  • For this part (Valentine is an American counterterrorism officer who regularly works with her partner,), I do not believe that “regularly” is needed here.
Removed.
  • For this sentence (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" for the remake, although she remained a tough and muscular character.), I do not believe the “for the remake” part is necessary as it is clear from the context provided in the previous sentence. And maybe rework the last part slightly to make contrast clear and for more concise language, with something like (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" while keeping her a tough and muscular character.)? Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've rephrased that whole sentence.
  • This sentence (Voth's likeness was again used in the 2007 title Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, as well as 2009's Resident Evil 5.) is rather wordy and I think you can make it more concise with this revision (Voth’s likeness was reused for Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007) and Resident Evil 5 (2009).).
Done.
  • I have a question about this part (The director of the latter game said its designers tried to illustrate how both Valentine and Redfield had changed with time). Is it really important to know that the director said this? Could it just cut to something like “The latter game’s designers tried to…”? I am also not certain about the word choice “tried” as it implies to me an unsuccessful attempt. Maybe something like “wanted to” would be better?
Rephrased.
  • For this sentence (In the game, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject in biological research experiments.), specify which installment you mean by “the game”.
Done.
  • For this part (The style of this costume was based primarily on military clothing and sportswear.), I do not think you need the word “primarily”.
Removed.
  • You use the phrase “alternative costume” three times in a single paragraph. I think you can cut down on this by revising this sentence (The miniskirt appears as an alternate costume in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) to something like (The miniskirt is reused for Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) or something similar.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's a repetition I'd never have noticed myself. I've rephrased the entire paragraph.
  • For this part (for the original game were credited by their first names only), I would put “only” between “their” and “first” instead.
Rephrased.
  • This sentence (In Revelations, she was voiced by Michelle Ruff, who provided her voice in the non-canon game Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City.) seems rather repetitive, particularly with “was voiced” and “provided her voice”, and I was wondering it should have some variation. Maybe just say “who returned for the non-canon game” instead?
Thanks again. The way this article was left following the last peer review, I have to admit that I was struggling to find synonyms/alternate phrasings for some of these basic points. I've rephrased to your wording.
  • I think that this sentence (The character appeared in several entries of the Resident Evil film series, where she was portrayed by British actress Sienna Guillory.) should be in the present tense.
Done.
  • This sentence (Until its destruction at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, every game in the series took place in the fictional American metropolitan area Raccoon City.) needs to be reworded. The initial, dependent clause (specifically "its destruction) is connected to the noun at the beginning of the: next part (every game) so it literally reads that every game is destroyed at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.
Rephrased.
  • Link Wesker on the first mention
Darn. Things not being linked until successive mentions is one of my pet peeves. And this was something I saw happening on the article following its last peer review. So I hoped I'd be able to get all high-and-mighty about it, if needs be... but it turns out I've done it myself. C'est la vie. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • I do not think that the Mediterranean Sea needs a link.
Removed.
  • For this part (were used as the basis for the creation of the Uroboros Virus), I think you can just say "the basis for..." and remove "the creation of" part.
Done.
  • Specify which game you mean for this part (During the game, Redfield discovers that Valentine is alive.).
Done.
  • For this part (Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal.), I am not quite sure if "this" is contextualized. Maybe something like "Despite Mikami's intentions," would make it absolutely clear?
Done.
  • How does Voth's cosplay and appearances at cons fit in a section about merchandise? I am a little confused there.
It seemed like a notable event, but I couldn't figure out any other way of having it included on the article. Removed.
  • For this part (a quip delivered in awkward voiceover by Valentine's partner), is the partner Chris Redfield? If so, I would just say his name to avoid confusion. Apologies for this, as I have not seen this scene (or played any of the games surprisingly enough lol).
It was actually Barry Burton who delivered the line. Rephrased.

I think you have done a good job with this article. It is nice to see another fictional character up for an FA. My review only covers the prose, and does not touch on the sourcing/images. I hope that my comments are helpful; I admit that I am not the best reviewer, but I felt compelled to help with this considering my involvement in the past FAC and peer review. Good luck with this, and I hope this gets plenty of discussions. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, @Aoba47: I would've pinged you, but I wasn't sure if you had retired yourself from Wikipedia or not, so thought it best to err on the side of caution. I think I've done everything you mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else you can do. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

WAVES[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as WAVES. Pendright has been working on this article for several years. It went through GAN in 2016 and MILHIST ACR earlier this year. I have nominated the article for FAC on behalf of Pendright, per request on my talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations. The Article was promoted to A-class on 18, April 2018. To those who choose to review the article, thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Criterion 1a, lead:

  • "The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported in the Congress or by the Navy, although some members did support the need for uniformed women during World War II." You might drop the second "by". "members means members of Congress, I suppose; slight possibility it might refer to members of the Navy. Let's avoid the gendered "Congressmen" ... would "lawmakers" fix the problem?
The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported by the Congress or the Navy, although some of the lawmakers and naval personnel did support the need for uniformed women during World War II. Pendright (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "For enlisted, the eligible age was ..."—unsure what that means. "For the enlisted"? (i.e. the already-enlisted). Or "For enlistment"?
= "other ranks" in British English, and perhaps Australian. Not officers or NCOs. But perhaps there are readers equally unfamiliar. See Enlisted rank (or Other ranks for a range of links). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Enlisted was changed to enlistment as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. In U.S. English, enlistment is described as the action of enrolling or being enrolled in the armed services. No entry rate or rank, just a recruit. Pendright (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "indoctrination"—most narrowly, yes, it is the right word. But several sources I consulted give it a "brainwashing" tinge. Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. to often repeat an idea or belief to someone to persuade them to accept it." Two examples are provided: "Some parents were critical of attempts to indoctrinate children in green ideology. They have been indoctrinated by television to believe that violence is normal." The second meaningn concerns "religious/political/ideological indoctrination". Perhaps a more neutral word? "training"? "induction"? There are other synonyms, too.
Substituted training for indoctrination - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Specialized training for officers was held on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities." ... training was "held"; perhaps "was conducted", but it's ok. And possibly, too: "Most enlisted members received initial training at Hunter College in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Some women then attended ...".
Specialized training for officers was conducted on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women then attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • False match between fields and practitioners: "Many officers entered fields previously held by men, such as doctors and engineers"—medicine and engineering? And you mark gender in the next sentence, but not here (Many female officers).
Many female officers entered fields previously held by men, such as medicine and engineering. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, many of the women were experiencing hostility in the workplace by some of their male counterparts."—I think the first phrase could go. Simpler is better: "Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts."
Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • cause for ... I think better might be "source of"?
The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies, early on, was the source of many of the difficulties. Pendright (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Upon their demobilization"—who was being demobilized? The women or the bosses?
Upon demobilization of the officer and enlisted members, Pendright (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, this is a great topic, and I'd really like to see it promoted. Going by the lead, I think it needed a more-thorough copyedit before nomination—though the lead is hard to get right. I haven't looked at the rest. Do you have collaborators who could go over it with fresh eyes? (That is, editors who haven't yet worked on it?) Tony (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I seem to have exhausted my circle of fresh eyes – but let me see what I can do elsewhere. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I have read through parts of the article and generally agree with your comments, that it could use a thorough copyedit and that the prose is not currently up to FA standard. I'm willing to have a look and see what feedback I can offer. Catrìona (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona[edit]

General[edit]
I’ve reviewed the MOS reference. Also looked at other articles, FAC and AC, and image-wise I don’t see any differences between them and those in this article. I’m ready to try to fix the problem, but I need a better grasp of the problem. Would you mind elaborating further? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more specific. In the "Uniforms" section the image exceeds the header, which is probably necessary, but it is awkward to then butt up against an unrelated image "A Campus view of Smith College", which I would recommend deleting because it is only tangentially relevant. The layout of the "Personnel" section is also awkward. Both the images are relevant, but they should be kept within the section. Personally, I might try using the {{multiple images}} template, either side by side or one above the other. If you aren't familiar with templates, I could try reformatting that part myself. Catrìona (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(a) Deleted image of Campus view of Smith College - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(b) I'd apprecite any
reformating help you are willing to provide. Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, see if you like it. I took the liberty of shortening the captions and ALT text a bit. The ALT text should not be duplicative of the caption, per WP:Alt text. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:Alt text; it is intended to describe the purely visual content of an image for the benefit of the visually impaired. For an example of alt text done correctly, see Bratislava Working Group.
  • Please see MOS:CREDENTIAL (TLDR: in most cases, don't use titles like Dr., Mrs., etc.)
  • Why are these indented? They don't appear to be quotes.
    • In More Than a Uniform, Winifred Quick Collins (a former WAVE officer) described Director McAfee as a born diplomat, handling difficult matters with finesse.[18] She also said McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men and in their assignments, housing conditions, and supervision and discipline standards.
    • In Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose.
  • The quote attached to Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. is sourced so it's difficult to tell what information is from which source. Also, it's best to cite direct quotes to a secondary source where possible. Just taking a guess at what information is supported by which source, you could do something like:

Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name.[1] She explained:

I realized there were two letters that had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So, I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps.[2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goodson p. 11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Goodson p. 113, quoting Hancock p. 61
Background[edit]
  • denied the benefits of their male counterparts This is a vague statement. Although not directly related to the article, consider adding a footnote stating how the benefits for women differed than those for men; it also isn't clear in the article if/how WAVES' benefits were different.
  • In her book, Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock quotes his reply: Suggest "He replied," (Alternately, state Hancock's source for the statement; she didn't seem to be a witness to the conversation)
  • Bureau of Personnel Is this the Bureau of Naval Personnel linked above? Best to be consistent.
  • In Crossed Currents, the authors describe Chung and her involvement: Suggest breaking up this quote and paraphrasing in your own words, per Wikipedia policy to minimize quotes and brevity.
  • Is the political party of the politicians relevant to mention?
  • Maas's House bill was essentially the same as the Knox proposal, which would make a women's branch part of the Naval Reserve Suggest "Like the Knox propose, Maas' bill would create a women's branch of the Naval Reserve", unless there were other similarities that would be appropriate to mention in the article.
  • On 16 April 1942, the House Naval Affairs Committee reported favorably on the bill. which bill?
  • But Knox asked the president to reconsider. You should be more clear on whether or not the bill passed and/or if Roosevelt signed it.
Creation of the program[edit]
  • You state Because of her efforts, eight prominent women agreed to serve on the council. However, from the list that follows it looks like only seven of them served at once, and according to Google, Graham was a man. Phrases like "national authority" and "noted lecturer" are potentially WP:PEACOCK issues.
  • Her first-rate performance as Jacobs' assistant silenced any fears the Navy may have had about women educators. WP:PEACOCK
  • The task of convincing McAfee to accept and persuading the Wellesley Board of Trustees to release her was difficult, but successful. McAfee was reluctant to accept the position and the Wellesley Board of Trustees initially refused to release her, but eventually she was freed ...?
  • Mildred McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy. move this earlier in the paragraph, to explain why McAfee was chosen for the position
  • who did not favor the WAAC concept, cut, already stated

Jason Sendwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a prominent politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose and fell like man of legend; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March, and since then I've filled in the biographical details with other sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, just the lead:

  • "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo) from August 1961 until December 1962 and as President of the Province of North Katanga from July 1963 until his death." Does "second" need the cap? Surely it's not part of some title? Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name. There are lots of caps even without that. But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all? I see a fully capped BALUBAKAT. A comma after "1962" would be in order in a sentence of that length and complexity.
    • The Manual of Style reads, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was British Prime Minister; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)". Thus, for all of the specific government offices I refer to directly, I capitalize them. Sendwe was indeed Second Deputy PM, as Christophe Gbenye was the First Deputy PM at this time (it appears to have been a matter of protocol). BALUBAKAT is not quite an acronym, but is shorthand for the party he led (it's pronounced Ba-lu-ba-kat, not B-A-L-U-B-A-K-A-T). About half of the sources list it in all caps. Comma added.
  • "He also espoused nationalism"—what does "also" add?
    • I was differentiating from his pro-Baluba stance. Seeing as the way I've worded it has that former ideal embedded in foundation of the BALUBAKAT, I've excised the "also".
  • "after the termination of Belgian rule"—why not a simple word? "end". Then, "desired to obtain" ... why not "wanted to gain"?
    • Changed to "end" and "wished", respectability.
  • "but lost the power struggle to his rival"—"the" says to the reader, you know which power struggle I'm referring to: it's been mentioned above, or it's common knowledge. I think you need "a".
    • It seemed to me it would be obvious there was some maneuvering to be done if Sendwe wanted to "to obtain control over the government"; apparently not. Changed to "a".
  • "Sendwe opposed the breakaway state and rejected Tshombe's entreaties for him to join the rebel government, rupturing relations between the two." What are the two? Between Tshombe and the rebel government?
    • Clarified as between the two men.
  • Suddenly present tense? "In early 1963, he increasingly focuses his activities"
    • Typo corrected; changed to "focused".
  • "His popularity dramatically decreased"—among whom? This brings up a major point ... nowhere are we told something critical: is it a voter democracy or a closed system of power?
    • Clarified as His popularity among the local population dramatically decreased. To what system of power are you referring to? A provincial presidency in the Congo at this time was an office awarded to a person on a vote of the relevant provincial assembly. That was the normal process, though things in the country were a little hectic at this time and the relevant source for the information isn't clear on whether Sendwe assumed the office by virtue of a vote or simply took over when he forced his predecessor to resign.
  • "Sendwe's demise greatly demoralised the Baluba, and his image thereafter drifted into obscurity."—what does image mean here? reputation?
    • Changed to "reputation".

It's not of FA quality. Perhaps it might be brought up to standard throughout, but we expect not to have such a density of issues in the lead, and don't want this on the list for six painful weeks. Do you have copy-editing support from others? Tony (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The "density of issues" in the paragraph I wrote a few hours ago was some clunky word choice (which I just fixed, so they are easily rectifiable), your misconception of MOS on office names, and some unfamiliarity on your part with the sources' information on the subject. Must this stall the FAC right here before a look is taken at the rest of the text? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Being accusatory isn't helpful. What gives you the idea that I'm micsonceiving MOS on capping of job titles? I wrote: "But it's up to you." Did you read my post? I'm not happy at your response. Tony (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Did I fail to act upon your comments? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You issued a false accusation (as yet not withdrawn) and yes, you did act on my comments. Tony (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
          • The false accusation being the MOS thing? You said "Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name...But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all?" That statement still contradicts MOS, I believe. We have don't a choice on whether or not to follow MOS (it's not "up to" me). I'm sorry for my initial hostility, but I still don't see how I was technically wrong. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And I'm getting rather sick of hostility from reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum (see below for that). My understanding is that MOS leaves it open. That is why I said "It's up to you". You're complaining of "my misconception of MOS". I can do without the bullying. Tony (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If I may, "reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum" and "bullying" don't sound any less "accusatory" than anything I've said so far. Shall we both start over? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You haven't withdrawn your accusation. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Well let's agree to disagree on the nature of the applicability of MOS. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
          • No, that's completely irrelevant. You accused me of "misconception of MOS on office names". I did not refer to en.WP's MOS. It was not the source of my comment. Tony (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Were you unaware of the relevant MOS section? MOS and and policy aren't exempt from application because an individual hadn't recalled it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you unaware that we are talking completely at cross-purposes. This is a waste of time. You accused me falsely. You should withdraw the accusation. Tony (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I am aware this is a waste of time, but I'm not going to withdraw an accusation on the grounds of falsehood when I don't believe it was. You didn't answer my question ("Did you read my post?"). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bratislava Working Group[edit]

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bratislava Working Group was the only Jewish organization in an Axis-aligned country to attempt to save Jews in other countries from the Holocaust. I created the article in June based on content in the article in one of its key figures. The article was promoted to GA in August; since then, it has received a peer review and a GOCE copy edit. I believe it is finally ready for FAC—my first nomination. Courtesy ping to @Vami IV, Kaiser matias, and Dudley Miles: who kindly offered feedback on earlier versions of the article. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Images:
  • It's covered under FoP Slovakia: According to section 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author. and now has been tagged accordingly.
  • You can verify the license here:[1] In fact, it is PD-US-Army because it was taken by an American military aircraft; Fortepan obtained it from the (United States) National Archives. I marked it accordingly.
  • Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information on this photograph than stated on Commons.
OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Other language variations of the name, such as Bratislava Pracovnd Skupina should be mentioned in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: The name is actually a bit difficult. The common name, used by most English-language sources, is "Working Group", but since that article is a disambig page, I chose Bratislava Working Group as the title since that name is also attested in RS. I have not seen "Bratislava" attached to any of the foreign-language versions. Pracovná skupina is by far the most common, and I want to avoid the impression that the second-most-common name, German Nebenregierung, means "Working Group". The relevant MOS section seems to recommend not giving an exhaustive list anyway, so I've added only Pracovná skupina. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bloger[edit]

Opinions of some important historians on the subject are completely ignored in the article. In particular the opinion of David Kranzler and Abraham Fuchs on the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus in 1942.

Kranzler’s and Fuchs opinion are much more in line with the opinion of the members of the group. This info should be added to the article in order for it to be more encyclopedic and not one sided. Bloger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Bloger (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: There are several reasons why we should be cautious about giving undue weight to this opinion. First of all, both books to which I think you may be referring—The Unheeded Cry by Kranzler and Thy Brother's Blood by Fuchs—are somewhat out of date, having been written in the 1980s before Bauer's or Fatran's studies of the Working Group. In this 2001 Yad Vashem publication, Fuchs' book The Unheeded Cry is described as part of a "Haredi counter-history" which seeks to distort the facts about the Holocaust in order to indict secular Jewish leaders for being indifferent to the death of their co-religionists. Kranzler is respected for his scholarship in this area, but it would be important to make sure he did not change his opinion later on after better research became available. Did he repeat these claims in his 2000 book, The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz? (Quotes and page numbers would be helpful; since these books were not published by academic publishers, I cannot access them). In addition, that section is already crowded with the informed opinions of historians with a good reputation for solid scholarship. We would need a good reason to include other authors. Catrìona (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding.
Firstly, even if you are concerned with “undue weight”, it clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a “smaller way then the majority opinion - except “flat earth” style minority opinion. So in the same vein, even the opinion of Kranzler should at least be mentioned. This won’t violate the “undue weight” rule at all.
Secondly, there are a series of You Tube videos where Kranzler tells the story of the working group from late in his life, and he reiterates all his points from the book. I can provide you with the links. In addition, I will try to look up in The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz if he specifically writes about the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus. It may be he doesn’t since this is not the focus of that book. But Kranzler wrote several books on the Holocaust and rescue, for example, “To Save a World”- "Profiles in Holocaust Rescue" where info like this is more likely to be mentioned.
The opinion on Fuchs’s book in the link you sited is just that, an “opinion” of one person, it’s not put out by Yad Vashem as the “Yad Vashem opinion” – unlike BTW the links I provided in the Working Group ”Talk page” – so its “he said he said” as far as I’m concerned.
The last point about the section being crowded, I can understand that, but then maybe other opinions should be omitted since all the opinions mentioned are on the same “side” in agreement that the Working Group were wrong about the bribes even in Slovakia. I think that since we have a respected historian that holds that the ransoms did work, it has to be clearly written out. Bloger (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hector Berlioz[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has FAs or GAs on thirteen French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Boulez, Debussy, Fauré, Josquin, Massenet, Messager, Messiaen, Offenbach, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. It seems right that one of France's greatest composers should join them as an FA. The article has had the benefit of a peer review as thorough and helpful as any I can remember, and I think it now meets the FA standards. I look forward to your comments. – Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I had a spare hour sitting around earlier and took that long time to read through the copy I had with me while waiting for my very late guest to turn up! A few minor typos picked up with these edits Three very minor points to pick up on here – they read slightly inelegantly to me, but you may disagree and it won't affect my support.
1821–1824
  • "graduated from the medical school": "from medical school"? I'm a big fan of the def article, but not sure it's needed here.
  • "suggested law as an alternative profession, but refused to" "but"? Wouldn't "and" work better?
1860–1869
  • "Berlioz's wife, Marie, died": do we need the name, only two paras after the wedding?

My review has been on prose and formatting only as I know nearly nothing about Hector, and even less about musicology. Interesting stuff, nevertheless. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not rising to "guest", above. Agree on all three drafting points, and will change the text accordingly. Thank you for your input here and at peer review. And thank you for your support here, too. Tim riley talk 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Double sharp[edit]

Can we have some more on Berlioz's musical style? Currently we only significantly cover his orchestration; his use of harmony, phrasing, and structure is barely touched on. IMHO Chopin's article is an excellent model for covering those aspects of technique as well as one can without tons of musical examples. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been mindful of the length of the article: I was hoping to keep it to under 9,000 words (the average for composer FAs is almost exactly 7,000 and although Tchaikovsky became an FA at 12,600 words he has subsequently been pruned to 8,000, leaving only three FA composer articles with more than 9,000 words) but I have added another 238 words on harmony and counterpoint, not too full of technical terms, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Looks great; I have nothing else major, so I'll support. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SN54129[edit]

  • Regarding the notation images, is there any reason they're different sizes? I see one of them's 2.5 (good—as it's very detailed), but the others (although they seem as equally detailed?) between 1.3 and 1.
    • This was my attempt to get the notes roughly the same size on the page, but if anyone can make them more so, I'll be very pleased. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the portraits could be their normal sizes, but maybe my eyes are getting manky.
    • I think I have used "upright=" less than 100% for a couple of images to stop them clogging the text too much, but am not ferociously committed to those sizes, and will not object if the consensus is to put them at 100% Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could cantata be linked?
    • Definitely. The earlier link is more specific. Now done. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reputation and Berlioz scholarship"—I would have thought the subject of the scholarship is probably obvious by now!
    • I think without the "Berlioz" it wouldn't be immediately clear whether we were referring to his scholarship or other people's scholarship about him. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Article is cool beans though, cheers. ——SerialNumber5412914:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for these points. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Smerus[edit]

just to stir the pot as I flit by....

The article is first class, the FA proposal has my support.

Some thoughts on the operas. In the 'music' section you don't give the dates of the operas which could be helpful (I know BC and LT are dated in the 'life' section, but B&B isn't mentioned there). You might also mention what Berlioz was up against at this time, i.e. grand opera and Meyerbeer, whom B memorably said had the "luck to be talented and the talent to be lucky" (and who also to B's subliminated resentment was wealthy in his own right). Grand opera sucked up the resources and audiences for opera in Paris. As Cairns writes, for BC "Berlioz ...was an opera composer on sufferance, one who composed on borrowed time paid for with money that was not his but lent by a wealthy friend", and effectively none of his operas was written to contract or with any promise of performance. Which makes them even more remarkable imo. Some of this might be mentioned. (or not).--Smerus (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Smerus. I've dealt with the dates and will ponder how to accommodate the Meyerbeer and money points (without further inflating the word count too much!) Tim riley talk 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And now done, though I'm dithering a bit about whether it might be better in the Life than in the Works section. Shall ponder further. Tim riley talk 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a six and two threes situation.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Tony1[edit]

1a, lead:

  • I'm allergic to a colon within a succession of semicolons. Needs surgery there. And do you really want to list individual work-names rather than simply listing the genres he wrote in? ... Maybe, but it becomes indigestible after the first few. More important to briefly convey at the opening the big-picture of his place in music history. Symph Fant was, after all, a turning point in the onset of romanticism in music, wasn't it?
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. None of the peer reviewers mentioned the point, but other reviewers here may think differently. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "As the elder son of a provincial doctor"—just checking: he had one brother, right?
    • Right. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph beautifully written. Except for this: "those who thought him an original genius and those who thought his music lacked form and coherence". The grammar's a bit arch, and jerks the reader when they get to the second "thought", which is very different grammatically. "regarded him as an. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)"?
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art,"—I'm slightly uncomfortable about using this association, presumably between a flush of oxytocin in the brain, and the complex social, political, and technical aspects of romantic style in music. Makes for cute wording, but it's misleading.
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not used to the lowercase "f" in "fantastique" (in an English-language context).
  • "musical journalism" or "music journalism"?
    • Happy with either. Fractional preference for the first, but the second is also fine. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • tension between 'throughout" (the whole span) and "much" (a subset of it): "throughout much of his career". During much, or throughout his career. And you've got the th-word again in the same sentence.
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for prose until things are sorted out, and I'd like to go through more than just the lead. Tony (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Comments added. Tim riley talk 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not used to being challenged by having a consensus required for my points. On the contrary, you need to present reasons why those points are not actionable. Tony (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic remarks
Oh, get you! I suggest you get used to it. Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Oppose by all means. Tim riley talk 16:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Tony1, I have thought your points on my previous FACs were good, and I was extremely grateful for them, but there are occasions when points are not always necessary, given the perfectly acceptable difference in styles between writers. There is always more than one way to crack an egg, and so it is with well-written English. For example, a colon to introduce a list followed be separating semi colons is acceptable (or at least it was when I was taught it); "those who thought him an original genius" reads perfectly well to my British English eye, but maybe the slightly less formal Aussie English eye thinks it stuffy - who knows? At the end of it, many of the points you have here are not about grammar or structure being "wrong", per se, but about a personal preference on the style - and I think De gustibus is a point that should play a part in prose reviews, I think. Tim is an excellent writer, very approachable and eminently flexible when good points are made. He also rarely makes grammatical errors, and I am sure he will look at the points you have made again to see if there is a good enough reason to change things, rather than just for stylistic reasons. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying this trick to weaken the role of reviewers. This is a slippery slope: soon we'll find every prose issue a reviewer raises is met with a retort of "only if there's consensus". It's an oppose, and until he fixes the issues or provides detailed reasoning for why they should not be fixed, the oppose stays. I have yet to go through the rest. Tony (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no 'trick' here, Tony. I'm looking at your comments and seeing that most of these are not actual errors, but stylistic preference. I've given two examples above that I do not see as being problematic: the colon introducing a list, with semi-colons breaking up that list; and the "those who thought him an original genius" phrase. I'll dig out my Fowler later to see what he says on the first point. As to the second, perhaps changing the second "thought" to "considered" would ease part of your concern, although I think we obsess a little too much about a repeated word, and "considered" may feel false in comparison, who knows. Either way, this isn't my article, or my review, but I do think you could add little more flexibility into your position, rather than being quite so absolutist and thinking that they are the only way to do things: English is flexible, particularly when you consider the differences between the various variants. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Actually, I don't like the repetition of various variants, and so I must oppose you forever. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Serial on various variants, which is surely a hill worth dying on. Schro THIS IS THE END ;) Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It was the best I could do with the hangover that is only just clearing... out watching Pixies last night. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
...Mmmm; a timely reminder to dig out my copy of Pilgrim... ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The top and bottom of this is that if a reviewer at PR or FAC makes a suggestion I agree with I adopt it forthwith. If I don't agree with it I will of course adopt it if other reviewers think it preferable. If Tony is going to oblige with a review of my main text I shall adopt any of his suggestions I agree with, and also any I don't agree with but other reviewers do. That is how Wikipedia works. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer's response

Off-topic remarks

I'm afraid I'm not one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants, even if I did accuse him of having "beautifully written" the second paragraph. Rather, I take a more neutral, technical attitude to his writing; it's very good in many places, but it's speckled with issues that need fixing—most of them are minor, but together they subtract the prose from FA standard.

I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation ("Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant"). Nor do I take lightly his crude attempt to undermine the FAC review process by demanding consensus-gathering on almost every point ("I suggest you get used to it", he writes). It's unseemly behaviour by a nominator. What I care about is our readers, who are apparently absent from consideration by those posting here.

We're going to have to put up with a lot of RFCs on this page: I'm prepared to start a run of them if consensus has to be debated. And I hope no one minds if I insert advice at every nomination page that there's a simple way of rebutting FAC critiques: you just demand consensus.

Now, let's examine just the first point in my review of the lead: a colon within a succession of semicolons. On this matter I consulted two linguists today. Both supported my objection. One advised me to "make the point about readability. Readers will find it difficult to follow. ... I think it doesn't belong".

But a deeper problem surrounds the first point: the opening paragraph is an indigestible, winding path, cluttered by no fewer than 11 parenthetical years in 75 words. There is little point in gumming up what should be a broad sweep that introduces the topic by describing the big picture of one of the great composers. The years zig-zag from earlier to later and back, so conveying chronological development is clearly not the rationale; and the years of composition appear below in the main text, where the chronological can be nested in a more detailed, explanatory narrative. If the purpose of the laundry list is to show the array of genres in which he wrote, that's fair enough. So why obscure this by making readers hack through redundant numerical undergrowth and unnecessarily elaborate punctuation, which at one point is unusual and disruptive?

Here is the current opening, which will turn off all but the hardiest readers, followed by a version the nominator might well have politely suggested to overcome the problem I raised, instead of shooting bullets of personalised rudeness:

––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––

I don't agree with a comment below that "hybrid" might be opaque to too many readers. Tony (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to disrupt someone else's FAC, but "I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation" does not parse in any way with accusing seven other reviewers of being "one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants". If you want to be taken seriously, at least try not to treat the rest of us like dross.
I spoke to four linguists... and other nice stories. Fowler does not query or debar the practice, which is certainly good enough for any British English speakers. Were the "linguists" you spoke to British, or one of the other variants of English?
I go back to my original point: there are several ways of phrasing something, and just because you happen to prefer one way does not mean that other versions are not equally as good or even (shock horror) better than yours. Stop being so bloody didactic and dictatorial in your approach with people and maybe they may take you seriously.
I'm going to step away from this, as dealing with inflexible viewpoints on something as flexible as an opinion on what grammar works best is not something I enjoy. Love and kisses, a lickspittle. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Vue_de_la_nouvelle_salle_de_l'Opéra_prise_de_la_rue_de_Provence_-_NYPL_Digital_Collections.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Marie-Moke-Pleyel.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Berlioz_young.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:NiccoloPaganini.jpeg, File:Gustave_Courbet_-_Portrait_of_Hector_Berlioz_-_WGA05492.jpg
    • Done. Again, I hope correctly. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • What's the publication date for the second? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The original Ingres portrait is dated between 1818 and 1831 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I'm afraid I don't know a publication date for the engraving of it used here. Ought I instead to use a copy of the original, as Ingres is known to have died in 1867? Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Berlioz_-_cordes_col_legno.PNG should include details and a tag for the original work.
    • Do you mean for the first publication of the music or its first performance (for this and the idée fixe one, below?) Grateful for guidance. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Idee_fixe.PNG needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Both music examples tagged as suggested. I've given the composer's dates as well as the date of composition to be on the safe side. Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria, for your review. I've a couple of points on which I'd be glad of a steer. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I've put you to more trouble than usual, and I'd like to repeat my thanks for your guidance. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dmass[edit]

Picking up where I left off at peer review:

Struggling Composer

  • First para, first sentence: comma needed after ‘1830 Revolution’.
    • Fifty years ago and more I was being told off by my Eng Lang masters for opening a subordinate clause with a comma and then forgetting to close it. Plus ça change!Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Para 3: hyphen for ‘well-founded’?
    • I don't think so. I agree with Gowers that "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I am reasonably OK on this aspect: if used attributively it's "a well-founded suspicion", but when used predicatively, as here, "a suspicion is well founded". – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Works

  • Possibly brackets round / dashes before and after ‘rather than the German "architectural"’?
    • Yes. I sometimes worry that I rather overdo parenthetic dashes, but they do make things crystal clear sometimes where commas don't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Where you say: ‘in operas, and to a large extent in orchestral music’ it’s unclear whether you’re referring to Berlioz or to French music generally. It’s also very sweeping - Saint-Saens is architectural; Pelleas hasn’t got any self-contained numbers ect ect (I realise I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...). Maybe worth making clear that it’s a French tradition, rather than the French tradition?
    • I have to tread a bit carefully here: I think what I have written accurately reflects what Rushton says, whereas what you suggest – though I think it correct – isn't quite what he says. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say the paragraph beginning ‘Berlioz’s compositional techniques’ is pure TR: packed with info, yet concise and clear.
    • How very kind! One can never tell which bits of one's immortal prose will get the nod from readers and which won't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • When you mention “Romeo's arrival at the Capulets' vault” I suspect you feel that naming the work would be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but I think it’s a bit odd as you haven’t yet done so in the Works section. Ignore at will.
    • I could have my arm twisted, but if you refrain from such a course I think I'd rather leave it. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Symphonies

  • Might ‘the classical pattern established and continued by German composers and those who followed their traditions’ be simplified to: ‘the classical pattern of the German tradition’?
  • ‘Tell a narrative’ - I'm not sure that verb belongs. I can see you’re avoiding ‘tell a story’, which you use in the next para. Unfold? Recount?
    • You have an exasperating knack of homing in on the bits of my prose that I have sucked my teeth about. I was never quite happy with this, but couldn't think how to improve it. I'll try "recount a narrative", but that doesn't strike me as ideal either. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ’described by the musicologist Mark Evan Bonds as a work traditionally seen as…’ is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe snip 'traditionally seen as'?
    • Again, I am trying to be faithful to the source: what you suggest is crisper, but implies that Bonds has signed up to the idea, which I don't think he specifically does.
  • Could the para on Harold be trimmed - maybe one too many assessments (interesting though they all are)?
  • Same point re Roméo.
    • Tricky. What can I lose? – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Looking at it again, I would have to say the one that could go would be Chabrier. Rushton says the same thing but more explicitly (and in English). But I"m not going to suggest you cut Chabrier because it made me laugh. Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Footnoting the Chabrier comment is very funny - but (reluctantly) shouldn’t it be translated?
    • Well, I suppose it should be translated if we apply the MoS strictly, but nobody else has suggested it so far (perhaps they are too nice-minded) and I am inclined to think that the wording of the main text makes it clear enough to the most obdurate non-Francophone that the one word is a rude one. If there's a consensus for a change I'll go along with it, but I'll resist if I can. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • When I read ‘for giant wind and brass band’ I momentarily wondered what you meant by giant wind. Maybe reverse them?
    • Indeed. Giant wind is not a wholly alluring proposition. I'll redraw as you suggest.

Operas

  • Maybe add a few words giving the subject-matter of Benvenuto Cellini to save the reader having to follow the link? You could nick ‘inspired by the memoirs of the Florentine sculptor’ from the linked article.
    • I'll ponder on this. Truth to tell I've never seen the opera and am swimming with one foot on the bottom here. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's a marvel - as was Terry Gilliam's production at the ENO (which you mention). Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

More later. This article is superb. Even by your standards. Dmass (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these points and your kind words of encouragement. Looking forward to more comments, though I am conscious of other calls on your time, e.g. earning a living. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Picking up from:

Choral

  • ‘… necessitating larger ensembles than sufficed for the concert hall’ - perhaps plainer language might do: ‘calling for larger ensembles than were needed in the concert hall’?

Mélodies

  • First para: ‘group’ instead of ‘grouping’?
    • My reason for choosing "grouping" was that the songs in Les nuits d'été were not conceived as a cycle and were grouped together after they were written, but perhaps this is not a distinction that needs making here. I'll prune. 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘originally for voice and piano, later orchestrated, and now usually heard in the latter form’ might be tightened to: ‘originally for voice and piano but now usually heard in its later, orchestrated form’.

Prose

  • You have ‘Memoirs’ here, but ‘Mémoires ‘ in the next section. In fact (wait for it) the final score seems to be 4-2 in favour of the latter.
    • [Pause to remove knife from ribs. You may also be pleased to note, after my finger-wagging chez Boulez, that this article exceeds 9,000 words. Ahem!] I have dithered about whether to call them Mémoires, Memoirs or memoirs. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If you're referring generally I think 'memoirs' is fine; where you're specifically referring to the book I'd go for Mémoires. Dmass (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing reputation

  • First para: ‘regularly performed’. I have a colleague at work for whom this is a bête noire. She would say: ‘you mean “frequently performed”’ - as opposed to performed at regular intervals'. Whether you listen to her is a matter for you.
    • Your colleague has a point. I have a similar tic about "significant" used as a mere synonym for "important" or "big". I'll amend. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I love the Debussy comment you’ve found – in fact you’ve used some cracking quotations throughout.
    • Good! As always with a biographical article there is so much good material that one has to leave out. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘What Cairns calls "the mere repetition of cliché" about Berlioz, which persisted well into the second half of the 20th century, has become rare.’ Hasn’t he said much the same three paras earlier?
    • Lose the whole sentence, you think? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Recordings

  • The von Otter recording of Nuits is from 1999 and Gens from 2001 so maybe not ‘recent’ – perhaps Karen Cargill (2013) and Susan Graham (2014), both of which I think were well reviewed. Nice to see PB in your list of fantastiques…
    • True. One of the two versions you suggest disappointed me rather (I shall not say which) but that's no reason to ignore it. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Notes are a joy in their own right. I see that another kind editor is going to look at Sources so I will leave that. That’s me done, except to say again Congratulations. A pleasure to read and I’ve learnt a lot. Wholeheartedly support. Dmass (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Excellent comments, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil[edit]

As I said at the PR, this is first rate and has opened my horizons. Will certainly support with some suggestions;

  • lead: hybrid genres Non-specialists are not to know what this means.
    • In conversation one would say they're neither one thing nor the other, but that's a bit informal. Suggestions for saying so more formally will be welcome.
  • Vary opening para structures: there are more, but "In 1824 Berlioz composed" is followed by "In August 1826 Berlioz was admitted" (both from 1824–1830: Conservatoire student)
    • Always a trap when writing Life and Works articles: I'll comb through for any more. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In the same year he made the first of his four attempts to win France's premier music prize - That year... the first of four.
    • Omitting the preposition feels on the slangy side to me, but others may disagree. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz started learning English in 1828. - Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz began to study English in 1828. Dont like "keen" unexplained, I assume there was a career objective.
    • I need to make it clearer that he was simply knocked sideways by Shakespeare and wanted to be able to read him in English. (As well he might: I once saw A Midsummer Night's Dream in Paris and was underwhelmed: the rhythms are all wrong.) Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beethoven became both an ideal and an obstacle for Berlioz - was both an ideal and obstacle; while I know what you mean it seems labored and could be teased out better.
    • We've tweaked this at PR, and I'm not sure I can think of a better way of getting the point across. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Some hard to follow logic: "At around the same time he encountered two further creative inspirations: he heard Beethoven's third, fifth and seventh symphonies performed at the Conservatoire,{{refn|The Conservatoire concerts were conducted by François Habeneck, whom Berlioz honoured for introducing the Beethoven symphonies to French audiences, but with whom he later fell out over Habeneck's conducting of works by Berlioz. and he read Goethe's Faust in Gérard de Nerval's translation. - can we simplify.
    • Not sure what your concern is here: if it's the reference to Habeneck in the footnote, I put that in in response to a request at peer review. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I see tense issues throughout: to take an eg: "Paganini, known chiefly as a violinist, had acquired a Stradivarius viola, which he wanted to play in public if he could find the right music." I suggest settling on one, or reducing to constructs such as "the violinist Paganini acquired a Stradivarius viola".
    • I think, in that instance at any rate, the tenses are right. P had already got the viola when the suggestion came up that B might write something for him to play on it.
  • Beware of excessive detail, for eg between December 1842 and the end of May 1843
    • Yes. I can't remember why I thought that detail necessary. Shall prune. Any others come to mind? Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The section beginning with "The last of Berlioz's operas" (in "Operas") is top heavy with quotes that might be paraphrased.
    • Yes: one quote could be unquoted easily enough. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In "Changing reputation", the phrase One important reason seems to break the fourth wall. I say this as somebody who was first attracted this website by Geogre, but times have changed.
    • You've lost me here, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the fourth wall. Tim riley talk
  • As more and more Berlioz works became widely available on record: "as his works became more wide available on..." to avoid "more and more".
    • I'd prefer to stick with this. Repetition has its place, and this strikes me as one. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A milestone in the reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957, when for the first time a professional opera company staged the original version of The Trojans in a single evening - "The reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957 when the first professional staging...". 'when for the first time' isn't right either, ad this seems like a simplification. Surely the staging was the culmination of many factors.
    • When you're back in circulation I'd like to discuss this point further, because what I have written accurately conveys what I understand to be the accepted facts. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still" - Northcott concluded that, and no comma
    • Hmm. I was using "concluded" to mean that this was the writer's envoi rather than what he deduced. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • By 1963 Cairns, viewing Berlioz's greatness as now firmly established - greatness? If 1963 is established, we dont need to say "now"
  • Among the milestones in the subsequent Berlioz discography are the recordings conducted by Colin Davis - not sure why "subsequent" is needed here. Is it just referring to all extant recorded material? "milestones" is management speak.
  • By the 1950s the critical climate - "critical climate" is not ideal. Critical opinion?
    • It's a bit less definite than "opinion". It's more the general atmosphere. Some critical opinion had always been pro-B, but it was now becoming more part of the mainstream, if that makes sense. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In recent decades Berlioz has been widely regarded as a great composer - vague - either "today" or "Since recent decade x". Maybe replace "has been" with "is".
    • With WP:DATED in mind I shy away from "today" (though it is certainly correct), and B's widespread acceptance into the pantheon (though not, alas, the Panthéon) can't be pinned down to a particular decade. What I've written is a fudge, but a necessary one, I think. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, Northcott was writing about Davis's "Berlioz Odyssey", consisting of seventeen concerts of Berlioz's music, featuring all the major works, a prospect unimaginable in earlier decades of the century.[197][198] - tense issues & and don't like "was writing", construct is a bit confusing for a thick paddy like me. The tense issue is not helped by the following sentence: "Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still seems so immediate"
    • It looks right to me on rereading, but I'll mull it over.
  • All of Berlioz's major works and most of his minor ones have been recorded for LP or CD - "All of Berlioz's major and most of his minor works". Can we say "recorded on" (strictly speaking its 'transferred to') and its 'vinyl' rather than LP if we are distinguishing vs CD, which usually can play longer than LP, if you catch me drift. Plus vinyl is mistily cool, and does imply long play (vs. a 45) - Berlioz didn't release top 20 singles that I am aware of.
    • From memory I think most of the works were available on LP. I daresay my references to LP and CD will look antiquated quite soon, with streaming being the current trend, and perhaps "commercially recorded" would be better. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's about it; you are free, Tim, to disagree at will. Apologies for my tardy detailed response; work related "events" got the better of me. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Moving to support - given that I will be gone for the next week or so, and nothing I have highlighted is either beyond the nominator nor fatal to my opinion of the article, and I trust his diligence to respond and adjust where appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the support and for the above points, which I shall enjoy going through. Tim riley talk 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • And now done. Shall away with tweaking shears in hand. A couple of points I'd like to discuss with you further, but no rush. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Having had my, very limited, say on this at PR, I'm pleased to pick up the Source Review. It'll take a couple of days. Usual excellent stuff, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per my detailed comments at the peer review. I do not believe the oppose should delay promotion in any way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here. Both are greatly valued. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh back in to associate myself with Indrian's excellent review and thoughtful comments, in their entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Support From Indrian[edit]

  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art" - I am afraid I have to agree with Tony here (don't worry, this will not be a theme). While a cute turn of phrase, it is misleading in its application of the term "romantic" in two different definitions.
    • I've redrawn – rather reluctantly, as in Berlioz's case I think the two mingled inseparably, but so be it. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was he rather than she" - This feels awkward to me, and I think we could word this in a way that gets rid of the "it was" while still conveying the meaning.
    • Revisiting the paragraph I think we can lose the whole sentence without detracting from the substance. Now blitzed. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "he later had flute and guitar lessons" - I think we can find a more interesting verb than "had" in this instance.
    • Any suggestions? "Had" seems the natural construction to me. See my comment on Plain Words, below. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe "took"? In this case the simplicity of the verb does not bother me so much as the phrase "had lessons" feels wrong to my ear, though it may be a British versus American English thing. If "had lessons" is considered normal in British English, then perhaps we can leave it be. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later contended that this was an advantage" - "That" is unnecessary.
    • Perhaps it's a generational (or even geographical) thing, but omitting the "that" would grate on me. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Go ahead and leave it then, as its no great issue, I have just been personally conditioned to remove "that" when it feels unnecessary to the meaning. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the age of twelve Berlioz fell in love for the first time" - This introductory clause is right on the borderline of a mandatory comma, so I did not put one in myself as I sometimes do in these reviews, but when I read it aloud it does feel like a pause is appropriate after said clause.
    • There are distinct differences in the international varieties of English on this point. I notice that my American colleagues are much keener on commas in such places, even in simple sentences such as "On Monday comma she went out." When BrE writers use them it is usually to avoid ambiguity. The example I often use is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where the comma removes the fleeting thought that there is someone called Joyce Beckett. I don't know how many BrE writers would want to put a comma in this sentence about HB. Few, I think. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I called it borderline, so will defer to your judgment. Commas are certainly a tool for avoiding ambiguity, but I think us Americans also use them to indicate natural pauses in the flow of a thought such as might occur when one is giving a speech. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "made it clearer" - Again, not at all incorrect, but can we avoid "made"?
    • I suspect we may have a different attitude to Plain Words. Other things being equal I prefer the simple word to the more elaborate one. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, unlike the one above lets just keep this as it is. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first concert of Berlioz's music was given in May 1828" - Passive voice.
    • I know, and I originally wrote this in the active voice, but it seemed to me to shift the focus from the concert to Berlioz, which was not what I was after here. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Afterthought: would you be happier with "The first concert ... took place"? Avoids the passive but keeps the concert as the focus. Tim riley talk 08:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Why don't we take that for a test drive. I understand the narrative impulse, but would love to avoid the passive voice if we can. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The hall was far from full, and Berlioz lost money, but he was greatly encouraged by the applause from musicians in the audience, including his Conservatoire professors, the directors of the Opéra and Opéra-Comique, and the composers Auber and Hérold, and by the vociferous approval of the performers." - This sentence is long and a bit tortured, with three independent clauses joined by conjunctions and a list within a list. If there is a good way to break this up a bit, I would encourage you to do so.
  • "Berlioz's fascination with Shakespeare's plays prompted him to start learning English during 1828, to let him read them in the original." - "so he could read" maybe"? "Let" just feels awkward here.
    • Again, to an elderly Englishman like me "so he could read" is horrible. I'd be happy with "so that he could read", if you really dislike "let". Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fine. Why don't we make that change? In this case my real goal is to improve the sentence flow and "so that he could read" moves the sentence along better to my ear. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Until the end of 1835 Berlioz had a modest stipend" - I am once again not a fan of "had" in this context.
    • Happy to consider alternatives, but my general presumption is in favour of plain words. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm still not sold on this construction, but lets not hold up the FAC for it as it would be picking at the tiniest of nits. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although he complained – both privately and sometimes in his articles" - Not sure that the qualifier "sometimes" is strictly necessary here.
    • The point I'm seeking to get across is the HB complained loud and long privately, but only complained in print every now and then. He was not a egotistical writer, and didn't go on at length in his articles about his own problems. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fair, let's keep it. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Should "bêtes noires" be italicized as a foreign phrase? I am seeing contradictory information on this.
    • Me too. Of the five style guides on my shelves. I make the score 3:2 in favour of not italicising. If writing on my own account, and not for Wikipedia, I should unhesitatingly italicise it, but I'm an old fogey who has only recently stopped writing "première" and still capitalises "Lieder" (but not here, of course). Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Well then, let consensus rule (despite what some reviewers might think). Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am going to hold off on supporting this article until these concerns are addressed, but would emphasize that they are all minor, and a few of them are stylistic preference rather than imperative correction. While I normally refrain from commenting on the reviews of others, I feel it important in this instance to go on the record to agree with Tony that this is a well-written piece only slightly marred by a handful of minor issues, but to disagree vehemently with his assertion that his stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written. Therefore, I do not find his oppose in this matter, nor his defamation of fellow editors, to be particularly helpful to the process. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic remarks
You're telling blatant lies, further suggesting that the FAC process is becoming increasingly corrupted—by several editors here, User:Indrian. First, where is my assertion that my "stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written", please? And where have I defamed fellow editors? I wrote that I am not this nominator's lickspittle or sycophant. I. Don't twist what I say. Your claims are themselves defamatory. Tony (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Tony, you are clearly an accomplished writer and editor with a firm grasp of the English language and much to offer on the critique of Wikipedia articles. You have, however, blown through the project like a hurricane since your return from a self-imposed exile, which I am sure you are clever enough to have noticed without me pointing it out.
As an editor of long standing, you are also well aware of the article history function, granting anyone who cares to look awareness of how you changed a support to an oppose here merely because Tim riley failed to enact or fully engage with all your proposed changes to the article, which is pretty much the text book definition of attempting to "dictate how the article is written." Others have already provided examples drawn from your recommendations that evince personal preference, so I will not retread that ground. I will note, however, that you have declared on this very page those who have rejected said recommendations are uncaring towards the readers of the project -- a defamatory statement if I have ever seen one -- and lickspittles for the nominator (and yes Tony, you did not call out any specific individual by name as a lickspittle or sycophant, but we are smart enough to parse the innuendo that you are equally too intelligent to have cultivated by accident).
I honestly believe most of your suggestions across FAC have been solid, even a few that Tim riley chose not to enact here, but I know few people who like the idea of an editor, no matter how erudite or insightful, proclaiming his positions like Moses descending from the Mount. Your attitude comes off as entitled and superior, and I am not close to the first person to point this out. I think you would find many editors far more receptive to your highly salient points if they did not come off as a sermon. It might also help if you showed enough engagement with the process to progress beyond the lead on more than a handful of the articles that you review. That you lash out at many who grow tired of this behavior as bullies, tricksters, and corrupters only worsens a tense situation that need not exist in the first place. Just the two cents of one lickspittle who is apparently out to subvert the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Mostly lies and exaggerations. Tony (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall enjoy working through these points. I have a more general grammatical point I'd like to discuss, but I'll set it out on your talk page, if I may, rather than clog this review with it. More on the above tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't resist looking in, and then, of course, got drawn into looking at all your points. Actioned, or not, as outlined above. Some v. good points there: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Those few trouble spots flow much better now. I am largely satisfied, with just a handful of rejoinders above. I expect to be supporting quite soon. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And we are good here. I will happily support. It was a pleasure working with you. Indrian (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Indrian. I heartily reciprocate those sentiments. I don't think we've run across each other before, but I hope to do so again. Tim riley talk 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ragnar Garrett[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Belatedly following on from John Wilton and Reg Pollard, I present another chief of the Australian Army. Like Wagner conceived his Ring Cycle, I seem to be doing things in reverse chronological order. Unlike Wagner, I can stop at three episodes, because Garrett's predecessor is already FA. While we're talking Wagner, one leitmotif unifying the stories of these three chiefs is the Army's short-lived experiment with the pentropic divisional structure -- Garrett enthusiastically initiating it, Pollard reluctantly implementing it, and Wilton mercifully killing it... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Thoroughly and widely sourced, as well illustrated as one could expect in an article about this period, and in top-notch and highly readable prose. Not the longest FAC I have read, but the text seems comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a: Support. You know how to do this!

A few things:

  • "it "affected me more than the bombing... I was very sorry to lose Garrett, who served me splendidly over the hectic days of the recent past"." I think there must either be a space before the three ellipsis points as well as after, or a point (if at sentence-end), a space, and the three points, and a final space.
  • born at Northam—more usual to write "in", but I don't mind. Born at Northam Hospital.
  • "He oversaw the brigade's return to Australia prior to its disbandment in March 1946." Well, perhaps we all should be ditching the Latin—me too. Nominator tkbrett, below, linked me to this short vid of the sadly departed David Foster Wallace on a few items he didn't like.
  • In that frame, you might consider "On retiring" rather than "Upon retiring", plain and simple. Tony (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Tks for those Tony, I think I've actioned all -- I try to encourage brevity/simplicity in others' writing but seem to use "prior to" almost unconsciously so am happy to be reminded, and I don't know how "Upon" escaped my attention so long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

This looks pretty good to me, Ian. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • do we know if Garrett had any siblings?
  • I wonder if it could be made clearer that service in Greece and Crete was in combat/during the fighting against the Germans?
  • ext links all work, and there are no dab or dup links
  • in the References, perhaps consider adding the edition number for the Dennis work?
  • same as above for the Dexter and Long works
  • course at Staff College, Camberley: --> "course at the Staff College, Camberley"?
  • He died on 4 November 1977: do we know what he died from specifically?
  • "File:Ragnar Garrett 064074.JPG": the caption (in the article) for this says "April 1944"; however, the AWM source indicates it was taken on 4 February 1944. The description page on Commons says "2 April 1944", so I wonder if the 2 and 4 haven't been transposed?
  • the citations appear consistent, and the sources look reliable to me
  • citation density appears good to me
  • as an aside, the role of "adjutant/quartermaster" is not fun at all. Garrett seems to have had this role for many years, with different units, so I assume he was a humourless, dour man... ;-)

Thalassodromeus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is only the second article about a pterosaur to be nominated as FAC (after Istiodactylus). This particular pterosaur is unusual for having one of the largest cranial crests of any animal, and for both its genus and specific names apparently being misnomers. There has been speculation that the only known skull of this animal was lost in the National Museum of Brazil fire (though not confirmed by reliable sources), which will perhaps make the info currently in this article all we'll ever know about it (unless more fossils are found). The article is a GA, has been copy edited, and covers the entire relevant literature, as far as I'm aware. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum.

1a, lead:

  • "proportionally-largest"—MOS and the big style guides say no hyphen after -ly adverbs. There's another one further down.
Removed both. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed there are a lot more of these throughout the article (added during copy-edit), will remove soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • CMOS, and many editors, advise preference for "that" over "which" where there's no preceding comma. There are good reasons for this. Two examples in the opening paragraph, and one in the second paragraph.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth due to its crest being supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."—consider straighter grammar: "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth because its crest was supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the repetition here: "and they are grouped in a clade which has been placed within Tapejaridae (as Thalassodrominae) or within Neoazhdarchia (as Thalassodromidae)"
Do you mean the part in parenthesis? One is a subfamily version of the name (inae suffix), while the other is a family (idae). I've specified this now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I looked three times to see a difference. Need new specs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Singular–plural clash, in a generally unsatisfactory sentence: "A number of theories have been suggested for the function of the crest of Thalassodromeus (including thermoregulation and display), and it most likely had more than one function."
Changed to the following, any better? "Various theories have been suggested to explain the function of Thalassodromeus's crest (including thermoregulation and display), but it likely had more than one function." FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The crests of thalassodromids appear to have developed late in growth (probably correlated with sexual maturity), and they may have been sexually dimorphic." The crests may have been dimorphic?
You could say so, if there are such differences in the crests, the crests themselves are dimorphic. So it can apply both to the species and the crests. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Singular–plural tension: "Thalassodromeus was originally proposed to have fed like modern skimmer birds, by skimming over the surface of water and dipping its lower jaws to catch prey." Make the skimmer bird singular?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I recall I wrote "skimmers" plural because there is no single skimmer species; it is the common name of a genus that containts three species. So I wonder if it is more appropriate to say "skimmers" after all? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of "like a modern skimmer bird", which conveniently dodges the issue but avoids singular–plural tension. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, of course, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "This idea was later criticised for a lack of evidence"—remove "a"?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "relatively ... relatives".
I'm not sure I follow, but changed "relatives" to "related species" anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not bad, so far. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (credit to the copy-editor), I've addressed the issues above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good: thanks, FM. Tony (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Description"—just the first para:

  • "indicating that it was an adult"—you could go with "indicating adulthood", if it works for you.
Nice to be concise, done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If you really want to give British Empire unit conversions, consider using range dashes to reduce the clutter: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span is estimated to have been between 4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft)." But second point: "between ... and" (not "to"). "from ... to". So: "to have been 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)". Third, you've already covered the provenance of the claim (for WP's narrative) with the "Based on" and the two refs, so why not: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)"? Now it's shorter, you could re-organise the text this way: ""Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft), making Thalassodromeus the largest known member of its clade, Thalassodromidae. Of similar proportions, its skull was heavier more heavily built than that of its relative Tupuxuara.
Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you on the look-out for ambiguities? "relatives had unusually short and blocky neck vertebrae and well-developed limbs of almost equal length (excluding the long wing-finger)." So the limbs are of similar length to the neck vertebrae?
Changed to "with well-developed front and hind-limbs that were almost equal in length", is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The hindlimbs were 80 percent of the forelimb length, unique among pterodactyloids (short-tailed pterosaurs)." The first clause isn't grammatical ("that of" needed). But why not simpler? "The hindlimbs were 20 percent shorter than the forelimbs." What was unique among the pterodactyloids? We talking limbs or lengths, and which ones? Anatomical descriptions (one burden of your chosen topics) require precision.
Added "that of", but since the source says "80 % of", and though I know it means the same, I wonder if it is best to keep the emphasis the same as in the source? I changed the last part to "a unique ratio among pterodactyloids", better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good size schematic. Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, makes it more tangible, seems you could just about look it in the eyes... FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All good; but some of these points have generic dimensions that can be applied through the rest of the text. It's a big job for reviewers to bulldoze through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And the comments so far are much appreciated. I wonder if that first paragraph is a bit more unwieldy because of all the numbers. In any case, with such science articles, it is unfortunately always necessary to have "layreaders" plough through the text to see if it is comprehensible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Aim for scientists in other fields, and try to retain intelligent non-scientists as much as possible. People are interested in these monsters. This is why making the prose as straightforward as you can is so important. Do you print it out and use a pen? Tony (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Haven't tried that, does it make it easier to spot issues, or how? Doesn't help that my printer only produces annoyingly faint, grey letters (even with new ink)... FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Just passing by, I always follow these palaeo FAs to learn more about the process and what sort of things to look out for when writing articles myself. But may I ask what "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." is doing as a header for this review? It seems very out of place and against WP:AssumeGoodFaith. It might make sense if the nominator is being intentionally disruptive, but I don't see any of that occuring here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a general statement in response to some arguments in other, unrelated FACs, not necessarily to anything here... Seems there's a bit of drama going on. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed there is.[2] Also, I just noticed that the mural behind the Irritator mount actually depicts Thalassodromeus, which might be worth pointing out in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, for copyright reasons, it's probably best to pretend the painting isn't there, hehe... As for the drama, well, I'd rather stay out of it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Tom Thomson, the Canadian artist inextricably linked with the Group of Seven. Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • There are a lot of images in this article - somewhat understandable given the topic, but I think we're stretching the bounds of WP:GALLERY
  • My basis for this page was the FA for Vincent van Gogh which seems to have a similar number of images (I haven't actually counted so I'm not certain on that). If you have something more specific then let me know and I can work on it. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
You can take or leave this but if image count become a further issue, and it might;
  • File:Thomson, View from the Windows of Grip Ltd.jpg could go as rather uninformative
  • Sandbank with Logs, Fall 1916 & The Drive, Winter 1916–17 are similar enough that one only could represent the style
  • The "Nocturnes" section doesn't have enough text to justify six image Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Adding alt text will take me a day or two given how many images there are but I will get on it! Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this - with art articles like this the danger is repetition or original research. Or at least I would be sparing; the painting titles are pretty descriptive anyway for the most part. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the details provided in captions don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as his spending habits
  • Images hosted on Commons should have tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US - some (eg File:TomThomson23.jpg) do not
  • When/where was File:Tom_Thomson.jpg first published? For all newly added tags, check that sufficient information is provided to support them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The tag currently in use requires pre-1923 publication for US PD status. Can that be demonstrated? Check same on other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Young_Tom_Thomson.jpg: Thomson is the subject, not the creator
  • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? When/where was this first published? Same with File:TomThomson23.jpg, File:Profile_of_the_painter_Tom_Thomson_wearing_a_hat.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • All of the images of people (i.e. not paintings) on the page are from Library and Archives Canada and each page indicates "Copyright: Expired," "Restrictions on use: Nil," but not much more info. For example, File:TomThomson23.jpg. I'm not sure which tags to use to indicate that there are no copyright restrictions. Where I should I ask to confirm? Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You can try WP:MCQ, but I would expect that the LAC indications represent Canadian status, whereas for the purposes of Wikipedia we also need US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I started a thread in order to get help from people who understand copyright rules better than I do. I'll let you know when I hear back and can clear this up. Tkbrett (✉) 04:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996. They meet the criteria of (1) they were first published outside of the U.S., (2) they were published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and (3) they were public domain on the URAA date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:
File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)
File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975) Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Tom_Thomson_Memorial_Cairn.jpg: what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The plaque was designed and inscribed by J. E. H. MacDonald in 1917 (Hill 2002, p. 142). He died in 1932, so I do not think there are any copyright issues there. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We'll need to add a tag to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the plaque. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what type of tag is needed to indicate this copyright status. Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In this case, we can demonstrate both an author death more than 70 years ago and a publication date before 1923, so the tag that is problematic on the above images would work here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Extensive, knowledgeable and wonderfully written article on an artist whom I had previously only known from a few isolated paintings. One quibble, the measurements debacle at the Go-Home cottage doesn't seem like the most inspiring way to open the "artistic peak" section - it breaks flow. I would remove or push up into the last section. Otherwise this is a yard stick for visual arts bios at FAC. The nominator has a lot of ability. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Measurements debacle moved up. Thank you for the kind words! Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. We get a better sense now at the start of "artistic peak" that he opened up. 05:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

  • In the "Early recognition" section, ths detailing of his comings and goings outweigh and mask the more important internal difficulties with shyness he was going through. Similarly by the way details like the price of his rent ($22 a month (equivalent to CAD$480 in 2017)) breaks from the dialogue.
  • How exactly should I fix the dialogue breaking? Should I have the inflation calculations included a footnote instead or remove them all together? Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless the rent was very high or very low (in which case say it was very high or low), I would cut such detail altogether and stick with the central drama. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've cut out the inflation calculations for his rent (While I see the $1 rent explicitly mentioned in almost every source and feel surprised at how ridiculously low it sounds, the sources don't seem to go out of their way to say that it's very low). Should I also cut out inflation calcs for purchases of his paintings? (There are three of these currently) Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would keep the "notes" as brief as possible, as far as cutting down extraneous words were you can.
  • I cut out two notes entirely since they seem better suited to their own articles (one on Lawren Harris's WWI experience and the other on William Brodie who probably deserves his own page). I also worked to cut out extraneous words. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Newspaper stories" in the references is unneeded, given they are not used, and we have google. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. It's gone. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe more be more judicious and sparing in use of detail such as the following (unless it advances the narrative): Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist [...] especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again). The difficulty is augmented by the fact of stopping to sketch at intervals along the way."[100] Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter.[98] Note this is an example only; I dont want the story bogged down in bio detail or blusterous later recounts.
  • I adjusted the sentence you mentioned and cut it down to "Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist," made further difficult given the constant stopping for sketching. Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter." I also cut some others slightly, but for the most part there are still those two paragraphs in the Early recognition (1914–15) section that deal primarily with his location and routes. I'm wondering how much you think they should be cut down, if at all? Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do. FFIW, I went through a similar dilemma with Nick Drake, who also suffered from severe shyness and died young. There is a balance between conveying his personal and artist development and recounting his going hither and thither. Cut if not germain, though I get that a lot of it dove tails with his discovery of nature. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I cut out some unnecessarily detailed parts covering his traveling routes. If someone really wants to duplicate his canoe trips they should really just get the Addison & Harwood (1969) or Waddington & Waddington (2016) books instead of reading the Wiki page! (And listen to Pink Moon on the way too) Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Overall you are probably top-heavy in quotes, maybe some could be paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you're right and my writing is a little overly reliant upon quotations. I went through and paraphrased some. Let me know if you think any others ought to be. Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, your writing is excellent, as mentioned by perhaps our best arts FAC writer[3], and I have already supported; these points are just icing on the cake. Ceoil (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Watch out for overuse of the word "Thomson", when "he" would do; eg (now fixed) Thomson's financial future became uncertain. Thomson briefly looked into. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I went through and changed all the instances I thought warranted pronouns. Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead only:

  • "His painting utilizes broad brush strokes"—the simpler "uses" would be less ungainly.
  • Wallace: excellent vid. I've saved it and will pass on to offending clients! Tony (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and did not display any immediate artistic talent"—consider the simpler wording: "and displayed no immediate artistic talent"
  • worked ... worked. Perhaps the second one could be "was employed in"?
  • Is the first comma necessary? "There, he met those who eventually formed the Group of Seven, including J. E. H. MacDonald, Lawren Harris, Frederick Varley, Franklin Carmichael and Arthur Lismer." (Considering you're justifiably OK with no comma in this stretch, later: "paintings such as The Jack Pine and The West Wind have taken a prominent place in the culture of Canada and are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art.")
  • The very next sentence opens with another "there" wording. I can't see an alternative at the moment.
  • I haven't been able to come up with anything good either. Perhaps "In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time. It was at the Park that he acquired..." Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "following the advice of MacDonald"—simpler as: "following MacDonald's advice"?
  • I didn't like this: "Thomson is often considered an unofficial member with his art typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's." (i) Could we have a comma before the connective "with"?) (ii) there are two, close "with"s that have different grammatical functions (would it work as: "... member, and his ..."? (iii) the ending "the Group's" is pretty awkward. An ellipsis right at the end ...?
  • Do you think it would work better as two separate sentences? For example, "Although he died before the formal establishment of the Group of Seven, Thomson is often considered an unofficial member. His art is typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's, nearly all of which is located in Canada—mainly..." The problem with this is that it's ambiguous as to whether the "nearly all of which" is referring to Thomson's work or the Group of Seven's (although it is true in either case). I'm not sure how else to reword this, hmm... Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Much better. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Nearly all his work is located in Canada, mainly at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg and the Tom Thomson Art Gallery in Owen Sound."—You might consider "all of his", but it's a personal thing. Might it be easier to insert a dash after "Canada"? "located in Canada—mainly at ...". "located" is not watertight: it could, I suppose, refer to the subjects of his paintings, rather than "housed in Canada", or similar. But I could live with "located" if you're fine with it, too.
  • I added the "of" and added the dash. I think "located" should be fine since the paragraphs beforehand make it clear that his painting was done exclusively outdoors or in his studio, and the list includes only museums. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd go for "Nearly all his work is still in Canada ..." or "remains in". Locating and housing, and still more residing, are best avoided for art - see WP:VAMOS. There's another "housed" elsewhere. I don't know why WP editors love these Time-Life expressions so much. You never see them in propper art history. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point. I changed "located" & "housed" into "remains in" & "found", respectively. Tkbrett (✉) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nit-picked, but it's fine writing indeed. It will be a support, but I'd like to return to look at more. Tony (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Hi Tkbrett, I'm enjoying reading this, and I've tried to do a little copy-editing as I read. I've found a few of these, which are best avoided:

  • "The circumstances surrounding his death have been of particular interest to many, with unsubstantiated rumours that he was murdered or committed suicide becoming common ..."
  • He was known to be stubborn ... with his brother Fraser Thomson writing that ..."
  • "He did not yet take painting seriously however, with Jackson saying that ..."
  • "Much of his artwork from this trip ... has been lost due to two canoe spills ... the first spill being on Green Lake ..."
  • "Thomson often experienced self-doubt, with A. Y. Jackson recalling that ..."

It's usually better to use a semicolon: "he was known to be stubborn; his brother wrote that ..." Tony wrote about this somewhere (see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing), but I can't find it right now. SarahSV (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your edits and for the link to the guide. I've noticed these shortcomings in my writing for a long time but I've never been sure how to combat them, so the guide should prove helpful. I'm confident I'll eventually be able to tame a semicolon and get it to serve my wishes! Tkbrett (✉) 06:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few citation errors (e.g. Jackson 1933b doesn't point to a long citation). If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to User:Tkbrett/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What does Silcox and Town, p. 49, say about the accidental drowning? Re: "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning," another source (MacGregor) says that only one person examined the body (a professor of neurology who happened to be there on holiday), and that the coroner didn't. SarahSV (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a little baffled as to how that citation ended up there since it doesn't really back-up the two independent examinations statement. Silcox & Town, p. 49 appears a few times in that paragraph but backs up the other information given. It says, "The official cause of [Thomson's] death was 'accidental drowning,' though it was noted that he had sustained a four-inch cut on his right temple and that his right ear had bled." The two primary sources provide more information (Howland 1917 and Ranney 1931), but given WP:PRIMARY I don't want to use them as citations unless it's to support a good secondary source. None of the sources I have on hand have mention the particulars of the post-death events, except to say that he was hastily buried, only to be dug up and moved away soon after. They seem so laconic partly because of their admitted weariness of advancing the alternative theories (Hunter and Silcox & Town come out and say this). Should we use MacGregor here for that information? I have been hesitant to use him because I did not want to lend too much credence to the alternate theories. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the citation errors. I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be able to advise about MacGregor. My question was whether it's correct that two people examined the body (a doctor and the coroner). I was also wondering what's meant by "independent" examinations. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I reworded that sentence to conform with the citation because I'm not completely sure given the secondary sourcing I have. Let me know if you think more detail is needed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's better, thanks. SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I notice that you cite several sources after apparently simple points, and I'm not always able to find the text in the sources. I did a spot check above of Silcox & Town, p. 49, and couldn't find the text attributed to it (the two independent examinations by a doctor and coroner, etc). There was nothing like that on p. 49 (although I know there are different editions, and Google Preview may not be showing me everything).
    I'm now looking at this: "After Jackson moved out in December to go to Montreal, Carmichael took his place.[27][94][95] They shared a studio space through the winter."[96][97] First, do you need three sources for the first sentence? Re: the second, I can't find it in Klages 2016, p. 207, which is footnote 96 (again, this may be a Google Preview issue). Also, "they" who share the studio: that's Thomson and Carmichael, is that right? SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I clarified that it was Thomson and Carmichael that shared the studio space. Tkbrett (✉) 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What does Silcox and Town 2017, p. 49, say to support the following? "It was noted that he had a four-inch cut on his right temple and experienced bleeding from his right ear. The cause of death was officially determined to be 'accidental drowning'." Also, why do you cite different editions of the same book (Silcox and Town 1977 and 2017)? SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I see you've already addressed the first question above (about what p. 49 says). SarahSV (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tkbrett, in which edition of Silcox and Town is that text on p. 49? SarahSV (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's from p. 49 of the 2017 edition. I have used both the original 1977 text as well as the 2017 "revised and expanded" edition b/c the texts are different in places while still containing useful information. Is it inadvisable to use multiple editions of the same text? The Klages citation you mentioned is from the print version and not the Ebook that appears on Google Preview. I can confirm that, I'll just need a few days before I can run over to the library and grab a copy. Should I limit how many citations I have per sentence? During the Peer review it was recommended that I limit things to three citations in a row. I haven't found anything directly in the MOS concerning this. Tkbrett (✉) 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding how many citations, there's no rule about sticking to three citations. The best thing is to offer one. That makes things easy for readers and reviewers. If you need to add more than one, it's helpful to explain what each source says. See WP:CITEBUNDLE. For example:
<ref>For year of birth, see {{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; for graduation year, see {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
If several sources say the same thing, you can bundle them without explanation: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
There is no rule about this. You can cite however you choose. But it's hard to review an article when each source supports a part of a sentence or paragraph, with no sense of which ref supports which words.
As for citing different editions, I can't see a reason to do that. If there's something important in 1977 that's absent from 2017, you could consider it, but be careful in case it was removed because inaccurate. If you want to say "Smith alleged in 1977 that x, but in 2017 said y," then you can cite 1977. Can you expand on why you're doing it here? SarahSV (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────I only use the 1977 version twice: the first instance is unnecessary since it's bundled w/ a citation from the 2017 ed., so I'll remove it. The second instance is for a quote that is present in the 1977 ed. but seemingly absent from the 2017 ed. The quote is found in Wadland (2002) so I've gone and used that instead. Where I have several citations in a row, they cover the entire sentence. Tkbrett (✉) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They each cover the entire sentence (i.e. each could stand alone) or they cover it jointly? SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The former. I'd have to look through and confirm it's true for all of them, but I believe so. Tkbrett (✉) 05:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, that's good to know. It makes things a lot easier. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Emanuel Moravec[edit]

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the dismembered Czechoslovak state created and occupied by Germany during World War II. Prior to the occupation of the Czech lands, Moravec was widely known as a leading proponent of democracy, and as a celebrated author and journalist. This article recently passed both GA and A-class review. A note on sources ... this article makes use of a handful of Czech and Slovak-language sources, however, there has only been one comprehensive biography about Moravec published in any language (by Jiří Pernes). The article does not use that as a source as it was the subject of a plagiarism scandal and was withdrawn from publication. The allegation was that it was plagiarized from a dissertation and whether or not this dissertation actually resulted in the awarding of a doctorate is unclear; therefore, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't believe either the book or the dissertation from which it was allegedly copied is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Before reviewing, I just wanted to clarify, have the Czech language sources identified in the Milhist ACR been consulted? For reference, these are ones used in the Czech wiki article, such as Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with two exceptions; on further inspection, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech appeared to be a visual history, or book of photographs; Kolaboranti 1939–1945 I wasn't able to obtain through any means. The others I did consult but found their information to be duplicative of that already in text. Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I would strongly suggest citing the material that can be sourced to these publications, even where it is already cited to existing sources, otherwise reviewers and other readers will assume that the Czech sources have not been consulted. This goes to the comprehensiveness criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point, that makes sense. I'll add this in. Chetsford (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 I've added these in now; LMK what you think about how I handled it. For the Magazine of Military History (Czech) I just added a single citation on a one-source sentence to avoid WP:OVERCITE (this is kind of a subject matter extraction of his visual history so is image heavy ... and there are a lot of good ones, I wish we could use some of them). On Czech Fascism and Collaboration I actually included it in a new "Further Reading" section instead as it seems like a pretty nice reference that deals with the whole period (Moravec only gets smattering of mentions sprinkled throughout but, contextually, the volume should be of interest to someone curious about this period). Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another read through, but given I looked at this in detail at Milhist ACR, I doubt there is a lot for me to nitpick about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A few things from me:

  • his political party affiliation is given in the infobox, but I couldn't find it in the body
  • it is probably worth pointing out that the all ministerial appointments were subject to approval from the Protector anyway. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe p. 135 is a reference for this.
  • it could be mentioned that revision of Czech school textbooks was undertaken, and universities were closed and student leaders arrested and killed or sent to labour camps. Lemkin pp. 138–139 is the reference for these matters.

I reviewed this article in detail during its Milhist A-Class review, and that is all I have from this run through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - thank you very much, I've made these updates. For #1 (political party) I just deleted it entirely. I'm not actually sure where that came from; I think it was probably a leftover field from the original, stub article, but there's no actual source that confirms Moravec's membership in the National Partnership and it wasn't really a political party in any case so I should probably have notice and removed it long ago. 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The way that you phrased the closure of the universities (the nation's universities had been closed) is not ideal in my opinion. Before the war, many Czech universities had a German-language section and a Czech-language section. Only the Czech universities were closed, as Lemkin states. Also, the Protectorate was not exactly a nation. Catrìona (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good points, Catrìona. I've revised; LMK if you think it looks okay. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Catrìona[edit]

After reading over this nomination, I don't have any additional comments to make. I believe that Chetsford has addressed concerns that the article might not be comprehensive. It's very well written and consistently referenced to reliable sources, and has been thoroughly picked over already at MILHIST ACR. Catrìona (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Teresa Sampsonia[edit]

Nominator(s): LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a remarkable woman of the 17th century. Though often overshadowed by the "legacy" of her husband (Robert Shirley), Teresa had an unique life story. Born into a noble family in Safavid Iran, alongside her husband Robert, she travelled far and wide, and became the subject of numerous contemporary literary and visual works during her own lifetime. The article has already had a pretty extensive review by Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Final comments from Ceranthor
  • "After her husband died of dysentery, and due to impediments from grandees at the court and the authorities during the reign of Abbas' successor and grandson Safi (r. 1629–1642), she decided to leave Iran." - I'd replace the "she" here with Teresa
  • "she mentions their travels, and refers to her noble Circassian origins." - I'd cut the comma after "travels"
  • Is it possible to add the son to the infobox?
  • "The favourite of Emamqoli Khan, who still wanted to marry Teresa, sent his servants to the Carmelites in Isfahan to capture her. " - to whom does "the favorite" refer?
  • Name not known unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "After three years in Safavid Iran since returning from her last trip with her husband" - seems a little wordy; maybe rephrase?

Otherwise, I think the prose is engaging enough. References seem reliable. Little concerned that the last picture of the headstone isn't actually public domain, but I'll leave that to an image review expert to confirm. Otherwise, support. ceranthor 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, the photo is taken from an angle, so that the three-dimensionality of the surroundings can be seen, and therefore PD for 2D objects doesn't apply. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I was the GA reviewer, and have been watching Ceranthor and LouisAragon's very thorough preparations for FAC. This is in excellent shape and I expect to support. A couple of minor points:

  • Suggest giving the year of her husband's death at the start of the second paragraph of the lead. Perhaps "Her husband died of dysentery in 1628, and due to...".
  • The link to Circassian in the lead goes to a dab page.
  • According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time"; however, he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more: suggest "According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more.
  • Suggest moving the "(Greek or Georgian Orthodoxy)" parenthesis to a note.
  • She was named Sampsonia by birth. Do you mean "at birth", or something else?
  • Yeah I meant at birth! Thanks, fixed it. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving note [d] to directly after footnote 11, where it immediately follows the mention of her aunt.
  • Ali Qoli Beg (the King's ambassador: I assume this is Abbas's ambassador, but since we've mentioned other kings since the last mention of Abbas I would be explicit here.
  • There, Teresa came to know the Carmelite nuns, particularly Mother Beatrix de Jesus (the niece of Saint Teresa, from whom she received a relic of Teresa: unclosed parenthesis: I'd have closed it but I'm not sure if you intended it to go after "Saint Teresa" or at the end of the sentence. An em dash instead of the opening paren might work just as well.
  • In the paragraph starting "During Shirley's diplomatic missions", it's apparent there were several portraits. You say "retained a symbolic item", but it appears it varied from portrait to portrait since you say "a pistol in one portrait". How about "but for each portrait she retained a symbolic item", or (perhaps simpler): "but retained symbolic items" and assume the remainder of the sentence lets the reader know these varied?
  • However, a favourite of his wanted to marry Teresa: suggest "a favourite of Allahverdi Khan's" since it's not easy to parse this. Perhaps "a favourite of Enamqoli Khan's, who wanted to marry Teresa, reminded the Khan...". I also think you could lose the "However".
  • the happening would take place: "the happening" is ugly. I see that "the questioning" would be repetitious, but could we just say "that she and the mullah would meet"?
  • Since he favoured the Carmelite Fathers: perhaps "Since the Khan favoured"?
  • Why is it relevant that the prefect is a Georgian?
  • Because, like Emamqoli Khan ("the governor"), he was of Georgian origin as well. At least, I thought it would be interesting to add, but we can leave it out as well of course. Please let me know what you think, and I'll adjust the sentence. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, but as someone who knows little about the period or the culture, I don't know what that implies. Perhaps the fact that they are both Georgian means they automatically collaborated in political or religious matters? Or that they shared certain views? In an article about US politics, I would know what "..., also a Republican, ..." implies, but I think you'll have to supply the implication here, perhaps in a footnote. A minor point, in any case; I've supported below and I trust you to do what you think best with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This text shows that Teresa subverted...: suggest attributing this inline, which would also allow you to avoid the awkward "This text shows". Perhaps "According to Andrea (2017), the text demonstrates that..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. I've left one reply above, but it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Use upright scaling rather than fixed image sizes
  • @Nikkimaria: You mean by substituting "...px" with "upright"?
  • File:Shirleys.JPG: source link is dead
  • File:Teresia,_Countess_of_Shirley,_painted_c._1611-1613.jpg: some of the details in the caption are not sourced
  • As far as I can see (but please, do correct me), the only thing thats not explicitly stated in the source is "(...) and dressed in then contemporary attire". I decided to add that to the caption, because the source does state that "The Shirleys travelled a great deal, but were in England from 1611 to 1612/13 - a date which fits with the costume of this portrait." Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The image description page isn't a source per se - these details should have an inline citation in the article. However, on clicking through to the source from the image description page, I note that the caption is almost identical to what's given there, without any indication of quoting. That's a plagiarism concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm thats really odd. Thanks. I just corrected it, I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Teresia,_Lady_Shirley_(etching,_possibly_late_18th_century).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Trastevere_-_santa_maria_della_scala_01586-9.JPG: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama, this will need an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I think that R. Bip is an odd publisher name and if it's a shortened form it should probably be expanded; otherwise the formatting of the sources seems OK to me. I take that "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend.", "Van Dyck, 1599-1641", "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri." are reliable sources? Nothing else jumps out as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend." -- David Blow is a historian who specializes in Iranian studies[4] I.B. Tauris is a high-quality publisher.
  • "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration" -- by Willem Floor, a renowned authority in Iranian studies, specifically the Safavid/early modern era.
  • "Van Dyck, 1599-1641" -- by Karen Hearn. She's well-known art historian specializing in the era of van Dyck. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some additional source formatting notes, assisted by this handy script:

  • You're inconsistent about using locations in your book sources: three have locations, but the rest do not. It doesn't matter which you choose but they should be consistent.
  • Globe should come before Hannay in the list.
  • Can you supply a page range for Andrea (2015) and Andrea (2017b)?
    Could you elaborate? :-) What do you exactly mean with page range, and where do you want me to write it down? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Those are chapters or essays in an edited work, aren't they? I meant the start and end page of that work within the volume. I see you have what is presumably the start page for Andrea (2017a); it's helpful to give the whole page range. If you prefer not to, I think for FAC it would be OK if omitted, but if so I'd drop the page number that you do have, for consistency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a spotcheck of sources for close paraphrasing shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Spotcheck I don't have access to the main sources. Checking Schwartz 2013:

  • The cite for the translation of the headstone is fine.
  • Source: "In the small circles in which they moved, Robert and Teresia became sights to see for their rich, exotic dress". Article: "In the small circles in which they went, they were sights to see for their rich, exotic attire". This is much too close; please rephrase.
  • The cite for "made of silk and velvet" slightly misquotes the source, which says "silk and silk velvet": if you leave the quotes in place it needs to match the source. Otherwise this citation is fine with no close paraphrasing.
  • The cite for "wide variety..." is fine, but I noticed a story about her being poisoned in Madrid on that page. Any reason why you left that out of the article? It's not treated as definitely true by Schwartz, but he doesn't dismiss it.
  • Because it Schwartz mentions this, apparantly. I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possibility. Please let me know if you think that I should include it nevertheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Checking Tuson 2013:

  • "Buried in the convent..." OK
  • "partly self-created..." OK, appropriately quoted.

Since I found one issue, I'd like to ask for the source for one more randomly selected citation. Could you post here or email me the source for "In the Safavid Empire women were prohibited from traveling abroad without permission", which you give as p. 292 of Chick & Matthee? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • This looks very interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • First, I see a good deal of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[5]
  • Fixed by the always helpful Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under "Departure from Safavid kingdom and later life" is a bit of a text wall compared to the rest of the article, perhaps break it up somewhere?
  • Good point, I agree. Do you have any suggestion? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps split before "She had the headstone inscribed". FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "probably the first child born in England of Iranian descent" Who is this quoted to? Direct quotes should always be attributed in text, or just rephrased.
  • Mentioned within note "g", right behind the sentence. If you think it should really be mentioned outside within text and not inside the note, please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Then I don't see why a direct quote is needed in the article body, though, if it isn't disputed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "reportedly saved her husband's life on two occasions" Any details on this?
  • There is, but I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on an anecdote. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, if this is part of the historical "myth", it needs to be mentioned for comprehensiveness, all you need to do is specify if the claims are dubious. Would warrant at least a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "(the former capital)" I think you could specify Iran, as this is in a new paragrapgh.
  • "They disgraced her to the King, and it was published in the court that the King intended to execute her by burning." If apostasy was illegal at the time, this should be stated.
  • "he didn't" Contractions are discouraged.
  • "The prefect, also a Georgian" Like who? You stated Tersa was Circassian?
  • Yeah I meant to say that the prefect was a Georgian just like the governor of Shiraz. I rephrased it in order to prevent confusion. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The frame in this[6] image is three dimentional, so is not PD; it could be cropped out.
  • I think the main text could mention their son died young.
  • The intro seems to be out of chronological order, might be better to follow the structure of the article body. You jump form her early life to after Shirley's death, and then back to her travels with Shirley again.
  • Valid point I think. Do you have a suggestion? I don't wanna mess up the grammar and overal coherence. @Ceranthor: Would like to have your opinion on this as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it would just be a matter of moving the existing text around. So that this part comes before the death of her husband: "Teresa was received by many of the royal houses of Europe during the voyages, such as English crown prince Henry Frederick and Queen Anne (her child's godparents) and contemporary writers and artists such as Thomas Herbert and Anthony van Dyck. According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more." FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Tuson (2013) argues that Teresa's story has been overshadowed by "the partly selfcreated myth of the Shirley's"" What does this allude to?
  • "An emancipated figure" Only stated in the intro which should not have unique info.
  • You could spell out Henry Frederick in the article body as well.
Unrelated note - @FunkMonk: thanks for that script; it is incredibly helpful for cleaning up overlinking (see my recent contributions ha). ceranthor 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to spread the word in as many reviews as I can, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I took care of the duplinks for you. ceranthor 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

@LouisAragon: Per the FAC instructions, please remove the "done" templates. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Alodia[edit]

Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Notified: , Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa

After a withdrawn FA nomination six months ago and a large rework in the meantime I hereby nominate this article again. It is about Alodia aka Alwa, a Christian Nubian kingdom in what is now Sudan. LeGabrie (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria[edit]

I will slowly review this. Looks interesting

  • I notice the name in Greek in the lede, followed by a citation. It is preferable that citations are not present in the lede. Suggest moving the citation to the first sentence of the Sources section. It could be like this: Alodia, written as Aρογα (Aroua) in Greek,[citation] is by far the least studied of the three medieval Nubian kingdoms.
  • Same regarding citation number 4. The literal quote should be moved into the main text with the citation. Maybe in the lede you can reword the quote to keep the meaning and eliminate the need for a citation.

─────────────────────────Thanks for reviewing. However, I would object that there are numerous FA's which have citations in their lede, like the Byzantine Empire (which I used for orientation while reworking Alodia), the Han dynasty or Macedonia (ancient kingdom). LeGabrie (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Those featured articles should probably change this. The same case happened a while ago. The FAC coordinator Ian Rose had this to say: Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead. Hence, no need to delete the citation from the qoute, but I maintain my point regarding the Greek name --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I can just delete the citation and leave it be, without shoving the Greek name into the main text? I also have a question since you can write Arabic: can you maybe transliterate 'Alwa (including the apostrophe) into the Arabic script? That's the name the kingdom has in the Arabic sources. LeGabrie (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That should be suitable. As for the Arabic name, its: علوة .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I notice the lede is too short for such an article. A lede needs to summarize the article and prepare the reader for what he will read in the main text. The current lede is mainly about the political history and does not cover the Administration and Languages sections. It also does not give adequate space for the economy section. I suggest an expansion to the lede.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Better now? LeGabrie (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. More to come soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. I finished and the article is comprehensive and well sourced. I suggest asking the Guild of Copy Editors for help though. Some sentences were clunky and the prose could use the help of a guild editor--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Initiated a request. LeGabrie (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead map, and is there a reason for that caption to use smaller text?

─────────────────────────You mean the text that appears right under the map? Isn't that the default text size? LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make it small on purpose, that has to be the default size. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png: what sources were used to identify areas of uncertainty?

─────────────────────────Will rework parts of the map soon. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The infobox is using flag parameters for icons that aren't flags

─────────────────────────Isn't that permitted? We don't know the flags of Kush or Fazughli. The "flag" used for the Funj is their royal insignia. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • At icon size maps are pretty much indistinguishable, and aren't representative of a place the way a flag would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted the maps. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Africa_in_400_BC.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Kingdom_of_Fazughli.jpg

─────────────────────────First image: No idea, didn't make it. Second one: Mohi El-Din Abdalla Zarroug: "The Kingdom of Alwa". LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there any source that supports the data in the first image? For the second, suggest providing complete citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
II II
  • Suggest scaling up the ground plans

─────────────────────────Upscaled them by +10% each. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • File:King_Moses_George_of_Makuria.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:ArnoldvHarff3holzschn1859.jpg, File:King_sennar_1821.jpg

─────────────────────────Added tags for the last two pics. What tag should I use for the first one? The original painting is from the 12th century, but it was published only in 1967. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • It's a wall painting, which would mean it was legally published significantly earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Added tag. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Ground_plan_of_Mound_C_church,_Soba.jpg: any more details on source?

─────────────────────────Somers Clarke: "Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley", 1912. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like the source and author have been reversed in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Soba_capital.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────1926. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay. Template should use publication rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Hi again LeGabrie. Disclosure, I assessed this for GAN. It is looking good.

  • I have fixed some referencing errors. You will want to check that you are happy with the changes.
  • It is on the request list for a GOCE copy edit, which would be helpful. I shall wait for this to be completed before commenting further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed my mind.

  • All images need alt text.

─────────────────────────How? Simply by adding "|alt=(repeat caption)"? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • That's the idea, but the alt text should be a description, eg 'The stumps of three stone columns emerging from an expanse of sand' or similar.
@Gog the Mild: Good enough? LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: I have tweaked some. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). Feel free to change or revert any you aren't happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It needs checking for duplicated Wikilinks.

─────────────────────────Is it ok to have a Wikilink to a certain entry in both the lede and the main text? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes.
Done. LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Where there are several cites they should be in number order. Eg cites 132 and 85.

───────────────────────── I don't understand. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Why is note 2 in italics?

───────────────────────── You mean the second annotation? Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Good. Just waiting for GOCE to get round to it now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently tweaked it a bit. As usual I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and any unexplained or unlinked nautical jargon that I may have missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead and first section, 1a:

  • "The class was designed to be at least the equal of any other ship afloat or building."—> "afloat or under construction"?
  • "When the First World War opened in August 1914,"—I've not seen that verb used for a real war. It's more what I'd expect if at the opera. "started"?
    • What, you don't think of the war as a tragedy of epic proportions? ;-) I went with "began".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agency is weird (same as first bullet above): "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April" ... ships don't construct. "Construction of X had only begun in ..."
    • This gets into the anthropomorphization of ships where they are given agency as a stylistic shortcut even though everyone knows that the only actors are the humans aboard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) \
      • It's very bizarre. I trip over it. We don't want readers to do that to. And it's so easy to fix. Tony (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Later: I consulted a linguist on this example—he's an English-language professional. He agreed immediately with my objection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agency again: "The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a maximum speed of ..." ... those turbines have a mind of their own. "were intended", surely.
    • And my linguist friend suggested this would be better, avoiding my objection: ""The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies—I pasted the old version in rather than his suggestion: "The turbines, rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW), were intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That reads nicely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As well as reducing the density of she/her, we can tame an already-cluttered sentence: "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil to give her a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)." –> "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil for a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).
  • 'A', 'B', 'Q', 'X' and 'Y' ... I thought MOS insisted on double quotes. Maybe it's changed.
    • I'm using MOS:SINGLE as these actually aren't quotes, but rather names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I should look at MOS more closely. Tony (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick." It's close enough to elide, I think. Or maybe even: "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were , supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick."
    • I think just the "they" should be deleted as your last suggestion reads rather oddly to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally pretty good so far. Tony (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see the article on this interesting ship at FAC. However, it seems a bit under-developed compared to other recent FAs on battleships. I've noted some areas below where the article could be broadened, sources permitting of course (which I suspect may be the underlying issue)

  • "The second of the two ships of the Reşadiye-class battleships would have been known as Fatih Sultan Mehmed." - not sure that the name of the other ship in this class needs to be in the lead (especially the first para) - I found this a bit confusing
  • "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April and was broken up for scrap." - ditto: this doesn't seem important enough to include in the lead of this article
  • "Another ship, Sultan Osman I, originally ordered by Brazil but being fitted out for the Ottomans, was also seized" - also a bit confusing here (and not mentioned again in the body of the article - I'd suggest moving this material from the lead into the body, and possibly augmenting)
    • I've cut everything on the other ships out of the lede.
  • "A proposal by the British government to compensate the Ottomans for the loss of their battleships was ignored" - it's not clear who ignored the proposal: did one part of the British government make this proposal (can you say which part?), and another ignore it?
    • I've never seen any other info on this, so I'm deleting it.
  • Should the role which the British seizure of the ships had in bringing the Ottoman Empire be noted? (though I think historians tend to now regard this as being marginal at best)
    • Added a paragraph on the effects of the seizure on the Turks.
  • How was a crew so quickly found for the ship? - presumably they were very competent given that they were conducting operational patrols a few weeks later. Did they have any problems using a ship customised for Turkish sailors? (dials in the wrong language, unusual accommodation, etc?)
    • Based on some comments by Jellicoe on the other seized ships, I'm pretty sure that she was still effectively working up for most of the autumn. Annoyingly, Jellicoe really doesn't mention Erin in any significant detail.
  • The summary of Erin's career doesn't actually have much material on the ship. While this isn't surprising given that she was just one of many battleships in the fleet, can you add when she underwent periods of major servicing and any other incidents which affected the ship and her crew?
    • Her wartime history is very poorly documented outside the archives and I've added everything that I can find about her activities. If I hadn't been pointed to Jellicoe and the Navy Lists, there's no way that I'd be able to even pretend to satisfy the completeness criteria.
  • There's almost nothing about what did the ship did in 1917.
  • Regarding 1918, am I right in remembering that the Grand Fleet's battleship squadrons took turns escorting convoys to Norway, which presumably got Erin out of port.
    • Some of them did, but they're only mentioned in the published sources in conjunction with German movements towards Norway, so I cannot determine if she participated or not.
  • Given that Erin was designed to be as good as any other battleship in the world, why was she so swiftly relegated to second tier status and then disposed of after World War I? Is it because tbe delays to her construction meant she was nothing special or worse by the time she entered service, and she'd been made well and truly outmoded by subsequent designs such as the Queen Elizabeth class and/or was an orphan? Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably the latter two reasons, but nobody actually goes into the reasons why

Thunderer became a training ship rather than Erin. See if the changes that I've made are satisfactory. And thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, the images seem rather crammed, perhaps align some of them left, wherever it makes sense? FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Don't want to play ping-pong with the reader's eyes, so I aligned everything to the right.
  • Some of the footnotes do not have citations.
    • They're not things that need citations. Looking forward to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree with note 2, but not note 4, where you mention a specific source, without actually citing it formally. I see no reason why it doens't contain a citation to the source discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reşad V[2][10][11] in honour of Mehmed V" What is the correlation between these very different names? What does the word "Reşad" (and Reşadiye) itself mean?
  • "The First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to detain the ships" Why?
  • "was too far away participate" Missing word, it seems.

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This is looking good. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, suggest "the inconclusive Action of 19 August the same year"
  • the length conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • suggest "Erin was powered by two pairs of" as a set could be any number
  • what aircraft were the flying-off platforms for?
    • Probably a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter, but that's only sourced for the battlecruisers and I don't know if the battleships were allocated anything different.
  • the "distant cover" for a convoy crossing the Atlantic seems weird. Perhaps this was more of a distraction/demonstration?
    • Probably not given the difficulties the Germans had in tracking British fleet movements. I think that they were simply prepared to intercept any attempt to interfere with the convoy.
  • drop the comma from "Reports of submarines in Scapa Flow,"
    • Indeed.
  • was the fleet dispersed (meaning "distribute or spread over a wide area") or relocated?
    • IIRC, one squadron didn't go to Lough Swilly, but none of the battleships remained in Scapa Flow, so either term works, IMO.
  • I think you could link Battle of Jutland in the body for the benefit of readers

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Luka Dončić[edit]

Nominator(s): Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about professional basketball player Luka Dončić of the Dallas Mavericks. In 2017 and 2018 with Real Madrid, he grew into one of the most promising international NBA draft prospects of his generation, being named most valuable player in both the EuroLeague and Liga ACB. The first featured article nomination of this article was mainly struck down because the nominator wasn't a primary contributor. However, I have made numerous more edits to bring this article to stronger FA consideration, enough to become one of this article's main contributors. Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoping to post comments today. ceranthor 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources
  • What makes The Smoking Cuban a reliable source?
  • Same with Mavs Moneyball?
  • Same with Eurohopes.com?
  • Think it would be helpful to get someone familiar with FAC who can vouch for the Serbian and Slovenian language sources. Will try to run through the prose in the next day or two. ceranthor 23:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceranthor: I have removed the citations to The Smoking Cuban and Mavs Moneyball, which mostly referred to trivial information. Eurohopes is a reliable source in my opinion, with many of its former writers (including its founder) working for NBA, NCAA, and European teams. Runningibis (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can't speak for the other commenters, but my concerns weren't only about the nominator not being the primary contributor. My other real concern, which no nominator can really address yet, is that Doncic has just began his NBA career and the article will require regular updates that threaten its stability. Are you planning to keep this page updated so any changes don't degrade the article after this review? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: Yes. The fact that his season is starting won't require his page to be updated on a daily basis... only when he has a notable performance. Runningibis (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Neville's Cross[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham.

The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France.

The article has just completed an A class review and I am hopeful that it is up to scratch. It is my first submission for FA, so be gentle with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article got a pretty thorough going-over at Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of what gets picked up here will be prose-related. I have a few comments:

  • I don't think the years of reign are needed in the lead
Removed. Inserted after first mention in main body. Let me know if I have misunderstood and should simply have deleted.
  • remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?
It seems to have happened during ACR. Relooking at it I can't think why. Done.
  • suggest "InBy 1346, England"
Done.
  • unless we end up with more Philip's and David's the ordinal can probably be dropped after introduction
Gah. I will if you insist. In a previous ACR an experienced assessor asked me to always include ordinals and I have consistently done it in all of my articles since. I don't see that it harms, so long as I am consistent, and it does occasionally avoid confusion: Edward's son (the Black Prince) was called Edward; the English-backed pretender to the Scottish throne was King Edward (Balliol); the king of Navarre at the time, who swung between England and France and who had arguably the best claim to the throne of France, was King Philip. And so on.
I don't insist, but be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest Gascony instead of "south-west France" if that is what is being referred to
No, it means south-west France. As it says in the note straight after, a major part of the French difficulty was the loss of Poitiers, the capital of Poitou, 200km from Gascony.
  • note 3 should be "military service of approximately..."
I changed that, reread it, and realised that I actually meant "in". If you don't think that it works, I could easily rephrase.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I suggest changing the notes to lower alpha instead of [note 1] etc, as using numerical notes and numerical footnotes together is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This would also use less space, [a] instead of [note 1], and therefore break up the flow of the text less. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is my aging eyesight, but I really dislike notes in the style [a]. I all too frequently read straight past them, either not noticing them or mistaking them for citations and am left not fully understanding something. The point of a note, it seems to me, is to attract the readers attention to something which may be of interest but which is not essential. This will break up the flow of the text, that is part of the point. If I am going to make it easy to overlook them, why am I including them at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive.
Generally, IMO notes are often overdone, as they sometimes include information that is germane to the subject of the article, and should be in the body rather than a note. I tend to use notes mainly for technical matters, and this explains our differences in this area. Personally, I would have thought that note 1 could be included in the body, for example. As long as you have not included information in a note that really should be in the text, it isn't a problem, I just suggest that you re-examine the information in the notes, and ensure it couldn't be given in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker Thanks for taking this on. You seem to be impressively tireless. Responses to your comments above. I am not always agreeing with you, but given my inexperience I am more than open to discussion/persuasion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone sees things differently, and I am trying to emphasise that the way you choose to do things can be more or less useful to the average reader, and you should challenge your choices regularly, as we are not average readers. You'll no doubt get a different perspective from other reviewers. IMHO, the idea is to question your editing practice and improve as you go. Things I did with my first FA, I've gone back and fixed, and wouldn't dream of doing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: One of the best things about editing Wikipedia is the amount of genuinely well intentioned challenging that I receive. If I ever respond negatively to anyone's friendly challenge to anything I do, please trout me. Certainly I winced a couple of months ago when I looked back over my first half dozen GAs. No doubt I will do the same with this in six months time. Ah well, I suppose that means that I am improving. I am by now quite used to telling other editors to aim their prose at the mythical ordinary reader, but strongly suspect that I do not manage to be as critical of my own work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Notes reduced from six to two in line with your suggestion above.
  • link Kirk Merrington, as that appears to be the relevant village
I thought that I had. Strange. Done.
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Cathedral here. Suggest using Durham Cathedral in full, as that is the proper noun
You are the second experienced editor with that view, so clearly I am wrong. Done.
  • once you've established them as battles, use that term, rather than units or formations
Done.
  • the commanders of the English forces are bestrewn with commas. Suggest treating them the same as the Scottish battles to break it up a bit
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Neville is given as Lord Ralph Neville, and then as Ralph, Baron Neville in a very short period of time. Was he elevated in the interim?
A battlefield promotion? No. Consistency imposed.
  • perhaps "Neville remained in overall command." as you've already said he was in command of the force.
Done.
  • suggest "Their fire prompted the Scots to attack."
Wording changed. You may wish to check.
  • which Scottish battle was the one that was first to reach the English lines? Randolph's?
Yes. Done.
  • suggest ", the third battle, under the Earl of March (you've already linked Dunbar, so a link to the title probably isn't needed here)..."
Done.
  • there's a David that needs a II
Done.
  • since he's been introduced, "John Randolph, Earl of Moray" could just be "the Earl of Moray", in the list of dead notables
I tried it, but my eye kept stumbling over the inconsistent naming of the two earls. But I am probably too close, so if you are (fairly) sure I'll change it.
  • link William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas
He's already linked, as William Douglas, Lord of Liddesdale. (Stumbling across the English in the mist.)
  • drawn then hanged? I thought it was the other way around?
Well now. There is some modern confusion around this, specifically around the meaning of "drawn". The first paragraph of Hanged, drawn and quartered#Execution of the sentence discusses this. My source, Sumption, states "drawn, hanged and quartered" and I am not inclined to argue with the penal pedantry of a member of the UK Supreme Court. I also note that the article on him (John Graham, Earl of Menteith), differently sourced, uses the same order.
  • the indenting of the Sources is rather odd. Generally they are bulleted rather than indented.
This is genuinely intended to be helpful for the reader. It may, again, be my failing eyesight, but I struggle with Wikipedia's bullet pointed bibliographies. I will scan up and down with my eye not picking out the one I want, especially when there are several works by the same or, worse, similarly named, author(s). I have seen indention used in several articles and use it in mine when the number of references goes over 12-15. I find that with most or all of the relevant surnames protruding it is much easier to pick out the one wanted. I would actually like this to be generally adapted as good practice as an accessibility issue.
  • Do any of the Further reading sources have anything unique to say about the lead-up to the battle, the battle itself, or the aftermath?
Being critical, and thinking about reliability, no. So I have deleted. I have used one to source the addition "The site of the battle has been listed as a registered battlefield by Historic England."

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All comments addressed. See above. An embarrassingly high level of sloppiness from me. Thanks for bearing with it. I am telling myself that from here I can only improve. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Fresh eyes always pick up things we miss. This is an excellent article, well done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thank you for that, and thanks for the support vote. It is in good shape now. However, I do enough work at GOCE to recognise lack of rigour when I see it. I can do better than that, and shall try to next time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

It seems to me that this article meets all the FA criteria. A few minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • Lead
    • "approximately 6–7,000 men" – I am not at all expert in the arcana of the Manual of Style, but this looked a bit odd to me, and I wondered if "6,000–7,000" might be more the thing. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
You are quite right - MOS:NUMRANGE. I should have known that. Done.
    • "Strategically this freed ..." – I had to stop in mid-sentence and go back to the beginning to get the intended meaning; a comma after "against France" would break the sentence into its constituent parts more clearly.
Done.
  • Background
    • It's unlikely that many readers will imagine King David's army was massing in Western Australia, but I might blue-link Perth nonetheless.
Done.
  • Prelude
    • I'm not convinced by the quotation marks in the fourth sentence: the sources you mention didn't unanimously use the exact words you quote. I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of plagiarism if you remove the quotation marks.
Sumption has exactly those words. But I typo'ed the reference; I had page 551, it should have been 550. The first sentence of the first full paragraph here. He references the single sentence to the hilt. Given its context in the article I am unsure which way to go and would appreciate your advice in the light of the new information. And apologies for cocking up the citation. (My other source, Wagner, describes it as "the largest Scottish invasion force of the century", as I suspect you have already discovered.) Perhaps I should simply reword?
I'm not doubting that all your sources corroborate the statement. My only (minor) point was that what your text says is they all used the actual words in quotation marks, which of course only one of them did. Knocking off the quotes will remove the objection, and, as I say, is not going to get you accused of plagiarism. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Quote marks removed, text slightly tweaked. Forgive my first FAC nerves.
    • "Richmond" – London SW14 is not as remote as Western Australia, but it would do no harm to mention in passing that the one mentioned here is the Richmond in Yorkshire.
Good point. Done.
  • Battle
    • I think the sentence beginning "Seeing their first attack..." is trying to do too much, and I might turn the parenthetic description of Robert Stewart into a footnote or by some other means move this information from this rather involved sentence.
Another good point. Done.
    • "less than 100 were taken prisoner" – there are those who get frightfully exercised about "less than x", when x refers to people or anything capable of being enumerated, and insist on "fewer". There is a perfectly sustainable case that "less" governs the number itself rather than the people or things numbered. Nonetheless, I find it saves grief to preempt attempts at pedantry by going for "fewer" in such cases.
You are quite correct. (Only this morning I corrected another editor doing the same thing in a GAN.) Sloppy of me. Thank you.
  • Aftermath
    • "Legend has it" strikes me as bit of a cliché: I'd prefer something less hackneyed, such as "according to legend".
On reflection (geddit?) this is a bit WP:Peacock, so reworded.
    • "large scale raids" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate this double-barrelled attributive adjective.
This is a marginal judgement call, IMHO. Unless you wish to push it I am inclined to leave as is.
    • "an old Anglo-Saxon stone cross" – perhaps lose the "old"? Not many new ones about.
Most sources refer to it that way. I assume to distinguish the old cross, which was Anglo-Saxon, from the new one installed by Neville. Ie there was an "old" cross on the site, later replaced by a "new" one. "old" in the sense of no longer extant, replaced by another; rather than aged. I could reword?
As long as you're happy with it, that's fine with me. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "St. Margaret" and "St. Cuthbert" – not sure why the antiquated full stops are wanted.
Done. (I was brought up with unstopped punctuation: eg, ie, etc, P G Woodehouse, etc, and struggle a little with what seems to me Wikipedia's slightly random approach.)
Me too! Don't get me started on the absurdly antiquated punctuation Wikipedia insists on! I blame Uncle Sam. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • Note 5 – "A significant number..." – what did the number signify? A pity to waste the word "significant" as a mere synonym for "large". (I think the other "significant", in the lead, is fine, because the significance is evident.)
Tricky. "No less than 30" who reported their prisoners failed to hand them over; at least on first asking. The number of prisoners unreported is, obviously, unknown. (Cus they weren't reported.) But there were a number of attested cases and the (believed) total was high enough to infuriate Edward - at least one lord had all of his lands confiscated - and significant enough that a royal commission was set up. There is a lot of detail in King. So while very much taking your point I am struggling for a more felicitous phrase. Suggestions would be welcome.
Though I dislike seeing "significant" used unthinkingly when "large" or "important" is meant, I don't think it does any real harm in your note, especially given what you say about the difficulty finding a more satisfactory and accurate word here. "Considerable" came to mind, but if you don't think that fills the bill, by all means leave this "significant". Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing, as I say, that stops me supporting promotion, but perhaps worth considering. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot, too. Applause from me. Tim riley talk 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tim riley: Many thanks for the assessment, the insightful comments and the kind words. Responses to your points are above, and include a couple of areas where I would appreciate your further input. |Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tim. Quote amended as noted above. The other two I am inclined to leave as is, but I will sleep on and review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Urselius[edit]

It appears to me to meet all FA criteria, it is a succinct account of the battle and is well written. I have only two minor quibbles.

  • The sentence: "Another 3,000 Yorkshiremen were en route to reinforce the northerners." This could be construed as implying that Yorkshiremen are not northerners - and woe betide anyone who implied that. I would suggest 'the northern army' or 'the other northerners' be introduced.
I am tempted to stand by my entirely accurate description, but I shall bow to your narrow provincialism. Face-wink.svg
  • The English combination of well-armoured, dismounted men-at-arms and longbowmen was still a relatively novel military partnership. The Scottish had fewer men-at-arms, being a poorer country, and the bulk of their army would have been spearmen. It might be worthwhile mentioning the contrast in troop types between the two armies - if suitable sources are available. Urselius (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Are they heck. At GAN someone asked after details of "Many had modern weapons and armour supplied by France." But that sentence, and the English being "dismayed" is the sum total of what I can find on equipment. I could have a very convincing stab at how the two armies were equipped, even the proportions of troop types. I would be fairly confident about it. But it would be OR. I could even source it, but that would be the more popular authors making their own informed guesses. You will have noticed the absence of the word 'schiltron' from the article. Because I can't source it, even though I am certain they were there.
You may have gathered that I am frustrated about having had to gloss over the actual crunch of the battle, but if the sources ain't there, they just ain't there.
Happy to debate this further and would love to find something. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

The infobox image needs a proper description template on Commons (and could need a link to an online source, if possible). The rest looks good, sourcing and licensing-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking on the image review. I hope that you will bear with me while I try to climb the learning curve - I only learnt last week how to add a US PD tag. (On this very image.) By "a proper description template" do you mean something like the below? Which is taken from the Commons information on a different image from the same chronicle.

Description

English: French army besieging the citadel of Auberoche, catapulting an English messenger over the walls

Source

http://www.guerre-de-cent-ans.com/1337-1364.php

Date

Unknown date

Author

style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; font-size: smaller; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="unknown table-unknown"|author

Permission
(Reusing this file)

Template:PD-old-100-1923


Yep, exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done, I think. I would appreciate a check. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, I would incorporate the text hanging above the template into it, though. Seems you already put it in a note, so it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Oops. Sorry. Over focused. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Good. Thanks. Any chance of a "Support"? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to read the article for that (can't support based on an image review), and that was actually what I was going to do until I saw it already had three reviews (which usually means a pass). But I'll have a look if it drags out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @FunkMonk: No, no. My error. My first FAC; I thought that an image review needed a support, as it does at ACR (at MilHist anyway). Thanks again for the input and for bearing with me. So, fingers crossed, a source review, which is the thing I am probably most relaxed about, and I have my first FA. Given the quality of the three reviewers who have contributed so far I am hopeful that they will be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that surprises me, actually, since I've often seen you around the review pages. Well, good luck, having reviewed so much also gives good insight in the process! It's an interesting article, so I might come back for a review of the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks. I have been getting my QPQ in early. And, as you suggest, picking up tips. I got 30 GA under my belt before submitting my first ACR, so now have a queue of wanabe ACRs. I am restricting myself to two at a time, and will roll them straight into FAC, if there is a space. You may want to hold back, or look at one of my ACRs (Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Auberoche). I anticipate wanting to call in some favours for FAC assessing before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
See you there! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this Commons image could be of use:[7]
Thank you for that. I am not sure how I missed it. Unfortunately its nice neat depiction does not match any account of the battle I have come across and bears little relation to the account in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, just a couple of minor nitpicky comments. Apologies if these have been raised and discussed earlier in the review, I typed these out whilst travelling, so these may have progressed since I wrote them. Anyway, hopefully they help in some regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • in the References/Sources, there usually isn't a need for accessdates for courtesy links (see Brown)
Removed
  • remove "p. 330" for Maxwell in the long citation (in the Sources section) as it is not required here
Done.
  • slightly inconsistent: "Faber and Faber" or "Faber & Faber"?
I just copy what WorldCat says ;) . Now consistent.
  • the hyphenation of some of the ISBNs appears to be different (e.g. compare Sumption 1990 with Wagner)
Frankly, I am all at sea with hyphenating ISBNs. Now both consistent and correct, but I am unsure if FA compliant.
  • Fraser appears to be self published -- is there a need to use this, or is there anything that can be pointed to IOT demonstrate it is a reliable source?
Well, now. The evidence is a bit bitty, but the Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography is named after him, see here. The Dictionary of National Biography seems to like him, see here. Note that he drew up most of the reports on Scottish historical manuscripts for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for twenty years. He was the (full time) deputy keeper of sassines and subsequently deputy-keeper of the records.
There is more. Let me know if you would like me to dig it out.
Given that, it seems ok to me. Equally, Fraser is only being used once now, along with a ref to another source, so it should be ok, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The information cited to refs 26, 27 and 28 is sourced to works published between 1776 and 1913 - is there anything more recent that could reference this?
This came up at ACR. I commented then "Dalrymple (1776) and Fraser (1878) are only used to support the list of Scottish prisoners. Older sources are fonder of listing noble involvement than more modern ones and I consider them reliable for this, limited, purpose." For Fraser, see above. I have, a little reluctantly, replaced Dalrymple and Fraser with Oman. (I am not keen on using Oman as I don't really trust him. But that is probably just me and he is widely considered a reliable source.)
Ack, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Maxwell - remove the space before the colon in the title
Done.
  • "J. Maclehose and sons" --> capital letter for "Sons"
Done
  • long as possible.[37][25] --> suggest reordering the refs numerically
Drat. I thought that I had caught all of those. Done.
Good day to you AustralianRupert. It is good to hear from you. And many thanks for stoping by to look at my first FAC. I am nervous, as you might expect, and a little annoyed at all of the things I have missed. Your points addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a couple of follow up points: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dalrymple is now not used as a citation, so should probably be in a Further reading section
I have removed him. He was only there to evidence the Scottish dead, now covered by Oman. He doesn't otherwise add much IMO.
  • Note 2 appears unreferenced - suggest adding a citation
Oops. Done.
  • Citation 19 (Prestwich & Rollason 1998) lacks page numbers -- is it possible to add these in?
Sloppy, sloppy. Done. Thanks for picking that up. Embarrassing.
@AustralianRupert: Additional points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Nice work. All my points have been addressed, so I have added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sloan–Parker House[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This article details the history and architecture of a significant historic property on the National Register of Historic Places in Hampshire County, West Virginia. This article is consistent with other NRHP-related articles in Hampshire County that are Featured Articles, including Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I welcome your reviews and suggestions to further improve this article so that it fulfills FA status. Note to reviewers: I have addressed issues noted during this article's first FA candidacy. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead and a bit further:

  • "The Sloan–Parker House (also historically known as the Stone House, the Parker Family Residence, and the Richard Sloan House)"—Do you need "also"? (You do need it in the first section, though.)
  • Tony1, first and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to engage in this thorough review! I appreciate your guidance and suggestions, and I will be addressing them all as soon as I can. Because the alternative names do not fit neatly into any of the sections, I have moved them into an explanatory footnote. Please let me know if this is acceptable. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the link to a list of all US states of any relevance to readers at this point? Or, frankly, at any point in this article? Does "Ireland" need to be linked?
  • "was erected in about 1790" might be a smoother ride for readers; up to you.
  • In the tradeoff between bumpiness and rhythm/meaning, what do you think about removing the first comma? "Sloan eloped with Van Horn's daughter Charlotte, and they settled in the Mill Creek valley, where they built the original "Stone House" of the Sloan–Parker House."
  • But here, you might consider inserting a comma before "who": "The Sloans had ten children, including John and Thomas Sloan who each represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates." Children in the legislature? How modern. ", who both went on to represent"?
  • "Counterpanes"—very unfamiliar, but linked to the whole article "Quilt". Probably a link is good, but please, why not to the section "Block designs" at that target article? And if it were me, I'd write "[[Quilt#Block designs|counterpanes]] (quilts with block-designs)" to save us the trouble.
  • Do we need "stage" and "line" twice? Maybe, but not if we don't: "operated a stagecoach line on the Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike stage line".
  • "and its use as a stagecoach stop ceased after the completion of the Hampshire Southern Railroad in 1910."—maybe, but "ceased" is a marked word (cease and desist). Need to be that strong? "ended" would be more neutral.
  • Do we need "positioned"?
  • "The majority of the stone section's flooring"—we're calculating percentages here? "Most of ...".
  • "approximately": English can be ugly. "about"?
  • "upon" ... whilst, amongst, within. Choose the plain version where possible.
  • And way down, a caption I noticed: "North and west elevations, as seen in July 2016". How can that be freed of redundant fluff?

I'm not saying this deserves to be withdrawn, but it would be a good idea, soon, to print it out and go through it in detail with a slashing pen. Commas, linking, redundant wording. Tony (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Tony1, thank you again for your review and helpful suggestions above. I have addressed each one, and I will continue to remove superfluous language as I find it. Please let me know if you have any further guidance in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV[edit]

This article was a pleasant read, very nicely portrayed some vintage Americana. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Vami_IV, thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to review this article and provide your guidance and suggestions below! I will post here once I am finished addressing each and every one! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "They paid each of their laborers a wage of 6½ cents per day of labor." Irrelevant?
  • "became well known in the region." What region exactly?
  • "He also served as a justice of Hampshire County from 1824 until 1828,[20][23] a surveyor of Hampshire County in 1827,[24] a sheriff of Hampshire County in 1839,[20][25] and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing Hampshire County from 1825 to 1827.[26]" There are three too-many mentions of Hampshire County in this sentence.
  • "Frederick, Hampshire, and Morgan counties." Link to Frederick and Morgan counties here.
  • "The Sloan–Parker House, as of 2018," Is the property subject to change?
  • "as is the old rear door on the stone section's south elevation." Move to the paragraph on the south facade.
  • "This fireplace, along with an outdoor summer kitchen, was used for cooking." Superfluous, remove.
  • "Widely spaced unhewn logs" This links to "Log house", but doesn't actually say loghouse. Is that what you meant?
  • "The Sloan–Ludwick Cemetery[49] is approximately 415 feet (126 m) northeast of the Sloan–Parker House, and is located in a grove of trees at the edge of an agricultural field." Simplify
  • Vami_IV, thank you again for your review and suggestions. I've addressed each and every one in the article's prose. I incorporated all your suggestions, and where there was a question or recommendation to remove, I removed that content. Please let me know if you have any further comments or suggestions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
"The south elevation (rear façade) of the stone section remains intact, and serves as the northern wall of the wooden frame section. A window in the stone section's second story was removed to connect the second story of the wooden frame addition. Likewise, what used to be the stone section's rear door now connects the first floor of the stone section with the wooden frame section.[48] This door is also topped by a four-pane transom window.[48]", "They still contain markings of letters and numbers that enabled the proper placement of components as they were lifted from the ground during construction.[48] The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors, are original.[48]" and "The interior of the stone section contains two floors, each with two rooms, in addition to a basement and attic. The former kitchen and dining room (or "keeping rooms") are on the west side of the basement level, and feature a large fireplace.[48] The east side of the basement serves as a large storage area.[48]" Combine citations here. There is a lot of this in the prose. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vami_IV, thank you for your continued review of this article! Your time and guidance are much appreciated. I have modified this section so that there are not so many redundant citations. Please take a look and let me know if you see any outstanding issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

An interesting article. Some comments/suggestions below.

Lead
  • "who each (later) represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates" - following an earlier point, would "later" work here?
  • "and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) perpendicular to the original stone section" - here, and in the Architecture section, you use "perpendicular" where I'd use "at a right angle". Just ignore me if it's a US/UK thing.
  • The chronology of the lead stops c.1910. Should it not have a line on the later Parker history, opening etc.?
Geography and setting
  • This is very detailed. Too detailed?
Sloan family ownership
  • "After encountering healthy cattle from Old Fields in Hardy County, they decided to relocate there" - this sounds rather odd. Did they meet on the road and exchange pleasantries? "observing" / "noticing" or some such?
  • "the large house afforded the couple sufficient space to raise them. The house also provided the family with the necessary space..." - to avoid the close repetition, could you replace the first "space" with "room"?
Parker family ownership
  • "She and her husband opened the Sloan–Parker House for tours in 1962 and in July 1976 when..." - I don't get the timing here. Did they open just in 1962, and again in June 1976? What about 1963-75, and post-June 76? Could the wording be clarified?
  • The full list of the present owners' children almost strays into Facebook territory for me. Does it really have any significance in relation to the house?
Architecture
  • Sources - as a general observation, this section is heavily reliant on the single source (48). I well appreciate the challenges around finding sources for minor buildings; most of my Monmouthshire Grade II*s are sourced to Pevsner and the CADW site. And that's sometimes it. Are there any other sources available? My guess is not, otherwise you'd have used them.
Stone section
  • "The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors". You could link hardware. I see it's US usage, but it's less clear to us Brits, and I suspect even less clear elsewhere.
Ancillary structures
  • "Widely spaced unhewn logs are located within the barn's interior and on its south elevation". This threw me and I'm still not sure I get it after reading Source 48. At first I thought they were just logs strewn around for decorative?/illustrative? purposes. But the source says "on" the interior, not within. Are they actually cladding? I think it needs clarifying.
Sources
  • Waybacked newspaper clippings, e.g. 39, 41, 44 - it may be my machine but these don't work for me. They don't let me get into the actual articles, just the first bits.
Images
  • The two images of the North & West elevations are very similar. You don't have any of the other frontages?

All in all, a well-researched article on an interesting building. I'll be happy to support after you've had a chance to consider, but not necessarily action, the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • KJP1, thank you so incredibly much for your review of this article. I have indeed actioned most of your suggestions, which have greatly improved the article's flow and quality! Unfortunately, the archived NewspaperArchive.com newspapers are not rendering properly at the present. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this in the citations? Perhaps remove the archive links and add the subscription templates? I also kept perpendicular after trying right angle. Everything else has been integrated into the article per your guidance. Thank you so much for your time and expertise! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • KJP1, I went ahead and removed the archival links from the NewspaperArchive.com source, and added the subscription required template. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All looking good to me. It's a shame about Wayback as I don't generally like using paid-for sites if they can be avoided, but probably better that than the frustration of not being able to get in. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
KJP1, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and for providing your guidance above! I share your frustration, and will continue to look for a solution to this issue in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Killdeer[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a (primarily) North American shorebird. It is found both inland and on the coast. I became interested in it after I saw a few at school last spring. Recently, I tried to bring it to FA status, but failed. I have improved the article and gotten a GA review, so I hope it is better now. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Seems many issues were fixed by the GA review, so definitely the way to go before FAC. I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is a clearer, or at least more dramatic, photo of the injury faking:[8]
It definitely displays the "broken-wing" better; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's always good to show how a bird looks in flight (can aid birders, for example), how about one of these?[9][10] Perhaps under habitat?
Added the first one, as it more clearly shows the underparts and underside of the wing. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, looking again, maybe th Cuban image should be moved under distribution then? Since the point of it is to show a local population. Now it is kind of crammed under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be the last point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this one, and I think I agree with you; moved. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You made a point of adding location to image captions at the GAN, why not in the taxobox caption?
Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This binomial has not been changed" I don't think this needs to be its own sentence, it could be better tacked onto the former sentence as ", a name which has not changed since" or some such.
Used a semi-colon to connect the two sentences. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "an account of it" Give year.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Introduce people mentioned.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "in the fourth-century Vulgate" Add "bible".
done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The specific vociferus" Spell out specific name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)" If the parenthesis is because it was originally described as a separate species, this should be mentioned.
It seems that it described by Chapman under the genus name Oxyechus, at least according to AviBase. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
In that case it needs a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Added as a footnote. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The killdeer's name" Common name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems some of those external links are redundant. If the article contains all the same info, we don't need extra links.
Removed 3 external links. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No word on most closely related species and evolution?
Nope; I can't find anything on it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A quick Google search gave me these[11][12], sure there is more. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that first one. Thanks; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The description is a bit of a wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The female's mask"?
Sounds good. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and very locally south to Panama" What does this mean?
It's basically what HBW said; I assume, though, that it means while it does breed to Panama, it only does so on an irregular basis. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and those with cattle"? Why?
Added in parentheses. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" This section is usually called behaviour and ecology in bird FAs, with predators as a subsection.
I don't think that's correct, most bird FAs actually have just "Behaviour" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "although another estimate... gives about two million" Why "although>", it doesn't contradict that the population is large, but confirms it.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 06:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " While egg-laying" This is ambiguous. Do you mean brooding, or laying eggs?
Not specified; I'm pretty sure it means the period of egg-laying itself; changed "while" to "during"
  • "until a normal response is calling at a stand" What does this mean?
I seemed to have misread the source a tidge; it said "standing calling". I removed "at a stand". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and charges at the intruder." With the rump first?
"While in this crouched posture, the bird lunges towards the intruder in an apparent effort to halt its approach." It seems so, heh. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ground chases occur when a killdeer has been approached multiple times by another killdeer; similarly, flight chases occur when an individual has been approached from the air. Both are forms of territorial defense" Is any of this related to breeding, though?
Yes, as they forms of territorial defense; I have no information on them being used as a mating display. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "keep the nest cool or to help conceal the nest." Last "nest" could be "it".
Done; also removed last "to help". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and there are occasionally two broods" What is meant by this? In the same nest, or in separate nests?
I couldn't find this, but I found that they usually laid in the same nesting territory; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In these two parents broods" Parent's? And why is "two" needed? It is a bit oddly worded this sentence.
Removed "two parents"
  • "The young are brooded, until about 15 days after hatching, during rain, and, until about 18 days after hatching, at night." I'm not sure what this means. They are brooded less during rain and more during night?
It means that if the young are under 15 days of age, they are brooded during rain, and if they are under 18 days of age, they are also brooded at night; rijigged and replaced "at" with "during". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae." Too much detail for the intro, the name of the describer is enough there.
Removed extraneous information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ""the originally described population)" That would be the originally described subspecies. Population is not the same.
Ok; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The nest itself is a scrape" Only stated in intro.
Added to body. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This likely evolved because of increased insect abundance and reduced predation during the night." Evolved is a bit strong here, "this is likely because" would probably make more sense.
I agree; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A "why" tag has been added after the sentence "About 53% of eggs do not hatch", which should be dealt with.
This has been dealt with. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a: I reviewed this not long ago, right? Hmmm ... the lead is still faulty.

  • "there are two black breast bands on the breast"—do we really need "breast" twice? And there's a third two seconds later, awkwardly making est est.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a good sentence: "It is seen year-round in the southern half of its breeding range, and the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is likely resident to the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus inhabits Peru and areas of the surrounding countries throughout the year." and and and trips us up. Have you thought of creating two sort-of sentences using a semicolon? I can't digest it. And "likely" (meaning "probably"), an Americanism I've never been happy with in formal prose. Why? Because it creates a grammatical fork ("is likely to?") that has to be disambiguating shortly after.
Done. I don't really understand your reasoning for not liking "likely", but I've changed it anyways. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you ditch the "However-comma" and replace with simple "But ..."?
I've done that for its first occurrence in the lead, but not for the second, as "but" occurs shortly after. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Any chance of avoiding our need to hit the link to "nominate"? ... by (glossing) it?
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So, looking through, it's much better than it was. Probably good enough for FA this time, in prose. Possible to use range dashes for numerals? "2 to 6 °C (36 to 43 °F)" -> "2–6 °C (36–43 °F)" ... simpler to read. Tony (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer using "to" for consistency. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that one of the "breast" is redundant in the forth sentence. --Boothsift (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'm short of time, so just few points for starters Read through nowJimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What about its parasites? No mention at all in your article: Jackson, B., J. Jackson. 2000. "Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)" pp. 1-28 in A Poole, F Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 517. apparently claims it hosts at least 13 species (I don't have access)
I finally found the paper on it; added some information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • According to a 1999 mitochondrial DNA study, the killdeer is closely related to the rufous-chested, and semipalmated plover, and the black-fronted and hooded dotterel—this concerns me. Two species from other genera are considered to be closest relatives, rather than others in its own genus, notably common ringed plover, itself the closest relative of semipalmated. I can't access the full reference, but I note that it's nearly 20 years old
Removed; I personally did have a few reservations about this (it doesn't even include the whole genus!), so I've removed it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The female's mask and breast bands are generally more brown than those of the male.—that's not quite what the source says. HBW has "tends to have", which is much less positive than your statement implies. Hayman, Marchant and Prater 1988 p. 287 has "sexing is not usually possible, but some breeding females show much brown admixed with the black on the face". Non-breeding males also often have some brown in the plumage, so I'd definitely hesitate to sex birds in that plumage
Changed to "tend to be". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are three subspecies, including the nominate .—clunky here, why not just leave at There are three subspecies and then later have The nominate (originally described population) subspecies of this plover breeds from southeastern Alaska and southern Canada to Mexico, which clarifies what is currently an incorrect statement.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The killdeer winters from its resident range south to Central America—should be the North American breeders winter from their resident range south to Central America
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as Charadrius vociferus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae;[2] this name has not been changed—clunky, try The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae as Charadrius vociferus, its current name
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • About 53% of eggs do not hatch—as it says, why not?
Specified. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • range of about 26.3 million kilometres (16.3 mi)—you are using a linear instead of area measure for the range, should be sq km and sq mi, also I think that 26.3 million kilometres is a tad more than 16.3 mi!!
Fixed both. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Average/maximum life span, survival rates etc?
I found the maximum life span; by the way, this site I just found seems to be really useful (I found the paper I used through this), if you didn't already know about it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
RileyBugz私に叫ぼう, I wasn't aware of that, it looks useful. In practice, I usually write about species with a presence in Europe, where the Euring database does the job, but I guessed that there must be something out there for other regions. Anyway, that's my last point dealt with, so changing to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll be back with more detailed comments shortly, I hope, but meanwhile I am wondering what variety of English the article is intended to be in. It seems mostly to be in BrE (behaviour, centimetres, coloured, metres, colour, millimetres) but some AmE spellings pop up here and there (southeastern, defense, feces). Tim riley talk 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's mostly in British English. I've changed defense and feces now, but "southeastern"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Comments, as promised. First an apology. I ought to have made it clear in my passing remark, above, that given the habitat of these birds, AmE would seem to me to be the logical choice. I don't think it's mandatory, though, and if you prefer BrE I doubt if anyone will object. Here are a few general comments, down to the end of the "Habitat and distribution" section:

  • Lead
    • "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes" – I could make a fair guess at what upperparts are, but rufous could do with a link too, I think.
    • "The belly and the rest of the breast is white" – singular verb with plural nouns.
    • "resident to the West Indies" – is that a technical term? Ordinarily "resident in" would be expected.
    • "West Indies" – if you're going to link (which I'm not sure is needed) you should link at first, not second, mention.
    • "fledge" – might be helpful to link? Borderline, perhaps.
  • Description
    • "lores" – definitely could do with a link, I'd say.
linked. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "The killdeer also has a white collar that is black on its upper border" – I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean a white collar with a black upper border?
Yep; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "more pale and grey" – "paler and greyer"?
  • Habitat and distribution
    • "very locally south to Panama" – I'm not quite certain what this means. Is it that breeding is mostly in the first three countries but is occasionally known in Panama too?
It means that it breeds south to Panama, but not as widespread as it usually is found. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

More to come. – Tim riley talk 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tim, just picking up on the variety of English point you made earlier, there are eight or nine English-speaking countries in the Caribbean part of the killdeer's breeding range that use BE, so it's just as appropriate as AE for this species, and the latter is certainly not necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome (back) to the "Versailles of Swabia," one of the largest palace complexes in Germany. After a detailed GAN, I nominated Ludwigsburg Palace for FAC at the start of August. The nomination ended in failure, so I let a month of time elapse before re-nominating and incorporating editor commentary on the previous FAC. Here's to progress! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, opening two sentences:

  • "Ludwigsburg Palace (German: Residenzschloss Ludwigsburg), also known as the "Versailles of Swabia", is a 452-room palace complex of 18 buildings located in Ludwigsburg, Germany. Together W[w]ith the added gardens around the palace, its Ludwigsburg Palace's total area is amounts to 32 ha (3,400,000 sq ft), making it—the largest palatial estate in the country Germany." ... Does it get better? And why not a conversion to acres to save us the millions and millions. Does "German" (language) really need to be linked? "Germany" certainly doesn't need to be—unless the reader is Trump or a five-year-old kid. The country-link will be in the Ludwigsberg article, anyway. Later, I see the garden alone is "3,400,000 sq ft": how can that be?

Tony (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find a source claiming it was the biggest palace in Germany - just one of. Even though, but total area, it definitely is (eat it, Würzburg!). I've added all your suggestions, also. –Vami
  • "In 2016, the Ludwigsburg Palace attracted some 330,000 visitors." Now it's "the"; but that's missing from the very opening. Which is it to be in a grammaticalised sentence (as opposed to the article title)? And why not "the Palace"?
    • Oh man, good catch! Fixed now. –Vami
  • Vami, I was indicating that you need to do far, far more than just fix what I pointed out in the opening two sentences. Have you printed out the text and struck through all the woolly wording throughout? Tony (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2017, 350,642 people visited Ludwigsburg Palace." It's a phone number. Good case for passive voice.
  • How do you "sort out" paintings?
  • English can be ugly if you want it to be: "Ludwigsburg Palace exhibits a great deal of Austrian and Czech Baroque influence,"—shows? reveals?
  • I see lots of "would" future tense. Use it a bit, but not more, please. "that was then carried out by" rather than "that would then be carried out by".
  • Fixed. –Vami

At least the spot-check found better prose than the opening two sentences (above). Tony (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I missed your comment, but it's okay been I addressed it now. Thanks for getting back to me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jmar67 (JM)[edit]

  • I was asked by Gerda and Vami to do another copy edit (first one several weeks ago). I have finished an initial pass and welcome feedback. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • See also article talk page. --JM
  • @Vami IV: Should be "Alter Hauptbau" and "Neuer Hauptbau". --JM
    • Fixed, and thank you for your copyedits thus far. –Vami

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to an impressive article about an impressive building! I'll read the lead, but will comment on it last, and do little steps, commenting as I read.

  • I don't need such a long hatnote. The other palace, fine, but both the socalled "city" (town?) and the porcelain will be linked in the article, - let's get to the topic ;)
  • I formatted the infobox a bit. I don't see any advantage in having it collapsed, just more white space. The "alt" text shouldn't be a repetition of the caption, but explain to a blind person what you see on the image. Please, generally, avoid fixed image sizes, - upright factors (from 0.7 to 1.3) respect users' preferences.

TOC

  • The table of contents looks clear, but I wonder if "Hauptbau" is a good a idea, once we started with "palace", and readers may be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps better use "main building" and introduce the German in the text?
  • Changed Old and New Hauptbau headers back to North and South wings and introduced translated text in parentheses. –Vami
  • Do we really need 5 headers for the references. (I normally have only 3: (foot)notes, references, and cited sources.)
  • No. That is why they are not headers. –Vami

History

  • What do you think of having the plan in the architecture section, where (hopefully) the German terms get explained?
  • Done. –Vami
  • How about the name of the builder in German, which would make the explanation of Ludwigsburg much easier? I strongly believe that his name should be at least mentioned in his article ;)
  • First paragraph: "Eberhard Louis renamed the estate after himself (German: Ludwigsburg, lit. 'Louis's Castle') in 1705" –Vami
  • That's what I mean. His name was "Eberhard Ludwig", or the place would be Louisburg or what. Really too bad that so many noble people travel in the English Wikipedia only by translated names. Common name is fine, but real name should also show, if you ask me. (Not your fault, but we could start adding a real name in an article like this.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. I've added a clipped image of the duke's portrait with his German name. –Vami
  • Can we link to the palaces of Munich, instead of the present-day city? (like you do for Versailles)
  • Done. Moved link to the same sentence I linked Versailles in and replaced the first mention with "Nymphenburg Palace." –Vami
  • How about linking "architectural trends ..." to Baroque architecture?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "city"? - Project Germany defines a city as something with at least 100,000 inhabitants. I'd prefer "town". See Town privileges
  • But later granted city status. --JM
  • I'd call it town status, or say that it receive town privileges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed --JM
  • Perhaps it's just too late, but I don't get the meaning of the run-on sentence beginning "E L decided ...". Split in two, or three? And what does overture mean here?
  • Not a run-on sentence, just somewhat lengthy and awkward. I have changed. "Overture" = proposal, offer. --JM
  • No need to say "Duke E L" once he's introduced. Just name, or "the duke".
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • In an article about something German, I don't think you have to say "German:" everytime something is translated, - it should be default.
  • Done. –Vami

Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Construction

  • I am no friend of squeezed text between images left and right, in general. In particular, the Courtyard image looks finished, not like construction ;) (actually: nor do the others) - Any other location for that? Better English names in the caption.
  • Unsandwiched a lot of the article. Did I go too far? –Vami
  • Done. –Vami
  • I am no friend of mixing English and German, as Old Hauptbau. At least Old Hauptbau. And a translation of the German part?
  • "Hauptbau" would produce "Main building," thus "Old Main building," which is thoroughly unsexy. –Vami
  • Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to use the thoroughly unsexy name throughout the article, but once explain please what Hauptbau means. Or: use Alter Hauptbau, after explaining once what that means. Or: say old Hauptbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind: keep the courtyard image, but in the caption use the terms from the text. Move the 19th century thing below.
  • explain "absorbing"?
  • Changed to "incorporating" --JM
  • please don't use the fixed template in FACs, - some of the FA people are allergic to templates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears to be WP:OR from poor translating from Swiss German (Bieri), corrected. –Vami
  • Donato Giuseppe Frisoni - he was introduced before, but I didn't make the connection that Donato Frisoni was the same person. How about same name, or just last name, which would tell people that they should know him?
  • Fixed; abbreviated to "Frisoni". –Vami

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Use as a residence

  • Why not simply "Residence"?
  • Done --JM
  • Images: the view is decorative but not much more, Casanova should look "in" and could be normal upright.
  • Done. –Vami
  • For fairness: in "Duke Eberhard Louis left no heirs and was succeeded by Karl Alexander." - let both be Duke, or both not ;)
  • Done --JM
  • another "city"
  • Done --JM
  • "... use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775 and brought the Rococo style to Ludwigsburg in 1747." - I'd end the sentence after 1775, otherwise the chronology seems disturbed.
  • Tweaked --JM
  • "such as when" - really?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • It is OK but not elegant. The palace is elegant. Thank you for tha many fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would not call it "elegant" either but it is not jargon. It is perfectly correct for giving an example. I would not have made this change. --JM
  • Will readers know what Schlosstheater means?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • What is an "opera hall"?
  • "himself succeeded"?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • just curious: why not simply "he succeeded"? - I try to avoid "however" and "himself" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This was there for rhetorical reasons, because he had succeeded his predecessor earlier in the sentence. I don't know what you have against "however". I use it often. --JM
  • "Charlotte, Princess Royal, daughter of King George III" - "Charlotte, the daughter of King George III" would suffice.
  • Done --JM
  • "Friedrich II, now Frederick I" - I'll never understand these noble names ;)
Anglicized every instance of "Friedrich II" and added the distinction of "Duke" –Vami
  • "felt that he had to express this accomplishment in architecture, as Eberhard Louis had attempted" - no way that Eberhard Ludwig could have expressed the same acomplishment (and which anyway) - the wording sounds translated to me, but I may be wrong.
  • Done --JM
  • "... remodeling, this time the Ordenskapelle and the king's apartment, which lasted from 1808 to 1811" - sounds like the apartment lasted.
  • Done --JM
  • "Neuer Hauptbau's" - just no, we can't add an English possessive to a German term.
  • Done --JM
  • Is this an established rule? I find it OK. We are using these terms for convenience and should treat them as English words. --JM
  • I have modified the prose to remove the possessive –Vami
  • "then-modern tastes" - not happy. "in the latest style"?
  • Done --JM
  • any better word instead of a repeated "take place".
  • Done --JM

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Later history

  • The first image caption is needlessly long, - all we'd need to know is that it was used for important contracts and trials ;) - Put rest in the body, if really needed. - Please link trial in caption, for those who only look at pics ;)
    • Done. –Vami
  • "restoration took place at"?
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Second paragraph: first sentence combines 2 things by "and" which are not connected, opening to the public, and ratification.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Too much math: the following year - four years later.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • How about combining the two Sitzmann visits? The second has more substance, - do we need the first at all?
    • Axed first visit, revised second. –Vami
  • Is the Lego thing notable if the company has no article in German?
    • Guess not; axed. –Vami
  • The sentence about the painting attribution is too complex to follow, - make it three?
    • Simplified and whittled down into two. –Vami
  • Am I the only one to find visitor numbers a bit boring? - How about one?
    • Axed. –Vami
  • "to arrange the Neuer Hauptbau" - arrange? refurbish? whatever, but not arrange. - More later. Vacation from tomorrow, be prepared for delays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. –Vami

Architecture

  • I'd not link Austro-Czech, and perhaps better not even use it. The later link (Bohemian Baroque) is the one that would fit, while Sudenten German is plain wrong.
  • Fixed. Not that it matters, but that was actually not an error of my making. –Vami
  • I don't understand the "but" in the sentence with the (too?) many names.
  • Removed. –Vami
  • It's debatable if the people mentioned before should get a repeated link, but certainly not a repeated red link. I'd give no first names to those mentioned before, reminding readers that they should know them.
  • Fixed. I translated one of those bios, and a number of others were faulty links (oops). –Vami
  • I don't understand the "also" in the sentence about the interior, nor what "Baroque influences" means.
  • Fixed sentence. I removed "Baroque" from the sentence and added a semicolon to punctuate the "also", a reference to the mix of Baroque styles that is the palace exteriors. –Vami
  • "King Frederick I, at the time Duke Frederick II" - I think "Duke Frederick II" would be better.
  • Done. –Vami

Sorry, the whole paragraph strike me as unconvincing. Perhaps I should read first what follows. An overview of the styles, perhaps with some years attached, is desirable, but a load of unknown names is not that. Tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll consider methods of expanding/improving the paragraph as you dictate. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The deed is done. How does it read now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Much better, thank you! - How about - once we are next to the plan, say which part was made by whom when - at least for major parts as Alter and Neuer Hauptbau? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
By ruler (Eberhard Louis built all the exteriors) or by architect? Both? I also cover that, building by building, in the following sections. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I am sure it will come in the details, but here is the plan, and here you could make the connections of architect, year and building, but only for important ones. That could actually also go to the lead then, pleasing Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
In the lead now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Reading again:

  • Can we avoid repetitions more, Baroque, Czech Baroque, more Czech. - I wonder if Bohemian would be more precise.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Prague and Vienna come as a surprise after we heard of French and Italian.
    Can you elaborate? –Vami
    We heard about many influences from France and Italy, and then are told that it resembles places in Prague and Vienna, - wouldn't that fit the Bohemian influence better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've added a footnote detailing that Bohemian influence - does that help? –Vami
  • Can we avoid "whose work Eberhard Louis was familiar with"?
    Removed. –Vami
  • Where would Neoclassical begin?
    Where in the prose...? –Vami
    Yes. I began a new paragraph for rococo, and a third would be good for neoclassical, only where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Ah. I've moved the Rococo bit back into the first paragraph, since it was a single sentence, and gave the whole second paragraph to the Neoclassical. –Vami

North wing

  • "At the top of the stairs is a guard room and then the beletage's four suites, following the French Baroque model of a living room, audience chamber, and bedroom". Don't we need "are" (not "is") fofr more than one? I only count to 3, not 4, in the model.
  • No. There is one guard room, hence "is". I've made some revision to the sentence(s; I split the quoted material). –Vami
  • "Eberhard Louis's apartment is made unique by the addition of a hall of mirrors ..." - suggest: The apartment of EL features a unique hall of mirrors".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "houses the two galleries" - do we know them already? " houses two galleries"?
  • Oops. Removed. –Vami
  • General: How about using this paragraph to once more connect the German terms from the plan to what they mean in English, and in the later paragraphs use one or the other, without repeating the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe you are referring to the "Eastern/Western Galleries" here. Since they're not named on the map nor a major part of the palace, I've taken their title-case names away. –Vami

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "piece of clockwork" - why "piece of"? link "clockwork"?
  • As it turns out, that piece of clockwork is actually all the clockwork from Zwiefalten. Fixed now. –Vami
  • "joined to it"? - "connected to it"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • Why north wing, but Western Gallery? Add German names for galleries?
  • "peacetime - warfare"? Peace - War?
  • Done. –Vami
  • link the virtues, or Virtues?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Above the entire gallery is Colomba's Gigantomachy", - I'd offer a bit of explanation, what it is (ceiling freco?) and what it shows, - yes, there's a link, but I had no idea before clicking.
  • Added. –Vami

East wing

  • not sure how a building can begin a wing, as in the first sentence.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti, preserved from the 1720s" - I think saying something was different style and then back to the former is fine, but "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti from the 1720s" would imply it was there all the time, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    This is the Östlicher Kavaliersbau, not the Riesenbau. –Vami
     ?? We are under East wing, and the question is: do we need the "preserved"?
    Axed both instances of "preserved". –Vami
  • "Joined to the Riesenbau and Östlicher Kavaliersbau by a connecting room on its southern end is the Schlosskapelle" - please no, just to Germanish. Begin with Schlosskapelle, and use joined or connected?
  • Removed instead (couldn't make work). –Vami
  • King David is a redirect, and the story possibly begins before he was King, - how about David?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of the Apostles", - no, "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of biblical topics, such as Apostles ..." - link Apostles? - If it's Protestant it was not consecrated.
  • Done. The Apostles was already linked.
  • "Beneath the chapel is a crypt that contains all rulers" - how about "A crypt under the chapel is the burial site of all rulers"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided ..." no, - a chapel can't avoid ;)
  • I... Done. –Vami
  • I boldly rephrased the ceiling fresco thing, please check and revert ;) - too tired to go step by step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thankee. –Vami

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • Intending to review the prose here. ceranthor 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Lead
  • "In 2017, the palace attracted over 350,000 visitors." - "more than" probably works better than "over" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Philipp Joseph Jenisch, Johann Friedrich Nette, and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni " - presumably architects, but only the last has a link suggesting that... might add "architects" before listing their names
  • Added. –Vami
  • "It then survived World War II intact, the only palace of its kind to do so," - seems a bit vague - of its "kind" meaning what?
  • Changed to "It survived [...] of its size". –Vami
History
  • "Meanwhile, Nette began the interior of the Alter Hauptbau, which he would never finish. " - not sure that meanwhile adds much here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "Nette made two trips to Prague and his native Brandenburg to expand his pool of talent, in 1708 hiring fresco painter Johann Jakob Stevens von Steinfels (de), stucco workers Tomasso Soldati and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni, then Andreas Quitainner in 1709, then Luca Antonio Colomba, Riccardo Retti and Diego Francesco Carlone." - seems like a run-on
  • Whittled down a bit. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 to 1733" - be consistent; stick to dash ranges or writing out X "to" Y
  • Done. If more than one year, I use "[year] to [year]". –Vami
  • "Charles Eugene began the construction of a new ducal residence in Stuttgart in 1746, but continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" - I'd cut the comma before "but continued"
  • Done. –Vami
  • "La Guêpière completed the Schlosstheater from 1758 to 1759,[32] adding a stage, machinery, and the auditorium.[33] A wooden opera house, adorned with mirrors, was constructed in 1764–65, located east of the Alter Hauptbau.[4]" - same note as above with date ranges
  • Done. –Vami
  • "In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart and made no more modifications to Ludwigsburg from 1770 onward." - I think this is an uncommon use of "onward", which usually refers to physical direction IMO. I'd replace with "after 1770" or something more prosaic
  • Did both. –Vami
  • "Charlotte continued to reside at Ludwigsburg and received many notable visitors from across Europe, among them some of her siblings.[39]" - seems a bit vague to not name any of these visitors
  • Sources don't list any so I shrank the sentence instead. –Vami
  • "In the early 1930s, Wilhelm Krämer (de) began hosting the Ludwigsburger Schloßkonzerte (Ludwigsburg Palace Concerts), which comprised six to ten concerts annually from 1933 to 1939, performed in the Order Hall, the Ordenskapelle, or the courtyard.[44]" - might split off the last bit following "performed..." into a separate sentence
  • Banished to the Shadow Realm instead. –Vami
Architecture
  • "who were educated in and experienced with Czech Baroque architecture and hired staff also experienced in that style.[16]" - I'd cut out the "also"; seems unnecessary for comprehension
  • Done. –Vami
  • "His friend and partner Antonio Isopi" - business partner, or romantic/sexual?
  • Fixed, "working partner". –Vami
  • "more grounded Classical form that would then be carried out by Johannes Klinckerfuß" - who is this? there's no article, so you should give a brief identifier for the lay reader (aka me)
  • Done. –Vami
  • " In 1810, the rooms on the beletage were remodeled in Neoclassical," - missing the word "style", perhaps?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "built from 1715 to 1719 to house courtiers" - is "to" the right word here?
  • Done, changed to "for housing courtiers". –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided major remodeling in the 19th century and is today the most original area of the palace.[69][18]" - bit vague what you mean by original here. I think you mean not restored, but it's not crystal clear IMO
  • Axed. –Vami
  • "The final and southernmost part of the east wing is the 490 feet (150 m) long Ahnengalerie," - Should be foot, not feet. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template and that should fix it.
  • Missed that, added. –Vami
  • "The Ordenskapelle was given its current appearance from 1746 to 1748 by Johann Christoph David Leger" - "given its current appearance"? What does this mean?
  • Also axed. –Vami
Grounds and gardens
  • "which attract 520–550,000 visitors annually." - previously, when listing date ranges, you've shortened the latter number rather than the first. keep it consistent throughout
  • Done. –Vami
  • "and attracted over 500,000 visitors by the end of May" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "but was restored true to form from 1972 to 1982.[109]" - "true to form" meaning?
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "around 400 paintings" - about, not around
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "over 4,500 exhibits of examples of porcelain, ceramics, faience, and pottery" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "children over four years of age about life" - same as above
  • Changed to "four years of age or older". –Vami
General
  • Restating this, but be consistent with either dash ranges for dates/years or writing out X "to" Y
  • Since fixed, I think. If work took place within two years, I use a dash. If not, the latter. –Vami
  • Refs should be in ascending order for consistency's sake - ie., for "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[4][2]", it should be "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4]". Let me know if that needs clarifying.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Might need some WP:NBSPs - an example would be the break seen here "Michael Hörrmann, the director of the State Agency for Palaces and Gardens, valued the portrait at a minimum of €1 million.[50]"; or here "the Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Palaces and Gardens plans to have spent €4 million to sort out and restore some 500 paintings, 400 pieces of furniture, and 500 lamps, clocks, and sculptures,"
  • Lots of duplicated links throughout the article body - suggest installing this tool to help!
  • I have written a very long article and don't want readers scrolling up to get at pertinent links. I have, at least, restricted myself to a single link per section. –Vami
See MOS:DUPLINK; there should generally only be one link in the entire body section. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Used the tool you gave to vaporize a lot of duplinks, reducing links to one per body section (Architecture, History, etc.). –Vami

Besides a few concerns about vague wording, I think this is engaging and in good shape. Comments above. ceranthor 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides the duplinks, I'm satisfied. I need to run through and read again to see if I missed any prose issues. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing so far! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Final thoughts
  • "The palace attracted more than 350,000 visitors in 2017." - I'd move this to the end of the third paragraph of the lead; I don't think it flows well in its current location
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing construction for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." - repetition of construction is distracting
  • Fixed, removed second "construction". –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12]" - such passive voice here, and too much separation between the subject and verb for such a short sentence
  • Unpacified. –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12] The populace also chafed at the palace's cost, one pastor in nearby Oßweil (de) saying at his pulpit, "May God spare our land the chastising that the Ludwigsburg brood of sinners conjure."[4]" - perhaps combine the two sentences and make them more concise?
  • Done. Still two sentences, but now the second is supporting the first rather than being its own thing. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 1733." - missing an endash / two inconsistent date range styles
  • Simplified sentence, greater detail in "Architecture". –Vami
  • "As the master builder of what was now decried as the "sin palace", Frisoni and Paolo Retti " - should this be "master builders"?
  • Changed to "central figures in the construction of [...]" –Vami
  • "With his death, the nine-year-old Charles Eugene became Duke, beginning a regency that lasted until 1744.[29]" - I might substitute "after" for "With" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The palace's first restoration took place at the Alter Hauptbau in 1865.[42]" - any records of what happened between 1865 and the public opening?
  • No. My source jumps to 1939 from there. –Vami

Got about halfway through. Can post more once these are finished. Still noticing inconsistencies for date ranges and other stylistic things like that. ceranthor 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Final thoughts (continued)
  • "Today's gardens were created in 1954 and arranged in a Baroque style for Ludwigburg's 250th birthday.[93] " - "today's" reads oddly to me... maybe better as "the current" or "the contemporary" gardens?
  • Axed as redundant sentence. –Vami
  • "The gardens comprise smaller themed gardens and the Fairy-Tale Garden (Märchengarten)," - "garden" is repeated three times in such close proximity here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "which contains a folly and depictions of some fairy tales.[94] " - any details on which fairy tales? brief mention couldn't hurt
  • Added three examples. –Done
  • "From 1797, Duke Frederick II revived the South Garden in a Neoclassical style by dividing it into four equally sized lawns with a Mediterranean theme." - From 1797 until when?
  • Changed to "Around 1797", the source only gives 1797 for a date. –Vami
  • "The canal was filled in, maintenance reduced, and an orchard planted on the southern lawns that was later used to grow potatoes.[101]" - something about this sentence doesn't sit right with me
  • Revised. –Vami
  • "ensuring the future of the Blooming Baroque gardens.[102]" - might add "continuity" or something like that after "future"?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "and since 1995 one of the original stage pieces has been used for the Children's Stage (Junge Bühne).[33][127]" - one of the lights? bit vague here
  • A-ha, my source has some more information. The "original stage pieces" referred to a winter background. Added now. –Vami

ceranthor 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • " Charles Eugene was the next duke to reside at Ludwigsburg from 1747," - same issue as above with "from" with no end date
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "and brought the Rococo style with him." - what does this mean?...
  • Axed and moved into next sentence. –Vami
  • "Within the palace itself are two museums operated by the Landesmuseum Württemberg and dedicated to fashion and porcelain." - I'd add respectively assuming these two museums focus on fashion and porcelain, respectively
  • Added. –Vami
  • Still going thru and checking date range consistencies. ceranthor 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing some of those! –Vami
  • The bit about WWII in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up in the text itself. ceranthor 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed. –Vami

Support on 1a. Sorry for the delay and my onslaught of comments. Great work! ceranthor 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Just a quick passing comment, the lede looks very short for an FA quality article, I don't see any summary of the architecture for instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave the lead a can of spinach and it seems to have bulked up pretty good. Now contains an abbreviated architectural history of the palace. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It was more some of the architectural details I was looking for, an FA quality article ideally needs to have a summary of each major section written into the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added some detail about each wing to the lead's first paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the Nashville Sounds[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Nashville Sounds Minor League Baseball team that has played in Nashville, Tennessee, since 1978. It is currently listed as a Good Article, and I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured Article. I have put a lot of work into this article and am prepared to quickly address any issues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • A quick look shows that the prose is good. I was expecting to trash it. Tony (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) PS I'd insert a comma after "logo" in the upppermost caption. Tony (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I reviewed this article and copy-edited it during the first FAC, and I'm glad to see that the prose has received some praise. Having checked the additions to the article since the first FAC, everything added appears to be at the same level as the content present when I last saw the article; I only made one minor change in the new material. Overall, I think that all aspects of this article are now up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to lead the Southern League in attendance in each of their seven years as members of the league. - repetitive. Can we phrase part of this a different way? "draw the largest crowds"? or something similar?
  • ...began to be outshined by newer state-of-the-art ballparks being built in the late 1980s - I suspect "state-of-the-art" is redundant here..?

These are very minor issues - looking good Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Casliber:I changed the first bit to "The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to draw the Southern League's largest crowds in each of their seven years as members of the league." ... "state-of-the-art" has been removed from the second. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

SN54129[edit]

Support great article; comprehensive, in-depth and thoroughly referenced. The only thing that jumps out at me is that, in your images, you use pixels to determine their size, whereas, for the purpose of universality, uprights are prefered. If you haven't come across them, that's —and on that note, since your lede image effectively replaces an infobox (nothing wrong with that of course), I'd suggest enlarging it. Maybe by ~50%, as I did here (but then self-reverted). ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not very familiar with the use of uprights, but after a look at the related MOS, I assigned upright values to all images (1.3 to the lede per your suggestion, 0.8 to portrait images, and 1.2 to most landscape images). I welcome any editor to adjust the values as they deem fit. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Of John "also known as Eleanor" Rykener almost nothing is known; yet, in some ways, they are a relevant, if not modern, figure. Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business (in their eyes) with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening in Winter 1394, Rykener's case is an important source for modern-day historians and sociologists studying late the medieval English understanding of, and approach to, sex and gender. I think they would be a worthy—if somewhat niche!—addition to the FA stable, and to that end I am very grateful for the support it has already received. Big shouts, particularly, must go out to the one like Usernameunique, for an extremely thorough GA review, and also to those stalwarts at Peer Review: picking up Brianboulton, Ceoil, J Milburn, Tim riley, et SchroCat. Looking forward also to hearing from others: all input and suggestions welcome. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this article's previous doomed candidacy, having been advised that it was ready to go, it subsequently turned out that about as ready as Æthelred. Still, that was then, this is now, and I think my closing remark then is still relevant also:

The irony that medieval London appears more sympathetic to transvestite sex-workers than Britain throughout most of the twentieth century will not, I imagine, be lost on anyone. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique[edit]

Support: I had my say at GA, and this article has only gotten better since then. It's well researched, well written, and comprehensive. The article was already in good shape when nominated the first time. It's failure, I think, was due primarily to minor errors (e.g., typos, and commas that should have been periods) that jumped out at a reader, but that were cosmetic rather than substantive. These are happily corrected this time around, meaning there is nothing to detract from the core of the article, which remains extremely strong. Can't wait to see this with a gold star and at TFA. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Usernameunique and also for your excellent GA review! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure, Serial Number 54129. Minor note: footnotes 31 and 37 don't work, and did you intend for footnotes 20 and 65 to be without page numbers? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Yes, I was seeing who's awake Excellent, many thanks for catching those! :) I've attended to them, a series of typoos and skintags from that earlier reorg under Iridescent I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cursory look from JC[edit]

  • I was surprised that the article title has not been the topic of any significant discussion in the past. It seems to me that "John Rykener" is the WP:COMMONNAME by all measures, including incoming searches, usage in scholarly sources, and Google hits, which produce about twice as many results for "John Rykener" as "Eleanor Rykener." The naming criteria, specially as they relate to conciseness, dictate that a title should be no longer or more convoluted than is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish the subject, so do you think we really need both names in the title? I'll note that the slash is quite indistinct to my eyes on the Monobook skin, and nearly disappears unless I focus with somewhat unreasonable effort.
Just to say, I have no actual preference: this seemed a valid compromise. I believe it was discussed (at some point!) on the talk page.
  • Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner - "tentatively" connotes that confirmation is forthcoming, which seems unlikely given how long it's been since this all transpired. Do you anticipate that historians will have a more conclusive answer in the future?
Well; I wouldn't really bet against it—it's only been around 20 years, so plenty of time for more stuff to be (re-)found (as this was!). But happy to discuss, as it's not fundamental to either the sentence or the point, I know.
  • Rykener told his interrogators that he was introduced to sexual contact with men by Elizabeth Brouderer - this uses a lot of words to say relatively little. There must be a way to state Brouderer's role more clearly and concisely. Was she really the first to break the news to Rykener that sex with a man was possible? Did she arrange his first such encounters?
I'll look at tweaking the wording. As to your specific questions, the first of course can't be known, but, yes, according to his later statement, she did—in her house.
  • "Slept with" seems at odds with the MoS's attitude toward euphemisms, but it isn't an issue I've had to contend with, so I'm not sure whether it's customary in biographies.
That's an absolutely fair point: I'm not particularly keen on it myself, but of course one both wants to avoid repetition and unnecessary mentions of anal sex. Or even sex in general; after all (one of the scholars points out later), we don't know what the encounters meant to Rykener, so I suppose we needn't limit ourselves to considering it solely sexual behaviour. Thoughts? Basically, if I could've thought of a better wording, I would have used it!
  • where he both prostituted himself and worked as an embroideress - no need for "both."
  • Three consecutive sentences use the same construction "...<city>, where he..." – it becomes jarring.
    • How about "Rykener spent some time in summer 1394 in Oxford, continuing to prostitute himself and working as an embroideress; he also stayed in Beaconsfield for a while. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there. Rykener returned to London via Burford, where he worked as a barmaid

"—completely rejigged the structure.

  • He was also in Beaconsfield for a while, where he said he had a sexual relationship with a woman. - dangling modifier. Also, was it in Beaconsfield where he had the relationship or where he said he had it?
Ah!—see above
  • However, no charges were ever brought against him. - this is somewhat more definitive than the "no evidence" statement in the opening paragraph. Which is more precise?
Ah, point. The latter is too strong. I've adjusted it to "However, it appears that no charges were ever brought against him; or at least, no records have been found suggesting so", which is more accurate.
  • because of what it tells us about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues. - avoid breaking the fourth wall.
I always think of Billy Ray Valentine! How about, "Historians of social, sexual and gender history...tells them"?
  • Numerous positions have been taken on Rykener. - Double entendre aside, you could probably eliminate that segue and simply delve into the contrasting views. At the very least, it's an example (one of several I've noticed) of uncomfortable passive voice.
Ah, the Iri-tps! :) It's an accidental DE, to be sure; but I've got rid of it. Although, how about adding something to the previous sentence, so it reads along the lines of "...preconceptions of sex and gender issues, and have identified various themes in the case"?
  • In its portrayal of medieval sexuality, one historian, J. A. Schultz - surely "his" instead of "its"? You could also tighten this slightly by simply saying "historian J. A. Shultz", and then removing "Another," from the following sentence.
Ah, right: "its" was referring to the case itself, rather than to the man himself? But have tightened Schulz and lost the another.
  • viewed the affair as of - this is one of the rare cases where I'd advocate for adding a word ("as being of").
Done
  • sees it as illustrating the difficulties the law has in addressing things it cannot describe. - this is really nebulous and somewhat tangential, especially for the lead. "Addressing," "things," "describe" are all imprecise, almost meaningless word choices.
I'm certainly happy to reword if you can suggest a means to strengthen it; the problem is, I think, that the entire case is vague, and almost nothing is known. Even that which is believed to be known is mostly extrapolated!

My impression from the lead is that the prose flows poorly and suffers from ambiguity. That said, I've always found the lead to be the most difficult section to write, so it may not be representative of the article's substantial and apparently well-researched body. I'll take a closer look as time allows. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so. Thanks very much for your review, Juliancolton, it's certainly provided food for thought, and I expect I'll be able to address most of the points you raise (on top of those already dealt with here). Hope all's well—cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. Fascinating article on a fascinating subject. I made a few edits to tidy up a little, mostly around formatting. The important ones of these are:

  • You may want to see if you can find a replacement link for "Corpus Christi plays", which was linked to Corpus Christi (play), a 1998 work that depicts Jesus and the Apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas;
  • I've taken out the curly quotes around the boxed quotes: these should only ever be used for pull-quotes, and you'll face nothing but grief from the MoS people for having them as such. You may face some future opposition from them anyway for having five such boxed quotes in there (trust me, I've been there and still bear the scars), so you should look at each of the five boxed quotes and see whether it needs to be outside the run of text, or whether it can be smoothly incorporated as a quote or blockquote instead. If you think it's better as a box, keep it as such, but make sure you have good reasons for doing so;
  • I've also de-italicised the source names on the boxed quotes. We don't tend to italicise names, except under certain conditions, and using any pre-formatted template should mean that you should be able to use it without additional formatting.

That's it - very minor formatting aside, this is another very interesting piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your tweaks, SchroCat, and for your notes at PR! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Carabinieri[edit]

I've only skimmed the article, but I have one question. The article consistently uses male pronouns to refer to Rykener. However, it also uses female versions of gender-specific nouns such as barmaid or embroideress. Isn't that a little confusing or is there something I'm missing?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What I mean is that those should probably be changed to embroiderer and bartender. Don't you think?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, apologies, Carabinieri, I thought you were making a passing comment. It's a good point, though, and it did cross my mind while writing it; the reason I stuck with it was primarily that the sources gender the work themselves. Now, this is only my interpretation, of course, but I suspect they do so in order to emphasise that—in their assessment—Rykener was not just "doing X job dressed as a woman", but "living as a woman while doing a woman's work"; the footnote, I think, points out that both jobs were predominantly women's' jobs (if that's the way to put it). Do you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead: 1a

  • "all that is known about his life comes from his interrogation by the Mayor and aldermen of London"—consider "all that is known of his life", but either way is OK. "Mayor" would be more comfortable as "mayor", especially in the vicinity of "aldermen". Smirk: those men are among the first you'd suspect of buying sex from Rykener ... they'd certainly have the cash. The irony.
Indeed! And verging on tragic that no RS makes the connection. I've pre-emptively gone through the article changing Mayor to mayor, except in cases where it's prefixed by Lord; and as for Mayoral; tsk.
  • The scan is horribly small and indecipherable. Did you experiment with a larger size?
Point. So I have, for examples, doubled it in size, and also just by 50%. I think the first is rather massive; the 50% increase is better, no?
  • "thus" could be ditched—the causality is obvious.
Lost.
  • "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns." What does "various" do here? There's no various for the women et al. "Men" already means two or more.
True; gone.
  • "some time in summer"—unfortunate jingle.
Changed to "Rykener spent part of summer 1394"?
  • "continuing to prostitute himself"—hmmm ... in that grammatical form it's become very pejorative (and broadly scoped, far beyond the original meaning).
I agree, Tony; it's a reflection of my trying to avoid euphemisms while avoiding repetition. How bout "...working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress"?
  • "However, it appears that"—Much simpler and more engaging is "But it appears that". Forget what you were told in front of a blackboard.
Ah, WP:MISSSNODGRASS, of course! Cheers, changed.
  • "Nothing definite is known of Rykener after his interrogation, although he has been tentatively identified as a John Rykener imprisoned by and escaping from the Bishop of London in 1399."—Isn't this contradictory? 1395 ... 1399 ... after?
Ah—this is trying to say that, since we cannot be sure that the later JR is the same as the 1394 JR, we, therefore, cannot be definitive as to the latter's later life. Does that make sense?
It's unclear. You could remove "although" and replace by a semicolon. Tony (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense; done.
  • "because of what it reveals about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues"—"issues" is a very recent expression and concept. Do we need it? How does "preconceptions" differ from "conceptions" here? Why not "medieval attitudes/views"?
OK—going with views.
  • "J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as being of greater significance to historians than other, more famous medieval love stories"—oh, was this a love story? Why "other"?
That makes a lot of sense, and as such, I've removed both other and love, which tightens the sentence a bit too.
  • "Modern interest in John/Eleanor Rykener has not been confined to academia. Rykener has appeared as a character in at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction, and his story has been adapted for the stage."—I'm wondering whether ditching the first sentence will lose anything useful. Up to you.
Well: I don't particularly mind, but its (intended, if not achieved!) purpose was to act as a bridge between the heavy, academic works and a more popular use in puppetry and detective stories. Without it, I thought it would sound as though we were suggesting they were all comparable.

Needs work. I hope this rises to FA standard. Tony (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: as of course I do, and as long as your assistance doesn't waste your own time, I 'm sure it will...this edit addressed your points above; the question as to how well—is up to you! Either way, I really appreciate you looking in and putting some meat on the bone. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • How come in both maps the red dot is labelled on the map itself as well as the caption, when none of the others are? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Heh—well spotted, NM, I've removed them. They look much simpler now, I have to say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support; I had my say at the prior FAC and the PR. I think this is a great article, and a fantastic topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in, JM, and thank you very much for your help in getting this back here. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent[edit]

This is the version being reviewed; as usual, I'm nitpicking hard. No image/source reviews conducted. I've included as suggestions the minor rewordings and tweakings which I'd normally make directly, in case there's a reason you don't want them thus tweaked.

Lead[edit]

Warning in advance that this is going to be very nitpicky, but as I know you're (wearily) aware the WMF's have conducted some research concluding that many readers only read the lead before skipping ahead, so I'll be pulling up things that appear confusing even if they're explained in the body text.

  1. Since we know what the act was, we should say so, even if it means frightening the children by saying "sodomy" in the first sentence; performing a sex act reads like a tabloid euphemism, and it is of major significance to readers whether the act was sodomy (and consequently an offence against Catholic teaching) or some kind of exposure (a civil but not a religious offence). We use the word "sodomy" later on, so it's not as if we're intentionally withholding it to avoid tripping abuse filters.
    I agree: it originally said "...arrested in December 1394 for putatively having anal sex with another man, John Britby", but was opposed at the PR. Prefer the original? (I haven't actually changed it yet, awaiting your Considered Opinion)
    Just say sodomy already. "Sex act" is very coy, and I was thinking, did they have gerbils back then? Ceoil (talk)
  2. Sodomy was … usually prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts—in this period, wasn't sodomy only prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts? As I understand it the Buggery Act was a 16th century creation of Thomas Cromwell during the Submission of the Clergy, and before that buggery and sodomy were illegal under canon, not civil law.
    Yes, agreed.
  3. "Procurer" should probably be explained, or at least wikilinked, on its first appearance. For someone unfamiliar with English legal terminology, it's not obvious that it's a synonym for "pimp", and if one only knows the word "procure" as a synonym for "obtain" Brouderer … may have acted as his procurer could just as well mean that she did his shopping for him.
    An over-rigid adherance to MOS:LWQ on my part, I think. Notwithstanding that she may also have done his shopping for him :)
  4. He had sex with men …and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns seems a bit clumsy to me—were these priests and nuns not men and women? Suggest something along the lines of "He is known to have had sex with both men and women, including priests and nuns".
    Thanks—I've nicked that.
  5. Rykener spent part of summer 1394 in Oxford, working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress—why "embroideress"? Since we're using "he" throughout it's not a Bradley/Chelsea Manning case where we need to include both names but defer to the subject's preferred pronouns wherever possible, so why not say "embroiderer"? It's hardly as if tailoring were an exclusively female profession, then or now.
    Carbonarie also raises this above: can I point you to my reply for details. As I say, I'm not particularly wedded to either fashion; it is as it is at the moment because of the sources—100% of which use the gendered pronoun (probably, as I say, for emphasis). Even so, I'm certainly open to change. Or a footnote—but I think there might be enough of those already...
  6. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there; is "there" Oxford or Beaconsfield, and is that where he had the sexual relationship or where he talked about it? Assuming you mean the former, I'd suggest something like "He later mentioned that while in Oxford )or Beaconsfield) he had a sexual relationship with a woman".
    Right: I've nicked your phrasing too, but dropped the "while" since this is now the first mention of Beaconsfield.
  7. Where the hell is Burford? I doubt one person in a hundred in England is aware, let alone Wikipedia's global audience; say "Oxfordshire" or "nearby" to make it clear to the readers that he wasn't touring the country.
    Done.
  8. where he worked as a barmaid—likewise, did he do this in character as Eleanor? If not, he was a barman. (IMO in this article we should use gender-neutral terms wherever possible, as the constant flipping between male and female terms makes it a little hard to follow; "he worked in a bar" would suffice just as well and avoid the issue.)
    Yes, it seems to be believed very specifically that he is in character (again, they are probably emphasising). Is "he" gender neutral? It's been a bloody tricky balancing act from the start, tbh.
  9. On his return to London, he had paid encounters around the Tower of London; this is an extreme nitpick, but in this period the Tower wasn't in London (it guarded the approach to London, rather than actually being in London; it wasn't actually annexed to Greater London until 1889 and to this day isn't in the City of London). That's an extreme bit of pedantry, but because the City had (and has) a separate legal system to the surrounding area, and Old Tower Without (the area surrounding the Tower but not actually within its walls) was a part of the Liberties of the Tower of London which also had its own courts and legal system, it does actually make a difference on an article which is ultimately about old court reports.
    That is of course brilliant. Fantastic! Yet: I'm not quite sure how to introduce the notion without going into a microcosmic level of detail. I'm only really using it as a geographic marker, just so readers get the idea as to where he was working...any thoughts?
    During his return to the city, he paid encounters around the Tower of London? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    "he had paid encounters near the Tower of London, just outside the City"? ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Nicked that text, Iridescent, thakns again; It might be worth incorporating the detail into a footnote (another!), to explain why: general readers are, after all, surely going to assume that the *ahem* Tower of London is in London :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  10. Rykener was finally arrested with Britby on the evening of Sunday, 11 December—the 'finally' implies either like there was some kind of manhunt going on, or that he'd never been arrested before, rather than that this was a routine arrest. Do we know he'd never been arrested before?
    No we don't and you're right, it doesn't follow from any one earlier event.
  11. Assuming at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction is a reference to A Burnable Book, "best-selling" is stretching hype to the limit (it's ranked #1,115,640 on Amazon, and a quick Google search on "a burnable book" best-selling doesn't appear to find a single review or other RS using the term to describe it).
    Ah! My paid editing by Holsinger for his book is revealed! Sorry about that: a subconscious reflection of the fact that I thought it was a jolly caper. Removed: "work of popular historical fiction" is probably neutral?
Background[edit]
  1. Is there any way we could find another map? File:England south location map.svg shows the European Union's NUTS regions, not the historic (or even the modern) county boundaries or anything else which any normal reader would understand. Aside from anything else, in five months and 27 days those boundaries will have no meaning at all; they're also actively misleading, as the one thing which readers might recognise—the boundaries of Greater London—show the vastly expanded boundaries of 1965, not the old City of London or even the Middlesex boundary, and consequently make Beaconsfield and Bishops Stortford appear far closer to London than they actually were.
    I'll be honest: this map (actually, maps here generally) consistently give me a headache—especially these things that need to be custom made. Would File:Southern England.png this be OK? I've done that myself, but it still needs *attempts to talk a foreign language* to be turned into a lua module or something?
    Paging Maproom ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The map currently in the article seems to me to serve its purpose well enough, despite the anachronsitic (and soon-to-be-obsolete) boundaries. Maybe there's something in Commons that would be a better background for the coloured dots, by showing the roads of the time; but I've failed to find one in a brief search. (I'm glad I've been pinged – the article itself is fascinating.) Maproom (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Shame, Maproom, I went to lot of trouble doing that plain version :) thanks for popping over though, and I'm glad you like the article! ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Definite {{citation needed}} for Prostitution was illegal in fourteenth-century London. Brothel keeping was banned in the City of London by Edward II, but that's not the same thing at all, while brothel-keeping was still not only legal but encouraged and licenced by the authorities in Bankside, a two-minute walk over the Bridge from the City; the area of the Bankside brothels was under the direct administration of the Bishop of Winchester and in the grounds of Winchester Palace, so the Church presumably wasn't too bothered by it. The distinction between brothel-keeping and prostitution (the former illegal, the latter legal) still exists in England, so this is something you can assume readers will pick up on.
    Yes, I was a little sloppy there: changed to "Prostitution was tightly regulated in fourteenth-century England, and brothels—although not prostitution itself—were illegal in the City of London", wit a source; the accopanying footnote Southwark and elsewhere.
  3. Ditto for Prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society; it might technically be true that prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, but it's extremely misleading as the prosecutions were for prostitution without a licence or in areas where it wasn't permitted. (Approx 1.5 million people are arrested each year in the US for drunk driving; it doesn't mean the authorities consider either cars or beer a threat to society.) If you're repeating something a source says, at the very least cite the source and preferably have an "according to…" in the body text.
    ...yes; on reflection, I don't think "the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being" adds anything: I've removed it, so it now reads, more tightly, "Prostitution was perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society", which I think is the imporant element.
  4. The thirteenth-century jurist Bracton described [hermaphroditism] as being a third category of people in his Laws and Customs of England is a bit misleading; what he actually said was "Hermaphroditus comparatur masculo tantum vel feminæ tantum secundum prævalescentiam sexus incalescentis" A hermaphrodite is classed with male or female according to the predominance of the sexual organs—i.e., if someone is born with both genitalia go with whichever's bigger, rather than in the sense of "biologically male but choosing to identify as a woman". Unless we're saying that Rykener had both male and female genitalia and that's how he was having sex with men, it's not really relevant here; and I assume we're not saying that, since presumably vaginal intercourse wouldn't have been prosecuted as sodomy.
    Right. In that (corrected) light, it now has even less relevance than it did before :) so I've tweaked the sentence to read "Hermaphroditism too had a legally recognised status; the thirteenth-century jurist Bracton, for example, had discussed it in his Laws and Customs of England"
Life[edit]
  1. Pet peeve and not something I'd oppose over, but try to avoid "Black death" when at all possible. It's a relatively modern phrase (the people of the time called it the Great Mortality), and meaningless to anyone who's not already familiar with the term; "a bubonic plague pandemic which killed between ​14 and ​12 of the English population in 1348–1349" is wordier but unambiguous, and makes it clear that this was A Big Deal.
    Tricky, as it means tying in with the apprentice stuff. How about "Following the 1348–1349 bubonic plague—which killed between ​1⁄4 and ​1⁄2 of the English population—female apprenticeships had become as common as those for boys, particularly in London"?
    1348–1349 outbreak of bubonic plague Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. I don't really understand the whole blackmail plot thing. Was the plan that the customers who thought they were having sex with Alice would wake up next to John, see the beard, and realise they'd been doing a dude, or did John remain in character as Eleanor and convince them that they'd had sex with a woman, just not the woman they'd paid for? Rykener told Philip that Rykener was the wife of an important man in the city implies the latter, but in that case I can't see what the deal was; given that these men were sleeping with prostitutes, if they continued to believe Rykener was female surely "I thought I was having sex with one female prostitute but actually had sex with another female prostitute" isn't much when it comes to blackmail material compared to the Rector of Theydon Garnon being in a brothel behind a mental hospital in the first place?
    Sigh. This whole blackmail thing has been another pain in the aris since it started; the sources don't spell it out. In fact, looking over them, it's only one that actually mentions blackmail. Since we can't explain it precisely, and as you've shown it raises more questions than it answers, how about removing the mention of blackmail? I've done so; in fact, now I'm wondering what that detail involving Alice is actually worth. How about cutting that too?
    It probably ought to stay—of the 714 words of the sole source He further said that a certain Elizabeth Bronderer first dressed him in women's clothing; she also brought her daughter Alice to diverse men for the sake of lust, placing her with those men in their beds at night without light, making her leave early in the morning and showing them the said John Rykener dressed up in women's clothing, calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her. He further said that certain Phillip, rector of Theydon Garnon, had sex with him as with a woman in Elizabeth Bronderer's house outside Bishopsgate, at which time Rykener took away two gowns of Phillip', and when Phillip requested them from Rykener he said that he was the wife of a certain man and that if Phillip wished to ask for them back he would make his husband bring suit against him. comes to 141 words—i.e., this is 20% of all we know and all we will ever know about Rykener. This is ultimately an article about how how the writers of secondary sources project their own prejudices onto a figure about which very little is known rather than a biography of Rykener per se, so it really needs to cover everything that's been written about him and if a source calls it a blackmail plot, we need to mention that. I still don't understand how this plot was going to work, since if they weren't disclosing that Eleanor was a man, "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Eleanor" is no more scandalous than "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Alice". ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Iridescent: Okay; well, it's sourced to Roxeth, and I can't get to the library for a bit, so I've asked at WP:RX; hopefully he goes into more detail as to the mechanics of the so-called blackmail. But I agree that it's hard to see how it was worked. Standing by. ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    On doing some overthinking, I can see a way that it could have worked would be that Alice posed as a poor street urchin and "Eleanor" posed as a wealthy noblewoman; given the conventions of a time a priest caught having sex with a penniless prostitute would have only led to minor admonition from the Bishop, but a priest caught having sex with the wife of a wealthy and powerful man could have faced serious consequences. It still doesn't explain why Elizabeth would have chosen a man to play the part of the noblewoman, since presumably getting an actual woman to do the business would have had far less chance of the punter realising that the substitution had taken place. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Iridescent, I think the only one overthinking things here is probably Roxeth—! ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    To be fair, "here's a 714-word document, go and expand it into a book" must have been the commission from hell. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Eh, it's a full-length thing on medieval deviance generally, so he's got plenty of material. The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells springs to mind :) anyway, to business: the good people of WP:RX (Pajz particularly) very kindly came through with the source page.
    Roxeth's suggestion is that (in my interpretation) sodomy is worse than infidelity, so good blackmail material:

    "...and one Elizabeth Brouderer, who dressed him in women’s clothes and probably used him in order to blackmail a number of men. Elizabeth had prostituted her own daughter Alicia and made sure she left the men alone in bed early in the morning. Then Elizabeth had shown the customers John/Eleonora, and claimed that they had really slept with him. Although this portion of the report breaks off here, it is not difficult to imagine the purpose of this deceit: the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy, thus leaving them open to blackmail."

    So that's the blackmail suggestion—and he makes it clear, I think, that it's his suggestion, rather than in the original source. I suppose if I replaced my unclear comments about blackmail with this quote, it would then become self-explanatory; or, at least, if readers still didn't understand, then they would know who to blame...thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 18:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    Retroactivate Iridescent :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    But "the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy" doesn't tally with calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her … he said that he was the wife of a certain man, which implies that the clients never discovered 'Eleanor' was actually a man. The more I think about it, the more I think the only way to approach this section is to actually put down the 141 words verbatim, and then offer Rexroth and Goldberg's suggestions for what they respectively think was going on here. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    Iridescent, I've done something along those lines; what d'you think? In the course of doing so, looking at other writer's opinions on the whole blackmail thing just made it even clearer how little they (probably) agree with the theory—the silence, as it were, was deafening! ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Another "embroideress"; again, same issue I raised regarding the lead section; was he posing as a woman while working, and if so why given that a male embroiderer would probably have earned more than a female doing the same job and would certainly have been treated with more respect? We've already established that the plague had broken down gender boundaries in the workplace so it wouldn't have been a case of "only women can do that job".
    Indeed, the same answer as above: it's kinda consequential to the nature of the article, I suspect.
  4. Just before Michaelmas 1394; I fear you're being over-optimistic that Wikipedia's readers will be familiar with the medieval liturgical calendar. How about "In September 1394"?
    Done.
  5. Again per my comments in the lead, does employed him as a barmaid mean that he was now in character as Eleanor full-time? Just because bar work was traditionally female, that doesn't mean it was an exclusively female profession; the literature of England is filled with (male) innkeepers and waiters. If he was living as Eleanor full-time by this point, it should be spelled out as much as the sources allow, as that changes the narrative entirely from that of a huckster and con-artist with a scam involving dressing as a woman, to that of a transgender individual in the modern sense trying to live as a female in a male-dominated society. (Rykener said, he had a sexual relationship, as a man, with a woman called Joan Matthew implies that he wasn't living as a female, so was he actually working as a female in his day jobs as a barkeeper and embroiderer?)
    Well, as said earlier, the sources do consider him as living as a woman (at times—I suppose they can't be too definitive) on occasions, but also when he wanted, as a man. Actually, it wasn't my intention to portray him as being a full-time con-artist, and the sources certainly don't. I think the only time anything like that occurred was at Brouderer's house—and that was at her instigation rather than Rykener's. Now I've removed the mention of blackmail (your point above)
  6. Probably dressed heavily against London winter weather—is this actually from a source? Having the dubious privilege of living in a notorious red light district, I can testify that the ladies of the night stick to their uniform of thigh-high boots, barely-a-belt miniskirts and black bra under a fishnet top in even the foulest of weather.
    I don't think he'd be wearing that :) but yes, it is sourced Carolyn Dinshaw, who says, "it was no doubt cold that night, and Eleanor was no doubt bundled up". Having said that: I agree the reality is more ambiguous. Although it (probably) was cold, being London in December, as you say, the latter doesn't necessarily flow automatically from the former. Since Dinshaw is guessing, I'll remove it—it's not particularly important (I put it in originally as a human element).
  7. Eleanor was an uncommon name by the fourteenth century—is that really the case? It was still common enough for the king to give it to his daughter.
    I've clarified that it was specifically uncommon for ordinary people.
  8. The "unmentionable" act they were accused of committing has been assumed to be anal sex—is it Goldberg 2014 who's assuming this, or Wikipedia? Given that Britby was unaware of Rykener's true sex, isn't it more likely that Rykener was performing oral sex on him (also classed as sodomy under Catholic law)?
    It's Goldberg's voice; oddly, in fact, although IIRC a couple of others also mention anal sex, none of them mention oral: which—now you've pointed it out—is actually *WP:OR alert* more likely, I would have thought: much easier (and warmer!) for everyone, and also making it much more likely that, as he claimed, Britby wouldn't ever get to discover Rykener's true gender. All that considered, it's a shame we don't have a source for it.
Political context and later events[edit]
  1. The name itself is sufficiently unusual, to have allowed researchers to speculate—is this from a source? It's not that unusual a name when you take into account that medieval England tended to spell names phonetically and that London was a Hanseatic port, so there would have been a steady stream of Reichners, Reicheners and Rikners passing through from Germany and Scandanavia.
    Eh, it's from Goldberg again; his precise wording is "If Britby is a very unusual name, then Rykener is no less. I have discovered only three other

Rykeners...". It's an excellent point about European versions of the name though, someone should tell him...

Historical significance and scholarship[edit]
  1. This perceived importance may account for the survival of the record doesn't tally with The Rykener documents were filed with the more usual, and more prosaic, fare of debt and property offences in the previous sentence; if it was just filed with the routine paperwork, it obviously didn't have perceived significance.
    Point. I've struck the entire sentence: I can't find a way of tallying the to positions; and the suggestion of a precedent is in any case vague, and is frankly pointless when of course it's already been said that this is the only case of its kind (so even if it could have set a precedent, it's completely unknown whether it is or not!)
  2. I don't get John Rykener's story is of more importance to historians than, for example, that of Tristan and Isolde. Tristan and Isolde is a work of fiction; why is it surprising that historians consider fiction as less important than the historical record?
    Also struck: I have no idea what J. A. Schulz is talking about, and, when you put it like that, it's a bit of a BS remark—at least, our readers could rightfully think so! Since you're the second reviewer to question it, it's gone.

Well, you asked. Don't take the wall of text above as any kind of oppose; this is the kind of line-by-line nitpick I'd normally conduct on the talkpage, not a ransom-note list of demands which if not met will be grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(adding) Meta-point, which you may want to ask one of the techie types about; because of the way MediaWiki works, this isn't actually a page called John/Eleanor Rykener, but a subpage of John called Eleanor Rykener. It won't affect en-wiki as they display and link the same, but may screw up interwiki links, Wikidata, search engines and reusers. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: I'll have to ask about that, if it comes to it: but actually—at least two (I think) reviewers have queried the /slashed/ title now, so I (or anyone, of course) will probably just move it back to JR after this FAC is promoted/archived. Incidentally—do you have an opinion yourself on the best title? Just as part of a straw poll, you might say—nothing binding.
    Thanks very much for your detailed review, Iridescent, I always appreciate them. I've answered (not yet necessarily addressed, though!) all your points, but there's a number where you might be able to advise me further, having seen my explanation. Cheers! Incidentally—you'll see I haven't coloured my text, but you have; I was under the impression that formatting was a no-no, because of page bugs or something? Or have I got it arse over head?! Just curiosity: a bit of colour makes it easer to read, I think.
    Even more incidentally, it occurs to me that nitpicking is a form of delousing; just what my articles need :D ——SerialNumber54129 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much Iridescent, I sure did. I'll get back to this tomorrow; there's a few things I can see that we might want to discuss. In the meantime, stories of dissolute (if one is lucky, I suppose!) living in red light districts would liven things up a bit :) Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
With coloured text boxes, the issue as I understand it is that is screws things up when people print the pages out on a black-and-white printer; the generic quote box template uses a shade of nonprint blue that shows as white or very pale grey when printed. Regarding the title, I'd be inclined to John Rykener, since as I understand it that's what every source calls him, and also the name anyone searching for him will be searching under. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. The 'blackmail plot' problems are an issue arising from the fact that a secondary source significant enough that it can't be disregarded appears to conflict with the primary source on which it's reporting; as such, the issue is with the source not with the sourcing, so it's not something over which I'd oppose. Everything else is "I wouldn't have written it that way" issues rather than actual policy-based grounds for opposition, and I'm not among those who treat "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" as synonymous with "its prose is written exactly the way I'd have written it". ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but thanks very much for all your help with the article. I'm glad we kind of got there in the end: although the situation is still irritatingly unsatisfactory, but I suppose that's a problem of having to rely on secondary sources whose authors don't know what we want them to say! Thanks again, ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

I dont like (fl. 1394) three words in, why not just born; just because you can doesnt mean you have to. Reading though again (was a peer reviewer, I think). Know this is up to 54129's usual interest level standards, so colour me as wearily hoping to see this promoted, if the prose are sorted out. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would seriously trim the notes. Whatever nuggets you hoped to convey for the especially interested are buried in extraneous detail and verbosity. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The (fl. 1394) is part of Wikipedia's house style for when we're unsure of someone's year of birth but we know they were alive at that time; one can't really blame SN54129 for it as if he removed it, someone would just re-insert it citing MOS:APPROXDATE. ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
SN54129, your off the hook on this one, although I might have to have a chat with MOS:APPROXDATE. Ceoil (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Update; half ways through and this is much improved since the last time I read it. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ceoil, and apologies for ignoring you :) unintentional! ——SerialNumber54129 06:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments[edit]

How very different from the homelife of our own dear Queen! An interesting read. I fixed a typo, just a couple of quibbles

  • I'm not totally clear whether the Mayoral court could prosecute prostitution, but chose not to do so, or whether it was beyond the court's jurisdiction. I assume the former, just checking.
  • Medieval scholar J. A. Schulz is perhaps slightly ambiguous? At first glance he could be a 14th-century writer.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice one, Jimfbleak thanks for finding time, and also supporting. Just FYI your points: firstly, no the latter (Iridescent picked up on that too, so I think it's been clarified?). Second, yes, just "historian" will do. Hope that's all OK! Take care, and thanks again. ——SerialNumber54129 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

Was there a source review anywhere that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Packers sweep[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s were one of the most dominant teams in the history of professional football. Under coach Vince Lombardi the Packers won five NFL Championships in seven years–including the first two Super Bowls. Thirteen Packers who played for Lombardi were later elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with Lombardi entering shortly after his death in 1970. Much of this success can be traced to the philosophy of Vince Lombardi: teamwork, hard work, and the pursuit of excellence. Nothing better exemplifies these traits than the Packers sweep: a power running play that Lombardi's Packers perfected.

As this is my first WP:FAC, I was cautious to make sure this article was properly reviewed before the nomination. The article was first reviewed during its DYK nomination and time on the Main Page. It was then reviewed by The Guild of Copyeditors before its subsequent GA review. Finally, it was reviewed by a WP:FAC mentor to make sure nothing else had been missed. Thank you to Sportsfan77777, Casliber, Twofingered Typist, The Rambling Man, and others for their assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article at WP:FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity[edit]

  • "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play developed before its use by the Packers" Tenet means a belief or principle. I also think it needs to be reworded." How about "The Packers sweep is based on the sweep, a football play that involves a back taking a handoff and running parallel to the line of scrimmage before turning upfield behind lead blockers."
  • Thanks Clikity, I made the suggested change here. Note I changed the "Packers sweep" that starts the next sentence to "The play" to avoid repeating "the Packers sweep" three times in a row. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Tony seems to have fixed the little issues with the prose. The citations and sources look good, so I think you're good to go when the image review ends. A good read. Clikity (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg: looks like the source link is dead - when and where was this image first published? Same with File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg: can you say more about the source for this image and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a new version of File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg using this version as the source. Note I archived it here and included that link on the Commons description page so that this issue does not happen again. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns.
  • I replaced File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG with File:Taylor 1961 Topps.jpg. Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg was created by me using Method Draw. Although I based the graphic on an image I found online, I have change the source on the description page to one that is more reliable and is included in the article that still is consistent with the diagram I created. I also believe that the article and numerous sources support the reliability of the diagram. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns. Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine with the latter two - for the first, would still like to know publication date, don't see that at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I will continue to search for said publication date, but as of now I have been unable to locate it. It appears to be from the same series of photos from other Packers (see File:Bart starr bw.jpg, for example). Not an expert on photos by any means, so any advice would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it has been published elsewhere (eg) - these may have more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, the book you linked was published in 2017 and uses that picture as the e-book cover. My guess is that the author pulled that photo from the web, and most likely does not own a copyright on the photo. Have you found it anywhere else? All of my searching has come up empty. My best guess is that is was taken by Vernon Biever or a similar Packers photographer, but that is just a guess. Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959 to 1967, and he passed away in 1970. So we can reliably conclude that the range listed on the description page is correct. If we are unable to get the exact date or year, will the range suffice? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is not when the image was created, but when it was published, as that's what is typically used to determine copyright in the US. If you haven't yet, you could try a reverse image search? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I did try a reverse image search, among other things. Still no luck. Let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case you may need to remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a Support: well-written indeed.

  • "He played football at Fordham University, on a football scholarship,[5] and was part of the "Seven Blocks of Granite", a nickname for the team's offensive line." Bumpy commas. Do we need the one after "University"?
  • "where he continued to develop a better understanding of the sweep, especially pulling offensive linemen and having the ball carriers cut-back towards openings in the line". Just a suggestion: "especially the techniques of"?
  • I'd dump the comma after "seasons", but wouldn't complain if you wanted to retain it. But the one after "West Point"? "Blaik's emphasis on players executing their job and the military discipline of West Point, greatly influenced Lombardi's future coaching style." Looks like an error that crept in when the -ing grammar was changed.
  • Rather long sentence: "He positioned his lineman with greater space between each other,[9] had offensive tackles pull from the line and implemented an early variant of zone blocking (blockers are expected to block a "zone" instead of an individual defender), which required the ball carrier to run the football wherever there was space.[8]" Again, only a suggestion: "... defender); this required".
  • "Under his offensive leadership, assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956." Consider this: "Under his offensive leadership and assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956."
  • "Even though the Packers had not been successful for years, Lombardi inherited a team with five future Pro Football Hall of Famers." Query: this only unfolded later, right? It was not easy to predict at the time. If so, you might imply that in the wording: "inherited a team in which five players would go on to be", or something like that.
  • Here, you use a serial comma, which I very much like: "He immediately instituted a rigorous training routine, implemented a strict code of conduct, and demanded the team continually strive for perfection in everything they did." Why not in the sentence I quote in the fourth point, above?
  • I'd hyphenate just here to avoid the meaning of "primary ball". Non-experts will wonder. "primary ball-carrier"
  • Why the hyphen? "The center had to cut-off the defensive tackle".
  • Slipped in. A "cut-off block" is usually hyphenated, but in this use it definitely shouldn't be. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You do need a comma here: "This was due to the right guard (when the play was run to the right side of the field) who would vacate this space while pulling to lead the ball carrier."
  • "whether to push the play to the outside or to the inside of the tight end"
  • Removed. I also reordered because "inside or outside" sounds better than "outside or inside". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfect use of marked theme (unusual initial positioning): "For nine seasons Lombardi ran the Packers sweep with great success." Unmarked would have "for nine seasons" at the end. Nice.
  • Same issue as two up: "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses, or would run variations of the sweep" -> "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses or run variations of the sweep"
  • Why the first comma, when the rest is a nest of seething commas? "At times, he would change the play to go to the left side, have various blockers not pull, switch the ball carrier or direction of the run, or have option pass plays, each of which could be run out the sweep formation." You don't use interrupting dashes—why not??? "plays—each of which" would be an improvement. The formulaic comma after short initial time/adverbial/prepositional phrase ... please question each use: "Throughout his tenure Lombardi ...". And you do need a comma before "who" (several of these I've commented on).
  • Removed the first comma. Not good comma usage. Added a dash per your recommendation (I have to admit, I am a dash noob). I checked all the remaining instances of "who" and I believe they all are fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumpy and awkward: "Starr, who as the quarterback orchestrated the play, and Taylor, were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays." -> "Both Starr (who as the quarterback orchestrated the play) and Taylor were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays."
  • Just for comparison, the first comma here is good. Why? "In addition to the Hall of Famers, Lombardi's teams included"
  • In response Lombardi would ...
  • Serial comma missing in one place, not in the other: "The team won three straight championships in 1965, 1966 and 1967—only the second team to accomplish this feat (the other being the 1929, 1930, and 1931 Packers)." See the dash I've used instead of your comma? It marks an afterthought here.
  • Never love the noun-plus-ing: "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep being called one of the most famous football plays in history." -> "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep's reputation as one of the most famous football plays in history."?

Good. Minor adjustments to writing style, and please write more articles! Love the technical depth. And memo to FAC more generally: my comments concern the whole article text, not just the lead and a bit more. Tony (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and review Tony1! I believe I have addressed all of your comments above (diff). Sorry, for, all, of, my, comma-related, issues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope to write my first writing tutorial page since the year dot, entitled Comma workshop. It's the biggest issue I'm finding at FAC more broadly—more than in the academic text I edit. I don't know why. Best. Tony (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and (tentatively) comprehensiveness (I am no expert on American football so will leave that to the experts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments – While the article is on the short side for an FAC candidate, it does appear to comprehensively cover the subject. I didn't review the sourcing in detail, but it appears high-quality at a glance. I just have a handful of comments, with only a couple that I would call significant.

  • I don't see much support for the final sentence of the lead in the body of the article. There's nothing that I can see about Lombardi, or coaches/commentators, identifying this as an element of success. The content in the relevant section is actually more direct than the lead in making this point. Since the sentence isn't supported at the moment, either relevant content should be added to that section backing the sentence or it should be rewritten to better reflect the body.
  • The sweep: I was under the impression that we usually used one word for "half back", not two. That's how our article presents it, at least.
  • Lombardi era: Minor point, but the links for guard and center could be moved up to the previous section, since the terms both appear there.
  • The second link to Pro Football Hall of Fame in this section is a duplicate and therefore not necessary.
  • Legacy: "Lombardi and his sweep led the Packers to five NFL championships (including Super Bowls I and II)." This is somewhat misleading because the first several Super Bowls were held after the NFL Championship Game (indeed, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings won the next two NFL championships, but each lost in the Super Bowl). A rewording here and the lead is in order, because it sounds like the Super Bowls were the NFL championship games back then when that isn't the case.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reworded using "as well as". Thanks for the review Giants2008. I believe I have responded to and addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – That does it for my comments. A nice little article which deserves the star, assuming the source review turns up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

This is a very impressive FAC debut so far, testament to the value of good preparation...

  • As it is your first, Gonzo, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go.
  • Also we'll need a regular source review for reliability and formatting, unless Clikity did it based on their comment at the top?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Phillip Davey[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is the third on a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of an ongoing slow-burn project to get them all to FA. Davey was first awarded the Military Medal for bravery after rescuing a wounded man, and a few months later he killed an eight-man German machine-gun crew, saving his platoon from annihilation, for which he was awarded the VC. This article went through GAN in 2017, and was expanded considerably prior to and during its Milhist A-Class review in March this year. While relatively brief, it contains all that I have been able to find on him in reliable sources, and I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

You've missed the 100-year anniversary. The prose is ... ok. But needs a proper copy-edit. I've looked through a third to half of this rather short article (which uses "involved" three times ... one could be "participated in"?):

  • "Davey enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in December 1914, and joined his unit, the 10th Battalion, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, on 25 April 1915." It's very bumpy with five commas. Why not ", and joined the 10th Battalion on 25 April 1915, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli."?
  • Because he didn't join the battalion on 25 April, that was the date of the landing. I'm open to re-working the prose. Perhaps ending the sentence at December 1914 and starting a new sentence?
  • "Because"? I don't see that reasoning. My suggestion changes nothing in that respect, so there must have already been a problem with your rendering. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added detail about what date he joined his battalion and where, hopefully that clears it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and re-joined to his battalion"—what happened there?
  • "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in the field, which involved rescuing a wounded man under fire."—wouldn't it be simpler to write: "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in rescuing a wounded man under fire."?
  • Done.
  • "Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill, one of at least five sons of the couple. His father was a carpenter. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse-driver." "he" is his father? Looks like it.

    Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey, a carpenter, and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill; he one of at least five sons of the couple. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse driver."

  • Done.
  • "On 22 December 1914, aged 18 years, Davey enlisted as a private in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF), and was posted to the 2nd reinforcements to the 10th Battalion."—Do you need the comma after (AIF)? It's not a long sentence and there are no other ands. Check you do need to ... to. I guess you do. Also check "embarked in" (rather than "from"). I don't know the standard wording.
  • removed "years" and the comma. I think the to ... to is needed. Changed to "embarked at".
  • Unless "the 10th Battalion's 2nd reinforcement" is possible in standard wording for this topic. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "... was the first brigade ashore about 4:30 am.[5] Davey was involved in the heavy fighting at the landing and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead until, after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." "at" 4:30am. Tendency to write over-long and complex sentences. Why not: "and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead; after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." Tony (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Split sentence. Thanks for your comments so far Tony1, it is always good to have someone run a critical eye over my prose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, the rest of it needs running over. Can you find someone? Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes Dank takes a look at the prose of articles at FAC, but I generally find GOCE c/e's at FAC to be less than useful, and sometimes counter-productive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a new project, PM, that's why I haven't had time for FAC lately ... I don't see that changing in the near future. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I'll take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 07:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The review has been canceled due to time restraints, Peacemaker67. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and was planning to recuse and review here, just wanted to give others a chance to comment first. Will see how I go this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Phillip_Davey_VC_MM.jpg: given the info provided by AWM, why do we believe this is AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The specific description page for the image identifies that it is in the public domain, but doesn't identify why - I'm not certain we can assume it's AustraliaGov (rather than PD for another reason). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK Nikkimaria, if I use PD-Australia I need a date of publication for PD-1996, which I don't have. Do I need to move it to Wikipedia and use it under a NFUR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is any more specific information about its provenance available? Do the contextual details support a tag of AustraliaGov or UKGov? Would AWM have any more info about the image? We know it's PD, let's see if we can figure out why before jumping to fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting that information from AWM could take a while and they may not have much to add, but I have emailed them anyway. From what I know, after VC investitures at Buckingham Palace, photos were often taken back in the garden at AIF Headquarters, London, following the ceremony. In this case, it was eight days after the ceremony, which may explain why he is only wearing the ribbon of the VC (and MM), not the actual medal. I assume that was taken by an AIF photographer. Will report back once I receive an answer, but if it looks like being promoted, I may have to go to fair use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, they are telling me there is nothing more to say about the photograph's provenance. I think I'll have to rely on AustraliaGov on the basis that it was most likely taken by a AIF photographer, or move it to Wikipedia from Commons and use a NFUR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, only a few minor comments

  • fatigue duties - wlink?
  • was employed by the South Australian Railways - is 'the' correct?
  • Bullecourt - wlink?
  • to the Battle of Menin Road - pipe?
  • but returned to his unit of his own accord - does that mean he proactively requested to go back, or was he presented with the choice to stay/go?
  • I'm assuming that he didn't think much of training recruits and wanted to get back to fighting, but the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • during a "peaceful penetration" - pipe?
  • Les Carlyon - authorlink
  • All online refs are working
  • NAA ref - Bot just created red error

Thanks PM, JennyOz (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day JennyOz. All done, except I'm not sure what you mean regarding the two "pipe" comments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi PM, I meant pipes to avoid the redirects (I'm not always 100% sure when/when not to.) Also, the last edit accidentally pasted brackets into British War Medal. Thanks for telling this fellow's story which I am happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're allowed to have redirects, just not dab pages. Fixed the brackets. Thanks for the review, Jenny! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Rwandan Civil War[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've had this parked for a while, since its GA nomination last year, but I personally believe it's FA ready so I'm putting it up here to see what you guys think of it. Lemurbaby and Aircorn both had a good look at this during the GAN, and the principle objections were over (a) accessibility for a layman, particularly regarding the information in the lede and acronyms, and (b) possible neutrality concerns. Regarding (a), I have rewritten the lede in the past couple of weeks, making it shorter and more concise, as well as replacing acronyms such as "FAR" with "Rwandan army" throughout the article to make it clear. On (b), neutrality, I made a comment on this at the bottom of the GA page, which never really got answered so I don't know if it's a valid defence or not. Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that. However, I am very open to suggestions for improvement in that area or any other, so over to you guys and looking forward to any feedback positive or negative. And @Aircorn: if you have any further thoughts since your comments last year I'd really like to hear them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Glad to see this event of critical importance in Africa make it to FAC. Initial comments:

  • The economic crisis forced Habyarimana to heavily reduce the national budget; to quell civil unrest, he declared a commitment to multi-party politics, but did not take any action to bring this about. Is the semi colon suggesting that budget cuts incited the unrest?
    I've checked the source, and not really. There was a political crisis (which I've mentioned), but the multiparty move itself was on the advice of François Mitterrand.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The organisation which was to become the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded in 1979. In Uganda?
    Yes. Added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana was aware of the increasing number of Tutsi exiles in the Ugandan army As Habyarimana has already been introduced, and introducing him as "President" deals with any ambiguity, there's no need to restate his first name.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Belgian presence was short-lived, its troops withdrawing within two weeks because of laws preventing the army from intervening in a civil war. This begs the question why they were ever sent in the first place. Were they serving some other purpose (like training the Rwandan Army), or was there a debate in the Belgian government about the legality of their deployment that led to their withdrawal?
    Strange one that... the Prunier source gives quite a lot of detail on the Belgian issue, but doesn't directly mention the legality or otherwise. I think I must have got it from another source that it was illegal in Belgian law. I have therefore reworded to explain a bit more - the troops were sent to defend citizens, but that threat didn't materialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Where are the statistics for 5,000 killed on each side coming from?
    I don't know. It looks like they were added by an IP in 2013. Since they're uncited, and I'm not aware of any sources giving death tolls for the civil war itself (as opposed to the genocide), I've removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The strength of each belligerent force should be integrated into the body of the article.
    I have included this in the Arusha Accords section, as that's when the figures were relevant. Also included detail from the same source regarding the proposed reduction in numbers to 19,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A number of UNAMIR personnel such as Mbaye Diagne were killed during the fighting. Any official statistics on this should be included.
    Given that we now don't have any overall death figures for the war, do you think it's still worth including this, and if so where? The actual UNAMIR death toll up to July 1994, based on figures in Dallaire's book, is 15.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    That figure works. This UN source discusses UNAMIR and Operation Turquoise at length, and talks about how UNAMIR was effected by the fighting (mostly during the genocide stages), including its HQ getting hit by stray fire. Perhaps a small paragraph on the latter and then the death toll could be included in the "Military operations during the 1994 genocide" subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK. Done that. Thanks for your comments here by the way, Indy beetle, very useful and insightful.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Additional comments:

  • colonization and modernised...one English dialect needs to be adhered to throughout the entire article.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Rwandan king welcomed the Germans, using their military strength to widen his rule. "Widen his rule" is an unusual phrase.
    Changed to "reinforce his rule and expand the kingdom"  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The king and Tutsi politicians attempted a fightback. Fightback seems to be a more colloquial term, perhaps "counterattack" instead?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the possibility of a coup is discussed, and the fact that Colonel Bagosora took over the Rwandan government following Habyarimana's death, it should also probably be mentioned that Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana was shot by Rwandan soldiers.
    I have added more detail on this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Operation Turqoise is worth a little more discussion, particularly its aims (both declared and undeclared), its effects, and when it ended.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • UNAMIR's termination in 1996 should also be mentioned.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed. This is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: One additional fact I've found that should be incorporated into the article: David E. Cunningham claims "an estimated 7,500 combatants were killed in direct fighting in the Rwandan civil war" (Cunningham, David E. (2011). Barriers to Peace in Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 9781139499408.). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: apologies, I ready this when you posted it and then it slipped my mind. I have added the figure to the infobox. Do you think it needs to go somewhere in the prose too? Not sure where would fit because it doesn't particularly attach to any single part of the timeline. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I think a quick note in the first paragraph under "Aftermath" will do. To be clear, Cunningham emphasizes that the figure is separate from the civilians killed in the genocide. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Fitzcarmalan[edit]

That was a very interesting read. A few observations though:
Lead

Background

  • "possibly of Cushitic origin" - This links to Cushitic languages, which doesn't seem right to me. Is there an alternative article covering the ethnicity/peoples?
    It seems like there is no such article, and none of the entries at Cushite seem to quite fit. I've modified it to say "originating from the Horn of Africa", because that's something the source mentions to clarify what it means by Cushitic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "administrative reforms which caused a rift to grow" - What was it about them that created this tension? Would it be possible to (briefly) integrate this sort of information into the text?
    I have added a sentence on uburetwa and ubuhake, the main reforms, with detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained" - Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? Suggest rewording to something like "..modernised the Rwandan economy. Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised", or anything to your liking.
    OK I have expanded this a little bit, to include mention of Catholic clerics, increased tax and forced labour. And also separated the two elements you mention. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "death of a Hutu sub-chief by Tutsi activists" - "Death by someone" doesn't seem right to me. Suggest rewording to "in an assault by Tutsi activists", per the source.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979" - Suggest linking to Uganda–Tanzania War.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "needed a break following the years fighting" - Apostrophe missing? (I may be wrong, so you can simply disregard)
    I've reworded it to "Rwigyema persuaded Museveni that following years of army duty he needed a break"  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Course of the war

  • "killing a customs guard" - Suggest mentioning the guard's nationality, if available in sources (obviously Rwandan, but still).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "perception of intervening in a civil war created a domestic political storm in Brussels" - Can't access the source. I assume it's related to the Congo Crisis and the role in Lumumba's assassination? If so, could either of those be briefly mentioned? If you somehow managed to incorporate a simple piped link to Congo Crisis, that would be sufficient IMO.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I actually can see an online version of the source at [13] (it's a bit weird - initially it says the page can't be viewed, but after scrolling up and down a few times, the text appears). So if you can manage to see that perhaps you'll be able to comment further? It doesn't directly mention the history around Lumumba, just that there were concerns over the humanitarian aspects of what the Rwandan government was doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. And that's fine, we can leave it be if the source makes no mention of that. But I'd suggest describing the civil war as "controversial" or anything similar, which is what Prunier was implying. They didn't back away just because it was "a [regular] civil war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, I've added "controversial".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Saleh ordered Bayingana and Bunyenyezi's arrest and eventual execution" - Were the sentences carried out eventually? Never mind, actually. I probably misread that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later described the experience of meeting and taking charge of this demoralised and wounded group as one of the worst experiences of his life." - This could use some extra detail, if available in your sources. What I'm particularly curious about, as a reader, is how Kagame managed to reorganize his troops during the Virunga phase, given the extreme conditions they were exposed to in the mountains.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I'm just wondering if there is anything in particular about this? The most detailed source I have is the Kinzer book, from which most of the "Conditions in the Virungas were very harsh for the RPF..." paragraph is taken. It starts by describing the hardship, people getting frostbite, guards dying on watch because of the cold and inadequate clothing etc. Then the main points about the reorganisation are the fundraising abroad, which enabled the RPF to buy more supplies, and the training that Kagame gave to the soldiers, and discipline, which made them battle ready. The paragraph summarises these points, but please let me know what other detail is required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What I had initially gathered upon reading this sentence, for some reason, was that Kagame might have have faced some kind of insubordination, given the sudden change of leadership and how low his troops' morale was. This often tends to happen in armed conflicts. Does Kinzer mention anything of the sort? If not, then you can simply disregard that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, I haven't seen anything like that. In fact, the text in Kinzer suggests that the demoralised troops welcomed Kagame's arrival. I've added a sentence to that effect.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "remained behind as a decoy" - Suggest linking to Decoy#Military_decoy.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "morning of the 23rd" - Suggest "23 January", per MOS:DATE.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the prisoners were saved" - Suggest using "liberated" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF raided the city every night" - Until...?
    I've clarified it (per the source) to say "almost every night for several months"  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "until June 1991, when a deal was reached" - A deal involving whom?
    Hmm... seems it wasn't actually a deal, more of a government measure. I've reworded to clarify that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a set of "rules", published in the Kangura" - Suggest linking to Kangura.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as extremists within the president's own MRND party" - Suggest writing the party's full name and linking to National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, since it is a first occurrence in the article. It would be preferable to do that early on in the 'Background' section, though.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "delay change to the status quo" - Suggest italicizing, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
    Not done Smiley.png - "status quo" may have originated in another language, but it's perfectly valid English now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "although the RPF soldiers were guilty in some areas" - Suggest using an alternative to "guilty" (not sure which).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kagame told Stephen Kinzer that such a victory" - Suggest linking to Stephen Kinzer (while presenting him as a journalist) and de-linking from the 'Domestic situation' section.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "concluded that it was most likely a coup d'État" - Suggest italicizing coup d'état.
    I've shortened it to just "coup", which is an English word, as that's the usage throughout the rest of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "served as the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. Or, better yet, de-link in the first occurrence at "were actively beginning plans for what would become the 1994 Rwandan genocide" and rewrite as "were actively preparing plans for a genocide" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "seeking to link up quickly with the isolated troops in Kigali" - I assume they were successful? Suggest saying whether they were fully or partially successful, depending on the amount of detail in the sources.
    I've rewritten this a bit so you may want to look at it again. The actual three pronged attack didn't result in an immediate link up, per the source, but there was a unit sent across enemy territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi" - Suggest pipe linking to Burundian Civil War, if that is implied in the source of course.
    Actually this isn't really to do with events in Burundi, it means the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda who happened to have been based in Burundi, unlike Uganda where the original RPF people came from. I have clarified this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • "and as of 2017 remain the dominant political force" - Consider updating the year, unless I'm missing something.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The long-term effects of war rape in Rwanda" - Suggest linking to Rape during the Rwandan Genocide.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "A period of reconciliation and justice began" - Would it be okay if we replaced "justice" with "judicial reforms" or anything similar? I'm not entirely comfortable with "a period of justice" as it stands.
    I've reworded this bit. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "By 1999,[230] a programme" - Suggest moving the ref to the end of that sentence.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That'll be all from me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: thanks, I think I may have answered all of them for now. Let me know if you have any more comments or I've missed anything.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really, everything looks great and you have a nicely written article here. Happy to support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a: This is pretty good.

  • "An uneasy peace followed, as the terms of the accords were gradually implemented." Could be a "because" as: so it's because they were gradually implemented that peace was uneasy? I think you don't mean that.
    I've changed it to "while" instead of "as" to avoid this confusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), was sent to the country." I don't understand it. Is the comma meant to be after "Kigali" rather than where it is now?
    Yes I think so. It seems I have a bad habit of putting commas after brackets, somebody complained about it at WP:ERRORS a couple of weeks ago. I've moved it to be after Kigali as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So much better to start with "But": "The Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, however, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi." -> "But the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi."
    Done. I think I was taught at school not to start a sentence with a conjunction, but apparently that's a junk rule that doesn't really exist...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    'Tis junk. But not too many sentence-initial buts, or they'll stick out. Same league as "don't finish a sentence with a preposition", and "don't split infinitives", etc. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of approximately 100 days,"—English can be ugly. "some" or "about". I'd zap the comma after "killed" ... and after "mid-June".
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Further down:

  • "After 1945, a Hutu counter-elite developed,[27] calling for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu." Two things: you're using a comma after a sentence-initial time phrase as a formula. I would examine each case. It's not helping here. Second, "calling for" is ambiguous. Means "making necessary", or that the elite called publicly for ...?
    I've been through and removed a lot of commas of the type you mention so hopefully it's better now. Also changed "calling for" to "demanding".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "but found the Belgians were no longer supporting them" ... I think the marked present-in-present tense here is a bit much. "no longer supported them" is fine.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Commas are the thing I'm commenting on in your prose, mostly: "Logiest re-established law and order, and began a programme of overt promotion and protection of the Hutu elite,[37] replacing many Tutsi chiefs with Hutu, and forcing King Kigeli V into exile." How long is the sentence? How many other commas are there? Does the rhythm work? Is comma/no comma ambiguous? They are the four questions for each instance. Here I'd zap the last one. Better, no?
    I've split the sentence into two and removed some commas.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • inyenzi ... the reader knows which language that is, do they?
    I've clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "ruling in a top down manner" ... needs an en dash or a hyphen. But better "autocratic"? "hardline"? "brutal"? Manner I've never liked much: "imposing a [whatever] rule"?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "but did not take any action to bring"—"took no action to". How typical of Mitterand.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There's still a LOT to read through. If you could re-examine the comma usage and look for possible ambiguities, that would be good. I support, provided the prose is sifted through and improved here and there. Starts from a good base. Tony (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done one pass through of the commas today. Will have another comb through tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I've done the things you suggested above, and had a couple of read throughs, adjusting for comma overuse and possible poor sentence structure. If you spot any other examples of things that need improving, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Don't use fixed px sizes
  • File:RwandaTerritoryAfterFeb1993.png: what is the source of the data in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: thanks, I've changed the article to reflect these three points.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Kudos for getting stuck into this one....

  • The RPF began a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - is the word "classid" important here?
    No. It's already removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In the lead you have more than 100,000 Tutsi leaving in 1959-62, but this is 336,000 in the body of the article...?
    Corrected in the lede. The source confirms it as 336,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The word "crisis" is mentioned 3 times in 4 sentences at the end of the Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic section - might be able to be streamlined.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The city was the [best choice from a practical point of view, being] the only provincial capital that could be attacked quickly from the Virungas while maintaining an element of surprise. - could remove bracketed bit and let facts speak fr themselves
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Overall a good read and fascinating subject. The RPF come out looking better...but maybe they were. I dunno. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Thank you for bring this here. Still reading through, but the opening lead para doesn't give any dates. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Added dates in the second sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These are minor suggestions only for a what seems like a most impressive article that I expect to support after I've read the whole thing and gone through the sources:

Lead

  • hurried back to take command - why "hurried" without context, maybe just "returned"
    Already done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • He withdrew the RPF troops - you have established that they are RPF, so just "withdrew troops"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - classic is too much for lead, esp as guerrilla war isnt linked
    Already done. I've removed it from the body too, as it's not adding much.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) was sent to the country cant put my finger on this, but the "were" / "was" thing seems odd
    Yes, it's always a bit tricky when talking about a team or body of people, whether to use singular or plural. I think I'm going to leave this one maybe, since the first bit talks about "troops" while the second bit is about a "mission". If you have better wording, do let me know though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    "and a peace-keeping United Nations..."? - "a" matches *was* Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    But it's not just "a United Nations", it's "a United Nations Assistance Mission". I guess it works either way though so I've switched it to plural. It does match the RPF usage as you say, so probably fine. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry did mean "a United Nations Assistance Mission". Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    Would also drop "a compound in" - similar reason for loosing "in an office" above. Ceoil (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • They captured territory slowly and methodically - they steadily and loose "slowly and methodically"?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The war ended later that month with an RPF victory when the interim government and the genocidaires were forced into Zaire - "and" rather than "when". I'm not sure forced is the best word. Maybe retreated or pushed backed into.
    I've split into two sentences to avoid a double and. Also changed to "fled over the border into Zaire"  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ok thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre-independence

  • a group of aboriginal pygmy hunter-gatherers - a population of
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Between 700 BC and 1500 AD a number of Bantu groups migrated into Rwanda - "into the region"- as you have said, wasn't Rwanda then
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • under this theory the Hutu and Tutsi distinction arose later and was a class distinction rather than a racial one - distinction x 2. Maybe "division" in the second instance
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • and then, by 1700 - "and by 1700"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kingdom of Rwanda, ruled by the Tutsi Nyiginya clan, became the dominant kingdom from the mid-eighteenth century - for flow, drop the second 'Kingdom', and just say "became dominant"
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • modernised the Rwandan economy - usually something like this is phrased as "the local"; also it reduces the number of instances of the word "Rwanda" in the para. Yes, picky I know
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised - identifying or classifying; labelling is a bit 90s.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • employed Rwandans in forced labour - forced labour isn't "employed".
    Reworded  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ok to here. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Kagame's reorganisation

  • in the high-altitude cold climate -can you link the specific climate type
    The best link I've found for that is Alpine climate, which seems to cover high mountain climates in both temperate and tropical areas. We probably need something like a Tropical highland climate article, but it doesn't exist yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Is it Subtropical highland climate? Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • as well as from some businessmen within Rwanda - drop "some", obviously not all
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ugandan associates drove Kagame to the border and he crossed into Rwanda early on 15 October - where he crossed
    I think I prefer it as is...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fine, but I would say what area of the border. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    I see you decided to change this one anyway... Smiley.png I don't know which border it was, the source doesn't say. It only reveals that it was "manned by Ugandans who were helpful in the crossings". Probably Kagitumba, but we don't know for sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    I did do that yeah. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • He spent the following weeks with the senior officers gathering intelligence - with senior officers
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some soldiers remained behind as a decoy - remained as a
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    tense issue with "soldiers" vs "a decoy"; can we say "some troupes remained"? Also should it be "were left behind" as it prob wasn't down to their individual decisions. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The trek west took almost a week and the soldiers crossed the border into Uganda several times - trek inst a great word, is there a better military term; "during which the soldiers" rather than "and the soldiers"
    I've changed it to "march", matching the usage at Long March.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • from an office in Kampala - from Kampala
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

  • Balance: the word "Prunier" appears 117 times in the article. This is a worry, not re bias, but in breath of opinion - I found the concern re bias at the GA completely unfounded and unconvincing. (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Kinzer is cited 46 times (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Some newspapers used - The Guardian and LA Times, so ok fine, as long as they are used for establishing timelines and basic facts, rather than deeper historical analysis
  • Some of the sources are inconsistently formatted, eg 1990-10-04 vs 7 September 1994
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • London and New York, NY - I would'nt bother with the NY after New York (there are a few of these)
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • These need publication dates
  • Shyaka, Anastase
  • United Nations. "Rwanda-UNAMIR Background"
  • "Official holidays". Government of Rwanda (as opposed to archive date)
  • United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Rwanda". Holocaust Encyclopedia
  • Some web sources lack retrieval dates, eg Radio France International (RFI) (10 April 2014) Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Ceoil: and @Casliber: many thanks for your detailed comments. I will try go through them in the next few days as time permits. Quickly though, regarding Prunier, it's a somewhat annoying fact that the 1990-94 civil war is not covered in that much depth by very many sources. And of all those I've seen, Prunier goes into by far the most detail on the precise goings on. And in many cases other books, such as those by Linda Melvern, and even Kinzer to some extent, are effectively using Prunier or Dallaire as their main source. I suppose it might be possible to corroborate some of the individual facts in other places (for example I did find detail in some online documents on the Belgian withdrawal of support for Habyarimana in October 1990 when I searched for it). Let me know to what extent you think that's necessary. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, no rush, and re Prunier, I suspected that was the case after using a few search terms on amazon. This reply seems satisfactory to me.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done with everything now, including the sourcing points mentioned above. I've rechecked other web cites too, and updated access dates for those (plus used archives for a couple of dead links).  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Prose review (ctd)

Lead:

  • It started well for the RPF but they suffered a serious reversal when Rwigyema was killed in action on the second day. - Hmm. So the first day went well. All opening attacks go well, pace reckless incompetence, so this particular "went well" is either misleading or hardly worth saying. Maybe something along the lines of "The RPF suffered a major set-back when".
    I've removed the "starting well" although I have included the detail that they advanced 60km, just to highlight that it wasn't initially a complete disaster.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, but to say, "initially", for its vagueness and hand waving as to underlying motivations and circumstantial facts, is one of my most disliked words on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented. - During which rather than than "while", and maybe no comma, as it implies that the two factors were not mutually dependant. In general, man, your comma usage needs work - there are lots of run on sentences.
    Done. I reworked the commas quite a bit last week following Tony's comments. For example things along the lines of "In May 1911, the foo did a bar" had their commas removed. I tend to put commas where a speaker would put natural pauses but perhaps that doesn't always match the formal style. Any particular examples of other poor usage or run-on sentences that I can look at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I gave you an example "An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented" - the comma there totally misleads; as if the two things were not codependent. Note, Americans tend to prefer less punctuation than Europeans; I don't know why. All the same, would like to see you do an audit. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • He withdrew troops to the Virunga mountains for several months before restarting the war - Dont like "restarting the war", the verb is a bit obtuse - attacked again, or declared, or something
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the negotiations were eventually concluded successfully - were successfully concluded (you have established enough of the timeline to leave out "eventually")
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Small thing, but "began to plan" rhymes. Formulated?
    No, it was not intentional. I've changed it to just "planned".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, but was worried - "began" implied genesis; is the current wording correct - dunno but "first planned"? Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The war ended later that month with an RPF victory. The interim government and the genocidaires fled over the border into Zaire. - "with an RPF victory" sounds like sports journalism. Better to give a broad indication of why the RPF came out victorious, and then.."the interim government and the genocidaires fled" ("forcing the the interim government and ... to flee into Zaire) (don't need to say over the border)
    I've clarified that the RPF captured the last remaining interim government territory and forced them over the border. It's slightly awkward because we'd rather just say the RPF held the whole country. But that isn't true because the French-held Turquoise zone was there in the south west. That was a bit tangential to the main thrust of the war though.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Other:

  • "They formed a government based loosely on the Arusha Accords, but when Habyarimana's party was outlawed, the RPF took over the positions it had been assigned" - clarity needed here (& "loosely based" is better than "based loosely")
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • even if the RPF were discovered there - "even if the RPF's position was discovered"? Or were they unsure that they were there at all. These are two very different things. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Circling back to your question here, I'm actually not sure whether the Rwandan government knew of the RPF's presence in the Virungas. The fact that the RPF left troops in the north east as a decoy suggested perhaps they didn't, but on the other hand it seems a bit strange that a foreign army could be camped inside the national borders without the government knowing about it at all. My sources seem to focus on the fact that it was hard to flush them out and that their positions were impenetrable, so I'll stick with the version you suggest that the positions were unknown. That covers all bases anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, I'm almost done. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: where are we with this? Are you waiting for me to action any other points, and are there still other points you are looking at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Will look tonight Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

  • This review has been progressing well and I think we have consensus to promote but as it's been awhile since the nominator's last successful FAC -- and given the subject is controversial -- I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. You can request this at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to undertake.
  • On a more prosaic note, I noticed some duplicate links in the article that you might review/rationalise. Let me know if you need a link to the duplink checker that highlights them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Ian Rose: thanks. I think I've eliminated all the duplicate links from the body, although items are linked separately in the lede and first occurrence in the body, which is the usual practice I follow unless you tell me that's forbidden. I've put in a request for a source spot check so hopefully we'll get that through soon. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Before the coords close I'd like to note I made one additional (late) comment that has not been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think the coords are going to close anytime soon, an article like this needs a detailed source review. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, you're probably right. Maybe I can renominate it again in the future. I've addressed Indy beetle's point above, anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think renomination is necessary; I believe all Ceoil was referring to was the necessity of a source review to be conducted before this nomination is considered ready for judgment (and that might take some time). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Mensa (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is hopefully on a par with the 30 Featured Articles on constellations to date. Short and sweet, any issues should be quickly fixed as I believe it is within striking distance of FA-hood. NB: It got a good going-over at GAN by AhmadLX. His one outstanding issue is (hopefully) addressed by this change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Support on 1a. Lead and infobox:

  • First para was way overlinked. I've zapped them and lightly edited the para.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Second sentence: "Its name is Latin for table, though it originally depicted Table Mountain and was known as Mons Mensae." What is "it"? Whatever "it" is, it's depicting and was known as something. Has the constellation's appearance changed so suddenly?
my quandary is how to address this without sounding repetitive - such as if I say "Mensa's name.." or "The constellation's name...". Is it obvious what I am referring to if I say "Its name" or "The name"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
If I knew what the intended meaning was, I'd suggest a fix. Table Mountain as in ... South Africa? "it originally depicted", I presume, should be "it was originally likened to". Is that correct? Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
yes, that is the idea. verb substituted accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Infobox: is that a hyphen in the declination range?? Where there's an adjacent minus sign, MOSNUM says to write "to". "Best visible" -> "Visibility best". "the month of January"—kill the first three words.
these involve the template - will try to get a rough consensus for thes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Stars with planets: 2". Just checking: we know for a fact that none of the other star systems has exoplanets, do we? That's what the infobox seems to imply. If not, it's misleading.
the infoboxes cover all the constellations. a bigger issue than here. Should raise it on the wikiproject page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the lead or infobox are we told how far away it is. I guess a constellation is just a pattern in the sky, not a physically cohesive entity. But when you write "part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders", many punters will think the LMC (which is pretty close to the Milky Way) is physically part of the entity. But it's just in the way, visually, right?
correct - it is an artificial construct to map the sky, with close and far objects in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope readers get it. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
most readers with any knowledge of the area will understand Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Still on the lead:

  • "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no apparently bright stars. Its brightest star, Alpha Mensae is barely visible in suburban skies. Two of its star systems have been found to have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders. Several star clusters and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation." What's the difference between and apparently bright star and a bright star? -->

    "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no bright stars (the brightest, Alpha Mensae, is barely visible in suburban skies). At least two of its star systems have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud, several star clusters, and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation."

    Have I wrongly assumed that the LMC has no star clusters? Tony (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

good points both and tweaked. The LMC does, but they are much fainter than the ones in our own galaxy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I am flummoxed on this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Trying to help out here, seems like the source may be constellation guide originally. Still trying to find it on HST site if I can. Kees08 (Talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
So you type in 'NGC1987' (no quotes, no spaces). This brings up a list you can expand. There is one taken on October 7, 2003, with the Spectral_Elt of 'F814W/F555W/F435W'. If you click on 'Display' it looks like the original Commons image. It also has Prop ID 10595. You should be able to expand the description by saying was detector was used. Also make sure it is not copyrighted by ESA since it was taken before 2008. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Casliber: Let me know when you get this settled. I think I found all the information, just need it added to the image. Kees08 (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Umm, @Kees08: which page are you searching and getting this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This page Kees08 (Talk) 04:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, added date - 18th October 2006 ("10595" series/study) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Constellation Mensa.jpg CC 3.0 licence by creator
  • File:Mensa IAU.svg CC 4.0 licence by IAU. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't this be under CC 3.0 unported license, per the webpage? Kees08 (Talk) 04:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The web page says " Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" see [14]. Anyway CC-BY-3.0 can be relicenced under CC-BY-4.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Ah, I was going off the link in the source. I suppose it is relicensed then. In that case, in the FAQ, "Q: Can I just overlay the IAU logo instead of the credit? A: No. The use of the IAU logo is controlled and it must not be reproduced without permission." I think we are okay because the download has the logos on them, but wanted to bring it up in case I was wrong. Kees08 (Talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Ridpath, Ian; Tirion, Wil (2017), Stars and Planets Guide is not used as a reference by the article.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why are some books in the citations section and others (fn 9, 12 and 37) not?
I only put books there if I am referencing different bits to different pages. If only a single page or page range then it sits in the upper section. I have been doing it this way for over ten years (unless someone else has done different) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • author-link John Herschell (and shouldn't he be Sir John in the text?)
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Spot check: fn 3, 10, 29, 38: ok
  • fn 17: an orange giant of spectral type K2III. I can't find that in the reference.
okay, many articles have data on many many stars and are tabulated online. This article is here, from where one clicks on online data to get here. From here one enters the stars HIP designation (in Gamma Mensae's case it is 25918) to get the information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 21: Zeta Mensae is an ageing white giant of spectral type A5 III around 414 ± 9 light-years from Earth. I can't find that in the reference.
same method as preceding but using the star's Henry Draper (HD) number... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 24: Source says 37.7 ± 0.9 parsecs. I make that 123 ± 3 LY. (Consider using the {{convert}} template?)
aah, the 2011 paper uses a 1997 paper for the distance. This was updated in the 2007 paper by van Leeuwen. Sourcing sorted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcery and imagery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Should Tinney (2011) have the volume and issue number?
oops, filled out ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks like the two different citation templates in the Citations section are producing different outputs?
ah, changed to align with other sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's my only question on sourcing. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now. I have a couple of questions about images when you get a chance. Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jolielegal[edit]

  • It may be useful to update the distances to the new Gaia Data Release 2[15], which should be more precise than the Hipparcos measurements.
This is fantastic! I haven't used it as I haven't edited constellation articles much in a while. How do I find the identifier to get the right star? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Just enter the name of the star in the "Simple Target" box at the top of the page. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually SIMBAD is all GAIA'ed now. all van leeuwen refs replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alpha Mensae: clarify that the disk properties (radius and temperature) are just a model based on the assumption that the dust emits as a single-temperature blackbody. Also, the dust detection has been contested[16].
added subsequent study. pondering how to word assumption Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I suggest just to write something like estimated or modeled radius/temperature, to make clear that these values are just approximations. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"estimated" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beta Mensae/Gamma Mensae: citing the parameters of the stars with such precision ("1.04 times as massive") gives the wrong impression that these values are known to such precision.
The paper for Gamma's mass and age does not give a margin of error. I used the word "around" to signify it's not exact... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pi Mensae: the article needs to mention the recently discovered transiting planet around this star, the first discovery by the TESS spacecraft [17]
I am torn on this one...I really want to add but is it ok if it is just in arxiv pre-print (i.e. not published yet)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a rule or recomendation about arxiv pre-prints. But the source is clearly reliable, and in my opinion it should be included. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it's certainly got some coverage so Pi Mensae c added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • HD 38283: "a gas giant around a third as massive as Jupiter" clarify that this is just a minimum mass
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the criterium for including stars in this list? A quick search in List of stars in Mensa and Template:Stars of Mensa reveals other stars that might be notable to be included here: Tu Mensae[18], TY Mensae[19], UX Mensae[20], YY Mensae[21], AH Mensae[22], HD 39194[23] (has 3 planets, but is not mentioned at all). If AO Mensae is notable for inclusion, then some of these stars certainly are too.
I have used something like this for constellations before. But obviously misses stars with just an HD number. SOme stars are easier to write about than others. The fact that we do have a list gives me pause for including too many. Will scour these ones and include or give reasons for not doing so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that since this is a small constellation and the article is very short there is plenty of room to add more stars in the list. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Have added all apart from TU Mensae, as I am having trouble finding recent data so don't know whether problems from 1995 still exist...aaand I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is a more recent study of TU Mensae: [24]. This object seems to be extra notable for its long orbital period. "This dwarf nova is the longest period SU UMa system." (Although it is no longer the longest, it remains notable [25]. "It had long been known that SU UMa-type dwarf novae are restricted to objects below the famous CV period gap. The only well-established exception was, and has long been, one of the earliest known SU UMa-type dwarf novae, TU Men.") Jolielegal (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WISE 0535−7500:
    • "either sub-brown dwarfs or free planets", aren't these the same thing? In fact the page free planet is a redirect to sub-brown dwarf.
yes, not sure how that happened. trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "of spectral class ≥Y1" maybe clarify to cooler than Y1?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe the article should clarify that the binarity of this object is not confirmed with resolved images, but just estimated from photometry (the object is overluminous for its color). The mass is also just an estimative assuming both components have the same mass.
oops, missed this. done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
yes/linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PKS 0637-752: the source says "we see it as it was 6 billion years ago", but this does not mean it is located at a distance of 6 billion light-years (see Comoving and proper distances). "The resulting images revealed a gas jet approximately 326,000 light-years long." this was converted from 100 kpc, so the precision is misleading. Jolielegal (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
changed to 330,000 light years...or would you like 300,000? I just removed the light-year bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jolielegal, anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I am still going through the last couple of stars to add. I will alert folks when done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Casliber: Update? --Laser brain (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Gimme a few hours. Just realised there were a couple of little things.......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay @Laser brain and Jolielegal: unless I have overlooked something I have answered all of Jolielegal's points, but not added one star (TU Mensae) as there are some conflicting results and it's fairly obscure. I am struggling to make that star sound interesting. Over to y'all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Praemonitus[edit]

Support: my concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a few concerns:

  • The article uses the following terminology without explanation: "dwarf", "gas giant", "eclipsing binary", "main sequence", "binary system", "orbital period", "sunspot", "light-year", "arcsecond", and "substellar". In some cases a clarification is appropriate; in others a wikilink.
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The article switches from "AU" to "astronomical unit". I'd use the full term on the first instance with AU in parentheses.
AU unabbreviated at first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "...labelling them Alpha through to Lambda Mensae...": not every reader is going to be familiar with the Greek alphabet, so it should clarify the source.
You mean like this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "...would have been considerably brighter back then": the Jim Kaler article specifies that it was a 2nd magnitude star.
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The references seem to be in good shape. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Alpha Mensae is a solar-type star (class G7V) 33.26 ± 0.05 light-years from Earth.[11] However, data from Herschel Space Observatory failed to confirm this excess, leaving the finding in doubt.— What excess? This seems to refer to something not yet mentioned
oops - pasted that in wrong spot. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It came to within 11 light-years from Earth around 250,000 years ago and would have been considerably brighter back then.—I don't think it's exactly OR to put "about nine times brighter", per inverse square law
another source says the magnitude, which I have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It has swollen to around 4.99 times the solar radius—either It has swollen to 4.99 times the solar radius or It has swollen to around 5 times the solar radius
these are tricky as they are all approximate, but I take your point. changing to latter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

California Pacific International Exposition half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin whose high mintage proved to be its undoing as relatively few sold. Unusually, the sponsors went back to Congress and got a second year of striking, but again, most wound up melted. Still, it's a beautiful design.Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Note: this will be transcluded tomorrow morning.

  • Support

Nice article in an impressive series. Two very minor points to consider, neither of which affect my support:

Lead
  • "the reverse buildings": I stumbled over this slightly; perhaps "the reverse shows buildings"?
Production
  • I was slightly confused by what the "1935–S half dollar" is and it took a little time and searching before it became clear. Maybe just a word or two to introduce the term (possibly when describing the mint mark)?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

1a, lead and first bit.

  • Comma splice: "Its obverse depicts Minerva and other elements of the Seal of California, the reverse shows buildings from the California Pacific International Exposition (held 1935–1936) which the coin was issued to honor." A semicolon would fix it.
Fixed.
  • "Left with over 180,000 pieces unsold as sales ground to a halt, the Exposition Commission went back to Congress for additional legislation so it could return the unsold pieces and have new coins, dated 1936, struck to sell in the second year of the fair's run."—"as sales ground to a halt" is dramatic and appears to mark something that isn't explained. If that's explained later, why not avoid raising a big question-mark in the lead? The sentence is quite long enough without. "Melting" is mentioned only for the second, 1936 tranche; but I presume the unsold 1935 version was melted too. I had to read it several times to work it out. If "many pieces of both dates were melted" in the final sentence were earlier in the paragraph, it would be much easier to apprehend. It begs the question of why there was such overestimation, twice. That's what is surprising historically ... but I had to think too hard to extract that. Also, you might think it's obvious, but the mint needed the excess metal to make the 1936 version. Can it be easier for readers?
There was often such overestimation, especially when the coin was proposed to be sold at a fair. The physical metal from the first coins were not necessarily used to make the second, indeed probably not because of the delay while the metal went through the processes. It was probably used to make other coins, but we wouldn't know what.
  • "One of the largest expositions of its kind, it was situated on 1,400 acres (570 ha), and cost $20 million. The fair attracted some 3.75 million people during its two-year run"—it was held? 3.75 million visitors?
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm suggesting situated -> held, and people -> visitors. Tony (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The prose generally looks ok from a very quick look through. I'm sure I'd find more niggles, though. Tony (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly so. Thanks for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Spot-check, 1a, in "Production, distribution, and collecting":

  • "the mintage of a quarter million coins, far in excess of some other issues of the era, meant that ..." – not prose, but query over whether a reference (or link) is needed for the "other" numbers.
Not really, the motivation for not buying the coins is discussed in the sources.
  • Two instances of sentence-initial "Accordingly, ..." close by. I think the second one isn't needed. The first one doesn't need a comma, either.
I've changed the first to "Thus," I think the second one does need some sort of introduction as a bridge from the activities of the previous paragraph, thus the "Accordingly,"
  • Commas can be a personal choice, sure, but why not unbump the first one here: "Coin collectors would view this as a new variety, and possibly buy both, and the melting of the returned coins would decrease the supply and (hopefully) increase the attractiveness of the remaining 1935-S specimens."
Good thought. I've done that.
  • "G. Aubrey Davidson, chairman of the Exposition Commission, wrote to Acting Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly on May 16, 1936,"—chairman, but caps for Acting Director? Simpler to downcase all, I think.
Director of the Mint is something I generally capitalize, even though the full title would be "Director of the United States Mint". I think caps for that title (including the acting) look best, and it's how the sources do it. I know they don't bind us, but I'm minded to go that way.
  • Fast coins? "asking that the coins (which were to be struck at the Denver Mint and bear its mint mark "D") be expedited"
Tweaked.
  • "as heavy traffic was expected at the fair around Memorial Day at the end of May."—cars or buses?
Changed to "attendance"
  • There's a lot of struck, strike, striking all at once. And this is very confusing: "The striking at the Denver Mint made the California Pacific half dollar the first commemorative to be struck at San Francisco and at Denver, but not at Philadelphia, and the only pre-1954 commemorative with that distinction." Please simplify and split up a bit.
It's sometimes hard to find an effective synonym for "Struck". "Minted" is the obvious but given that the striking takes place in a mint, sometimes I can't use that. I've changed a few.
  • "less than 30,000 of the 1936-D had been sold"—fewer.
OK
  • Mint Mint. And Davidson was blaming thus, not suggesting to Ross that this be the public story? It's unclear: "On January 27, 1937, Davidson wrote to the Director of the Mint, Nellie Tayloe Ross, asking if the Mint would accept some 150,000 coins for refund, with the glut blamed on having a relatively short period to sell them."
Yes, that was his excuse, but obviously that doesn't fully add up, had they had three times the time they still would not have sold all the coins. But I suppose he had to say something like that. I've altered the Mint/Mint
  • this This, and a slightly awkward within-sentence quoting: Swiatek, in his 2012 volume on commemoratives, stated that this was "to create the appearance of demand and future rarity. This didn't work."
Fixed.

Tony (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Up to date again. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Well up to the unflagging standard of Wehwalt's coin articles. Clear, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. I have tried to find something to quibble about and the best I can come up with is "a number of medieval gold coins" – which is a bit vague, but if that's what the source says, so be it. I should like to put it on record that the sentence "A grizzly bear is to the left of Minerva" has made my day. We don't get that sort of thing on our coins in Britain. Tim riley talk 12:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

Like Tim, I couldn't find anything worth quibbling over Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the reviews and supports. Tim, I am traveling now and do not have immediate access to the source, but I don't think the source, which tends towards pithiness, would have gone into greater detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moise[edit]

Have read through twice and made a few small edits. This is well written and I support on prose. Moisejp (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support, and for the article improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I'll pick up the review on the sources. Be with you a little later in the day. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting
  • All good, aside from Authorize recoinage of 50-cent pieces in connection needs a 'subscription' tag, and the two Yeoman editions are published by "Whitman Publishing" and "Whitman Publishing, LLC", in Atlanta, Georgia and Atlanta, GA, both of which you should standardise.
Scope and reliability
  • As far as I can tell from examining the background of the sources/publishers, all sources used are reliable and high quality.
  • Searches (Google Books Internet Archive and JSTOR) show two other possible sources that are unused here. I suspect you've already considered them, and found them wanting against things you've used, but if you could confirm that is the case I'd be obliged
  • Numismatic notes & monographs (1938) – Page 123
  • The Numismatist – Volume 121, Issues 1-6 – Page 44
Spot checks
  • I don't have access to any of these sources, as they seem not to be readable on Google Books, or through the Amazon 'Look Inside' function, so would you be able to send me a photo or scan of the following just for a quick check:
  • Bowers, pp. 313–315
  • Swiatek, pp. 260 and 261
  • Swiatek & Breen, p. 38.
  • Vermeule, pp. 190–191

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I'm traveling at present and don't have the books with me. Can you check via Google books or similar? As for The Numismatist, can you give me a year and month?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 2008 is the year, but I can't see the month. The Google Books link (only a snippet view from here) is here, which may help.
I didn't have much luck accessing the pages on Google Books, but I'll run through them again to see if I can pick same of them up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Added one more point on the formatting for you. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at The Numismatist article (June 2008). I think I looked at it at the time. It's an article on Aitken, which has about four paragraphs on the California piece, none of which breaks any ground away from the existing sources. Numismatic Notes and Queries is actually David Bullowa's 1938 work on commemoratives, that I've cited in other articles, but was not aware was on JSTOR. I've added a quote box and used it in the article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the downloads of the Congressional sources. I've done the spot checks on these, and they cover the information that has been cited for, with no close paraphrasing, etc. Formatting, scope and reliability, and spot checks now all good: Source review passed on that basis. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fôrça Bruta[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. I exhausted both English and Portuguese-language sources online, including GoogleBooks and searches with alternate spellings of the album title ("o" and "c" with and without the accents), so I am confident the article is comprehensive of its topic. Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • The following is more of a clarification question, rather than a suggestion. Is there any information on the exact release date (i.e. day) or is the month and the year the only things that can be sourced? Just want to make sure.
    • Yes, only the month and year were able to be located in what is available online.
      • Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (His lyrics for the songs explored themes of romantic passion, melancholy, sensuality, and to a lesser extent postmodern and political values, also a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases.), I do not think that “for the songs” part is needed.
  • Please use Ben’s full name when you mention him for the first time in the body of the article, and wikilink him, as the lead and the body of the article are treated separately from one another.
  • For the audio sample, I would expand the caption to justify its inclusion. I have been repeatedly told to keep the use of non-free media to a minimum in article, so please clarify how the audio sample represent the album beyond the prose.
    • Thank you for expanding this part. A source may be necessary for the caption, but I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The singer's busy schedule surrounding the success of his previous record led music critic John Bush to believe it may have led to a mellower recording of samba soul for this album.), I think that either “following” or “during” would be better word choices than “surrounding”, which sounds somewhat odd to me in this context.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (During the session, Trio Mocotó improvised with Ben on acoustic guitar; he played the viola caipira for the songs "Aparece Aparecida" and "Mulher Brasileira”.). What do you mean by “the session”? Was the entire album completed in one recording session? If not, then I would say “During a recording session”?
    • According to Parahybe, they recorded the songs in one nighttime session (1st paragraph)
      • That is what I get for doing a FA review very late at night/early in the morning lol. Thank you for the clarification. That addresses my point. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would a “Release history” section, as I believe it is a required section for album articles.
    • The language of MOS:ALBUM#Release history ("can be included in a table") appears not to make it a requirement. Personally, I would like to, but reliable sources do not have any more information than what is in the body about its release history, and I don't believe it would be enough to fill out a consistent table, for "different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions". I placed a link to Discogs at the bottom of the article, which is unreliable here but offers a possible overview to readers of the release history. Dan56 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the explanation and the link to the style guide. That makes perfect sense to me. I honestly was not aware of the style guide in the WikiProject, so I will definitely read it in the near future as I semi-regularly work on articles about albums (though none of them are nearly as influential or remembered as this one lol). Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Aoba47:. I responded to the more complicated points and edited the article to address the rest. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to everything. This was an interesting read, and I hope that it receives more attention from reviewers in the future. I support this for promotion based on the prose (I have not looked at anything regarding sources or images). If possible, again, I would greatly appreciate any help with my FAC, but it is not required. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Jorge_Ben_e_o_Trio_Mocotó_no_Teatro_da_Lagoa,_1971.tif: why is this believed to be a government work?
    • I imagine because it is from The Brazilian National Archives, which is an agency of the government.
      • Is anything more known about its provenance? Just because the archives holds the image doesn't in itself make the image a government work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I could not find anything. I don't see anything saying it is a government work; just that it has been released into the public domain by the government. I'll invite the original uploader here; perhaps he can elucidate its origin. Dan56 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Length of File:Oba,_Lá_Vem_Ela.ogg exceeds 10% of the original
    • I've reduced it by a second, making it 10%.
  • File:Almeida_Júnior_-_O_Negrinho.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Added. Dan56 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude[edit]

First let me say, thank you very much for putting so much effort into this article. I can tell a lot of thought was put into this and it's not very often a Latin album will be nominated for FA. I'm not an expert on prose, but there's nothing that stands out that needs major copy editing to me. There are only a few things I want to point out: The first one, , to echo on Aoba47, is that the sample could use a source. At least, I would use a critical commentary on the sample to help justify its usage (see Romance (Luis Miguel album), an article I worked on as an example). The second being that one of the links is dead. This is a more suggestion, but for the durations, there's a {{duration}} template. Erick (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments and the kind words; this article was an impulsive labor of love for me. I have found an archive of the dead link. The caption for the audio sample is based on what is verified within the article already, specifically commentary attributed to McKean and Sanches in the musical style section; similar to citations in the lead, a summary in the caption would not require citations in this case, unless the statements are contentious. I made note of this in the file description, too. Also, I do not want to distract readers too much with supplementary pieces like samples and images; rather the caption be concise and suggestive of what can be found in the body of the article. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha, that makes sense to me. I'll go ahead and support this article. Good luck with the nomination! Erick (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you :) Dan56 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

I've added this to the urgents list—looks like we've stalled a bit and need help pushing it the rest of the way up the hill. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

Dan56 requested that I review this article. I'm going to start reading it now, although there's a good chance I'll be interrupted by some real life events today. If I'm unable to leave comments today, I should be able to get started at some point this weekend or, at the latest, by this coming Monday, Nov. 12 (I'm on PST). Just wanted to give some notice to watchers on my intention to review and my timing, given the stagnation in comments and coordination attention. —BLZ · talk 23:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

John Adams[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

John Adams was an American Founding Father who served as the second President of the United States. When I previously nominated this article in July, most people seemed concerned about the length of the article. The article was failed after only five days, so I didn’t have much time to address these concerns. I now believe I have done so. The article has gone from 190,336 characters at the beginning of the last review to 172,937 now, a decrease of 9.14%. The total size of the article is 99 kB, which is considered within the guidelines of “readable prose size” according to WP:SIZERULE. Especially considering how important Adams is, I do not see how any further reasonable objections can be made to the size of the article, and hope that it will pass this time, as there do not seem to be any other major issues. Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not yet expressing an opinion on whether the article is too long (I haven't read it), but I thought a comparison with some other very large FAs might be useful. For the top five on this page, the page size script gives word counts of 12K, 16K, 13K, 10K, and 11K. The largest is Hillary Clinton, with 16,016 words, but the promoted version was only 12,411 words. John Adams clocks in at 16,160 words. It seems probable that this would be the largest FA at promotion by word count. The next five on the list were (at promotion) also much smaller, though a couple have ballooned since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, but there are a few points I would like to make. The Clinton article became an FA in 2014. She's done plenty of notable things since then, which inevitably caused the article to grow in size. Adams is long dead, and with no major biographies or other studies of him in the works, it seems unlikely that there will be any major attempt to balloon the size of his biography at all. I would also like to point out that Ulysses S. Grant currently has 16,504 words, more than this article by more than a few hundred, although it was only 13,541 at the time of promotion in 2015. Byzantine Empire is even larger at 16,637 words. It became an FA in 2004, when the ideal word count was obviously nowhere near our current standards, but it's survived two FARs, most recently in 2012. My central point is that while this might set a new record for longest article at the time of promotion, it would not be the longest featured article overall. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie, just a quick update: The article is now down to 97 kB and has less than 16,000 words. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Another update on length: at the time of its promotion, Andrew Jackson had 15,937 words. This article has 15,809 words. We can now say with certainty that it should it pass the review, this article would not be the longest FA at the time of promotion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • I'm being picky. Pity to go along with this fiction that leaders "serve" the population. Um ... too much of a stretch for me. So I'd personally prefer "who became the first". You know that the Queen is described as having a lifetime of "public service". Don't make me laugh.
"Public service, "served in office," etc. are all common phrases that everyone understands. I don't see how there are any reasonable grouns for this objection. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." Also picky: makes it sound like he was a diarist with his wife, whereas you mean just "correspondent" with her, right?
I think the meaning is pretty clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not working, unless you mean they sat together and wrote his diary. Tony (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Another user just changed this. Is it any better? Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams collaborated with his cousin"—what, in writing his diary?
This part is rather vague and isn't closely supported by the main text. Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and successfully defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre in court"—"and successfully defended in court the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre"? Over to you. Rest of that paragraph: good.
Done. Added "perpetrating" after of. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to trim out "also" from your writing. (Audit MAFIA ... moreover, also, furthermore, in addition). "Adams' credentials as a revolutionary secured him two terms as George Washington's vice president and also his own election in 1796 as president." Consider comma before "and" ... I'm not sure. Then: "During his single term, he encountered"—can the single term be relocated into the previous proposition? I had to pause and think momentarily, having seen three terms flash past.
I could only find one instance of any of these worth trimming out. Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then. I don't know what three terms you're thinking of and I think it's pretty clear that the article means his single term as president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then."—I don't know where that idea came from. Please revise your take on comma usage—it's more complicated and nuanced than that. On "also" (there are 21 of them, and only a few are needed): what is it adding to this: "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." And here: "Ferling also surmises that ...". And here: "In 1771, Adams moved his family to Braintree, but kept his office in Boston. He also noted on the day of the family's move, ...". If you like, I'll add "also" to almost every sentence. Let me know and I'll do it. Tony (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, this article here says that commas should be used to separate two INDEPENDENT clauses. The second clause in the sentence you quoted is a dependent clause. A comma would not be needed there. I removed 11 more instances of also. Display name 99 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must inform you that that's an amateurish writing guide. Full of simplistic advice. Tony (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • CMOS says "that" unless there's a comma before it: "a correspondence which lasted fourteen years".
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Modern historians have favorably ranked his administration."—sounds very numerical/tabular. Do they all indulge in this?
Changed to show that the rankings do not include all historians. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks promising. Tony (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, thank you for your review. Please see my above comments. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, I don't think we're going to agree on the comma. Are there any other comments you wish to make about this article? Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to go beyond that amateurish online guide for comma usage.

You have yet to provide any justification for how the guide is "amateurish." And as you haven't produced a supposedly better guide which supports your own position instead of mine, I feel no urgency to change the article here. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Career before the Revolution":

  • "rights to only be taxed by consent"—"only by" would be less clunky.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Causality needs to be clearer (IF I'm understanding it correctly): "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts, which operated without a jury, were corrupt and unfair." Do you mean: "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts were corrupt and unfair because they operated without a jury."? Whether causal or not, it should be clear.
Your version is better. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "relations with Britain temporarily eased"—can a relationship ease? Or "tensions ... eased"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "known locally as the "White House.""—tsk: MOS breach.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the family" ... "They" ... "He and Abigail and the children" ... "they". Check there's not a more efficient way—unsure.
I've changed this around a bit. Please take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a lone British sentry was accosted by American men and boys."—sounds vaguely sexual. Do we need to make the distinction? And since in those days women hardly ever accosted anyone, can they be characterised as "civilians", without gendering them?
Changed to "mob of citizens." Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The following day, Adams was asked to defend them after others had refused, and he immediately agreed to do so." Simpler and shorter? "The following day, after others had refused to defend them, Adams agreed to do so." Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, the review is still incomplete. Do you want to finish it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – There have been few structural changes made recently, but the fact that there have been any at all may cause the article to fail the Stable criteria. The article is definitely well researched as is and well written, and it already is a GA, so I could see this nom successfully going through. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, I fail to see how the structural changes can be seen as the result of anything but the standard process of getting this article reading for featured article candidacy. There's no ongoing edit war, and the stability criteria only mandates that "its content...not change significantly from day to day." You even admit that the changes are not significant, so I have to wonder if you even read the FA criteria and if so, how closely. If you have misgivings about this article because some changes were recently made in order to get it ready for the FA process, I don't see how you would not have the same objections for virtually every article that comes on here. I do however thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be cited, such as the exact end date of his ambassadorships
These are largely discussed in the main text. I've encountered other FAs in which the EXACT dates in the infobox aren't directly cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the text says eg. just "1788" for the ambassadorship end, rather than giving the exact date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Source added for ambassadorship dates. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn14 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Now FN15, looking at the original there appears to be a publication name not currently included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Right now, the only untemplated citation under References is 286. There is no author (it was written by an organization), so I wasn't sure how to put it in the Bibliography. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the GBooks link, there appears to be an author named on the title page? It also looks like some citations are partially templated and partially not, eg. 28, or not at all, eg. 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed that. Added. I also properly templated those two citations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN34 and 27 are the same
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN39 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN43 is broken
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Might've missed a couple, eg. FN157. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I took care of one. I looked through again and haven't found any others. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Still seeing some inconsistencies here. For example, 126 has a location, 227 does not, 310 does not but other books do, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN147 date format doesn't match other sources
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Leip a high-quality reliable source?
Replaced chart with electoral map. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FN225 should cite the NHHC
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Forbes is a publication, Library of Congress is a publisher - check italics throughout
I'm a little bit confused about what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This is typically to do with which parameter is used for which data, although it appears in some cases you've actually added italics to an instance of |publisher=. Organizations like LOC should use |publisher= and shouldn't be displayed in italics, whereas publications like Forbes should use |work= or a related parameter (|website=, |newspaper=, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I added italics for Forbes and removed it from Library of Congress, as well as from publishers in a few other sources where it didn't seem needed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Still some inconsistencies here - channels are not publications (though programs are), website names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I added italics to a website but I'm still a bit confused here. PBS is a channel but isn't it technically a program as well? Should it be italicized? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a program called PBS NewsHour, but I don't see one just called "PBS" at List_of_programs_broadcast_by_PBS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Italics removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN276 seems to indicate Reagan was 89 at the time, not over 90
Replaced source. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The new source supports that Reagan reached age 90, but not that he surpassed 90 years 247 days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed that part of the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FN320 doesn't link to anything
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how book editors are formatted
I think I've fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Compare Foot and Hogan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've taken care of this. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a few unabbreviated under References. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why the double publisher in McDonald 1974?
This was a mistake. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Several of the entries under Primary sources appear incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I've done a little work on this. Will continue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is taken care of now. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a few still incomplete, eg. Richardson. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I think it's finished now. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your thorough review. I have addressed most of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've responded further to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Given how many changes have been made by both the nominator and others in the last week, I think that exemplifies the fact that this article isn't done. It needs further review by WP's best editors before becoming a featured article. I still support the nomination, as stated in my previous vote, but the nom needs to be extended. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I already explained that your objection to how frequently the article has been edited recently did not make sense. You didn't defend it. Instead, you seem to have just reiterated it. And for what purpose? It doesn't add anything to the review process and the criticisms are completely illegitimate. Most of the changes in the past week were made in response to the FA review. I'm not sure how much experience you have here, but the way the review process works is, editors suggest changes. Then, the changes are discussed and made. Of course the article isn't done; it's still on review, and it won't be done until one of the coordinators either promotes it or closes the nomination. I welcome any further constructive suggestions that you may have, but I also don't understand what comments like this are meant to accomplish. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Which means Redditaddict69 thinks it was a premature nomination. I agree. You've asked me to go through the rest; but I've done far more than FAC should have to in sifting through prose issues. Please find one or two other editors to assist. Tony (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Tony1, I disagree with that assessment. I've seen and been involved with FACs that have undergone prose evaluations similar to this one. I've also seen and been involved with reviews where a considerable amount of content was either added or subtracted from the article during the review itself. That hasn't happened yet. Like Redditaddict69, you express misgivings but haven't quite clearly stated what the remaining problems are in the article. If it's about the comma, I suggest you either get over it or find a guide better than the one I cited to prove me wrong. Otherwise I simply want to know what the outstanding issues are. I remind you that I have implemented the vast majority of your suggestions. I think the prose in the article were good to begin with and that most of your suggestions simply made them better and more concise. I can't see why you can't continue to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—prose quality is inadequate. Tony (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, Can you provide any specific suggestions to help in the continued review? As they say, the devil is in the details. Hoppyh (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a good way to reduce whitespace on the right side of the Notes section? Perhaps you could merge it and References into one section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, sorry for the late response. I think it depends on your computer view because on mine I don't see any white space. I'm against merging it with the References section just because I feel that having a separate notes section makes the notes easier to find than if they're mixed up in a bunch of citations. I don't know that much about formatting so I'm afraid there don't seem to be any remaining options as far as I can tell. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69[edit]

  • After reading several times... here are my initial observations:
Many sentences could be split into two to help with the flow. Equally as many sentences can be combined into one. This will help the article meet the requirements of being a very-well written article.
Can you give a few examples? Right now it's hard to know which sentences you think should be combined or stay together or which ones you think should be split. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Subsections with further information pages could be shortened, others can be expanded. Someone coming to read about John Adams probably doesn't want 7 paragraphs on his election when they can just click on the separate article for it. Furthermore, they may want more than 3 paragraphs of info on his later years, after the presidency.
The section on the election of 1796 has four paragraphs. The section on the election of 1800 (one of the most turbulent presidential elections in history) has five paragraphs. Furthermore, there are a total of 11 paragraphs discussing Adams' post-presidency, including his correspondence with Jefferson, political commentary, family life, etc. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: While it was a very highly contested election, not everyone wanting to read about Adams will want to see that. They may only want to see a brief summary, or only the info that he was directly involved in. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, I'm checking this review page every couple of hours so you don't have to ping me. And you certainly don't have to do so four times. Anyway, to the point, biographies have to include a certain amount of context and background or else nothing will make sense. Insisting that everything not relating directly to Adams be taken out would be in extremely poor judgment. All FA biographies have context and background information. They have to. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I notice that some sections are out of order. Last years and death should probably come before Legacy. This is just an opinion, and if people disagree, that's fine.
It does come before Legacy. You may have glanced at the article several times but it's clear from this comment and the one before it that you didn't look too closely. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: I meant as in the section directly after should be where it is located. I'm busy now so I'll reply to your other replies later, but I do think that Legacy should come directly after later years and death. That would look much more organized. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The Legacy section is meant to sum up how the individual has been viewed after they died. Therefore, it would make sense to discuss that only after discussing all of the things they did and said before they died. It's done that way in literally every biography I've seen. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
People said that this was a premature nomination but I think it can be saved. After the changes are made and they slow down to just a few dozen or so a week (at most), then would be a good time for a close.
I'm glad you think that the article can pass, but this is now the third time you've advanced the idea that frequent changes in themselves are enough to derail a nomination. I've refuted it twice. You haven't bothered to defend it. You just keep repeating it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: I only reiterated it once I saw that not many changes were being made anymore. If changes are still being made, that is usually a good sign (from what I understand) that the article is still undergoing edits before becoming a featured article. A successful candidate for FA does not have many changes being made (as it was about a week ago), but it's slowed down – because of that, I am arguing for the article being passed. Few editors seem to be requesting and/or making more changes as of now. I don't think I made that clear before. Even though it's not a requirement for FA, that's a consensus I've seen that many may agree with. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
You reiterated it twice. Frequent edits are generally only a problem if there's an edit war. This is never an issue that I've seen come up at FA nominations and I don't see why you're so worry about it. FA nominations aren't determined based on how many editors request or make changes but whether the changes that are recommended are made and whether there is consensus for the nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is good (that's why it's a good article), but I don't think it's great (hence, why it isn't featured).
Last thing: While this is on the "readable" size guidelines at 99kb, that's still a bit much when so much content can be merged to separate articles that already exist. Anything that isn't crucial info should likely be moved.
I've made a little more progress today. It's down to 98 kB. I've gotten rid of so much content already since the last time this was nominated that future cuts will be difficult. But I'll try. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: And I think, to make it shorter, anything that doesn't directly relate to him that can also be moved to an existing article could be done. As I stated before, the election section is quite long. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I addressed your concern about material not directly relating to Adams above. The article is now down to 97 kB. There are fewer than 16,000 words. I'm tired of shortening just for the sake of shortening and I don't think it's necessary any more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks–looks much better now. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more specific details about what you want to see fixed. This is a step up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Humphrey Ploughjogger’s initial seven essays could use a brief description of the topic raised, as well as the reason for the use of the pen name. Hoppyh (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I briefly expanded on their discussion in the article. They're discussed in two places: one for 1763, when they first started, and again after 1765, when Adams started them up again to oppose the Stamp Act. We have a handful of sentences in there about them right now which I think is enough. Thanks for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed split of "Later years and death" (see Jefferson Davis for example) – Move the paragraph on death to a section directly before Legacy. Later years will remain where it is. This will help the timeline of the article and address one of my previous concerns. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Or, as an alternative, move the entirety of the Retirement section to directly before Legacy. Why should political writings come after retirement? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither of these suggestions work for me. For biographies of individuals who have done extensive writing on politics, philosophy, etc., it's common practice (and I think a good practice) to cover their chronological life first, which of course includes death, before discussing their theories. Analysis of writings interrupt the chronological flow of the articles and so it's good to save those from last. The chronological events in Adams' life should remain together. This is how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are written. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. I gave the Jefferson Davis article as an example because that is a Featured Article already, but nothing there applies here. I guess that makes me satisfied with the way it currently is. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict69, yes, I'd consider the Davis article more of an anomaly. I looked at other FAs on US Presidents (Jackson-written by me-, Polk, Johnson, and Grant) and they all do it the same way as this article. I'm glad to know you're satisfied with everything. That said, do you still consider your support "weak" or is it stronger now? If any other concerns come up please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Definitely stronger. Seems that almost all problems have been taken care of (I don't see any more, nor does anyone else, because none have really come up). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Adams was a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress, and became a principal in the decision for independence." I might say "leader" for "principal"
I added leader after principle. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " As a diplomat in Europe, he helped negotiate the peace treaty with Great Britain and acquired vital governmental loans." I might say "secured" rather than "acquired".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams' early education included incidences of truancy, a dislike for his master, and a desire to become a farmer." Should "incidences" be "incidents"?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Deacon Adams hired a new school master" I would render the end "schoolmaster" or perhaps better, "teacher".
Substituted "schoolmaster." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "as his contemporaries largely spectated or joined the war for money. " I would avoid "spectated" and would simplify "as many of his contemporaries joined the war to earn money" (if the source supports this). It's not necessary to state the converse. The reader gets that not everyone went to war.
Removed "spectated." The source says that many people signed up for large cash or land bounties, so I kept the part about money. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " recognizing that he was the first of his family to "[degenerate] from the virtues of the house so far as not to have been an officer in the militia."[13]" maybe the first word "regretting" instead of what you have.
I have to differ here. While Adams does seem a bit troubled by the fact that he never served in the military, he did not, to my knowledge, ever state that he would do things over again if he could, which is sort of what's implied by the word "regret." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and was soon admitted to the Massachusetts bar," Was there such a thing at that time, or was he admitted to practice by his local court that would be accepted by other courts? If the latter, I would strike "Massachusetts".
Removed "Massachusetts." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Susanna died after about a year,[24] " I think better to say "Susanna died at about age 1"
Replaced by saying that she died at one year old. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion of the Stamp Act and trial by jury seems very muddled. First you mention that Adams favored trial by jury, but you haven't mentioned the provisions of the Stamp Act that are relevant. Then you come back with a fuller exposition somewhat later.
I moved it up to the opening section. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams, among the more conservative of the Founders," this conclusion is interesting given we are discussing the 1770s and Adams was not considered conservative on independence. I think there might be ambiguity between conservative in outlook and conservative in politics. I might throw "in viewpoint" or some such after "conservative".
Added "had been" to indicate past tense. Basically, Adams refused to get involved in mob violence and street protests in the 1760s despite being pressured by Sam Adams. He preferred to articulate his objections in newspapers and through petitions. I added more information to make this more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "His ideas began to change around 1772, as the British Crown assumed payment of the salaries of Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson and his judges instead of the Massachusetts legislature.[45]" I would cut one of the Massachusettses and clarify why this concerned Adams.
Done. More detail added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Two consecutive subsections, those dealing with the Boston Massacre and Tea Perty, tell of Adams moving his family/office etc. I cannot tell if these periods overlap or not behind such words as "later". Consider consolidation.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1774 came the Intolerable Acts, which singled out Massachusetts for punishment for previous insurrection and attempted to ensure colonial obedience. Additional customs revenue from these acts were used by the Crown to pay colonial government wages." I think the passive voice unnecessary in the first sentence. Start with something like "In response to the Tea Party and other unrest, Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts ..." In the second, was there actually additional customs revenue? Also watch the POV, this is starting to sound like my super-patriotic seventh grade history textbook.
Passive voice removed. The revenue issue seems to have been conflated with the question over salaries This paragraph has been removed. I think the recent changes may have reduced some POV, but if you find any evidence of that remaining please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "to proclaim their objections." I don't like "proclaim" much. Maybe "to explain their objections in a pamphlet (or whatever it was)"
Replaced with "articulate." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1775, in response to a set of essays" For reasons of length and the subject of this paragraph's relative obscurity, I would consider either omitting or cutting back this paragraph.
The paragraph has been deleted. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Wehwalt, do you think you'd be able to continue with the review? I'm sorry about some of the errors that were in this section. For some reason, I didn't make as many changes to the pre-Revolutionary War parts of this article as I did to the rest of it. I think that once we reach discussions of Adams's service in the Second Continental Congress, as a diplomat, and as president, things will look a lot more like FA quality. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Objections to British Parliamentary authority" this seems wordy and the reader may be unsure what the contents are from the title. How about "Becoming a rebel" or "Becoming a revolutionary"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams agreed to attend,[49] despite an emotional plea from his friend Jonathan Sewall to do otherwise." The last three words are unneeded or can be condensed to "not to"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • At the First Continental Congress, was Adams placed on the lead committee, that charged with drafting a statement of colonial rights, or some other committee, and why? Did he form alliances with other delegates?
The article already mentions the committees he was on, including the Committee of Five, which drafted the declaration. As for alliances, Smith and McCullough say little on the matter aside from what is already discussed. Initially, I imagine the answer was no. As the article states, in the early days of the Second Congress, few people outside New England truly wanted independence, and Adams was the most radical of all the Massachusetts delegates. He eventually had to do so when it came time to declare independence, something the article makes clear. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about the First Continental Congress, which had a more limited purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I missed "First." More information added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although the Massachusetts delegation was largely passive, Adams felt strongly that the conservatives of 1774 (such as Joseph Galloway and James Duane) were no different than loyalists like Hutchinson and Peter Oliver, and he denigrated them, although his views at the time did align with those of conservative John Dickinson." This sentence really needs to get down to cases. It's probably true but may not illuminate the reader much.
I've made it a little more specific-basically stating that they believed that the Americans should remain loyal to the British or continue to compromise and conciliate as much as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to know Adams' reaction to Lexington and Concord. In fact, talk of Adams' views at this stage should probably precede the discussion of his tactics at the Second Continental Congress.
Agreed. I added a brief discussion of his views on Lexington and Concord. I think his views on other matters are made clear as the events are discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent with the capitalization of Loyalists and its link is not on first use. Also inconsistent on "Colonists".
I think I've fixed this. The former should be capital and the latter shouldn't be. Loyalists is now linked on first use. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "then-assembled " no need for the hyphen.
Yeah, sorry I didn't catch that. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He drafted the preamble to the Lee resolution of colleague Richard Henry Lee that spring, which called on the colonies to adopt new independent governments.[65] On June 7, 1776, Adams seconded the resolution, which stated, "These colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states."[66]" I would merge into one sentence by losing the description. The resolution speaks for itself.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Did Adams choose the Declaration Committee? Our article doesn't say that.
First sentence of the second paragraph under "Independence:" "Prior to independence being declared, Adams organized a Committee of Five charged with drafting a Declaration of Independence." Added "and selected" after organized. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of these long paragraphs could be split.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "debate was held in Congress as to whether to approve the declaration." Maybe "the resolution was debated in Congress".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ""Benjamin Harrison V" I might cut the V.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Who offered Adams the position as commissioner? The Congress? What were the motivations involved in the offer and acceptance?
More information added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "imposed order and methods needed by his" I might substitute "managed"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "but wrote infrequently to Abigail, only about once every ten days.[95]" I don't see why this is infrequently, when the letters would take weeks to months to reach their destination.
Ferling describes it as such, but I doubt all would agree, and I see what you mean. Changed accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Dutch, fearing British retaliation, refused to meet Adams; after discovering of secret aid the Dutch had already sent to the Americans, the British authorized reprisals against their ships, which only increased their apprehension" "Discovering of" could be improved, but in general this sentence seems out of order and a bit disjointed. After all, these events had already happened before the refusal to meet Adams.
I tweaked it a little bit. Please take a look. I think it's placement is correct because it provides the appropriate background and context for why the Dutch were hesitant to listen to Adams. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Was Adams an ambassador or a minister? And was the government to which he was credentialed in Amsterdam or The Hague?
Originally he was neither, something I made note of. He stayed at Amsterdam but the government was at the Hague, something I made more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you will see things like "Adams was ambassador" in sources, but they may be using it loosely (anachronistically). I was researching a later US diplomat a while back, and I think technically the United States sent no ambassadors before the late-1800s (they were all headed by 'ministers plenipotentiary'). See also, Diplomatic rank which is not a great article but generally, it is what I found. Basically, republics did not send "ambassadors" only monarchies did, at the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The article says that he was named minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain during the war. The sources explicitly use that language, but for his later diplomatic assignments they don't, and simply use the word "ambassador" or something similar. If Adams represented his country in a formal diplomatic capacity, the sources say ambassador, and no better word can be proposed, I think it's best to leave things the way they are. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "in effort to seek recognition from Russia," probably should be an "an" before "effort".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "News of the American triumph at Yorktown convulsed Europe. In January 1781, after recovering, Adams arrived at The Hague to demand that the States General of the Netherlands answer his petitions." Should the date mentioned be 1782?
Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You seem very reticent about who is ordering Adams about, from the United States. You generally use the passive voice. Some mention of who's doing this might be in order.
At first he had no official status, and even after that most things that he did were at his own initiative. But overall, can you be a little more specific by pointing out the exact areas which you think ought to be revised? I'm not sure how to respond to this right now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams insisted that not only should American fishermen be allowed to travel as close to shore as desired, but that they should be allowed to cure their ships on the shores off Newfoundland.[107] " Should "ships" be "fish"? And "off" might be "of".
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams mentioned to the British that his proposed fishing terms were more generous than those offered by French in 1778," "French" should either be "France" or preceded by "the".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Following the treaty, Adams was an architect of extensive trade relations between the United States and Prussia.[111]" I don't see the point in one sentence on this. If it is significant, say more, if it is not, say nothing. As it is, "an architect of extensive trade relations" seems a bit vague.
McCullough and Ferling don't address this. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The account of Adams becoming VP comes in rather in the middle. Was he a candidate?
Yes, I should have done better here. I added some background information so that the reader has more context for how he got elected. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "As vice president, Adams largely sided with the Federalist Party." Can we really say there was a Federalist Party until quite late in Adams' VP ship?
After with, added "the Washington administration and the emerging." that should take care of it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams played a minor role in the politics as vice president. He attended few cabinet meetings, and the President sought his counsel infrequently.[126] " I would cut "the" before politics. As for the cabinet, there was no expectation that Adams attend, and wasn't for VPs until the 1950s. I'm concerned it makes him look slothful by modern standards.
First part done. As for the second, there was originally no expectation that he wouldn't attend either. It was up to Adams to set the precedent for how influential the VP would be within the confines of the Constitution. There are a number of reasons that historians propose for this, but the end result ended up being not very. As the article alludes to, some people think that the reason Adams had so little influence with Washington was related to the latter's displeasure over the former's handling of the issue over titles. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "John Adams predicted in a letter to Abigail that passage would deeply divide the nation.[146]" I might say "ratification" rather than "passage".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "As president, Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[170]" I might move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "In Europe, Britain and France were at war as a result of the French Revolution. " That's a somewhat sweeping statement that I'm pretty sure historians dispute over.
The statement has to be brief in order to avoid getting into unnecessary detail. As for the second part of your statement, that's not true so far as I'm aware. Many European powers around France were disturbed by the Revolution. They either wanted to restore King Louis or take advantage of the chaos to augment their own power. France anticipated this and declared war. None of that would have happened if not for the Revolution. All that information can be found in the lead section of the French Revolutionary Wars article, and I didn't think it was all that controversial. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "the political and anti-religious radicalism of the French Revolution," of the revolution itself or of later aspects such as the Reign of Terror?
The revolution technically continued until the overthrow of the Directory in 1799. The Reign of Terror is therefore simply a stage in the revolution itself. Also, the sentence refers to the Federalists' perception of the Revolution, not the Revolution itself. Hamilton and a few others were already skeptical of it before the Reign of Terror. In 1789, Adams himself wrote, "The French Revolution will, I hope, produce effects in favor of liberty, equity, and humanity as extensive as this whole globe and as lasting as all time." (McCullough, 416) This is certainly an expression of optimism, but it isn't a rousing endorsement, suggesting he was already a little worried. He also worried that the single French legislature would produce "great and lasting calamities." (Ibid) Not long after he wrote letters to Richard Price and Sam Adams expressing concern and apprehension. Basically, leading Federalists such as Adams foresaw problems with the Revolution based on the manner in which it was conducted just about from the start. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Most Americans were still pro-French due to France's assistance during the Revolution, the perceived humiliation of the Jay Treaty, and their desire to support a republic against the British monarchy, and would not tolerate war with France.[174]" I might cut the "still".
There were plenty of reasons for them to have changed their support: The Reign of Terror, the behavior of Genet, peace and commercial alliance with Britain, the violation of American shipping rights, etc. This just emphasizes that despite all that, American support for France remained strong by the time Adams became president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, sorry for the minor delay. I got caught up in my academics. All of your comments so far have been addressed. Thank you for your time and patience. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for yours as I've been quite slow. I hope to get back to this tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[171]" I have no idea what the second part of the sentence means. And wasn't Adams needed in the capital? It might be explained.
He just grew tired of being in the capital and felt like he could easily conduct most business from Peacefield. The second part is meant to indicate that he ignored job petitioners who even in this age could annoy political leaders. I adjusted this. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hamilton had grown accustomed to being heavily consulted by Washington." I might say "closely" for "heavily".
Substituted "regularly." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "In an attempt to quell the uprising," perhaps outcry for uprising
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You are not consistent on the hyphenization of Quasi War
I noticed one usage without a hyphen and added one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the back and forth regarding whether Washington would head the army could not be summarized more briefly?
Unfortunately I don't think so. It's rather complicated and I'm afraid of losing important details. The article has been considerably shortened by this point so I'm not worried about length. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • More dates in the Quasi War section might be useful. Also, Washington's advanced age seems to be 66.
I added dates for the Murray nomination and Adams' return to Trenton. I tried to find a source for the exact date of the infamous Hamilton meeting but neither Smith, Ferling, McCullough, or Chernow mention it. Chernow says that the location of the meeting is not known with certainty, and I suspect the same to be true of the date, although we do know that it happened between October 10 and October 15. I don't think that Washington's age is necessary to state specifically because anyone unsure and interested in finding out can easily look at his biography. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the nomination of Patrick Henry, our article on him says he declined the nomination. As written, the Adams article can be seen as saying Henry sailed for France as one of the commissioners in late 1799 (he died in June 1799). I might play around with that.
Thank you for catching this. Yes, Henry did decline the nomination by reasons of health. Adams replaced him with William Richardson Davie. I have modified the article accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On May 5, Adams' frustrations with the Hamilton wing of the party exploded " 1799?
1800. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "which, with Washington now dead," Washington lived just over a month after the Coup of 18 Brumaire. Suggest this be cast in terms of word arriving of the coup.
News of the coup did not appear to reach the U.S. until the spring of 1800, by which time Washington was already dead, and the army was not disbanded until the summer. Added "News of this event" in order to account for the time gap. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the Convention of 1800," "By", not "At", as the convention is not a meeting but a treaty.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would pipe to the appropriate article on treaty reservations, a term you use, by the way, twice in four words. I'd rephrase a bit.
I couldn't find a link to the reservations so I don't think they have their own article. I did rephrase this content. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think names of acts, such as that for the seamen, should be in title case.
I thought about that, but the title of the article for that act isn't in title case, so wouldn't it just be best to leave it as it is? Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity (no action needed), do the biographers think Adams spread rumors in the 1800 election that Jefferson had died and so people might as well vote for Adams?
I saw that on a Drunk History episode. It may very well be true that people working for Adams, though probably not Adams specifically, did so, but I haven't encountered any mention of it in my readings. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Secretary of State John Marshall.[250] Marshall, " Marshall/Marshall
Replaced second instance with "He." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Adams signed his commission on January 31 and the Senate approved it immediately.[251]" The commission, to my knowledge, only comes once the Senate has confirmed (excepting a recess appointment which this does not seem to be).
The source (McCullough) uses this language, so I have decided against changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Done with presidency.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your continued work on the review. I've gotten up until here and should have everything completed within the next couple of days. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "The work had numerous gaps and was eventually abandoned and left unedited.[254] " I might cut the last three words. If it was abandoned, it follows it wasn't edited.
By that I mean that he never attempted to go over the parts that were written, so they don't flow very well. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "His frugal lifestyle left him with a considerable fortune by 1801." Four years of the presidential salary ($25K, I think?) had something to do with it? I see no harm in mentioning it if so.\
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "John Quincy resolved the crisis by purchasing from him his properties in Weymouth and Quincy, including Peacefield, for the sum of $12,800.[255] " I might omit "purchasing from him" instead "buying", and omit ", the sum of".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "angry at not receiving an appointment," maybe "angry at not being appointed to office"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, Lafayette visited Adams twice during the visit, though the second was in 1825.
I believe you are mistaken. I checked four biographies-Morse, Smith, Ferling, and McCulloch. Morse and Ferling don't mention a meeting between Adams and Lafayette occurring at any time at all around this period. Smith and McCullough both describe the 1824 meeting in considerable detail but make absolutely no mention of an 1825 meeting. I can therefore only assume based off of that alone it did not take place. Also, our biography of Lafayette only mentions one meeting with Adams, and says that he spent 1825 touring the southern and western United States. So a meeting in Massachusetts wouldn't really make sense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Thoughts on Government was referenced as an authority in every state-constitution writing hall." I gather what is meant, but it is phrased obscurely.
Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "After returning from his first mission to France," a year, here, would be helpful.
Added Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "that would provide free schooling for three years to all citizens.[290]" I assume this applied only to children?
Added that it was for the children of all citizens. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In the religion section, I'm puzzled by your present v. past tense rationales. The sources mentioned that are dated are present tense, but Holmes is in past tense even though more recent than any of the dated sources.
Changed to present tense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "He criticizes him for his "pettiness...jealousy, and vanity,"" I think an ellipsis should have spaces
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In the final paragraph of Legacy, you introduce the McCullough biography but you refer to him in the previous paragraph. I might adjust this.
I don't see a problem here. The first quote isn't taken from the McCullough biography. It's from an interview. Its purpose is to show how Americans through the centuries have viewed Adams, and how he often did not occupy the same place of high honor as other Founders. That's especially true of before the McCullough biography and the miniseries adaptation, both of which have made him far more popular. Because of the post-McCullough shift I think it's appropriate to include the McCullough quote where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've responded to all of your comments thus far. Your review was very thorough and helpful. It's always nice to hear from people who know the content and can make good suggestions. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The prose is a little stodgy at times, but it's passable. Everything else seems to be in order and squares with what I know of the subject. Note: due to pressure of time and the length of the article, I've only spot-reread.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Wehwalt. If you had time I'd appreciate knowing where you think the prose can be improved. If not, no worries and I'll do my best to fix it, hopefully with the help of some other reviewers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As you know, I have no objections to polite critiques of my writing style. :) Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium[edit]

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is small yet hopefully interesting spin-off from its mother article, aluminium. I've made my best to make it a decent read so I hope you'll find it good, too!--R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

To what extent do "history of ..." articles normally define the thing they're historicising? We seem to jump in at the start without (for a grade-school reader, for example) giving a short, orienting definition ... perhaps shorter than in the Aluminium article, but something more like it—at least that it's an element, with abbrev. Al, and now a major blah blah. What you think?

I wasn't thinking at all about context since this article was started as a spin-off from aluminium, but now that you've brought that up, I'll try to add up a para to lead during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe we need "greatly", maybe not. "whose work" is more than just the "discovery", is it?
    I'd say we do need that "greatly", Woehler did really lots of early work and that partially was why everyone was so keen to keep him as the discoverer in the 19th century. "Whose work" is indeed just discovery; but what do I do?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    To greatly extend. It's not smoothly idiomatic. What is wrong with "whose work was extended"? Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well, since you insist, I'll rely on your judgment. It's not like I can make a good case for "greatly extended," anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pure aluminium metal was difficult to refine and thus rare."—"rare" we'd normally ascribe to the raw material, wouldn't we? But here it's causally connected with the refined product.
    Good point. Changed to "uncommon."
  • Probably comma after "process". Jointly developed, or independently? The second "developed" might be possible as "devised" ... unsure.
    It seems to me we'd do fine without that comma though if you disagree, I'll modestly recognize your authority over myself on that. Independently; added that. I don't see the need to differentiate these two, so since you're unsure, I'm, too, inclined to keep it as it currently is.
  • Remove "day".
    Okay.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These methods ... these methods.
    I've changed the former to "these processes."
  • Is it a because since or a ever-since since?
    In this particular sentence, it's an ever-since since, but both would be correct, actually. Why?
    Because your text should avoid double meanings, even if both are correct. It's unclear to the readers. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've reworded the sentence to avoid that "since."--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 57.5 million?
    I'd rather not. I want this long number from 2015 (57,500,000) to serve as an antipode to the short number from 1900 (6,800), so that the difference strikes the reader.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "... and as astringents for dressing wounds; alum was also used in medicine, ...". Is dressing wounds medical?
    You're right.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "a fire-resistant coating for wood (which protected fortresses from enemy arson attempts),"—simpler as "a fire-resistant coating for wood to protect fortresses from enemy arson,"
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium metal was unknown to them." Remove last two words as contextually redundant?
    Well spotted.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in order to. Please: to.
    But it does say, "in order to"?
    What do you mean? Remove the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Some sources suggest a possibility that this metal was aluminium;[b] this claim has been disputed.[5]"—"Some sources suggest that this metal was aluminium[b], a claim that has been disputed.[5]"
    I'll blindly follow but could you explain to me (this is a genuine question) why this is an improvement as it requires more words?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Grammar is smoother and simpler, and it's about the same number of words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that the Chinese were able to produce aluminium-containing alloys" -> "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys" ... glad I zapped that first "possibility".
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem. Tony (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS You're a native-speaker of Russian? Then your English is mighty good. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find someone whose English would be better than mine to get this done.
P.S. Thanks for the compliment!--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Would be good for the nominator to hang around in the days after launching it. Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: John and I have made some improvements; please would you take a look? I've mostly been busy lately so the changes didn't occur as fast as they should have but nonetheless, here we are. Most of the changes have been made by myself, so someone definitely needs to check the result, but I still think the text flow actually has gotten better. If you say it is good enough now, great! If you tell me otherwise, I will invest more time into getting some help with prose quality.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  • "who had the discoverer killed so that the metal would not diminish the value of"—kill one word. And please put that word in the finder box and check that all 56 of them are necessary (in the subsequent sentence, you've got two of them closetogether ... so ... "Some sources suggest that this metal could be aluminium,[b] but this has been disputed."). Get John to check your diff of excisions. Unfortunately there are a lot of "demonstrated that" and "determined that", which is hard to get around. It's not easy to get the hang of this, but try to remove a third of them. Always check for ambiguity if removing.
    I've tried my best and I'm waiting for John's response.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not usual to use "source(s)" so often, explicitly. Usually making a proposition at the right certainty level and inserting a ref tag is enough. Perhaps once or twice explicitly mention "source(s)", but ... ration it.
    I agree we should avoid mentioning sources explicitly but I genuinely don't understand, do we do that once?--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Beginning"—why not simpler: "start"? It's English. Simple and plain are elegant.
    Why not.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "another half a century"—remove one word.
    Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1728, French chemist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire claimed"—is the clause really long enough to require a comma there?
    I can't claim I know the right way but I've seen lots of texts in English and the comma appears natural to me. I suspect it may be a BrE vs. AmE thing as I have seen British texts omit this comma more often and I try to write in AmE so that makes another reason for me to want this comma to stay.
    Also, here's what I found online: "Use a comma after phrases or clauses of more than three words that begin a sentence (unless it is the subject of the sentence). If the phrase has fewer than three words, the comma is optional." This does allow for the comma as well.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Clunky: "and attempted to reduce it to its metal with no success". Can you relocate and change the grammar of "success"?
    I feel like this is a test that I'm about to fail :( I wrote "attempted to reduce it to its metal, but with no success"; I hope this is any better.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Awkward: "His methods were not reported but he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time." Smoother to reverse? "he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time, though his methods were not documented/published ... do not survive"? Reported is a bit vague ...
    Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a metal which" -> that, where there's no comma before. Or avoid that urchin: "a metal with an affinity ..."/
    I used the latter.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures; they found small metallic particles, which they believed to be the sought-after metal, but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash." Better:

    "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures. They found small metallic particles they believed were the sought-after metal; but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash."

  • "He then tried to heat alumina with potassium; potassium oxide was formed, but he was unable to find the sought-after metal." He tried to heat or he did heat? The stove wouldn't work? "He then heated alumina with potassium, forming potassium oxide, but was unable to find the sought-after metal." Sometimes "produce" could be used instead of your "find". The next, similar sentence needs similar editing.
    Good comment re "tried to heat." Changed the wordings in those two sentences.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a one-sentence paragraph.
    I'm not particularly hot about it, either, but I don't see what can be done about it. The article goes chronologically, and this one-sentence experiment falls between the series of Davy's experiments (which are numerous and make a paragraph of its own) and Oersted's discovery (which also makes a paragraph of its own).--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • he he he. "Berzelius attempted to isolate the metal in 1825; he carefully washed by carefully washing the potassium analog of the base salt in cryolite in a crucible. Prior to the experiment he had correctly identified the formula of this salt prior to the experiment as K3AlF6. He found no metal, but his ..."
    Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • More he he: "He continued his research and in 1845, he was able ..." -> "He continued his research, and in 1845 was able ..."
    Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm tired. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and have accordingly little to add, beyond the fact that I think it a fine article.

  • Footnote C should mention that the Al-Cu alloys are alluded to in Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), wikilinking Joseph Needham.
    I don't like the idea of including a cite for the sake of including a cite; the rest of the text does not explicitly mention any specific sources and I'd like to keep it that way. I would, however, gladly use the book as a reference to back some fact from it, but what could I back? Here's the book itself.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment about "for the sake of". The footnote uses another ref already. Needham's opinion is highly relevant as both a sinologist and a chemist, and probably the most respected of all sources on such matters. If that isn't sufficient for you, then consider that the question of what alloys and chemistry the Chinese actually had is a matter for scholarly debate; and that editors must not rely on their personal knowledge or opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
My question as of now, is the following: which exact claim could we support with this book? I am absolutely not opposed to the idea of backing some statement with this book, just to make that clear. My point is that as of right now, the statements that we make are a little more bold than those contained in the book: for instance, the book claims that aluminium alloys could have been made in "medieval" China, whereas the article claims this could have been the case even earlier, in China of the first Jin dynasty (265--420). I don't see the reason to call the existing source unworthy and thus the stronger claim not supported, but maybe you do? Then the note briefly describes how that idea is possible and I'd be glad to reference the book on that but unfortunately, it doesn't describe how that could be possible. It doesn't seem that there is something in the book that we don't have yet in the article but that we could add to reference the book on that (please feel free to prove me wrong here; maybe I did miss something?)
I have prepared a citation in advance in case we do find a claim to back with the book: Needham, Joseph (1974). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 2: Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Magisteries of Gold and Immortality. Cambridge University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-521-08571-7.--R8R (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing like that at all. All that needs to be said is that Needham took an interest in the matter and suggested the Al-Cu alloys as the explanation. Needham is himself a major figure and his historically stated opinion is itself of interest. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Finally I came up with something that adds to the content we already have. Please take a look.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I somewhat concur with Tony that a brief bit of context on the metal would be useful.
    Just as I told Tony, I'll try to get a para on that this weekend--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) or maybe even tomorrow if I'm lucky.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    John has added a paragraph and I've touched it as well; please see what came out.
    Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, "The nature of alum remained unknown." is rather a bald lead in to 'Establishing the nature of alum'. Perhaps add something like 'until the nineteenth century'.
    Well, the story follows the chronological order and I kind of hoped that would be apparent to a reader. "Until the 19th century" wouldn't be correct; I've mentioned the chronologically consistent time mark of the beginning of the Renaissance. I think this should be fine as the next sentence already tells us about how this nature of alum was slowly revealed by later scientists.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I still think we should have a few words about the time period intended in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I tried to start the section with "Around 1500"; does it do the trick or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Much better, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, too, the lead sentence in 'Rare metal' says simply "the metal remained rare; its cost exceeded that of gold." Again, some description of the period of time (i.e. not just a single date, but a range) during which this remained true would be helpful. I know it's defined in more detail below, but the lead sentence needs to give at least a valid clue to the content. Something like 'for much of the nineteenth century' would do, or you might prefer to name some dates.
    I see what you're pointing at but I can only tell this: a kilogram of gold cost about $665 in 1852 [26] while a kilogram of aluminum cost $1,200 that year [27] (I doubt either is a Wiki-reliable source, by the way). So to be fair to the reader, we can tell him that this was true before Deville's method was implemented (which is correct), and then in the next sentence, we say this method was announced in 1854. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)#
    It sounds just the sort of thing needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest we should add the discovery date to the caption under the image of Wöhler, though given the earlier date of Ørsted's claim, we should either have an image of Ørsted with his date, or a mention of Ørsted's possibly-prior claim in the Wöhler caption. Personally I'd think an image of Ørsted would be more appropriate: the section is easily long enough for a second image.
    I agree; done.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Recycling is said to be "extensive" but no figures for recycling tonnage or percentage (of total Al scrap, or compared to new Al production: both might be helpful) are given. We might go further and use a recent image of Aluminium recycling (e.g. File:DillingenAluminiumSchrott.jpg), or indeed create a subsection for 'Recycling'. Currently recycling is covered in parts of both paragraphs of 'Mass usage', which is not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is a very worthy comment. I'll try to look into this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I've expanded on the history of aluminium recycling in both sections relating to the 20th century. As for figures of secondary aluminum vs. primary aluminum, as far as I know, figures for secondary aluminium are only available for the United States (from 1913) and China (from 1950) rather than the whole world. I've referenced the United States data once; I don't want to reference more, though, so that the article does not appear too U.S.-centric.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    Msny thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    I've briefly included your picture of aluminum scrap instead of the can picture (there is not enough room to just add a picture without removing one) but then I looked at the article and it didn't seem right that we had two scrap-related pictures in a row. After replacing the can picture with the scrap picture, I expanded a little on recycling in the 1970s and beyond and it turned out that cans were actually important for recycling, so I hope that the re-added can picture still sort of counts in a way as scrap-related :) --R8R (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Tovarna_glinice_in_aluminija_Kidričevo_-_kupi_aluminija_1968.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    From what I get from the file description, the picture was published in Yugoslav/Slovene newspaper Večer on March 21, 1968.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hans_Christian_Ørsted_daguerreotype.jpg needs a US PD tag
    Done.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg: what is the copyright status of the coin itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't get this one. This is not a work of art which you may be not allowed to make copies of; it is a coin, that is, money. How can it have a copyright status?--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    It is a coin, but it's not just a blank piece of metal - it has a design that is potentially copyrightable. See commons:Commons:Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    I see; thank you for the link, the read was very enlightening. Germany's coins are not usually copyright-free; however, I suspect this is the case with our picture as the coin's emission ended in 1922. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany tells us that the copyright term in Germany is the author's lifespan + 70 years; but I cannot figure what rules do you apply when there is no particular author to attribute the design to?--R8R (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    If there is no identified engraver for this particular coin, then it would be either PD-EU-no author disclosure or Template:PD-GermanGov - I'm not sure whether coins fall under the latter. And then with a 1920 date the pre-1923 tag would cover the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you for your help! I've updated the licenses.--R8R (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp[edit]

I'll review this soon... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the first paragraph of the lede seems to be more about aluminium itself than about its history. While some understanding of what aluminium is and the scale of its production is of course necessary to comprehend its history, I think it would be better if we made the links of these properties to aluminium's history explicit rather than just seguing into it in the second paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section was added during this very FAC after two editors had suggested giving some general context and the beginning of the lead section was the most logical place to add the context to. I have no strong opinion on whether we should have this paragraph at all; perhaps leaning against it if anything, but since other editors disagree, I'll comply to them as I have no strong objections. I absolutely agree that it is better to link properties to various moments of history to explain why this and that even happened for this element and I tried to do so throughout the text; this is perhaps most easily seen in the sections on the 20th century as more properties became important and led to mass usage of the metal.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the link is shown throughout the text, but I think it would be better to make it a bit clearer in the lede, even if it's just to mention that there was a link without explaining it yet. This is of course a small matter indeed and the rest of the article looks fine so far; I'll try to give it a good read through ASAP... Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, that's a good idea. I wanted to come up with something simple to take away; please see how I did.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: That does look a lot better! I'm really sorry for taking this long to get back to it; I was rather busy in October and wanted to wait till I could read the whole thing at once. I've given the main body of the article a full read now; it is very comprehensive, although I think that it sometimes feels too much like a timeline written in prose with all the sentences beginning "In [some year]". Maybe a bit of variation would improve this? As it stands of course we have already improved on a bare timeline by reordering some things to better fit the logical trains of thought. This is just a minor suggestion, so I'll give my support first. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about me waiting for you; I'm glad you found the time to read the article. Thank you very much for your support!
In many ways, history of aluminium is indeed a timeline, because it was essentially "a chemist did this" and "another chemist did that" and those happened at certain moments; we can only discuss continuous processes from the moment aluminum was first produced industrially and realistically only from the launch of the Hall-Heroult process in 1886, after which the text indeed changes from its timeline-like structure. So it does seem useful to keep a uniform style of showing when similar singular events happened. However, if I'm missing something and you do see a way how the text could be improved that I don't, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Векочел[edit]

It looks like a good coverage of the history of aluminium. Векочел (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin - Support[edit]

Albeit, I do not have all that much experience reviewing featured article candidates on Wikipedia, I have done many similar reviews in the past, so I'll do my best to give my take on the candidate. I have read through the criteria for FAC, and now all I need to do is analyze what's there at History of aluminium.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now read through the article. For starters, you did take out most of the kinks in the article, for I do agree with most of the previous reviews and the changes they suggested. However, there are a few problems that still jump out to me after a basic read-through. I will add more to this list when I thoroughly go back through here. One read isn't enough for a review, but here are the things that I would constantly notice even if I were to read the article again.

@R8R: Sorry for not checking back in for a couple days. I'll now review your changes.
  • "Aluminium compound alum has been known since the 5th century BCE and was extensively used by ancients for dyeing and city defense; the former usage grew more important in medieval Europe." "Extensively used"? I personally would prefer if the wordage was "Used extensively". As far as I can research, the popular option for adverbs describing "used" is to place the adverb after, but I'm no grammatical expert myself. I could be wrong. And also, could you elaborate on "grew more important"? How did it?
    As for "used extensively": both seem fine to me. I checked online and according to a dictionary, "extensively used" is fine and used in the actual language (they provide this example sentence: "This instrument was for some years extensively used in the United States, until superseded by G.").
    As for "grew more important": thanks for noticing this, I'll elaborate on this soon.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I tried a different sentence; what do you think of it?--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, the issues were cleaned up here. I don't have problems with the rewording. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon." I believe I know what you mean, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what "uncommon" really means in this context.
    I'd like to use a simple addition like "uncommon in actual usage," which I used. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Adding "in actual usage" is a big improvement, which is all I needed. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium became much more available to the general public with the Hall–Héroult process independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886 and the Bayer process developed by Austrian chemist Carl Joseph Bayer in 1889." If two people developed the Hall–Héroult, then it wasn't independent, simply put.
    Sorry, I didn't understand this one. The point is, both Heroult and Hall (two people who didn't know each other and weren't related in any other way) came up with the same principles that could be applied to aluminum production and both actually tested them at the same time, unaware of the other co-inventor's work. It is a mere coincidence that two different people in two different countries came up with this. There is no real priority between these two (after reading the book I most heavily relied on while writing this article, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, I got the impression that Heroult was the more innovative one, but then I've seen a few times Americans in the Internet claiming Hall was the more innovative one, and they, too, had their valid points), so the process is named after both.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah... sorry about that. This is one of many of my comments where I was unsure what you meant by "independently". See my later comment. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Introduction of these methods to mass production of aluminium led to the extensive use of the metal in industry and everyday lives." This is the correct instance of "extensive use", and should be left as is. Could you clarify what other industries that aluminium is utilized in, for "everyday lives" is very much subjective.
    I will think about what exactly should be added here; in the meantime, I restored a sentence on this.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've altered it a bit further; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Adding the examples was a great help here. The lead looks pretty good so far! I wouldn't recommend anymore changes on that front. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1813, American chemist Benjamin Silliman repeated Hare's experiment and obtained small granules of the sought-after metal, which almost immediately burned." I do not believe that this sentence elicits its own paragraph; I suggest a merger of this with the paragraph talking about Hare's experiment, suggesting that Hare's experiment would later be repeated by Silliman along with Silliman's results.
    Tony above made a similar comment but I really don't see what's wrong with this given the chronological order the events are listed in. I think that the chronological order is important and should be preserved as long as possible. It is only slightly corrupted in the last two sections which deal with overlapping continuous processes rather than single events.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Okay fair, I can agree with you here. I have had a self-evaluation on the importance of chronology in wikipedia articles (such as my very much underwhelming conclusion of a GAR for Origin and use of the term metalloid), and decided that keeping small paragraph featuring different time stamps is actually important for the article's overall readability and the reader's understanding. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; by the time of the next fair in 1878, aluminium had become a symbol of the future." Saying that "aluminium had become the symbol for the future" is subjective and also not factually valid (even though it may hold true to a certain extent, but that's not the point).
    I agree, it is indeed overly vague and subjective, thanks for noticing this. I'll work on it.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've checked the source and it turned out I didn't paraphrase it accurately. I have corrected the sentence; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; at the next fair in 1878, aluminium was considered the most important technological and scientific breakthrough. Considered by whom? Consideration is still subjective unless we are aware of the source of the considering. Even "considered by many" is slightly better, however then we wouldn't know who the "many" are. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for making me look into this; I would've probably not even given it a thought if it wasn't for you. The source I used didn't go into detail about this; they actually said something like "it was considered the top achievement, period." I grew suspicious and tried to google this; it doesn't appear that aluminum was so amazing (makes sense, it wasn't the metal first public appearance and it was still rare). I have found two possibly good sources but not only are they in French but also not available online and thus out of my reach. I doubt I'd find anything astonishing, though, and thus removed any mention of the 1878 fair (and relocated the mention of the 1867 fair).--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854, independently by Deville and the German chemist Robert Wilhelm Bunsen." Did you mean to include "developed?" And once again, not truly independently. I'd pick a different adjective.
    I don't see the problem with prose here but I'd like to. I didn't mean to include "developed." Consider this sentence: "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds fine, doesn't it? The phrase in the article is essentially this after you have removed "independently," which doesn't affect the grammar used here.
    I don't see what's so bad about "independently." They were working on their own without sharing their work with each other, after all. However, I don't insist on this particular word but I can't come up with a good replacement. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Here we have another misinterpretation of the word "independently". I saw two names, so I figured it was wrong. After reading through your response to mine, I realized that I was wrong on my judgement of the word. See my comment below (I'll let you know which one).
    However, you asked me to consider "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds good. Why then is there a comma after "1854"? The comma is what made me think you meant to include "developed". If the sentence read "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 independently by Deville," I wouldn't have a problem. Correct me if the new grammar is wrong, I'm no expert. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    I actually don't know, English punctuation never was my specialty. I have read rules on it several times but little has imprinted in my brain. So... can't tell. Let's leave out the comma for now but have it back if anyone shows a rule that supports it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first large-scale production method was independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886; it is now known as the Hall–Héroult process." All three instances of the word "independently" are all incorrect. Only use "independently" if the development was indeed by a sole person without any outside input from others.
    But what's wrong with it now? While they worked at the same time, both indeed did so without any outside input.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    You're right, it was never wrong in the first place. I just misinterpreted. See comment below (directly below) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, Hall produced aluminium by the same process in his home at Oberlin, and successfully tested it at the smelter in Lockport." So what you are telling me is that Hall and Héroult produced aluminium by the SAME process at the SAME time? I personally would love to know more how the two came together to collaborate and create one singular "Hall–Héroult process", or how they happened to devise a method summary and perform the aluminium production simultaneously. Unless there was no input between the two and they truly created almost identical methods on their own, that they actually performed the process independently, and I was wrong the whole entire time about the "independent" debate. The creation of the Hall–Héroult process could use some more elaboration on the relationship between both Héroult's and Hall's processes and/or collaborations.
    Yes, exactly! They came up with the same process. However, they did not collaborate at all.
    Since it was unclear to you, I'd love to do something to make sure other readers won't make that mistake. I'll think about it; I'll also gladly listen to anything you have to say on this if there is anything.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Here is the "comment below". Yeah, I couldn't tell that they were doing this separately at first. Every time you said "independently", there were always two names. I'm unsure how to clarify this, but perhaps some insight on the creation of the Hall–Héroult process would be appreciate. On the page dedicated to it, there is no history section. This article could be a good place to include such information, being it is called "HISTORY of aluminium". You could also use "separately" to show that they were not collaborating, or "at the same time" to show the simultaneity of their synthesis. Each of those wordings, if used at all, should fit the instance that "independently" is used, and I'm not forcing you to even change the wordings in the first place. Maybe its only me who didn't understand. Regardless, its up to you. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't quite understand what kind of insight you want. Probably I could provide it, but what are you suggesting?
    "Separately" seems to carry the same meaning as "independently" but the latter word seems better suited for an encyclopedia, so I'd rather keep it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    By insight on the creation of the Hall-Héroult process, I was referring to when the process was named jointly after both of the developers. Because they were working separately, someone must have figured out that they both were completing the process at the same time (or else it would be called the "Hall process" or the "Héroult process". However, this info would be best linked to the actual article for the Hall Héroult process, so I don't have an issue about it. Sorry I didn't say anything at the start. I wish there was a definitive way to make it clearer for the "independently" debacle, but that's the best you and I can do, and that is perfectly fine. If you have better ideas, just let me know. I'm fine with what is there now that I understand it, but improves are never bad. That's all I've got; should have made it clear. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, people did eventually figure it out but apparently only after both Hall and Heroult got their patents because the patent office in France (Hall filed his patent a month earlier IIRC) did not find any mention of the process being patented in the United States; maybe even the news didn't spread that quickly at all and the French bureaucrats couldn't possibly find such information at the time. And they did not become market competitors in 1886 or 1888; it only occurred later that there was a point of transporting aluminum across the Atlantic Ocean because the market for aluminum was still small at that point.
    Nevertheless, I'm happy that there's nothing wrong with the article. I've got no ideas on improvement but it seems fine now. I'm surprised this puzzled you in the first place.--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prices for aluminium declined, and the metal had become widely used in jewelry, many everyday items, eyeglass frames, and optical instruments by the early 1890s." I personally would introduce the year before you describe the development of aluminium usage in said year. Even if you don't, the first four words constitute a fragment, and require that "the" be placed at the beginning, even if it isn't usually spoken as such. If "the" is added, the sentence still requires a sentence rearrangement, for it is unknown when the prices for aluminium declined. Finally, it is viable to include a general term in a list, such as "many everyday items" as it is currently written. However, if you are going to do so, make sure that the general term concludes the list rather than sits in the middle of it. One possible suggestion that combines all of my own is as follows, "By the early 1890s, the prices for aluminium declined as the metal became widely used in jewelry, eyeglass frames, optical instruments, and many everyday items." In my opinion, even that simple fix makes a huge difference.
    In my understanding, prices for aluminum fell first (after the production costs fell) and then, since it was cheaper and therefore things made of it were also cheaper, it became used in more and more applications. Also, yes, I don't know when exactly prices for aluminum fell: there is little statistical data from the 19th century. So I'd love to keep the "prices declined" part separate from rest of the sentence. I tried some rewording; please see if it's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, the wording is all good now! No problems there anymore. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Without these shipments, the efficiency of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." Over a half? Half of what? I believe I know what you mean, but simply stating "over a half" is not concise enough for an encyclopedia. Perhaps either a better worded clarification, or a hard quantity instead of "over a half".
    I have rephrased the sentence to "Without these shipments, the output of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." This seems clearer to me. Unfortunately, hard quantities are not available.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    I have checked ru.wiki and they say that the U.S. aluminum aid from Lend-Lease was equal to 106% of the Soviet Union's own production. However, they suggest a different absolute quantity of this aid (301 thousand metric tons vs. 328 as stated in this article), so I guess we can't rely on exact percentages since data differs by source. The current wording seems fine to me anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's fine. I'll give it a pass if there isn't any quantities available. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Production fell after the war but then rose again." Oh man, this sentence needs a whole lot of justification/clarification. Either that, or it can be deleted, since it doesn't truly add anything all too meaningful to the understandably of the section it is placed in. If it is kept, we will need to know when and by how much production fell, and why (perhaps due to the lack of previously warring countries' need for tanks and jets, and therefore lack of need for aluminium to build them). Moreover, we will also need to know when, how much, and why the production rose again at this alluded time and place.
    Hmm. This sentence comes exclusively from statistical data from United States Geological Survey (you can read the MS Excel document in the source if you want or look at the graph in the next section). I intended to make this section span over the period of time from immediately after the Hall--Heroult process was first used to 1950. (And the next section begins with an event in the 1950s.) I have no explanation supported by sources at the moment but the general idea seems obvious: production of aluminum was extremely intensified (the fact that a British minister pleaded to the nation to donate aluminum is very descriptive; I will easily believe that miners and workers at factories overworked: their country was at war; et cetera) and this intensification caused by the war could not last forever.
    Also, we don't go into such detail for other brief production anomalies, and there were other anomalies. For example, the cost of electricity has always been a factor and production even fell a few times when prices rose, even in the first half of the 20th century. But then prices fell back down and production rose again.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Once again, I guess you're right. I'll give the Excel a view. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the second half of the 20th century, the Space Race began. Earth's first artificial satellite, launched in 1957, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres, and almost all subsequent spacecraft have been made of aluminium." First off, the second sentence's grammar is off. Second and more importantly, explicitly stating that the Space Race began is completely unnecessary information. IMPLYING that it began resulting in the need of aluminium for satellites and spacecraft is COMPLETELY necessary information. If you really feel the need to let the reader know that the Space Race is in progress in that moment in history, which I personally would, simply say something along the lines of, "Earth's first artificial satellite, which launched in 1957 for the Space Race, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres. Since then, almost all subsequent spacecraft have been created using aluminium parts." I personally would also include "which launched in 1957 for the Space Race beginning earlier that year" to set a time frame and to link the launching of Sputnik 1 with the beginning of the Space Race. But that's just me and my grain of salt.
    You have a good point in saying that we don't need to announce the Space Race. I see no need to mention the Space Race at all as this is not an article on the Cold War; the fact that could matter is that the humanity is making a new achievement by entering the space, but the geopolitical squabble around it is irrelevant in this story about aluminum (and not geopolitics).--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    All good now. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe a see also page as well, linking to Aluminium and any other "history of (Element X) articles (such as History of fluorine)?
    I see little point in linking to aluminium as linked Aluminium is literally the first word in this article. A list of other History of X articles could work but I can only think of history of fluorine (to which I contributed during back when the text was in the main fluorine article) and, obviously, this one. I'll have this list of one, though.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    You're right about the aluminium, my bad. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's practically my list. Once these get finished, I'll be sure to reread the article to look for anything else I could find to help. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for taking your time. I hope you enjoyed the article overall.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    No problem, I'm at about a 97% 100% support! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age film directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by James Ivory, starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. It is based on André Aciman's novel of the same name. I have been working on the article since October 2017; it underwent a copy-edit in May 2018 and has passed for GA two months later. I believe that it is ready for FA now. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant), I have never seen “graduate student” with a hyphen before. I have always seen it spell out as two separate words. I am American though so that could be why.
It's already gone when I revised the article. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a comment/concern about this sentence (James Ivory was initially set to co-direct the film but became the screenwriter and co-producer.). It could read that Ivory was set to co-direct the film, and then he wrote the screenplay and became a co-producer only after he dropped out as a co-director. I would assume that his decision to not direct the film is not directly connection to his role as a screenwriter and a co-producer, which the current wording in the lead suggests.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (At the 90th Academy Awards it received four nominations), there should be a comma after “Academy Awards”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In response to a note from Elio, Oliver leaves a note on Elio's desk telling Elio to meet him at midnight.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “note”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be a personal preference, but in the “Cast” section, I would place the note (Credits are adapted from Fandango.[6]) before the cast listing.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the note, I am assuming that you want the Fandango wikilink to go somewhere else.
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Call Me by Your Name is the final installment in Guadagnino's thematic Desire trilogy), please use the director’s full name and wikilink him as it is the first time that you mention him in the body of the article.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The film is a departure from his previous work because he took a simple, "non-aggressive" approach; he said this is the calmest movie he has made), could you clarify what he meant by “non-aggressive” and “calmest” as it sounds rather vague?
Those are the words he refered to during interviews. I added another opinion in paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless. "Words are part of what's going on, but it's not necessarily what's going on underneath. I think this film celebrates the underneath", he said.) as it has an underlying assumption that all literary adaptations rely on words (or I am assuming in this sense dialogue). I would instead include a part on how Guadagnino removed dialogue during the adaptation of scenes from the book to the film. This may seem picky, but I do not think that such a bold assumption/claim (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless.) should be made.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (As someone who considers sex in film a representation of the characters' behavior and identity,[17] Guadagnino was not interested in including explicit sex scenes in the film, to keep the tone as planned, saying, "I wanted the audience to completely rely on the emotional travel of these people and feel first love... It was important to me to create this powerful universality, because the whole idea of the movie is that the other person makes you beautiful—enlightens you, elevates you".[18]), I would make the quote part into its own sentence as the flow reads awkwardly to me.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (and described it as “devine”;), I am assuming you mean “divine”?
Another silly mistake. Yup I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this quote ("the need to make this into a movie”) is really needed. I think you can paraphrase this.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (During negotiations, the production's budget was reduced from $12 million to $3.5 million.), is there any information on why the budget was reduced? It seems like a rather sizable decrease.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I was confused by this part (In 2016, Ivory stepped down from directing to avoid conflicts,) when I first read it. Conflicts with what? You explain it somewhat in the next sentence, but it should be clarified here.
I removed the conflicts part, since such content is explained in the next sentences. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading this sentence (Guadagnino dedicated the film to his friend Bill Paxton, who died in February 2017.), I was wondering if there was any information out there on why he dedicated this particular film to his friend?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought was a metaphor for "sexual impulses and energy", and that it was too explicit.) is awkwardly worded/constructed. The last part (and that it was too explicit) is not fully connected with the rest of the sentence. I understand that you want it to connect with the verb “thought”, but the way that the commas are placed, it really connects with the beginning of the sentence and does not make sense. I would revise this.
I fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (describing it as "a metamorphosis of some of the strongest ideas in the movie" and the key to illuminating the character's "overabundant sexual energy”.), the references should in sequential order. Check the rest of the article to make sure that the references are in the correct order as I see a few other instances of this.
I revised and fixed the other references. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (LaBeouf had read for the film in New York City but the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles”;), I would add a comma after “New York City”.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the relevance of this sentence (Chalamet has acted since he was a child and co-starred in Showtime's Homeland (2012).) for this article.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Chalamet, who can speak fluent French and had played piano for years, arrived in Italy five weeks early to learn Italian, piano, and guitar.). You say that he had played piano for years, and then he had to learn it again?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you mean by this sentence (Guadagnino did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s ... when it becomes period.”) or what the quote even means to be honest. So Guadagnino did not want this movie to look like a period piece? Is that what he means? I am confused by this.
I fixed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Elio's polo shirt and Fido Dido T-shirt came from her husband's closet) reads strangely as the “her” does not match the subject “Elio”. I revise this to avoid it.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The pre-production in Crema was fast;), could you clarify how it was “fast”?
The director vaguely mentioned it the interview. I removed it out of the paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Post-production with regular editor Fasano in June and July took only a month;[9] the fastest Guadagnino had edited.[66]). What do you mean by “regular editor”? Do you mean that he has frequently collaborated with Guadagnino? Also, you imply that Fasano edited the film, and then later say that Guadagnino did it, so I was a little confused here.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would move the Sufjan Stevens image to the right as he is look down and to the left, which makes it look like he is looking away from the article (which is normally discouraged).
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there is a separate section on a potential sequel, I would include a sentence or a bit on it in the lead.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I would imagine that this would be a difficult article to work on given the amount of coverage devoted to the film. I still have not seen this film, but I enjoyed reading about it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your helpful review! Good luck with your current FAC and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include publication locations and publishers
  • FN38: Graduate Center is not a work
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FNs 48 and 63 are to the same source but are formatted differently. Same with 199 and 200
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Awards Daily a high-quality reliable source? Badtaste? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed sources from Badtaste. As for AD I replaced with a link from Attitude. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • In the "Plot" section, we mention Hanukkah celebrations in the last paragraph but have not previously ascertained in the section that the family is Jewish. Perhaps that could be placed into the first sentence. Similarly, when referring to "a 24-year-old graduate student, Oliver," we make no mention of his American nationality. These are pertinent pieces of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
One reviewer asked me to remove them out of the Plot during the GA nomination :( Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Damian Vo: I would definitely recommend adding them back in! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Credits are adapted from Fandango.[4] " I would find a way of rewording this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He considers Call Me by Your Name" - who is the "He" in question; the last individual named was Jordan Hoffman but I believe that the text is actually referring to Luca Guadagnino. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ", to keep the tone as planned." - I'm not really sure what this wording is trying to convey. Could you possible reword this bit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "need to make it into a film, which later became the first feature film"; here we have the word "film" repeated in quick succession. How about "need for a cinematic adaptation, which later became the first feature film"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process; Guadagnino was making A Bigger Splash (2015)." - a little clunky, perhaps. How about something like "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied making A Bigger Splash (2015)."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aciman felt the place was not familiar with the town square he pictured in the novel"; again, I find this wording a little unclear. Perhaps something like "Aciman felt that the town square selected for filming differed from that he had pictured in his novel"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "played a queer character" - might "LGB" or "LGBT" be a more appropriate term here given the rather amorphous and contested nature of "queer"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Replaced. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "discussing about AIDS"; this should either be "discussing AIDS" or "talking about AIDS". Also, might it make more sense to refer to HIV/AIDS as opposed to just "AIDS"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He described the scene in which Elio conveys his feelings to Oliver as one of the story's most important moments that captures the "euphoric passion and nervousness" of their first love" - there needs to be some change around "moments that captures" to make this sentence flow properly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought it was too explicit". Bit clunky. Guadagnino wasn't removing a scene from the novel itself (as an editor might); he simply considered not using it in the film. Also, "thich he thought it was too explicit" should be "which he thought too explicit". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "cultivated his passion for Hammer and the movies he made afterwards" - I'd reword this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "she watched Friends with English subtitles" - perhaps just add "the American sitcom" before Friends, as not everyone will be immediately aware that a TV show is being discussed, as opposed to a film. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "she described the scene was filled with" - this needs correcting to either "she described the scene as being filled with" or something like that. The current composition does not work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "victims of battle of the Piave" - this should be "victims of the Battle of the Piave". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "In Korea, Sony Pictures released" - I doubt that we are talking about North Korea here, so best to specify "South Korea" rather than just "Korea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "commended the director for "broadens his embrace " - reword. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All in all, some excellent work has gone into this article and once these prose issues are addressed I would be very happy to support its promotion to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Happy to offer my support for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bilorv[edit]

Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "seductive courtship" – I'm not sure whether they're trying to seduce other people or each other at this point. Each other? But it doesn't look like either of them are deliberately trying to seduce the other. If it's a topic sentence, I don't think it's needed, and I think it would sound fine as "Elio and Oliver they swim together, go for long walks ..."
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "gay" movie seems like an inappropriate/Easter egg link. From the link, the term "New Queer Cinema" is used to "define and describe a movement in queer-themed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s". That's more than just "this is a contemporary film about queer people", and neither of the sources use the phrase "New Queer Cinema" (unless I missed something), so I think the link should be removed.
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied" – Took me a moment to parse. A comma between "process" and "for" might help.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Guadagnino was "talking about how he would do" the scenes with nudity involved" – I don't think the direct quote adds much. Maybe "Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity".
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The director did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise"." – Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?
The first two paragraphs are supposed to reflect the changes from Aciman's book. The last two are about Ivory's original script. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The production section needs to make clearer what languages the film is in. The infobox says English and Italian, so what exactly does that mean? The characters switch between English and Italian, or scenes in some locations are in Italian and others are in English?
Added in the Casting section (fifth paragraph). Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "His character, 17-year-old Elio, is fluent in three languages" – And these three languages are? Only French and Italian are mentioned in the rest of the sentence. Is English the other one?
Yes. Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Capriolo, who is not an actor" – I'd say being cast in a film makes you an actor. Maybe "was not an actor".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "even if it meant increasing a production's budget" – Should this not be "increasing the production budget"?
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "earned 29 million on-demand audio streams" – It's not really something "earned". Maybe "garnered" would be better.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "reportedly made due to the government's "consistent stance of intolerance toward gay content"" – Who is reporting this and where does the quote come from?
Added writer and publisher. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The website's critical consensus reads; "Call Me by Your Name" – Shouldn't the semi-colon be a comma or a colon?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hammer confirmed about the sequel" – Not sure if the "about" should be here, but this isn't official confirmation, right? So maybe just "Hammer said about the sequel".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A sequel to the film was announced in January 2018." – Either this is too matter-of-fact or the body isn't clear enough. I'd say "planned sequel" if it's not actually been optioned/announced by a production company.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Overall this is an absolutely outstanding article, thoroughly comprehensive and with brilliant prose and sourcing throughout (the minor details above being exceptions). It brings to life what sounds like an excellent movie, and is easily understandable even to someone with no familiarity with the subject. I'll be very happy to support once the points above have been addressed. By the way, the website parameters in the references are not consistently linked or not linked, and I don't think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are needed as External links since they're mentioned in the body, but I don't consider these relevant to the FA criteria. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Damian Vo, I'd like to move this review along, are you ready to respond to Bilorv comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like they already fixed the issues yesterday, just without commenting here. I've made one small edit, and one of my comments has been unaddressed, maybe for a good reason ("Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?"), but I'm now very happy to support.