Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2025

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2025 [1].

Roy Marshall

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the West Indian cricketer Roy Edwin Marshall, who played international cricket for the West Indies in a brief Test career in the early 1950s, but is probably better known for his 19-year association with Hampshire in English county cricket. An attacking opening batsman, he was a member of Hampshire's 1961 County Championship winning team and would captain Hampshire from 1966 to 1970. He made 504 first-class appearances for Hampshire and scored 30,303 runs, a total that only one other has surpassed. A very important figure in the history of Hampshire cricket. Curiously, he was appointed chairman at Somerset in the late 1980s (having moved to the county some years prior), following the fallout of the 'Somerset Revolution' which had seen the departure of Ian Botham and Viv Richards. I have worked extensively on this article over the last few months. It was at peer review for nearly 3 weeks, but had no comments, and I have posted on the Cricket Project page for feedback, and it has had some edits from project members. Hopefully it is now at FA level. Any feedback welcome. Cheers, AA (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Since the splendid Sarastro1 vanished into semi-retirement I can't think when I last enjoyed a cricket FAC as much as this. I have a few very minor quibbles, none of which affect my support:

  • "Whilst still qualifying to play for Hampshire in 1954, Marshall made four first-class appearances" – the meaning is unclear. I read this as meaning not "although he still qualified" but "while he was waiting to qualify", and if the latter is what you mean I suggest you say so.
    • Done. I have (hopefully!) made it a little clearer that he was awaiting his County Championship qualification and the matches he played in were 'friendlies'. Though, I remain a little unsure on my wording here! AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Come the end of the season" – as a Lancastrian I might well say "come the end of the season..." but it looks a touch colloquial for an encyclopedia article, and perhaps "by" rather than "come" might be more suitable.
  • "with a team led by the Duke of Norfolk" – this conjures up visions of His portly Grace, padded up, leading the team onto the field, at which the mind boggles. Perhaps "managed by", "directed by" or some such?
    • Done. Now that is some vision! I'm almost surprised he never played, many aristocrats of the day, portly and old, with limited cricketing talents did (much to the hindrance of their teams). I have substituted in "managed by". AA (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what Sandiford considered to be the most reliable opening partnership in county cricket" – in its day or of all time?
  • "the three first-class matches that comprised the tour" – in the King's English the tour comprised the three matches, rather than vice versa. Perhaps "constituted"?
  • "As a result, most of the Hampshire batsmen struggled, however, Marshall was the exception" – a stronger stop than a comma needed before "however".

I greatly enjoyed this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to record my support. I hope we shall see more cricket articles here from AssociateAffiliate. Tim riley talk 12:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim riley for your kind words and feedback :) I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and thank you for the support. I have a few more in the works, so watch this space! AA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well, kindly ping me when you go to PR or FAC with any more cricket articles. Tim riley talk 14:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few minor points from me:

  • "However, on debut": the 'however' doesn't add anything to the party here and could/should be expunged
  • Why the different approach in "North v South and The Rest versus Surrey"?
    • Done. I guess habit of referring to the North v South matches using their classic naming, whereas matches between The Rest and Surrey were not called "The Rest v Surrey". I was a little conflicted on how to amend that. "The Rest v Surrey" does't sound right, and sounds a little colloquial. So I have amended all to "North versus South" and "The Rest versus Surrey". AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gaining 26 batting bonus points": it may be worth adding in a footnote to explain both the concept of 'batting points' and the rules under which they would be gained
    • Done... ish? I have briefly explained the concept of "batting points", but I cannot find an exact reference for that explanation which is relevant to 1959 (as batting bonus points have changed throughout the decades, and today's system is very different to that of 1959). I have also explained the rules of bonus batting points in 1959, which is referenced. AA (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help! - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. Please find my responses/actions above. Cheers :) AA (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and been inactive for the better part of two weeks. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several additional in depth reviews and support over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Commenting after a request on my Talk page, and as someone without a particularly strong knowledge of cricket.

  • Lots of "Marshall"s in the opening paragraph -- in general, I would look to state his name on first mention in the paragraph, then go for "he" unless we shift grammatical subject. I notice that this seems to be the approach adopted from the second paragraph onwards.
  • 30,303 runs, a total for the county that is only surpassed by Phil Mead.: I would try to make the chronology clearer here -- to say that he ended up with Hampshire's second-highest total, behind Phil Mead, who played in the first third of the C20th (or however you want to do it).
    • Done. How's this read? For Hampshire, he made 504 first-class appearances and scored 30,303 runs, a total for the county that is only surpassed by Phil Mead, who played for Hampshire between 1905 and 1936.
  • chairman of the Somerset committee: Somerset Cricket Club? The link is otherwise a bit of an Easter egg: it sounds as if he had some sort of job in local government.
    • Done. Now reads "Somerset County Cricket Club", so he's now not potentially the chairman of the cricket club in Bermuda, or a local councillor! AA (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was able to partake in the First Division of the National Men's League: I guess that's the top tier of Barbardian domestic competition? It would be good to spell that out if so (cf. the First Division in English football, which wasn't always the highest level).
    • Done. I have expanded the sentence to reflect this... however, it is unreferenced. Finding a reference which states it is the highest level of club cricket on the island is going to be from a very niche source, or totally non-existent. I've had a thorough look for one in the usual places! AA (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: is there no "Bluffer's Guide to Barbardian Cricket", or any kind of cricket encyclopaedia, that sets out how domestic competition works in Barbados? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll post on the WP:CRIC talkpage and see if anyone has any books lying about! AA (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the following reference, might be a little vague! [2] AA (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's explicit enough: The more than century-old First division will now be called the Elite division ... "We have renamed our two top divisions. What was our First division is now the Elite division ... the winner of the First automatically goes up into the Elite division ... The Elite (division) should be the cream of the crop". UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted :D AA (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • His success as a batsman for Lodge: The Lodge?
  • He did not appear for Barbados again until 1949, playing in the interim for the elite Wanderers Club. Strong performances in club cricket led to his recall to the Barbadian team in 1949: can do without the repetition here.
  • In the second match, he made a second century (110 runs), which was also complemented by a half century: do we know how many he got in the second innings?
  • This earned him selection to the West Indian team for their tour of England in 1950, where he was chosen as a third opening batsman behind the Jamaican Allan Rae and the Trinidadian Jeff Stollmeyer; at 20 years of age, he was the youngest member of the sixteen-man squad: suggest a full stop after Stollmeyer, for rythym and readability.
  • did not feature in the 2nd Test. He returned to play in the 3rd Test at Adelaide, where a pulled muscle in his leg saw him bat with a runner for over 100 minutes. The injury subsequently kept him out of the 4th and 5th Tests: not convinced about the numerals/capitalisation on "2nd Test" etc -- is this how good sources do it?
    • Comment. It does seem the commonly done thing. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive both go down the numbers route, as do most newspapers and other sports media, i.e. Sky Sports. AA (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • against the touring Indians in January 1953: I would rephrase this: "the touring Indians" is a little informal and makes me think of a Native American version of the Harlem Globetrotters.
    Much better. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbados' only innings: MOS:' prefers Barbados's for this and similar.
  • Keith Sandiford opined that had he not decided to quit Test cricket at his peak: this is phrased like it's a contemporary judgement: Sandiford would have been 17 at the time, so I'm not sure we would have paid his opinion too much notice?

More to follow. Looking pretty good so far; these are, on the whole, pretty small nit-picks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marshall featured in four 'friendly' first-class matches.: I would lose the scare quotes here: "friendly" has a well-known meaning in sport (that it wasn't considered part of a proper competition), but readers who don't know that aren't going to be helped towards it by a vague bit of punctuation.
  • He played twice for the Commonwealth XI, with one match apiece for Hampshire and the South,: this sounds as if he played one match for the Commonwealth XI while playing for Hampshire, and the other while playing for the South. I don't think that's right?
    • Comment. Yes, this part really screwed with my head when writing it, and no matter which way I worded it, it still bothered me. How does it read now? I could must simply omit the matches, or shorten it to mention one of the four was for Hampshire against the touring Pakistanis? AA (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    New framing works well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marshall completed his qualification period ahead of the 1955 season, making him eligible to play in the 1955 County Championship.: what is/was a qualification period, and how do you complete one?
  • on what was described as a "responsive strip": is it known who gave it that description?
    • Comment. It would appear this is the later description of Sandiford in Roy Edwin Marshall: His Record Innings-by-Innings (2005). Quite knows where he got it from! On the same note, I wonder if I should link "strip" to Cricket pitch... then again, there are several uses of pitch before I could link. And I can't change "strip" as it is a direct quote... hmm! AA (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the 1956 season, Marshall toured Jamaica with a team managed by the Duke of Norfolk.: I might clarify that this was the made-up "Duke of Norfolk's XI", rather than a national or country team.
    I think that would be a very elegant way of doing it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • including 273 runs in the three first-class fixtures against Jamaica: on the same note -- were these strictly considered first-class matches?
  • He also played two innings' of note against Surrey: no apostrophe.
  • These scores were all the more remarkable, considering Hampshire were dismissed for 120 in their first innings and 153 in their second.: I think this section veers slightly onto the wrong side of sportswriting versus encyclopaedia writing: this clause in particular stands out. See also He also played two innings of note and He made a number of eye-catching performances: we don't express opinions in Wikipedia's voice, though we can faithfully report opinions expressed at the time.
    • Comment. I've had a shot at rewording this: "In the 1957 season, he made an attacking century (107 runs) made in 66 minutes against Nottinghamshire in June; this was the fastest century by a Hampshire batsman since 1927. Later in the season against Surrey, he contributed an attacking 56 runs in Hampshire's first innings and 110 runs, made in 111 minutes, in their second. These scores were made as Hampshire were dismissed for 120 in their first innings and 153 in their second." Is this veering toward more encyclopaedic? AA (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a tendency to give his wicket away when set: this is firmly in cricketer-ese, and might benefit from a translation.
    Better, but can we rephrase "give his wicket away" accurately and concisely? Not a crisis if not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I've rephrashed to read: ...a tendency to be dismissed when well established in his innings." AA (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably change that back: it gives the opposite impression (what we had suggested that he would start off well, then do something silly and get out; what we now have suggests that it was rare for him to get out without first scoring some runs). "Be dismissed" probably isn't any clearer, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It now reads "Sandiford noted that he was hampered throughout it by having a tendency to be give away his wicket when well established in his innings." Not sure of another way to word it "giving away his wicket" without it becoming too convoluted, i.e. "he had a tendency to give his wicket away through unforced errors when well established in his innings". Bit wordy? AA (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could do that: I think both approaches have their appeals and downsides. What we have works, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. My concern with the latter reword is it sorta strays in OR territory. I can assume he would be dismissed through an unforced error (i.e. trying to smack Jim Laker for 6 when there was no need!), but the source doesn't specifically state that as the reason. For all we know, a pigeon or two could have distracted him :D AA (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the season ending North versus South and The Rest versus Surrey fixtures.: hyphenate "season-ending", and the two match names ("North-versus-South").
  • He was an instrumental part of Hampshire's historic maiden County Championship title in 1961: cut historic; we've already said that it was their first (though I might be tempted to change maiden to say that in plain language; "maiden" is another bit of cricketer-ese that doesn't get that much use outside sport and ships).
  • He would tour South Africa: for simplicity, and because we use a simple past in the next clause, better as he toured.
  • he defied the potent bowling of Tom Cartwright and Albert Wright: again, I think we're getting a bit excited with the tone.
    More context added by noting the number of wickets the pair took in the match. AA (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was announced in October 1965 that Marshall would be succeeding the retiring Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie as Hampshire captain, thus becoming the first professional to hold the post: I don't know if there's space anywhere in the article, probably earlier, to outline the gentlemen/players distinction and so to give readers a sense of what's going on beneath this sentence?
    • Done. I have explained briefly the difference between Gentlemen and Players, and what criteria was required to represent either team: "He took part in the season ending Scarborough Festival, playing in the Gentlemen v Players match; as a paid professional he represented the Players, in contrast to unpaid amatuers who played for the Gentlemen. Later on, I have explained that Hampshire captains were traditionally amatuers, before the abolition of amatuerism in 1962: "Prior to his appointment, the captaincy had traditionally been held by a player with amatuer status. With the abolition of amatuer status by the MCC in 1962, the role of captain would be inherited by a professional.". How do they read? AA (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NB spelling: amateur. Blame the French. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • being raised on hard concrete and matting pitches at his father's plantation: MOS:IDIOM: he wasn't raised on them; he learned to play cricket on them.
    • Done. Have reworded to say "... a trait he put down to learning to play on hard concrete and matting pitches at his father's plantation." AA (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • later in his career, particularly when he began to become afflicted with arthritis: I'm surprised we're just learning about this now, not in the section on his career -- particularly as he dropped so starkly in form in his later years. When did this start to happen?
    • Comment. I did wonder where to put this myself. Sandiford specifically mentions that he became afflicted later in his career, though puts no definitive time on when. So was unsure exactly where it would have been prudent to insert that into the relevant section of his career, without it becoming OR. AA (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair one. I think we may have to stick with what we have. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • to occasionally bowl medium pace and leg break deliveries: hyphenate both compound modifiers.
  • Such was his ability as an off break bowler: hyphen.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such was his ability as an off-break bowler early in his career, that A. A. Thomson: no comma here in English.
  • He was considered by Sandiford to have been: neater and simpler as "Sandiford considered him"? This will need a minor tweak to the following clause.
  • which contrasted to the manner in which he batted: contrasted with
    • Done. Amended. 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • but also noted that his tactical knowledge and insights should have made him a better captain.: noted should be reworked into a verb that doesn't endorse the conclusion, per MOS:SAID, but this whole thing seems a bit convoluted, and it's hard for me to work out what Wisden are actually saying. What's the point here -- that he was pretty rubbish despite being a good tactician? Are they saying that he didn't use his tactical knowledge while captaining?
    • Comment. I think that is what they are alluding to; despite having the skills, he did not put them to use - largely down to his cautious and "negative" captaincy. I've had a go at rewording it as I think it is an important point: "Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but also commented how the tactical knowledge and insights that he possessed should have contributed towards him being a more successful captain." What are your thoughts?! AA (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What did Wisden actually say, here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisden says: "He had the tactical knowledge and insights that should have made him a slightly better captain". AA (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be tempted to express that as words to the effect that his overall performance as a captain did not live up to the high level of tactical knowledge and insight he showed, or that he was a mediocre/poor captain despite his tactical knowledge and insight. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a little reword, but tried not to stray toward what might be perceived as me offering an opinion: "Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but commented that despite the tactical knowledge and insights that he possessed, these did not translate into success during his captaincy". AA (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The grammar of this isn't quite right: I've had a chew on it and I think the easiest fix is just to stick a comma before despite, assuming that "these" is his keen cricket brain and strong opinions. If we mean that it's his knowledge and insights, we need to do a bigger rephrase -- perhaps "he possessed tactical knowledge and insights, but these..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had another reword! Wisden remarked how his "very keen cricket brain and strong opinions" added to the depth of his captaincy, but observed that despite possessing tactical knowledge and insights, these qualities did not ultimately lead to a successful tenure as captain. AA (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of runs-scored: no hyphen.
  • For Hampshire, his 30,303 first-class runs is a total only surpassed by Phil Mead's 48,892.: per MOS:LEAD, we should now give the dates here too.
    • Done. Reworded and dates no inserted to read: "For Hampshire, his 30,303 first-class runs are only surpassed by the 48,892 runs made by Phil Mead, who played for Hampshire between 1905 and 1936." AA (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampshire's Wisden Cricketers of the Year: italics on Wisden?
  • Note 88 (Hill) is local news, which wouldn't normally be a HQRS, and is cited with two others on the name, date and location of Marshall's pub: does it say anything that they don't? I think we can wear it for a trivial detail but should look to remove/upgrade if it adds no value.
  • ISBNs are formatted inconsistently: use {{subst:format ISBN|9780000000000}} to hyphenate, and give either 10 or 13 digits depending on what's printed on the book (generally, if published before 2007, that's 10, otherwise it's 13).
  • Press University of the West Indies is, I think, "University of the West Indies Press".
  • Any chance of some more images between the portrait and the pub -- cricket grounds where he played, notable players he played with, etc?
    • Comment. It would be nice! Relevant images and ones that don't stray into pictorial recentism seem few and far between. I had wanted to put a picture of The Lodge School and The Gabba (where he made his Test debut) in the first section, but no picture of his school exists. And there are no photos of the Gabba dating from when it looked very different in 1951 (putting a picture of the modern Gabba seems inappropriate). He formed a notable opening partnership with Jimmy Gray – however, no fair use images of Gray exist. Same with Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie, whom he succeeded as captain. A bit of a photographic black hole I'm afraid :( AA (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot on a first pass. In general, where you've replied above and I haven't, I don't think any further action is needed: I'll go through and make sure I've replied where that's not the case. It's a very well-written article and it looks as though you've done a good job of bringing out the story of someone who isn't particularly well documented or widely known. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers and many thanks for your review, appreciated. I've actioned some more of your comments (and one I forgot). Nice to have expanded an article on arguably one of the lesser-known figures of the game, but one who was an extremely important figure, particularly in county cricket and the history of Hampshire cricket. AA (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MS

[edit]
Lead

I've read through the Lead and Later life, death and legacy sections and will review the Cricket section later. MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Cricket
  • However, Sandiford noted that he was hampered throughout it by having a tendency to be give away his wicket when well established in his innings. A typo in this sentence. ("to be give away...")
  • “making him eligible to play in the 1955 County Championship” → just “making him eligible for the County Championship” (avoid repetition)
  • "Due to the qualification rules of the time, that dictated"→"Due to the qualification rules of the time, which required a player to be resident..." ('Which required' is standard non-restrictive relative clause usage in British English).
  • whilst against Warwickshire he defied the bowling of Tom Cartwright and Albert Wright who had taken bwtween them 15 wickets in the match A typo in this sentence.
  • Prior to his appointment, the captaincy had traditionally been held by a player with amatuer status. amatuer→amateur
  • With the abolition of amatuer status by the MCC in 1962 amatuer→amateur
  • Marshall wore thick glasses throughout the entirety of his career. Could the phrase "the entirety of" be dropped from this sentence?

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses! AA (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further suggestions. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Eddie - Pass

[edit]

Reliability

  • What makes bcacricket.org a high quality reliable source?
  • Same with www.utilitabowl.com?
  • cricketweb.net?
Also, might be better to use the publisher not the www. name in the citation for these three

Formatting

Otherwise, looks good to me on a first pass. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments :) Please find above my responses! AA (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm satisfied. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • " Barbadian cricketer who played in four Test matches for the West Indies and who had an extensive domestic career with Hampshire in English county cricket." Suggest deleting the second "who".
    • Done. Agree, the second "who" is unnecessary.
  • "for whom he played Test cricket between". Why the upper-case T?
    • Comment. "Test" is always capitalised. Wisden and any reputable publication will always use "Test" over "test". The ICC and MCC also term it as "Test". AA (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was selected to play for the West Indian representative team, for whom he played Test cricket". It may be correct, but "whom" when referring to an institution looks odd to me.
  • "he was selected to play for the West Indian representative team, for whom he played Test cricket". Is there a way of phrasing this without saying that he played cricket for the Windies twice in one sentence?
  • "After several strong performances for Barbados in West Indian domestic cricket, he was selected to play for the West Indian representative team, for whom he played Test cricket between November 1951 and February 1952, playing two matches apiece against Australia and New Zealand." Lastly, that's a heck of a sentence. Perhaps break it somewhere?
    • Done. I've reworded and broken the sentence up. How does this read: "After several strong performances for Barbados in West Indian domestic cricket, he was selected in the West Indian representative team. He played Test cricket between November 1951 and February 1952, making two appearances apiece against Australia and New Zealand."?
  • "he established himself as Jimmy Gray's opening partner." Could Jimmy Gray be introduced. (Or omitted.)
    • Comment. His partnership with Gray is probably too important a part of the narrative to be omitted from the lede. And would talking about Gray more go into too much detail and detract the focus away from Marshall? AA (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like 'he established himself as one of their opening batsman [should we be writing "batter"?], forming a partnership with Jimmy Gray' or similar. Which would keep the emphasis on Marshall and give at least some introduction to Gray. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have divided the wider sentence and rewritten the latter half along the lines of your suggestion: He would form a successful opening partnership with Jimmy Gray that spanned over a decade and was considered at the time the strongest in county cricket. I would stick with "batsman" as it is the commonly used term from the era in which he played. AA (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the role of captain would be inherited by a professional. He inherited a Hampshire side". Is it possible to avoid "inherited" twice in six words?
  • The phrase "he scored" is inevitably going to crop up a lot, but in "Captaincy and retirement" in a run of five sentences, three start "He scored". Any chance that at least one could be rephrased? Ideally to avoid consecutive sentences starting that way.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. Please find my responses above :) AA (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2025 [3].

Harry Crerar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Harry Crerar, Canada's most senior field commander in the Second World War, who commanded the First Canadian Army in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944–1945. I prepared this article as part of a series on the senior commanders in the campaign, but never got around to them all. Crerar is not a household name even in Canada, but Canada is in the news a lot lately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I removed the image from the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment -- I notice the Knight of Saint John isn't showing up in the post-noms in the first sentence, leaving an odd-looking double comma; obviously the post-nom template could be altered to include this but can we confirm that it is a recognised post-nom in Canada (since I don't think it is everywhere)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1990, the Order of St John is a recognised order in Canada, but the post-nominals are not used. [5] I believe that they were used in the past eg. [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

[edit]

As a disclaimer, Hawkeye approached me to ask if I could comment on this nomination via my talk page. I think that I'm an appropriately tough judge though ;) I have the following comments:

  • The Normandy section would benefit from being renamed as it has a much wider scope and being split into sub-sections
  • In this section, it's never made really clear why Montgomery didn't have confidence in Crerar. It would also be good to know what Crerar's views of Montgomery were.
  • Crerar maintained a policy after the war of not criticising his colleagues or subordinates. As far as Canadians are concerned, the important issue was Dieppe, and Crerar always defended Montgomery over this. The two men never became friends, but that was Montgomery; he remained friends with Brooke. Should this be added to the article? I gave an example of Montgomery's sensitivity in handling Canadian affairs in the instance of Keller. Normandy was a brutal affair and Montgomery relieved several British officers. Military historians generally agree with Montgomery's assessment of Simonds as Canada's best general.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the reputation section, do sources discuss whether Montgomery's concerns over Crerar were motivated by the anti-colonial bias that was rife among British officers and politicians (which included frequent efforts to prevent Commonwealth forces from being commanded by their own leaders throughout the war), or linked to Monty's dubious leadership in this period?
    I have a whole book on the subject of Montgomery's relationship with the Canadians. Montgomery was a British regular, but not a careerist. I cannot help think that what Maughan characterised as anti-colonial bias was shaped by Montgomery's experience with the Canadians rather than the other way around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for one of my comments to be actioned, but it looks like it has been now - I'm very happy to support this nomination. Thank you for the ping. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed

[edit]

Some comments:

  • In the lead, is it necessary to abbrev the DSO since it isn't mentioned again?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: he became General Officer Commanding the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division,. Should there be an "of" after Commanding?
    Don't think so, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, although designated the Canadian First Army, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops. How about "where he assumed command of the First Canadian Army which, despite its designation, contained a significant amount of British and Polish troops...". This does away with the repetition of "First Canadian Army".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years: Scottish born lawyer. Should be Scottish-born lawyer I think?
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years: The death of his father later on in 1912 prompted a career. Suggest "The death of his father later that year prompted a career" since 1912 mentioned in the previous sentence
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War: called up as units to form the artillery of the 1st Canadian Division. Is the "as units" necessary here?
    I think so; the point is that the Militia batteries became the CEF ones rather than the individuals forming new units. (Only one Australian battery did this, so I thought it was worth drawing attention to.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War: I think some of the details first para could be tightened up a little. For example, the mention of personnel numbers doesn't add much
    I thought most readers would be unfamiliar with the size of a battery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War: Although Crerar had survived the war intact. "Intact" seems an unusual way to describe it; how about "uninjured" or "without injury"?
    Changed to "unscathed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to the "Corps commander" section, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on with the review:

  • Corps commander: A much larger raid on Dieppe on 19 August involving over 6,000 Allied troops. There is an inconsistency in treatment of dates here, compared to elsewhere, in that the year is not listed.
    The usual practice is to add it for the first use in the paragraph or when the year changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corps commander: the extent of the casualty information for Dieppe seems excessive for this article
    I am not sure here. pinging @Nick-D: for another opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this could be further summarised. The key issue is that the Canadian force involved took heavy losses for no gains in a poorly planned operation. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have trimmed the text to say that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in Italy: King then pressed for a second Canadian division to be sent to Italy. I wonder if it is worthwhile reminding the readers who King is. Maybe "King, still prime minister, then pressed for a second Canadian division..."
    Added that he was the PM. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in Italy: he was succeeded by "Tommy" Burns. This looks to be the Colonel E. L. M. Burns mentioned earlier in this article, suggesting adding "Tommy" to the first mention
    That's him. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army commander: became operational in Normandy at noon on 23 July,.... Another instance of a missing year.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army commander: Vice-Marshal Leslie (Bingo) Brown'. Express the nickname in quotation marks rather than brackets for consistency with other nicknames?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army commander: Montgomery responded by moving the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division to Simonds's II Canadian Corps, so Canadian officers could take action.. I'm not understanding what is meant by "take action"? Do you mean deal with the Keller situation?
    Yes. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, pretty minor issues really so anticipate supporting. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that I support the promotion of this article to FA. Zawed (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "and, despite his many achievements, soon faded into relative obscurity until his death in 1965" he seemed to receive a fair number of honours and positions. It's difficult to reconcile this statement with the listing of same.
    Fair enough. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1899, he attended Upper Canada College, the premier boarding school in Canada located in Toronto." I would put a comma after the second "Canada" to avoid ambiguity.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then returned to Ottawa two days later, where he was met by a guard of honour at Union Station." I might rephrase to "then returned to Ottawa, arriving two days later, ..." as given the distance by train, he was probably in transit for almost a day.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you do not mention his place of death in sourced text, the reference to his dying in Ottawa in the infobox is unsourced.
    Added, with a reference to the CDB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. B.

[edit]

I'm flattered to be asked to review this article and I'm not sure I'm qualified to evaluate featured articles. Most of my work has been with often marginal articles that end up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I try to get those that are salvageable up to basic notability then move onto the next cripple. So it's nice to experience the opposite here.

I have two comments:

  • The infobox does not display Crerar's foreign awards; to see them, I have to click on "show" beside "Mentioned in despatches" to get the dropdown list. This is probably not obvious to the casual reader.
  • Has anybody actually checked all the references to ensure they actually support the article text?

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. To save you some work, I rescued Hume Peabody from PROD.
  2. I think I put the collapsible list in so the Infobox would not get too long. (Works on mobile too. I did not know that.)
  3. At FAC, each article gets a source review, which usually involves a perform a random spot check of the sources. This is really picky, but only a random sample is checked because Featured Articles usually have too many to ask a reviewer to check them all.
Thanks for this! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harley

[edit]
  • First World War. The Royal Air Force did not exist in 1917, so presumably Malcolm Crerar was killed whilst serving in the Royal Flying Corps?
    Yes. There was an error in the source. I have replaced it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War. Is the Dickson quote really necessary, as opposed to elements being incorporated into the narrative? And if necessary, maybe it should be introduced along the lines of "Crerar's biographer Paul Dickson wrote:" then incorporate more of Dickson, from "The personal cost of war was heavy" onwards.
    Removed quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between the wars" Perhaps some explanation (if possible) as to why Crerar had been the second choice for command of the RMC, yet still ended up with the job?
    Sources do not say. Decided to delete this clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War: Chief of the General Staff. Some dates are maybe needed to anchor the Hong Kong section - when Crerar met Grassett, when the troops were sent, also identifying the December as December 1941.
    Added dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War: Corps Commander. "In January 1943, Crerar was created a Companion of the Order of the Bath, the highest level of award permitted by Canadian government policy." Presumably this stems back to the Nickle Resolutions?
    Yes. Added a link. In Australia, hereditary titles were forbidden, but knighthoods remained on and off until 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observations: Some full names, e.g. Arthur Edward Grassett, which contrast with the way most names are rendered?
    I was just following the name of the article. Changed to "Arthur Grassett". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, a very interesting and balanced life of Crerar. —Simon Harley (Talk). 20:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support. —Simon Harley (Talk). 14:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

File:HDGCrerararrivingatcamp.jpg has pretty inconsistent information re Flickr links. File:The British Army in North-west Europe 1944-45 BU5861.jpg has a broken URL. Files are well-placed but seem to lack ALT text. British Pathe is apparently written with é but I wonder if it's being used as a source (as the citation format implies) Are there any reviews of "Failure in High Command: The Canadians and the Normandy Campaign"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2025 [11].

Eritha

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was an interesting and tricky one to put together. There are probably two real-life figures from the Aegean Bronze Age (with apologies to Agamemnon) that we can really write about as rounded human beings, and Eritha is one of them. She was a priestess, probably of the goddess Potnia, who worked near the Mycenaean citadel of Pylos in the last year before that palace was destroyed by fire. Quite by chance, the blaze preserved records of her name in the palatial administration's accounts, which also give us the oldest known testimony of a legal dispute on the European continent.

The direct evidence base for Eritha and her life is minuscule: this article therefore has to do a lot more "building up" than would normally be necessary in a biography, particularly around apparently simple questions like "when did she live?" and "what was her job?" I have tried to strike a balance here, aiming to avoid digressing while making sure that the essential context to understand what we do know about her life is given, following what the grown-up academics include when bringing her into their discussions. Similarly, I have tried to keep things comprehensible while not shying away from the arcane questions of philology that are unfortunately essential to any discussion of the dispute that brings her into the historical record. The article underwent a GA review by Iazyges in January, for which I am grateful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers

[edit]

Interesting topic! I didn't know she existed; I only know the creme de la creme and the firestarters, apparently I'll do some spot checks given UC's track record of successful nominations. I will spot-check 10% of the total references General questions

  • I can't see the method for which sources are linked vs which aren't – e.g., Deger-Jalkotzy (1988) has a Google Books link, as does Finlayson (2013), but there isn't one for Bennet (2013) or Benet & Shelmerdine (2008).

Spotchecks

  • Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]
  • Bennet (2001) is a bit dense so I struggled to find this. Got it, though! I think the article expresses a little more certainty than Bennet does ("implies"), but passes.
  • Linear B tablets were written on clay and retained for at most a year.[36]
  • Salgarella (2020) refers back to Bennet and uses more authoritative language, so that's a double pass
  • Those identified by name in the Pylian tablets, such as Eritha, constitute around 2% of the estimated population of the polity. Dimitri Nakassis has argued that they represent "a broad elite group" within it.[7]
  • Pass.
  • Eritha appears to have been the more important of the two.[10]
  • Pass
  • Priestesses are shown as having control over land, men, women and material goods, including textiles.[8]
  • Pass – I do wonder if it might be helpful to clarify, as the source does, that we aren't quite sure what ownership entails within the context of this society. It'd make for an interesting footnote?
  • I've tried to hedge it with "having control over": you're right that the concept of "property" may not be helpful here (and, confusingly, there are people in the social picture called "owners" who are a completely different thing). At the moment I'm not sure a footnote would clarify or add much. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Land designated as "communal" was leased to individuals by the damos, and conferred obligations on the leaseholder with respect to the damos.[11]
  • Pass.

Give me a ping when you respond. Engaging work, thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: thanks for the review. I've taken out the Google Books links, for consistency -- we now only have links where the full text appears online and is accessible by means other than the DOI, JSTOR or other named parameter. Happy to add any that I've missed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing. Ping me if a prose review is needed down the line. Thank you for the work — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ImaginesTigers, just checking whether this is a pass on a source review as well as on the spot check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Very straightforward pass on both Gog — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

images - pass

[edit]
  • img1: is it the case that the lede image only possible depicts Eritha?, license good, caption good, consider changing alt to Painting of a woman with skin rendered in white, holding up two bundles of grain
    • I don't want to go as far as "possibly of Eritha" -- although Mycenaean painting is remarkably standardised between sites and over time in its visual idiom, this one's from Mycenae rather than Pylos, and may not be quite contemporary with her. However, it's as close as we're going to get: I think it has encyclopaedic value in showing how a person like Eritha was depicted/visualised in her society, and the flipside of Mycenaean painting being so stylised is that we can say pretty confidently that a portrait of Eritha would look like that if one existed. Done on the alt. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • img2: license good, caption ok but consider linking polity, consider changing alt to: Photograph of Mycenaean ruins, showing the foundations of a wall
  • img3: awesome svg, license good, caption good, remove fullstop from alt
  • img4: where is that map in present day terms?, license good, i would like present day loc in caption if known, alt good but rmv fullstop

Borsoka

[edit]
  • By the time of Eritha's life... I would add the century.
    • I've gone for "at the end of the Bronze Age", since she was alive around the transition between the C13th and C12th, but we don't know how old she was and therefore how much of her life covered either one. These dates are all a bit fuzzy anyway! UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is believed to have been a religious centre near Pylos.... I would be more specific: "Archeological evidence and written sources indicate that...", or something similar.
    • Ha -- if only! Honestly, it's little more than well-established (and generally accepted) guesswork. The place seems to be important to the palace, and there's clearly some flow of people and goods between the two, so it would make sense for it to have been vaguely nearby. Similarly, there's a cemetery site not too far from Pylos at Volimidia, which has a lot of tombs despite not really seeming that impressive otherwise, so that gets hypothesised as a religious site because... tombs are kinda/maybe religious? We don't know anything about the links between Mycenaean religion and funerary habits, and the patterns as to where they put their tombs are complicated and pretty clearly involve lots of competing priorities. The best guess is that Sphagianes is Volimidia, but it's entirely a guess, and there's no real evidence behind it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., who may have been a mother goddess and was possibly the chief goddess of the Pylian pantheon. She was a mother goddess according to the relevant article.
    • The relevant article is a little overconfident, unfortunately. We know basically nothing about Potnia besides her name (which means something like "mistress") -- we have no images, no definite sites of her worship, no epithets... UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move note "b" after the comma following the text "centre near Pilos" in the same sentence.
  • ... "servants of the god"... Why not singular?
  • Only 5% of the land... Why not plural?
  • Most of the landholders there, including Eritha, are described with titles associated with religious cult, particularly forty-six people labelled as "servants of the god". ... Eritha is one of two women named as religious figures, along with another named Karpathia. ... Another woman at Sphagianes, by the name of Huamia, is listed on the tablet PY Ep 704 as a "servant of the god" Contradiction?
    • I wasn't counting "servants of the god" as religious figures -- they seem to be servants/slaves owned by the god/religious institution. There's probably a clearer way to phrase "religious figures" to mean "people like priests". Will think on it: any suggestions? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go with "holding religious office". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does not note "e" follow the citation (in contrast with all other notes)?
  • I would state that the meaning of the term "etōnion" is uncertain in the section when it is first mentioned.
  • ...happened late in the LH IIIB period, around the transition to LH IIIC, and... I would delete. Alternatively, explain the periods.
    • I ended up going for a footnote here. It's complicated, but we need to use the pottery dates, because that's the area of certainty: the absolute date is a lot less secure (because all absolute dates are dubious in the Aegean Bronze Age). UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...an etōnion may have been required to pay no or fewer taxes to the damos... To the damos (the ordinary people)?
    • Not a great definition, unfortunately: we did discuss what the damos was in the previous two paragraphs, so I don't think a gloss is helpful ("a body that probably represented or oversaw, somehow, at least some of the [other?] landholders"?) or particularly necessary.
Nakassis's point is that the tax Eritha owed (or didn't owe) might have been to the damos (so that damos are unhappy because they're getting less income); others think the obligation was to the palace, and possibly that the damos had to pay the difference if some of Eritha's land was tax exempt (so the damos are complaining either that Eritha is getting a free ride, or that they have to pay more tax because of her).UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...competing loci of religious, civic and royal power... I would avoid the use of the term "loci". Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (lead) ..., near the palatial centre of Pylos I would delete.
  • I would shorten the lead's second paragraph quite radically. Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here I appreciate that we all have different approaches, and my way of writing an article is likely to be different from what many wise, skilled and capable people would have done. However, I'm not sure I see the advantage here. The lead is currently (by a rough count on Word) 257 of the article's 2455 words (which doesn't count references, notes and biblio), which at ~10% seems well in line for lead length; MOS:LEADLENGTH has Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. The paragraph in question is 69 words and summarises just about all the biographical information we have for Eritha other than her legal dispute; it condenses the "Position in society" section, which is 676 words, so again the rough 10:1 ratio is holding steady. I can't really see that anything in there is trivial or irrelevant for a reader who won't read the body -- but, as ever, happy to discuss. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I think that's all replied to, though I'm afraid I've quibbled a couple. Open to discussion on those, particularly if I've misunderstood your point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Some preliminary comments, will review fully later. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some of the footnotes sourced with for example " See Judson 2020, pp. 12–20." instead of just regular citations?
    • In that case, it's because those pages of Judson are explaining this phenomenon in detail: you don't need all of them to get the basic point. I suppose the distinction is pretty minor; it could be a SFN? Ditto the Shelmerdine one on note g: Shelmerdine doesn't spend all these pages saying "the Aegean chronology is really complicated", but rather going into the ways in which it's complicated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the end of footnote f need a citation?
  • "The remains of the palace at Pylos" write the name instead of a general term with an WP:easter egg link?
    • I've tried to avoid it throughout, as the conventional name is the romantic "Palace of Nestor" -- but nobody called "Nestor" actually lived there, or, in all probability, ever existed. The name is modern rather than ancient -- it was Carl Blegen who came up with it in the 1930s. Calling it "the palace [at Pylos]" is unambiguous (there's only one) and, I think, a better option. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could the entire "the palace at Pylos" part be the pipelink then, as it seems more specific than just "the palace"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: I've done that. We don't yet have a generic article for Mycenaean palace, but I've redlinked that, as we really should. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be done in the image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present Dimitri Nakassis and other modern scholars by occupation for context?
    • Here I follow a wise FAC regular, and avoid giving occupational descriptions that amount to "this person is exactly the sort of expert you'd expect me to be citing". Disciplinary boundaries are fluid in Aegean prehistory -- most people here could equally be called archaeologist/prehistorian/philologist/Mycenologist/classicist at the very least, and it would be artificial and misleading to choose (for instance) whether to call Nakassis a linguist, a philologist, or an archaeologist. On the other hand, if someone's context is unusual or particularly important, it gets included. The same approach has been used at other FAs, such as Homeric Hymns and Brothers Poem.
  • is Karpathia worth a link?
    • I don't think so: we know nothing about her beyond her name, where she lived, and a tiny modicum of information about her property. We can only write an article about Eritha because so much ink has been spilled over her legal dispute. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eritha and Karpathia control the largest amount" Controlled?
    • I'm not sure about this one, honestly, as we're talking about people within a text, but I've gone for the past tense in the interests of taking the least pretentious option.
  • "argue that the presence of the dispute in the palatial archive indicates that "land tenure was ultimately under the control of the king's central authority"" this is the first time you mention a king, way down in the last section, and throughout I was wondering what kind of authority was actually ruling the palace. Could this somehow be established earlier, for example at "Mycenaean states, such as Pylos in the southwestern Peloponnese, were centred around monumental buildings, known in modern scholarship as palaces"? And do we even know who the king was at the time? For context.
    • Ah -- this one's complicated, and I must admit that I don't agree with Shelmerdine and Bennet that it's wise to talk about a "king" at Pylos (there's someone who goes by a title that means that in later Greek, and seems to be extremely important, but the exact contours of their authority and legitimacy are incredibly murky). I've added something a bit further up, when we talk about the nature of the Pylian state. As it happens, we probably do know the name of the individual in question, but at this point we've got such a daisy-chain of inferences and assumptions that I'd rather leave that whole thing aside for now -- any reading of S+B puts this as institutional authority rather than anything to do with the specific person who held the title (though again I'm really not convinced that this is a sensible distinction to draw!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me.

  • "were centred around monumental buildings" – there are those, of whom I am not one, who get frightfully exercised about "centre around" and insist it must be "centred on". I think they are rather silly (though logical) but I draw this view to your attention.
  • "around 2% of the estimated population" – I think the MoS prescription may have changed since I last tracked it down, but I think "two per cent" is much easier on the eye in the middle of prose. (The other version is fine in diagrams etc of course.)
  • "Guy Middleton has argued" – the image of the actor Guy Middleton, superb portrayer of cads and bounders, came instantly to mind when I read this. Better to introduce your Guy Middleton with a brief job label, I think.
    • See above one this one, though I acknowledge that there's arguments either way -- in this particular context, there are major cons to introducing Aegeanists by discipline (specifically, that they're all people of many hats, so narrowing it down to one is editorial at best and misleading at worst). I hope that few readers will assume that I've quoted an actor as an archaeological expert; the system employed here would give his trade as "the actor Guy Middleton" if we were calling on his opinion as someone outside the field. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indeed, this is one of few positions of power" – is the "indeed" a touch editorial?
  • "Only 5% of the land" – as above for the percentage.
  • "a legal dispute from Europe" – not sure about the preposition. Might not "in" be more accurate?
  • "the damos, whom he considers to have been "ordinary people" – unless "damos" is plural as well as singular (my Linear B is a bit rusty) we have a singular-v-plural clash here.
    • It's a collective noun: "the orchestra were all talented musicians"; "the Cabinet are unable to agree on anything". I think this is fine, but we could always do "which he considers to have been composed of...", which is only slightly more wordy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and at least partially independent of it" – a minor matter, but I prefer to keep "partially" to indicate bias, and use just "partly" when that suffices in such a context as this.
  • "Hittite codes and complilations of law" – not sure if this should be compilations or complications but it ain't right as it is.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support the promotion of this article. It strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria, and turns what could have been a rather dry subject into a lively and engaging piece. Widely sourced, with no one source being cited more than nine times. I think the map is superb, and the other illustrations are fine. I look forward to seeing the article on our front page. Tim riley talk 10:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
1995. I am more used to seeing WP:CITEHOW at FAC. Possibly because the name of a publisher is an uncertain indication of their location - as with Bennet, 2013. But that is only a guideline, so fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2025 [12].

Siege of Hennebont

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A brief siege of a small town typical of a hundred or a thousand others during the Hundred Years' War. It was notable at the time for the defence being led by a woman, her husband being a prisoner. She even donned armour and rode among the fighting men. The horror! The excitement! She didn't come to the unfortunate end of a later Joan, but she did spend the rest of her life imprisoned as insane. Mostly the article is about the to and fro of armies across Brittany with the occasional short, sharp clash of armed men. I wrote this recently, ran it through GAN, honed it a little and offer it up to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

images - pass

[edit]
  • img1: license good, caption probably not required? as stated in box title, alt good
The infobox images are frequently generic - eg Edward III's Breton campaign. As we are fortunate enough to have a near-contemporary image of the actual siege it seemed worth emphasising this. Tweaked anyway - is that better?
  • img2: map good, alt redirecting to caption is fine, consider changing caption to A map of Brittany with modern administrative boundaries, showing locations of interest or similar.
Any particular reason? It's shorter, but also seems to convey less information. (The current usage is also my standard formulation :-) which I have used in a couple of dozen FACs without attracting any comment.)
  • img3: license good, caption good, alt good
    • I assume Medieval capitalisation is preference?,
It is.

cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 09:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up Dracophyllum, and so swiftly! My responses are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I can support for images. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Well up to the usual Gog standard.

Thank you Tim. I try.

Just two points, neither of which affects my support.

  • I think, as our article on the lady is headed "Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort", you might offer a little more than a mere footnote to make this alternative way of labelling her clear to the reader from the outset. Perhaps something on the lines of "Joanna of Montfort (sometimes referred to as Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort)"? I note, in passing, that a quick rummage in the Internet Archive brings up just one "Joanna of Montfort" as opposed to dozens for "Joan of Montfort" but I do not press the point.
I am loath to bog down the opening sentence of the lead with this sort of background trivia. I could, slightly reluctantly, do as you suggest at first mention in the main article. 1. I would rather not. 2. How Wikipedia articles are titled is not my fault and sometimes entirely beyond the wit of man.
  • "... had been underway for five years, therefore Joanna despatched her senior ... counsellor" needs a stronger stop than the comma.
Done.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 10:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr riley, I appreciate both the support and the rapidity with which it was proffered. (No gerunds?) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on the delay ...

I would remove "p. title page" from the Sarpy reference as another part of Sarpy is also cited, but otherwise after reading through this I feel that I can support. I generally dislike to leave FAC reviews with minimal commentary, but it looks like the other FAC reviewers have already picked up on any issues. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Thanks Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...with her two-year-old son... Why not their? Was he from a previous marriage or an extramarital affair?
No one knows, they didn't have DNA tests at the time. Their works just as well for me, so changed.
  • ...to win the Montfortists back to France... To France or to his cause?
To France.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC) One of your usual articles of high-quality , so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MS

[edit]
Lead
I am not seeing this. Are you sure? Which paragraph?
    • I meant the first paragraph of the lead:

The siege of Hennebont took place between late May and late June 1342 when the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont, commanded by Joanna of Montfort.[note 1] The conflict was a part of the Breton Civil War, a dynastic dispute between two claimants to the Duchy of Brittany which had broken out the previous year. A complicating factor was the pre-existing Hundred Years' War between France and England. Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew;... "Charles of Blois" is linked twice to the article Charles, Duke of Brittany.

Got it. Thank you. Fixed.
  • "pulled into this fight" → "drawn into the fighting"
I will if you insist, but I like to try and avoid - where I can - even mild cliches.
  • "try and starve" → "attempt to starve"

The former is informal; "attempt to" suits formal historical writing.

Fair enough. Done.
Background
  • "all but independent rulers" → "Virtually independent rulers"
Why? What's wrong with the nice straight-forward monosyllables?
  • I will not insist upon it.

MSincccc (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a review MSincccc, I appreciate that. Responses above, some of them queries for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "reinforced the town from the sea" → "reinforced the town by sea" ("By sea" is the standard phrase in historical and military contexts.)
Done.
Siege
  • soubriquet → sobriquet (“Sobriquet” is the correct modern spelling; “soubriquet" is outdated and not listed in standard British dictionaries.)
Soubriquet is given as a standard word in the on line Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and as an alternative spelling in Collins on line and in Wiktionary. On a very quick skim I couldn't find a dictionary which gave it as archaic or non-standard.
Aftermath
  • "on 30 September at the battle of Morlaix" → "on 30 September at the Battle of Morlaix"

Capitalisation of "Battle" is standard in British English for named battles.

The HQ RSs don't capitalise it. In fact they rarely capitalise battle when referring to the name of any armed conflict. Nor does it seem to be the standard usage, see [13] and [14]. Going by what we would consider RSs, capitalisation would seem to be the error.
Interestingly, if you ask ngrams to generalise here (by cutting "Morlaix"), there's a very marked preference for "Battle of X" over "battle of X" (clearest when you look at "Battle of the" or the variations on much-referenced battles, which removes the idioms "battle of wits" etc). However, it does seem that both are used. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all from me for the prose. Responses to your queries above. MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]
  • Philip VI of France was supporting Charles of Blois, his nephew; while Edward III of England had promised military assistance to Joanna, the wife of the rival claimant, John of Montfort: I don't think we can have both while and the semicolon here: a semicolon can only divide two clauses that could otherwise be independent. I'd cut the while, personally.
"while" removed.
  • A truce between France and England was in place when the siege started but expired in June.: suggest but it expired to be (grammatically) clear that the siege didn't start-but-expire in June.
Done.
  • Would it be worth making Joanna of Montfort into Joanna of Flanders, to even more strongly avoid confusion with John of Montfort? On the other hand, as they're married, I can see the value in using the same epithet.
The sources are all over the place - some scholars simply duck the issue. Still, I would like to keep the current usage, which I think helps the reader in several ways: as you point out, it reinforces the John-Joanna relationship; and it would (IMO) be confusing to have Montfortists supporting Joanna of Flanders.
  • The Montfortists pursued: it might be worth explicitly saying that supporters of (John? Joanna?) were/are known as Montfortists.
Ah ha. No. I think a reader can work out which side Montfortists support in an armed conflict featuring a Joanna of Montfort and a John of Montfort.
Well, yes, but are they their volunteer supporters, their hired soldiers, the members of their apocalyptic religious cult...? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that adding that Montfortists were supporters of the Montforts would help a reader in this improbable dilemma. In context in seems clear enough

Charles's French army overran eastern Brittany and captured John of Montfort. Joanna took up the cause and concentrated her resources in Hennebont. In late May 1342 Charles moved on the town. On arrival part of his army advanced against orders and attacked some of the town's defenders who were formed up outside its gate. More troops were pulled into this fight before the French were pushed back in a disorderly retreat. The Montfortists pursued, inflicting many casualties and burning the French camp.

At the time the Hundred Years' War between France and England had been underway for five years; therefore Joanna despatched her senior counsellor, Amaury of Clisson, to Edward III in England with a large sum in cash to encourage English military intervention. The Montfortist cause was soon being supported by Edward III as an extension of the war with France.

I've had a flick through and I can't see any case where there's a plausible misreading or misunderstanding, so I'm happy with the approach taken here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Montfortists abandoned Hennebont and redeployed further west, hoping for English reinforcements: is it worth saying here whether they ever arrived?
Ho hum. I could, and I am not set against this. With this sort of article there is frequently no obvious place to stop adding subsequent events. I mean: I add that they did, which raises "And how did they get on?". Etc.
  • Brittany was a province of France -- a question -- how far does it make sense to talk about territorial states and provinces in this period, as opposed to which rulers/titles owed fealty to which other rulers and titles? Put another way, would it be more accurate to start this section at "The dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, but governed the duchy as all but independent rulers"?
It would be more accurate, but less helpful to a casual reader. One could write an entire paper on the nuances of the situation and how it arose, and still get responses pointing out all of the nuances one had missed. I have just reread Sumption and Wagner's summaries and I think "Brittany was a province of France. Although the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, they governed the duchy as all but independent rulers." is a decent paraphrase and as good a brief summary for a general audience as one might reasonably hope for. It is a wording which has been thrashed out at some length - with input from your good self.
  • I'm not sure we need the regnal dates for John III and Philip IV: knowing John's date of death is useful, but then we get told it immediately after. MOS:BIO generally disapproves of life dates without a compelling reason, and I think the same logic applies here.
Agreed. Some reviewers are enthusiasts for them and sometimes I add them out of prophylactic habit. Although, thinking on't, John's does add some usful information. Philip's removed, John's left for your further consideration.
Honestly, I don't see what it adds that we don't get from finding out that he died in the following sentence -- and it is a bit of a "spoiler", since he hasn't died yet. I suppose it's vaguely useful to give us a sense of how long he's been duke, but I'm not sure we care that much and the narrative doesn't make a point of his being e.g. old, young, experienced, inexperienced -- so we're inviting readers to form judgements without guiding or endorsing them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
  • What support John had came largely from the lower levels of society, especially in the towns.: this is a little ambiguous: do we mean that most of John's supporters were poor and urban (so nobody in the countryside liked him), or that this pattern was mostly apparent in the towns (so some rich rural folks liked him, but no rich urbanites did?)
I don't get your point. Do "largely" and "especially" not cover this?
No, they don't -- it's not clear exactly what is modified by "especially" ("what support John had" or "the lower levels of society". Could do "Especially in the towns, what support John had came mostly from the lower levels of society", or "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society, and primarily from the towns". UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Neither of those. I think I will stand by the existing wording. I don't see what "especially" can be referring to other than support coming from the lower levels of society.
Can you think of another way of phrasing it, then, at least so that I understand the intended meaning? I don't understand how what we currently have can be equivalent to neither of the options I suggested, though of course I can understand a disagreement over style or phrasing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the three sources and taking a reasonable stab at just what one of them means, how is "John's support came mostly from the lower levels of society in the countryside and the bourgeoisie in the towns."? Which loses a nuance, but what the heck.
That's very clear to me (though not what I would have taken away from the current wording): you could always bring back "what support John had" to keep the nuance in the current framing that John didn't have much of it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the nuance. It actually works a little better without it. Implemented.
  • Starting in early June 1341 John seized most of the fortified places in Brittany and by mid-August had all but made good his claim to the Duchy: lc duchy here.
Done.
  • The French King liked: lc king.
No. "They are capitalized ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". (MOS:JOBTITLE)
Right, but his title wasn't "the French King", so this is now a description. If it were "the King", we would capitalise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is.
  • The French King liked the idea of having a relative as the duke as it would bring: I think this could be reworked for clarity. Perhaps "Philip hoped to bring ... by having a relative as duke?"
Weell. I think it helps a reader to first give them what Philip wanted, and then explain why he wanted it; rather than t'other way round.
Perhaps, but the double use of "as", each with a slightly different meaning, makes the sentence stumble. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I have tweaked. "The French king liked the idea the new duke being related to him as it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province ..."
Works well; I've made a minor ce to what I assume was intended. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This army overran all of eastern Brittany: restate the antecedent (which army?); some readers will make use of the contents links, or section links from elsewhere, and may not have read the preceding section.
Done.
  • other lesser places also went over to the French: can we clarify lesser -- smaller? Less strategically important?
I am trying to combine smaller with and/or less well fortified but if "lesser" won't serve I think a longer description is getting non-summary. So i have gone with "and many other places"
  • Joanna travelled to England where she went insane and ceased taking part in the war; she was held in Tickhill Castle until she died in September 1374. It has been suggested that her confinement in Tickhill was political, rather than because of mental illness.: two things here. One, the first sentence gives the mental illness as a fact, whereas the second suggests that it may have been a pretext -- do those latter sources believe she did suffer from insanity, but that this wasn't the reason for her confinement? (I must admit to an inherent scepticism here, given the track record of people in the past on claims of "this awkward and gender-non-conforming woman is not mentally sound"). Second, there's a bit of a difference in register between the very modern, PC (in a good way) "mental illness" and the more dated and arguably insensitive (see here, citing the AP stylebook) "went insane".
My fault. Two sentences written at different times using different sources, and then being too close to proof read properly. Most sources briefly state as a fact that she went insane. Sarpy dedicates most of her book to arguing that this was a fix - much as you summarise. I find this convincing, but perhaps because it fits my biases. How about "Joanna travelled to England and took no further part in the war and died in September 1374. She stayed in Tickhill Castle and it was given out at the time that she had gone insane; this is accepted by most historians although it has been suggested that she was confined for political reasons, rather than because of mental illness.
I think that works -- we're placing "insane" firmly as a contemporary judgement rather than endorsing it, much as we might say that someone was diagnosed with hysteria or melancholy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented.

As Tim says, very much up to the usual Gog standard, and I enjoyed the memory test on the last article on the Breton Civil War.

Thank you UC, your usual insightful review. All addressed, with a number of queries back to you. Should I organise an end of series test for regular reviewers of my Breton Civil War FACs? Just one more to go on the first two years of this war - the Truce of Malestroit - and then I shall give you all a break from things Breton for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My (relatively few) quibbles are now all resolved, so moving to support. Will look forward to the end-of-topic test. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

To come. —Kusma (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the deal with Ormrod 1980 "The three Edwards"? The book appears to be by Michael Prestwich (and I can find a couple of other 1980 publishers, but you can of course use your edition).
The deal is I am cracking up. Ormrod wrote Edward [the Third], Prestwich The Three Edwards. They sit next to each other on a shelf. I confuse them. Fixed.
The paper copy I own is an obscure Book Club edition.
  • Some of the books have orig_year, some don't (for example, Burne 1999 is from 1955 or 1956 depending on who you ask. Allmand 2001 is the revised edition of a book from 1988). Check what you want here.
The two orig years removed.
  • Some publishers are linked (one Routledge and one Clarendon Press), some are not. Probably best to unlink all.
Agreed. Done.
  • I think Sarpy (ref 1) would look nicer if you dropped the "title page" from the citation and moved it into the {{sfn}} with |loc=title page but I will not complain if you ignore this suggestion.
I couldn't work out how to do what you were referring to, but have done something different which you may or may not be happy with.
Almost (and sorry for the typo in my suggestion): it still needed fixing in the Sources section, which I have just done.
  • Ref 43: there does not seem to be a chapter named "political prisoner" in the book; what do you mean?
It's a section header. To save any poor spot checker having to wade through a whole chapter. It should show up on a ctrl-F search
Maybe say |loc=section "Political prisoner" then? Just "Sarpy 2019, political prisoner" looks a bit odd.
Sure. Done.
  • Remove page numbers in Wagner 2006 (those are only for the "Breton Civil War" entry). You cite the same book also with other page numbers, for example in refs. 38 and 46.
Bleh! Sorry. Done.

Sources are generally decent history books from reputable publishers. Wagner 2006 is technically tertiary but looks decent (citing sources). Did a few lazy spot checks, all fine. One major issue (author name), a few small consistency issues, perhaps make Sarpy prettier. —Kusma (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusma. Appreciated. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost happy, just not a super fan of the political prisoner (see above). —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, all looks fine now. Source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jon698

[edit]

Will be making some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add a comma before but in "A truce between France and England was in place when the siege started but it expired in June."
  • Add a comma before but in "John had the stronger legal claim but the aristocracy and clergy knew little about him and mostly preferred Charles."
  • Add a comma after Paris in "In Paris Philip proposed"
  • Add a comma after annuity "receiving an annuity and land in France in exchange"
  • Add a comma after June in "At some point in June Mauny"

Jon698 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon698 and thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, for the style of commaisation I use, a comma would not be appropriate in any of the five instances where you propose one. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: That's fine. I don't see anything else for me to comment on. Jon698 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomiĉo

[edit]
  • The siege of Hennebont took place between late May and late June 1342 when the forces of Charles of Blois conducted an unsuccessful siege of the fortified port of Hennebont – sorry to nitpick over the first sentence of a good article, but suggest "…Charles of Blois unsuccessfully besieged the fortified port of…" instead, to avoid restating the noun in the title and to use a more engaging verb instead.

Tomiĉo (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Tomiĉo. MOS:LEADSENTENCE suggests "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence ...", which is usual and which is what I have done here. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 May 2025 [15].

Love Is Embarrassing

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🎵I give up, give up, but I keep comin' back for more🎵
This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Love Is Embarrassing". Yet another highlight from 2023's Guts, "Love Is Embarrassing" details Rodrigo's pessimism and, well, embarrassment about a love interest. It has also been a noteworthy performance on the album's soldout world tour, but not always for the best of reasons as you will find out upon reading the article... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I hope that this review is helpful. Just to be clear, I am looking at this version of the article. It should be the current version at the time of me posting these comments, but it is better to be safe than sorry. My review is below:

  • For this part, Rodrigo's performance, in the lead, I would suggest clarifying this as either "Rodrigo's vocal performance" or as "Rodrigo's vocals" as "performance" by itself could be interpreted in other ways, such as how she expressed the lyrics or if she took on a character for the song.
  • I would avoid the following sentence construction, with songwriting and recording consuming the first eight and the final two being used for mixing and fine-tuning, as the "with X verb-ing" phrasing is typically discouraged for a FA. I think that it would be a good idea to double-check the article for any other instances. Another instance is the following, with GQ including the latter in its list of the album's standout and "gutsiest" lyrics.
  • I think this part, The following morning, from the "Background and release" section is rather jarring as the last sentence of the previous paragraph was about the 10-month process for making Guts. While the transition does make sense as the reader goes through the sentence, I still think this could be phrased better.
  • Do we have any further information on why Nigro thought that including the song was a bad idea? Was it solely because of the timing or was there something else?
  • I believe it was solely because of the timing.
  • I believe that a word is missing in this part, but its spirited hooks were enjoyable. Something like "found" could be used.
  • I have a comment for this sentence: Some commented on Rodrigo's vocal performance. I would clarify who is meant by "some".
  • If possible, I would avoid repeating "relatable" for two sentences in a row in the "Critical reception" section.
  • I was initially surprised by this part, despite being set in high school. Is this song explicitly set in a high school? If so, I think that would be useful information for the "Composition" section, unless it is already there and I overlooked it.
  • Though the song mentions that the crush kissed a girl from high school, it is not explicitly revealed as the setting for all of its events. I have more clearly made this an attributed opinion now.
  • This is rather nitpick-y, but I think that it would be worth writing out the song's title for this sentence: Rodrigo sang it during her Lollapalooza Chile set in March 2025. The previous sentences were all about reviews regarding the wardrobe malfunction, and even though "it" is clear in context, it would be still be helpful to say it in full.
  • Shouldn't Olivia Rodrigo be linked for Citation 15?
  • Citation 22 does not have an author attributed, but the article does have a by-line (Yolanda Xiao) so this information should be included.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Aoba. I believe I have addressed this batch of comments, and it should be ready for your second read-through.--NØ 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I can help. I will read through the article either later today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work with the article. I have read through the article, and I could not find anything further to add. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]
  • I will take a look at this over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nigro played acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, synthesizer, and drum programming" - I don't think you really "play" drum programming. Maybe "and programmed drums".....?
  • "that is reminiscent of Dale Bozzio" - could you maybe say "that is reminiscent of Dale Bozzio of the band [whatever band Bozzio is/was in]" as, despite having what I like to think is very wide-ranging music knowledge, I have personally never heard of him/her so don't think he/she is well-known enough to be name-dropped without context
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Rodrigo derides her crush". "her" suggests that the crush has already been introduced. Perhaps 'a'? In both the lead and the main article.
  • "how much she was attracted to him." "him" being?
  • The crush mentioned earlier in the sentence. It's used as a noun.
  • "which they also compared to other artists". In what way, and/or to what end? Eg, favourably?
  • Neutrally, I guess; this refers to the second paragraph of the Composition section.
  • "The song reached the top 30 in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States". Just checking that it didn't also make the top 30 in the UK.
  • It didn't place on the main chart published by the Official Charts Company.
  • "entered the charts in some other countries". Suggest "some" → 'several'.
  • "and entered the charts in some other countries, receiving a gold certification in Australia, Brazil, and Canada." This gives the impression that the gold certification only applies to the "other countries". Suggest a new sentence for the last clause.
  • "She conceived the follow-up album, Guts (2023), at the age of 19, while experiencing "lots of confusion, mistakes, awkwardness & good old fashioned teen angst"." The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "The following morning ..." Starting a new paragraph and a new topic like that jars. A reader thinks 'Following what? The ten months creating Guts?"
  • "as the last song for the album in her living room." It's a long sentence and that bit could be phrased better.
  • "just five days before Guts was due for submission". Submission to whom?
  • "it was included on the album even though he thought it was not a good idea." It sounds like there is - or should be - some more information there, not included in the article. I mean, why would a producer include a song they thought was a bad idea?
  • Link bridge.
  • "Other artists "Love Is Embarrassing" was compared to ..." I beg to doubt that the song was compared to artists.
  • "but its spirited hooks were enjoyable". Maybe 'but that its spirited hooks were enjoyable'?
  • "due to their conflicted core." I think either 'due to its conflicted core' or 'due to their conflicted cores.'
  • "Ragusa believed the latter was". You don't need to say "the latter" a second time.
  • Unlike most of the article, the first few sentences of "Live performances" seem a list of factoids. Is it possible to make them less choppy?
  • "similarly to Rodrigo, the dancer also flawlessly completed the high-energy choreography". Needs rephrasing.
  • "Sales+streaming". Why the use of "+" and no spaces?
  • This is automatically generated by the template and is the same on all song articles. It might be worth raising a discussion about it on the template talk page later...

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Gog the Mild. Thanks a lot for the review!--NØ 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A cracking little article. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Which of 18 and 25 sources in which Rodrigo derides a crush and feels self-conscious about how much she was attracted to him". Source formatting seems consistent, you are using major sources but I wonder if @David Fuchs: has a second opinion on things like HuffPo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement ALT licencing and rationales seem OK to me. Is there a particular reason why File:Love Is Embarrassing.ogg is the sample used? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source has "Rodrigo cringes at herself and throws shade at an old flame"; "throws shade at" = deride, and "cringes at herself" = feels self-conscious. Second one shows her deriding the guy by calling him a loser and mentions that the "self-deprecation continues". The sample used is the bridge which received the comparisons to Devo and the part where Rodrigo sounds most vocally similar to Marina and the Diamonds and Kelly Clarkson. Let me know if anything else requires an explanation, Jo-Jo Eumerus.--NØ 09:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • When not released as a single or even a promotional single, using album release date in the infobox is filler at best that needlessly gives a false impression that the song had its own independent release outside of when the Guts album first came out
  • Excluding the date gives the impression that the song is unreleased. That this is just a song and not a single is prominently demarcated by the use of the word "song" in the type parameter, which results in a blue infobox instead of the yellow one for singles. We have had this discussion way too many times at this point (eg), so I would politely suggest retiring this critique from future reviews as the same explanation will hold.
  • The term "crush" is too informal for a professional encyclopedia. You're better off using "love interest" or perhaps "object of affection".
  • I'm inclined to say much of the first paragraph of "Background and release" (along with "Vampire" release info) is more relevant for the album page than here. It comes off as a misguided attempt to make the section look fuller (rehashing general album details is a common mistake I've seen on various other song pages when not relating to a particular track). Try to focus more specifically on "Love Is Embarrassing" instead.
  • I think it is more than okay. The song, in this instance, is a direct result of sessions held for this album. This is already a very condensed summary of the large amount of information available about the album's creation, and the removal of anything will make it read incomplete or create an abrupt start to the article.
  • Is it known when recording began? The prose doesn't exactly make clear how long this was after the songwriting break following Sour concluded.
  • Just that it was when Rodrigo was aged 19, as is already mentioned in the article
  • Unless you have a ref discussing overall reception, it violates WP:SYNTH to have an unsourced claim of "positive reviews from music critics". It would be overly presumptuous to jump to conclusions based solely on what the Wikipedia article already uses as that can fail to account for other stances.
  • What is "an intimate sound" (from reviews) supposed to be?
  • Switched this out for a direct quote. To be quite honest, the critic did not articulate well.
  • Common terms like "liner notes" don't need linking per WP:OVERLINK.

Those comments are just from a glance. I'll look at this again later and might leave more input. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now to continue:

  • Other common term per WP:OVERLINK that you can safely unlink are "gold certification" and "set list"
  • Even after listening to the audio sample, I'm not sure what the "lively" description for guitars is supposed to convey
  • I can't think of any good article to wikilink to explain the term lively, unfortunately. But this is indeed the description offered by professional music journalists.
  • "Several" is a stretch to describe three, and such a vague term is best avoided anyway, especially when specific counts are known
  • Out of curiosity, how many reviews were you able to find that weren't just for the parent album or overall career rankings? The page appears to heavily rely on the former type when not talking about the wardrobe malfunction.
  • This page is comprehensive. I would definitely not proceed with FA nominating an incomplete article.
  • Does it not feel repetitive to link publications more than once within citations (e.g. refs 9 and 13 both link Variety while 14 and 16 each link Billboard)? I somehow can't remember for sure whether the standard has shifted from "link first instance only" to "link this term in all refs that use the publication".
  • Yes, I think the standard shifted somewhere around 2021. I have done it here the same way I have done it on any FACs I have nominated since.

Overall, a decent looking page that could plausibly hope to reach FA-level soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the review after the multiple dry weeks for this nomination. Thanks a lot, SNUGGUMS.--NØ 15:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, and after looking through again, it would help to specify that "lyricism had become more precise" bit from Slant Magazine refers to Guts as a whole being compared to the lyrics on Sour. As for "Background and release", I definitely would remove the redundant "(2021)" bit from the latter album when you already note outside of parentheses how it came out that May. To give readers a better sense of when production took place, it might help to add there how Olivia was 18 that month given how you talk about conceiving a follow-up at age 19. The WP:SYNTH issue with reviews either way still hasn't been resolved (although now has more to do with production instead of whether they overall liked the song). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done. No parts of the article violate SYNTH according to me, so I am going to have to rely on a more specific X → Y suggestion from you to understand how and what you want revised. I am not going to eliminate the topic statements, i.e. #2 on WP:RECEPTION.--NØ 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I should've specified how the presentation used for the "highlighted its production" part makes it seem like this was the main thing praised, which I doubt is the case with how the lyrics get two paragraphs of focus instead of one. It thus would make more sense to dedicate more attention to that than anything else when summing up reviews within that section and the lead. Regardless, just having "received reviews from music critics" before the production part feels clunky. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was able to understand what you are saying better and addressed it with this edit. Really hope this is good to go now, SNUGGUMS.--NØ 01:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🎵 Promotin' this might… be a Bad Idea Right? 🎵 Just kidding :P, I wholeheartedly support the nomination now! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all had a great weekend!--NØ 18:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed - and supported - so can't comment as a coordinator. But I am sure that one of my colleagues will be along by and by to comment on the situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2025 [16].

Satsu (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Satsu is a Slayer—a young woman destined to fight the forces of darkness—and she is primarily known for her brief sexual relationship with Buffy Summers. This character is one of my favorite parts of the Buffy comics, and I think she had a lot of unrealized potential. I first worked on this article in 2018, but I recently rewrote it. Thank you to @Courcelles: for the GAN review and to @PanagiotisZois: and @Premeditated Chaos: for the help during the peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Popping over from the peer review to say I'm satisfied with the changes. The wording for the "ill-conceived romance" and "microcosm" bits look fine to me. Happy to support on prose, another fine piece of work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for the support and for the edits, which improved the article. Apologies for closing the peer review earlier than expected and for not waiting for your replies before doing so. I am very grateful for the help that I received during the peer review so I felt it would be nice to close it so other peer reviews, particularly those that have received either little or no commentary, could hopefully get more attention. Thank you again for all of your help! Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

[edit]

I'm not experienced with comic book so I'll try checking parts that might not make sense to somebody not experienced with them:

  • "story arc of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, a canonical continuation of the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The television series follows Buffy Summers,"

I know the term canon but is it necessary to write it? Maybe it makes sense if there is a contradiction later on.

  • I believe it is helpful to clarify that Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight is canon since a majority of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics and novels are not considered part of the Buffyverse canon. Most tie-ins, particularly around this time and earlier, were not considered canon. I do not see an issue with clarifying that these comics are canon, as I feel that removing this would make it ambiguous and lead to questions from readers about its placement in canon. I firmly believe that it is best to be clear and concise and to avoid any potential ambiguity or misinterpretations. I have added a note to the article to hopefully clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have a brief sexual relationship" The sexual relationship sounds random. You could simply mix it with the previous sentence and make a simple mention it is also intimate.
  • Satsu's sexual relationship with Buffy is a major storyline and the main focus of most of the coverage about the character. While I am more than happy to hear ideas on who to make this seem less "random", I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion to combine the two sentences. The previous sentence is already long and dense with information, as it covers that Satsu is activated as a Slayer, is trained by Buffy Summers, becomes one of her best fighters, and then falls in love with her.
  • Combining this information would not only result in a run-on sentence, but it would also minimize the relationship storyline, which would not reflect its importance to the character and its focus in the surrounding coverage. Besides that, words like "intimate" should be avoided; they are euphemisms and they could interpreted a number of different ways. The two characters had a sexual relationship. It is best to just directly say that. Maybe, there could be some sort of transition to make it flow better, but again, this is a central part of the character so it should be featured rather than folded into something else. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearances: Make a brief explanation to what exactly is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I can't tell if it's a comic or TV series.
  • Did the series end? Maybe you could mention the series is ongoing or that this the latest arc involving her.
  • The canonical comics ended with Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Twelve, but that has nothing to do with this character so I do not think that this information has a place in this article. Satsu primarily appears in Season Eight, and although she is mentioned in and has a very briefly appearance in Season Ten, the rest of the comics has nothing really to do with her. Information about the comics ending would be more relevant in the articles about the comics themselves. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the real world info seems easy to understand. Ping me once you are finished and I'll support it. @Aoba47: Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Thank you for the comments. I have left my replies above. I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did read the article 3x, and as much as I would like to nitpick something, including sources, it appears that everything is reliable. This article was written amazingly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for the kind words!. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PanagiotisZois

[edit]

Sorry it took my a few days, but there's no way I wasn't gonna take part in this discussion. I'm happy to see more and more comic character articles reaching this feat. Unfortunately, as much as I would love to give this article my support, I did come across a few things I'd like to bring up with you Aoba. Most are quite minor things, and with some of them, it's not really an "improvement" that you have to do, but a suggestion that doesn't need to happen if you think the article is fine as is in those areas. Hope these comments are helpful.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the Iron Man and Black Widow articles, I would recommend you specify exactly what Satsu's first appearance is; as in, Season Eight #1 (March 2007), or just include the year in the parenthesis.
  • Also taking into account these two other articles, one thing that I wanted to discuss is the Infobox. Specifically, the part where you bring up Satsu's powers as a Slayer. Although we, as people familiar with Buffy and what Slayers are, know that these statements are true, for an outsider, there is nothing in the article itself to support these claims. I guess the last two bullet points are somewhat understandable given the references to Satsu being a soldier in Buffy's army and whatnot, but there is no indication anywhere that Satsu has prophetic dreams. The Black Widow article has the "Characterization" section that includes a "Fictional character biography" section, as well as a "Powers and abilities" one. Is that something that you would consider doing, or simply add notes to some of Satsu's powers in the infobox?
  • Thank you for bringing this up as I had overlooked this part completely. I removed the last two bullet point as I could not find citations for them. Since I could find a source that explicitly discusses Satsu's power, I instead used ones for the Slayer powers as a whole and added a brief part to the article. While the comics give no indication that Satsu has prophetic dreams, these psychic abilities seem rather important to the overall Slayer lore. For instance, the Fray comics emphasize how Melaka Fray lacks these powers, which were instead inherited by her twin brother. I could just over-thinking this, and it may be best to remove this part, as like you have said, Satsu is not directly shown to have this. Please let me know if this part could be improved upon as I admittedly struggled with this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that all Slayers have the exact same powerset - and as you pointed out, Fray lacking prophetic dreams is even a plot point - the current state is perfectly acceptable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just wanted to clarify this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acknowledging past criticism of his treatment of LGBT characters, Whedon confirmed that Satsu would continue to appear after the end of her relationship with Buffy". Kathy Bates voice: "Liiiieees".
  • To be fair, Satsu did get her own issue ("Swell"), and she did return for later issues, although more as a background character. That being said, she was dropped completely after Season Eight and her Season Ten reappearance could have easily been rewritten to fit any character. While I could not consider it a complete lie, Satsu was not really kept "in the rotation" for that long. Unfortunately, this could be applied to any of the other comics-original characters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Fans had mixed reactions to Satsu's relationship with Buffy. Dark Horse Comics published fan responses in the letter columns of several issues" could be connected more closely to indicate that the latter sentence proves the former. Though if you're having difficulty connecting them, leaving them as is would suffice.
  • "Response to its sexual component". The sentence made sense before, but given some recent changes, I'd clarify you're talking about Satsu's sexual relations with Buffy. Right now you go from one sentence discussing "Satsu's storyline" to talking about its "sexual component".
  • "Whedon said that". I believe changing this to "According to Whedon, Buffy" would make the sentence flow better.
  • This isn't something huge, but I've noticed you often say "issue X (20XX) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season X". Wouldn't it be better, maybe even "faster", to just say "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Nine [issue] #1 (2011)"?
  • "as Season Eight had already established Buffy as lonely and Satsu as in love with her". Repetition of "as" three times in a single sentence.
  • "season six episode". Season 6 is already linked in the previous paragraph.
  • I'm not sure about the placement of Jeanty's and Gellar's comments. The first paragraph is essentially about the writers discussing the how/why (more or less) of how they came up with the storyline of Buffy and Satsu having sex. Jeanty's comments are somewhat connected, as he was the artist for the comic, but Gellar's come across as a bit random. And then the second paragraph is about the editor's comments on how he believes Whedon came up with this storyline. Would you consider moving Jeanty's and Gellar's comments there?
  • "Buffy acts like a villain instead of a hero", should "in the comics" be added somewhere here for clarification?
  • Agreed. Revised.
  • I'll admit, the first paragraph from "Power dynamic and sexuality" does make me think "OK, how much of this is really about Satsu and not Buffy?", but I think I'm being too anal and critical here, so I'll assume I'm just being over-judgemental; sidenote, I honestly wish there were more academics/critics focusing on Satsu through a racial perspective.
  • That is understandable. I appreciate the feedback. You are not being overly judgemental. I want the article to be the best that it can be so feel free to be anal and critical. I think the analysis is focused on Satsu since it is about the position that she is put into as a result of this relationship, such as whether or not she is being used and the degree of agency that she possesses. I wonder if it could be worded to hopefully make Satsu more front and center. I will think on this further, but feel free to leave any ideas or suggestions.
  • I also wish that Satsu's race and ethnicity received more analysis, and I am honestly surprised that this did not receive more attention. I think other aspects of her character, such as her becoming the leader of her own squad, could have also been explored more. I get why the relationship with Buffy pulls focus, as the comics are clearly more invested in that, but I still believe Satsu could have been so much more than that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crying at the title of the Houston Press article.
  • It is an interesting article. I feel that a lot of its points come from the benefit of hindsight, and I would love to see an analysis that approaches these same points with the added context of comic book trends at the time or past ones that may have inspired this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the comments! I greatly appreciate all of your help. Please let me know if one of the above points needs to be addressed further or if anything else could be done to improve the article further. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, after looking over the article, I do believe that it has achieved the best state that it can. And what a wonderful state that is. :D You really ate with this article @Aoba47:. I support its promotion to featured status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the kind words and for the support! I am really proud of my work with this article and I am very grateful for all of the help that I have received during the peer review and the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just-a-can-of-beans

[edit]

Allow me to preface this by saying I have no familiarity with the character and no interest in comics. While that does mean I'm unfamiliar with core concepts here, it also means that I may be closer to your average reader who would see this on the front page of Wikipedia.

I believe there are significant problems with the balance of material in the page. The page almost exclusively focuses on the sexual relationships of the character, and of the commentary and reactions of people to those sexual relationships. This is at the expense of other aspects of the character, as well as her role in the story (unless, of course, her actual role is simply to be a sexual/love interest - but having looked through synopses of chapters in which she appears, this doesn't seem to be the case). From reading the page, I do not, for instance, have any idea at all what her personality is like, as there are no descriptions other than of her powers and her sexuality. Is she cheerful? Moody? A prankster? Dead-serious? You say she is a skilled fighter - in what ways is she skilled, and how is she superior to others? Mentions of her achievements or actions in the series seem like afterthoughts, given minimal attention or space on the page. You mention the inspiration for her appearance came from Japanese street fashion - what exactly do you mean? Are there important elements of her clothing, hairstyle, etc that are drawn from this? With no context or expansion on this detail, I have no idea what you mean. You don't even mention the katana, or the criticism of this supposed inspiration, until the very end. And this is just one example of where the page falls through. (As a side note, these appearance inspirations may be a good place to implement more pictures, as the article somewhat lacks them and official art is copyrighted)

I feel that the lack of detail is pervasive, and that the page is not comprehensive enough for FA status. As someone who has no familiarity with the franchise or character, all I can take away from this article is that there is a woman in a comic series who has a lesbian relationship and that there was controversy surrounding her sexuality. That's it.

Therefore, I Oppose promotion. I do not think that these concerns can be addressed without heavy page restructuring. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just-a-can-of-beans: I would first encourage you to read FAs about fictional characters. That would give you a better understanding on how these types of articles look and are structured.
As for this article, I have primarily used information from third-party, reliable coverage of the character. It is comprehensive in that respect. A majority of your questions, like those about her personality, are not discussed in those citations. Some of them are actually already answered in the article. You ask about Japanese street fashion for instance. The article already specifies how Georges Jeanty used Fruits—a Japanese street fashion magazine—as the inspiration for Satsu's look. I have included all the relevant information about the character's storylines in the comics. While you may think that "her achievements or actions" are treated as "afterthoughts" or are "given minimal attention or space", I can assure that is not the case. She is a supporting character, and her primary storyline is in fact her relationship with Buffy Summers.
In my opinion, this oppose is unactionable. It is not possible to include information that is just not discussed in the coverage, and it would not seem appropriate to lean on primary sources, which I have restricted to the "Appearances" section. I do not see how images could be added to that section, as it is encouraged to keep the usage of non-free content, such as panels, to a minimal. I am pinging @FAC coordinators: to get their opinion about this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, without evidence that the article omits significant parts of actual reliable sources, this oppose is unactionable. Just-a-can-of-beans, we cannot expect editors to conjure analysis that does not exist. For comparison, take two of my FAs - The Widows of Culloden and Neptune (collection). Widows contains an extensive Analysis section with five subsections, because it is a beloved major work that numerous people have analysed through all kinds of critical lenses. Neptune doesn't even have this section, because the collection sucks so bad that there's literally no critical analysis of it. The Neptune article is still considered comprehensive and was able to pass FA, because the kind of analysis that exists for Widows simply doesn't exist for Neptune. Similarly, here, there is simply comparatively less to say about Satsu, because she's a minor character whose major plotline – as lame as it is, thanks Mr. Whedon – was having sex with Buffy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to leave an acknowledgement that I did read your opinion and factor it into the response below. The implied action constitutes a significant rewrite of the page, either to re-balance the focus or to re-frame her as a minor character. The former, which was my initial thought, is probably too extensive for short-term change, which is why I Opposed rather than commented. The latter, I'm not sure. My main concern, then, if it is agreed that she is a minor character, is that the page does not do a good job of conveying this, and instead implies that she is a major character who has received attention for only a single aspect of her character. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take issue with the sources of commentary used. If such commentary is the large focus of critical interest in the character, so be it; but it contributes significantly to the lack of balance on the page. If there is little to no critical analysis beyond that aspect of the character, then I think that a direct statement as much at the start of the Reception section would be sufficient for that issue. Otherwise, it appears that you have simply focused on one line of inquiry despite others presumably existing.
If the character's significance revolves around her sexuality, then perhaps the article should directly state as much. At present, it comes off as a page which is intending to provide an encyclopedic summary of a character, but which has been influenced by an author's focus on some aspects and not others. Perhaps the first paragraph of the lead contributes to this: her relationship with Buffy is initially stated to be a "brief sexual relationship" in the midst of other events surrounding the character and her plot lines. If this brief relationship and love interest is truly central to the character, then I think the first paragraph suggests otherwise. If it is not the central focus of the character, then it is given undue space on the page.
You must also understand - the simple fact that a character has an extensive Wikipedia page and a significant amount of critical attention? That's enough for an uninitiated person to reasonably presume that this character is very important in the series. If she is not important in her own right, then instead of framing her initially as "a character in the Buffy comics" with a following summary of events, you should directly and boldly state that she is a minor character whose main purpose is to serve as a love interest for Buffy.
Yes, you said the resources used - but in what way are they used? You simply state that Fruits was used, and you do not contextualize this. What aspects of her appearance are derived from Japanese street fashion? What motifs of that subject are connected to this character? I am suggesting you add images of Japanese street fashion to the page, such as photographs of people wearing it, because it is completely unclear what is inspiring what. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just-a-can-of-beans: So, let's break this down. I cannot just add a sentence about how the character's sexuality and sexual relationship are the primary focus of the surrounding coverage and reviews without a source that explicitly states that. Doing this without such a source would be a clear example of original research. Besides, with the way that the article is structured, it should already be clear that this is the focus of the character. The article even says that analysis of the character's race and ethnicity was done to a lesser extent than those done on her sexuality and sexual relationship. You say there is little to no critical analysis beyond that aspect of the character, but that is not true when the article has an entire subsection devoted to something else (the interpretations of the character's race and ethnicity).
The lead's first paragraphs has two sentences on Satsu's relationship with Buffy (being trained by her, falling in love with her, and having sex with her) and a single sentence on her two other storylines (the issue with the stuffed animals and her brief reappearance in Season Ten). By doing this, the lead clearly conveys that the Buffy relationship is a significant aspect of the character. I do not see how a single sentence about those other storylines would be undue space on the page or how saying that the sexual relationship was brief implies that it is just a small part of other events surrounding the character and her plot lines. That last part is an assumption you are making. Satsu is a supporting character, but she is still important. She got coverage for a reason. Her storyline may be focused on her relationship with another character, but that does not diminish her importance. I cannot just call her a minor character without a source that directly states that because without that, it would again fall into the no original research category.
I do not simply state that Fruits was used and just not contextualize this. That is all the information provided in the interview. I am not actively withholding further information or context. No, I am not going to just randomly put in random images of Japanese street fashion just because. That would again be original research, which would not help the article. Japanese street fashion is very diverse without a lot of history so randomly guessing what inspired this character's look would be inappropriate. Frankly, I do not see this discussion going anyway, so this will be my last response to this. This is already just going in circles. Again, I feel that this oppose is simply unactionable. I will just let the FAC coordinators decide about this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly not clear that the character's identity revolves around her sexuality. It is clear that your writing has primarily focused on that. My fundamental issue is that you have clearly and repeatedly stated that there are other roles for this character beyond her sexual and romantic interest, but these occupy a small fraction of the page. To me, someone with no exposure, this is confusing.
You allude to that subsection of criticism on another subject - the first paragraph in this subsection is, once again, calling attention to the sexuality of the character. This contributes to the feeling that the author's focus on sexuality is influencing their writing of topics which should normally be separate. There are other places more appropriate for noting that a different topic gets more attention than the first paragraph of the less-appreciated topic's section.
You are free to disagree with my opinion, and similarly free to determine that none of my criticisms have any merit, and thus warrant zero changes to the article. But this is a process of consensus, and I am a bit frustrated with this staunch refusal to change anything and arrogant hand-waving of every criticism I have as "original research" or "not actionable". Exactly how is it "original research" to add pictures of the things you claim are visual inspirations for her character design? Exactly how is it "not actionable" to rewrite a specific portion of the lead which you were directly told is problematic? I should note I am not the only one who has been concerned by that paragraph, which remains unchanged.
The suggested action of re-balancing page content is a major undertaking, but "it would be difficult" is not a valid reason not to make changes if they would lead to a superior page. Since you are so adamantly refusing to make any changes whatsoever or acknowledge any problems, here is a non-comprehensive list of observations related to my complaints:
  1. The first paragraph makes only a passing mention of the sexual and romantic interest between the two, which is both preceded and followed by discussion of her activities as a Slayer. This suggests to the reader that her role as a love interest for Buffy is only one aspect of a more elaborate character.
  2. The lead then goes on to discuss Satu's sexuality in all 3 of its paragraphs, despite ostensibly being about different subjects. The exact phrase "sexual relationship" appears in all 3, along with numerous paraphrases.
  3. All sections except Creation and design discuss Satsu's sexuality and/or sexual activities.
  4. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the Appearances section, which comes off very strangely - only after reading your provided references did I understand that this was the second of two total sexual encounters. As written, it appears as though they have had an ongoing relationship for a brief time, and that you for whatever reason want to tell the encyclopedia reader that they had sex again.
  5. Paragraph 2 of the Themes and analysis section contains direct and explicit discussion of the sexual dominance of Buffy, with only tangential relevance to Satsu.
I see two possible approaches here, and as someone not familiar with the topic, I am unsure which is more appropriate. The first option is to significantly reduce and reorganize the material on the page which covers Satsu's sexuality. The second option would be to make it clear that the main significance of the character is her sexuality. If you do not feel that this is true, and you still can't find academic or critical discussion of much beyond sexuality, then perhaps you need to consider that more discussion existing on a topic does not make that topic inherently more important.
That being said, I'm not sure why I've wasted my time breaking this down, since you already stated you will refuse to make edits or continue discussion. I do not think it is appropriate to simply ping FAC coordinators to avoid making substantial changes in response to feedback. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read any of the sourcing? Can you indicate where there are gaps or omissions in the article that are covered in reliable sourcing? It would be more helpful to say, for example, "Smith 2025 says X but the article doesn't", than to continue to broadly argue that Aoba has failed so badly that the article needs a complete restructure. If the article focuses on Satsu's sexuality, it's because the sourcing does as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Up-front, I kind of must agree with Just-a-can-of-beans that the lack of personality discussion is weird/raises questions about comprehensiveness. Proving a negative is hard, but it's hard to believe that nobody remarked on it. I think that File:SatsuBuffyCover.jpg might warrant a different NFCC#8 rationale that emphasizes the "illustrates article topic" aspect instead of several different things. One ALT text has a superfluous =. Is SlayAlive a reliable source for an interview? Do we have information on who reviews/edits Slayage: The Journal of Whedon Studies? What makes The Mary Sue a high-quality reliable source? Also wondering about Nerdist, AfterEllen and Comic Book Resources. Formatting seems consistentish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: None of the sources delve into the character's personality. That is just not the focus of any of the coverage. It is never brought up at all. As you have already said, it is hard to prove a negative. I am not really sure how to address this. I have modified the WP:FUR for the infobox image by adopting a similar approach to the one for File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png from the Iron Man article. I have removed the stray = from the ALT text. Yes, SlayAlive is a reliable source. That is whole reason that I have a note about it to the article in the first place, which includes an article from the Dark Horse Comics website about these interviews. Here is a link to the discussion about Slayage on the WP:RSN. The Mary Sue, Nerdist, AfterEllen, and Comic Book Resources are appropriate and high-quality sources for an entertainment topic. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder if there is something here. I'll need a second opinion on these sources above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, "consistentish" means that this topic uses diverse sources with different format requirements and for some reason my eyes were glazing over at that moment, so I wasn't as sure as elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus the source you linked, The Comics of Joss Whedon: Critical Essays, is already cited in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but does it contain any information on personality? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sole chapter in which Satsu is mentioned is entitled "Buffy is in bed with a woman? Problematic and perfect gay and lesbian representation", so while I don't have access to it, I'm going to assume it doesn't focus on her personality. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That chapter has only two brief mentions of Satsu's personality, which describes her as being "strong, accountable, and well put-together" in her initial appearance and emphasizes how much she is hung up on the relationship after it ends. I have added both parts to the article. The rest of the chapter is focused on Satsu's sexual relationship with Buffy and does not delve further into Satsu's personality beyond these two remarks.
I have looked through the sources to see if I could find anything further. I did add a part from the Hautsch source, about how Satsu is characterized as rebellious and emotionally vulnerable. Aside from that, I could not find anything else. I will check again in the future. To be clear, I do not think that there is not enough to justify a separate section on her personality and characterization. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think a "Personality" section is even needed to begin with. I mean, many character articles don't have one, and Satsu is a relatively small character to begin with. Not surprising little attention was afforded to whether she is "cheerful? Moody? A prankster? Dead-serious?".
Yeah, characters like Black Widow and Iron Man do have "Personality" sections, but they're also characters that have been around since the 1960s and have more than 1000 appearances. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, I have removed the Joss Whedon and Georges Jeanty images in favor of a sketch of Satsu by Jeanty. I am still trying to figure out the best image size for it, and I would greatly appreciate any assistance with that.
Just-a-can-of-beans has repeatedly requested that an image of visual inspirations for Satsu's character design. That is not possible, as the only things that can be confirmed and sourced are that Jeanty used Japanese street fashion as inspiration, specifically the Fruits magazine. Japanese street fashion is very diverse in terms of look and encompasses several different subcultures. Even the Fruits magazine is quite diverse.
So, since I cannot add in a real-world image as a more exact source of inspiration is not named, I have instead added a sketch, which should hopefully provided a clearer example of the character's fashion sense and Jeanty's art style. I was inspired by the Ada Wong article to do this. I am also would greatly appreciate any feedback on the caption. Hopefully, this is a helpful addition and a good compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be tough because last I checked, "can't find a source for this" isn't always accepted as a justification for non-comprehensive articles. For that sketch, I guess it's borderline - seems like we might lose a lot of the understanding of the article topic by losing it, but again borderline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Except this article is comprehensive. I have included all the available coverage for this character that would be appropriate for a FA. I have attempted to engage with the comments. It should also be tough to argue that an article is non-comprehensive because "a source of coverage simply must exist out there", even though there is absolutely no evidence provided to support that.
I am frustrated as I think that the above statement referring to "non-comprehensive articles" could be taken to imply that this article is objectively one of those instances. I do not think that is the case. It is a serious accusation that does not have evidence behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have included some information on Satsu's characterization to the "Appearances" and "Development" sections. So, the article does have "personality discussion". I agree with PMC's above comparison between two of their FAs (The Widows of Culloden and Neptune (collection)). It is important to take each article on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that information is missing.
Besides, it is not like a personality or characterization section is even a requirement for these types of articles. This type of section is not even brought up in the MOS for comic book characters or anime and manga characters, and while it is brought up for television characters, that one makes a point that "the section headers below are not mandatory". There are FAs on fictional characters without devoted characterization sections. See Ada Wong, Claire Redfield, and Ethan Winters. The lack of a personality section was not an issue for any of those source reviews. Anyway, this part of my reply is primarily to clarify and emphasize that this article now includes information on Satsu's characterization so "the lack of personality discussion" is no longer true. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's better then. I kinda wonder if some characterization info can be derived from the comics themselves - might be a bit too close to analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis though, and thus not suitable for a primary source. Also, I generally don't review comprehensiveness as part of a source review, this time I noted the outstanding oppose and commented on it, hence why these other source reviews have nothing to say on that issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I hope that I have not come across as rude in my previous replies. This was just a lot to take in. I am taking a step back to process it and come back with a more level head. I appreciate the time and energy you have put into this review. I know that you do a lot of source reviews in the FAC processes, so I just wanted to say that it is appreciated.

I believe that I have added everything from the comic while avoiding unnecessary and trivial details and potential original research. I have primarily added to the character's initial appearances in the comic, adding a quote on how she is "strong, accountable, and well put-together", further defining her fighting style, and putting in how Buffy views her as a potential successor. I actually thought the article did a good job with summing up her character arc, right down to her ditching the lip gloss that she previously used to revive Buffy, but I think these additions are helpful in more firmly establishing Satsu as a fighter.

To better answer your earlier question on sourcing, Comic Book Resources (CBR), The Mary Sue, and Nerdist are deemed as appropriate by the WP:VG/RS. This article is about a character, not a video game, but in my opinion, this same rationale carries over here. CBR in this instance is more of a primary source, as it is an interview, and the publication is reliable, as it was published years before the VALNET acquisition. AfterEllen was an influential website for lesbian issues. See this Out article, this Slate article, and this article from The Advocate as some examples of its importance. Given that this article is about a lesbian character, having coverage from a lesbian-based website is important and I would think would help with potential concerns regarding comprehensiveness.

Articles from Slayage have been cited in books from reliable publishers, such as this one by McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers and this one by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers and this one by Bloomsbury Publishing. There is also the WP:RSN link that I have left above, and here is the about page. As for SlayAlive, just to reiterate my above point, Dark Horse Comics has an article that promotes the interviews done on this site, and that should be enough to prove that they are legitimate. I would imagine that a publisher would only actively platform and promote interviews from approved sites. SlayAlive is used strictly in terms of interviews. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, can I just check whether the above constitutes a pass for either of or both the image and source reviews? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On these points, yes. No further comment on the comprehensiveness issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DDOOL comments

[edit]

I agree with this article being promoted to FA, I cannot see any issues and clearly she is an impactful and notable character. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • I noticed that the phrase "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is used three times across the first three sentences of the lead. I know that variety is typically strived for wherever possible to help keep the reader engaged. Perhaps "continuation of the television series of the same name. That program follow [...]" or something similar would work
  • That makes sense to me. It is always best to avoid to avoid repetition whenever possible. I have used your suggestion, as I think that is the best and clearest way of handling it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this suggestion. It makes sense that there would be an article about this, but for whatever reason, I did not check on it. I have linked it in the infobox and in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems a little odd that some entries in the Infobox use a plainlist format (creator, affiliations, partnerships), while abilities uses a bulleted list. This should probably be consistent.
  • "Sarah Michelle Gellar, who portrays Buffy, approved" --- noticing that there's also a motion comic, with voice actors (which could also be considered a portrayal), can I suggest adding "in the television series" in there for clarification.
  • That is a very good point, especially since someone else voices Buffy for the motion comic, Giselle Loren voices the character for the video games, and there was a different actress for the 1992 movie. It is always best to be as clear as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know these are rather specific, but I've read over the entire article twice and honestly can't find anything else wrong with it. It's in fantastic shape as it stands currently. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Not trying to impede on this review, but one thing I wanted to bring up is that regarding the infobox, this is actually consistent with comic book character articles on Wikipedia. Everything uses a plainlist, except the "Abilities" section; for some reason. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Thank you for your help. It is always good to get specific comments, and you have helped to improve the article a lot as clarity, consistency, and a lack of redundancy are always important. Thank you to @PanagiotisZois: for your comments. I do not have an issue with making everything consistent in the infobox, but I would also be more than happy to hear other opinions. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you both have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs to be bulleted in the Infobox that's fine; I'm not as knowledgable in comic characters and come from the MOSTV side, where everything in the Infobox is a plainlist. I also glanced at the example on {{Infobox comics character}} where the example uses a plain format. Regardless, I wouldn't oppose just over the use of bullet points, so I'm happy support since my other comments have been addressed. Nice work, hope you have a wonderful weekend as well! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. I would be more than happy to change that part of the infobox as I do not have a strong opinion about it either way. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I was very confused by the section headed "appearances", because it doesn't actually seem to detail the character's appearances (I would normally expect a section like that to be along the lines of "X first appeared in this comic, then they appeared in this comic" and so on). The section doesn't even explicitly state that the character appeared only in comics, not in the actual TV series, or that the comics picked up where the TV series ended. I think "Storylines" might be a better heading for this section.
  • That makes sense to me. I have used "Appearances" in other articles, but for those, the character usually appear across various media, and this one has only appeared in comics. I can also understand why readers would be confused by the title in general. I have changed it to "Storylines" per your suggestion. I have used that section title in other character articles as well. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Slayer possesses supernatural strength, speed, stamina, agility, as well as" => "A Slayer possesses supernatural strength, speed, stamina, and agility, as well as"
  • "Buffy changes this in the series finale by having her best friend and witch" - this suggests that she is Buffy's witch. I presume this is not what is meant.....?
  • Yeah, the original wording was not great. I was a bit uncertain of how to correct this. I almost went with "her best friend and the witch", but I worried that that wording could be read as two separate characters, so I went with "having her best friend Willow Rosenberg use magic to make every woman" to convey that she is a witch, but I would be more than happy to hear other ideas. For some reason, I just got stuck on this one, but to be clear, I do agree that the original wording needed to be changed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When witch Amy Madison places" => "When the witch Amy Madison places"
  • "The same night, Japanese vampire Toru" => "The same night, the Japanese vampire Toru"
  • "that since vampire Harmony Kendall is leading" => "that since the vampire Harmony Kendall is leading"
  • "Satsu, along with the rest of the Slayers, retreat to Tibet" => "Satsu, along with the rest of the Slayers, retreats to Tibet"
  • "after masked villain Twilight tracks" => "after the masked villain Twilight tracks"
  • The sketch image caption is not a sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments so far. I believe that I have addressed everything. For whatever reason, I got stuck on how to best reword "her best friend and witch", even though I am sure there is an obvious solution. I hope you are doing well and having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Burnett specifying" - who's Burnett? Nobody called Burnett has been mentioned up to this point

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "For her later storylines, Satsu struggles to ..." 1. Suggest "For" → 'In'. 2. Suggest a colon after "to".
  • I have changed "for" in favor of "to", but I am uncertain if a colon would work in the context of the rest of the sentence, specifically the part on how Satsu "fights demonically-possessed stuffed animals, and makes a brief reappearance in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Ten". I could be mistaken though, and I would not have an issue with a colon being added here. I was just uncertain, but again, I could be wrong. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholarly articles focused on this aspect of the character." This needs qualifying. Eg "Some ..." or "Several" or whatever.
  • "Response to Satsu's sexual relationship with Buffy was more mixed; some found it" Some fans, some academics, some reviewers. All of these?
  • I have modified this part in two ways. I have clarified in the first part that this more mixed response to the relationship was from "critics, fans, and industry insiders", and for the later part on the more specific praise and criticism for this storyline, I have added that this came from reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might flow be improved if "Scholarly articles focused on this aspect of the character." were moved to immediately before "Academics have analyzed"?
  • Agreed. I thought about this as well, but I wanted to wait to see what other people thought as I tried to keep my edits more to a minimal to try and give reviewers a better chance to look through and comment on a stable draft. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Scholarly articles focused on this aspect of the character". To nail down that this is a summary of the main article, perhaps "Satsu's sexuality received more attention than her race and ethnicity" → 'Satsu's sexuality received more scholarly attention than her race and ethnicity'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for the comments. I greatly appreciate your help. I believe that I have addressed everything, except for the part on adding a colon to the lead. I could very likely be wrong about this, so I would have no issue with adding one there, but I just wanted to raise my concern. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba47. The colon is not a deal breaker. It could be inserted after "Satsu" in the current version and be fine grammatically. Reading the current version I go through "In her later storylines, Satsu struggles to move on from Buffy" and that seems a complete sentence. When the text continues "fights demonically-possessed stuffed animals, and makes a brief reappearance in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Ten." I think 'What! That makes no sense', go back to the start of the sentence and realise it's a list. Inserting the colon would signal 'list ahead' and avoid this potential hiccup in the flow. But if that doesn't work for you, no worries.
Everything looks good to me, but given the unresolved oppose, I have asked a coordinator colleague to check out that part of the review. Bear with us. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the clarification. That does make a lot of sense to me. I can understand how a reader would be confused because it can seem pretty random and abrupt to jump from one story to the other. I actually never thought of it that way, but I have been looking at this article for a while now. I have inserted the colon after "Satsu", but feel free to move it around if a different placement is preferable. I agree that it is best to clearly mark that this is a list of separate events rather than events happening all at once. Again, thank you for taking the time to clarify this for me.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions regarding the oppose or to further discuss any of the comprehensiveness concerns. There is absolutely no rush. It is always ideal to have as many perspectives as possible to hopefully improve the article as much as possible. Thank you again for all of your help. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2025 [17].

Taylor Swift (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first album by Taylor Swift, who started out as a country singer-songwriter. Is this country music? I don't know, maybe, but I know that this album kinda slaps, especially the track "Our Song". I believe this article is comprehensive and well written for FA standards and I'm open to any and all comments regarding its candidature. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

I've been busy with a couple of things over the past few days, but I'll see if I can squeeze in time to review this by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the wait, I'm beginning the review right now. λ NegativeMP1 04:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, there isn't much I have to criticize about this article, but I do have two things.
  • The last sentence of the Release and promotion section, "From August 2019, Big Machine re-released the Taylor Swift singles on limited-edition vinyl. This was met with backlash from Swift's fans in light of the purchase of the masters of her first six studio albums.", would probably come off as a bit confusing to an unfamiliar reader. It reads like Big Machine purchased the masters (which they always owned) and simply re-released the singles. No context is given as to why the fans would have been mad, either. I think this sentence would make more sense if it was clarified that Scooter Braun bought Big Machine, a legal dispute followed, and that's why fans were mad. It would also make more sense to be written this way once the Taylor's Version of this album inevitably releases.
  • In the last sentence of the Reception section, it says that the album itself was a "cut" according to Christgau. In the explanatory footnote immediately afterwards, it says that a "cut" is a "a good song on an album that isn't worth your time or money". Based on this, it's impossible for any album, let alone this one, to be considered a "cut". The sentence should probably be reworded to say that the songs were labeled as "cuts" and that he just didn't like the rest of the album.
Ultimately though, these are minor nitpicks in an ultimately very well written article. Whether or not you want to make these adjustments is completely up to you, but I'd still like to see a response. λ NegativeMP1 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NegativeMP1, thank you very much for your time and review. I have addressed your two points accordingly; feel free to review the changes in prose and let me know if it reads more clearly now :) Ippantekina (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those two parts definitely read better now. Given that those were my only two nitpicks in this article, I'm happy to give my support. λ NegativeMP1 16:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "who had produced her demo album" - I think "who had been producing demo recordings" is more explicitly stated in the source since it doesn't mention that Swift has a demo album, unless I'm mistaken
  • "she vows avenge" - "she vows to avenge"?
  • "Perone comments that this change" - Shouldn't we use past tense here?
  • A catchy wikilink would be useful
  • "Taylor Swift helped Swift earn a nomination for New Female Vocalist of the Year at the 2007 Academy of Country Music Awards, a Horizon Award at the 2007 Country Music Association Awards,[110] and a nomination for the Grammy Award for Best New Artist at the 50th Annual Grammy Awards (2008).[111]" - Is it possible to rearrange the sentence so that Swift's Horizon Award win isn't placed between two nominations?
  • "the infant Big Machine Records" - I don't think "infant" adds much here, but probably "newly formed" reads better?
  • I think there is a WP:REPCITE issue in the last paragraph of the "development and conception" section, I would double-check to see if there are any other similar incidents throughout the article

That's all from me. Very impressive work! Medxvo (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and review as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support :) Medxvo (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review! Ippantekina (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Ippantekina:

  • According to Link-dispenser,
    • There are 2 potentially spammy links in refs.
    • 4 refs need an archive link.
  • In notes 4-6, instead of "for albums 1963–2015" say "for albums released in 1963–2015".
  • Mention "eponymous" album.

Vestrian24Bio 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vestrian24Bio, I've addressed your points above! Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  1. 59 and #65 and perhaps others use ProQuest as the URL, unlike most other news media articles that use links and a padlock if necessary. Speaking of, Billboard sometimes is marked as paywalled and sometimes not. I don't think #10 is a good source for that claim. I think I reviewed most of the sources in other FACses. Kinda wondering what makes "Nainby, Keith (2024). "More than Music: The Image 'Taylor Swift'". Examining Blank Spaces and the Taylor Swift Phenomenon: An Investigation of Contingent Identities. Lexington Books. pp. 81–128. ISBN 978-1-6669-4272-9." a reliable source. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles published on Billboard Pro are sub-based and marked such accordingly. Most ProQuest URLs are no longer on the web and thus I used ProQuest to cite them. Could you let me know why #10 might not be a good source? Ippantekina (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a bit uncertain if a trade publication is a good source for a court case concerning BLP issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Billboard is also a trade magazine which is widely used in Music/BLP articles. I can find substitutes of course, but I don't think Pollstar should be disqualified as a high quality source just because it is a trade magazine. Ippantekina (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. the book by Nainby, he is a scholar in philosophy and communications [18]. I believe he has the right credentials to a published book (or even a few). Ippantekina (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That leaves the Nainby source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I just replied above in case you didn't see it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this is OK then, with the caveat that I don't know these sources very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright.. so is this a pass? Ippantekina (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but with that caveat about unfamiliarity with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge906

[edit]
  1. I just realised that in the track list section, it says that all traks are produced by Nathan Chapman expect where noted, and even though Chapman is the main proudcer of the album, due to the way it is listed, with the song name and different producer, it makes the list feel cluttered and a bit unorganised, so perhaps we could add a column for the producer(s). Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might do the edit. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a good way to go for, since the whole column would be repetitive anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think it makes it a bit confusing. On the deluxe some tracks are produced by others. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that makes sense. Let me implement the change as it is not a major disruption anyway. Ippantekina (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it look now? @Jorge906: Ippantekina (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's better. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The source link for File:Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift.png no longer works, at least for me. I get a "The page you're looking for can't be found" error message. When putting in a new link, I always find it helpful to include an archived version as well to avoid this kind of potential headache in the future.
  • For this part, (She traveled from her hometown in Pennsylvania), why not name her hometown with something like "traveled from hometown of West Reading, Pennsylvania"? It is not absolutely necessary, but I think that it would be better to specific rather than leaving readers to wonder where her hometown is in Pennsylvania.
  • I think that for this part, (her father transferred his job to Nashville), it would be helpful to somehow clarify that Swift's father is a stockbroker for Merrill Lynch, as that would more easily explain how the family could so easily move to a completely different state to accommodate Swift's dreams of being a singer. This is not meant to put down Swift in any way, but that is the kind of privilege that not a lot of people have. It would also help to clarify the later part on how Swift's dad was able to buy a stake in Big Machine.
  • I could just be overly nitpick-y with this one, but for this part, (Narrated from the perspective of a teenage girl in an American small town), I was wondering if "performed" would be more suitable than "narrated". I more so associate narration with spoken-word and while music can have spoken word elements, I was just uncertain about this word choice. Again, I could be just over-thinking this.
  • I am uncertain about the wording in this part, (guitars, fiddles, banjos, mandolins, and Dobro), as it is primarily listing instruments until the end when it names a brand of guitar. I think that the Dobro part could be better clarified for readers who are unfamiliar with it, as a brand is not quite the same as a fiddle or a banjo.
  • While I can understand the purpose of the "Picture to Burn" audio sample, I am less certain about the "Tim McGraw" one. The caption for the "Tim McGraw" sample is specifically about the song and is not related to the album. The caption would seem more appropriate for an article about the song. The caption should be more about how this song represents something about the album.
  • I would avoid the following sentence construction, (with each edition containing bonus tracks and music videos), as the "with X verb-ing" phrasing is often discouraged in FA writing.
  • There are two sentences in a row, (according to Rolling Stone, following the Dixie Chicks controversy in 2003) and (According to the communication studies scholar Clementine Oberst), that use "according to". I'd revise one of these instances to avoid repetition.
  • I have a quick question based on this part, (Many of Taylor Swift's aspects set the blueprint for Swift's later albums—the country-pop sound). Did anyone comment that since Swift started with a more pop-oriented version of country with her debut album, this could have helped to more easily transition her as a pop artist with 1989? I understand if that is not covered, but I just curious. It is easier for a country star to reinvent themselves if pop was always a part of their music from the start.
  • I think her pop roots are discussed more extensively if it's Fearless ("You Belong with Me"), but I think the current prose mentions the pop sensibilities so it should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following source from Diario de Cultura should have an English translation for the Spanish title included in the citation. I would also put the title in title case to match the other citations.
  • I am not sure either. I would put in title case just to be consistent with the other citations, but this is not a big point and would not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. I honestly do not have that much to add. I hope that this review helps with pushing this FAC over the finishing line. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer, but I do not imagine that I will find anything substantial. I am curious on how the re-recording of this album will sound. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba, your comments are helpful as always. I'll get back to this asap. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am able to help. Take as much time as you need. I enjoyed reading this article. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always Aoba! Ippantekina (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2025 [19].

Vince Gill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly popular and prolific singer across a variety of genres, including a long string of country music hits, membership in Eagles and Pure Prairie League, and marriage to Amy Grant. He has a very substantial solo career including the most Grammys of any solo male country singer, and I'm a big fan of his music as a whole. I feel this article is among my best work in terms of how thoroughly and reliably it is sourced, and how I feel it summarizes the breadth and legacy of his career. After successfully getting Randy Travis to become my first Featured Article, I've been wanting to see if I can get another golden star. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Comments

[edit]
  • "He began in a number of local bluegrass bands in the 1970s" => "He played in a number of bluegrass bands in his local area in the 1970s"
  • "in addition to writing several songs of theirs" => "in addition to writing several of their songs"
  • "He has also had number-one singles as a guest on Reba McEntire's "The Heart Won't Lie" in 1993, as well as Chris Young's "Sober Saturday Night" and the multi-artist collaboration "Forever Country", both in 2016" => "He has also had number-one singles as a guest on Reba McEntire's "The Heart Won't Lie" in 1993, and Chris Young's "Sober Saturday Night" and the multi-artist collaboration "Forever Country", both in 2016"
  • "Additionally, Gill has written songs for Alabama and Ty Herndon, and holds a number of credits as a backing vocalist and session musician." - I would move this to before the bit about his marriages, as it makes more sense there
  • It doesn't make sense to have a section heading "Biography" which only covers his life up to 1976. "Early life" would be a more appropriate heading.
  • "Gill had previously been offered to do so" => "Gill had previously been offered the opportunity to do so"
  • "The project accounted for three singles on the Billboard Hot Country Songs charts" - the chart has only been called Hot Country Songs since April 2005. References to hits before then should use the name in use at the time (Hot Country Singles until February 1990 and Hot Country Singles & Tracks thereafter)
  • "When I Call Your Name included a large number of backing vocalists. Among them were Kathie Baillie (of Baillie & the Boys), Patty Loveless, Emmylou Harris, and Herb Pedersen" => "When I Call Your Name included a large number of backing vocalists, including Kathie Baillie (of Baillie & the Boys), Patty Loveless, Emmylou Harris, and Herb Pedersen"
  • "also charted within top five between then and 1992" => "also charted within the top five between then and 1992"
  • "Gill (center, seated and playing guitar) with the Time Jumpers in 2011." - this isn't a sentence so should not have a full stop
  • "Gill's other collaboration in 1994 was on Kermit Unpigged, an album released by Jim Henson performing in-character" - Jim Henson died in 1990 so this does not seem likely
  • "Gill (right) and Amy Grant (left) in 2004." - not a sentence
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Think I got your edits to this point. I went with "featured/including" on the Baillie sentence so as not to use versions of the word "include" twice in the same sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm talk 03:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After graduating high school, Gill chose to become a lead guitarist performer. He briefly founded his own bluegrass band called Mountain Smoke, which once opened for the hard rock band Kiss" - can a year be provided for this?
  • "Despite the minimal success of Turn Me Loose," - this appears to be editorializing, as the source just mentions that he won the award
  • "After this album, Gill ended his contract with RCA as Galante wanted him to record only songs by other writers." - is there a specific reason known why Galante wanted this? Were the Gill-penned songs the ones that flopped?
  • "The editors of The Encyclopedia of Country Music wrote of Gill, "With an aching tenor, award-winning songwriting skills, and virtuoso guitar chops that rivals those of any ace Nashville session player, Vince Gill is one of today's biggest country superstars."" - given the time reference in the quote ("today") would it be worthwhile to note in the attribution when this quote was written?
  • "Overall, Gill is credited with contributing to over 60 charities" - is there a better source for this than what seems to be a press release?

I tried to post this yesterday but that was right when all editing went down briefly; this article is in pretty good shape. Hog Farm talk 01:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: think I addressed all your issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting Hog Farm talk 00:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @ChrisTheDude: any idea why this discussion has gone stale? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You could maybe try mentioning the FAC at related projects, e.g. WP:COUNTRYMUSIC, to see if anyone wants to jump on. Another alternative would be to review another FAC and then ask if the nominator would be interested in reviewing yours.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, @Gog the Mild:, @David Fuchs:, pinging for suggestions. Also pinging @IntentionallyDense: who passed the GAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what if anything it may be worth I will post my boilerplate on attracting reviewers below.

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

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

    Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images seem well-placed and ALT text is OKish. Regarding File:Paul Franklin.jpg, was the Flickr file licenced CC when it was uploaded? File:Patty Loveless (3470011524).jpg's source seems to be broken or deleted. Is #3 a high-quality reliable source? I get "reliable", but the rest? Are "The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture" editors listed somewhere? #18 and #22 are the same source in two separate citations and formats, of which the second (longer) one seems to be the most common format; also I wonder what makes 'em reliable. #53 is broken. What makes The Boot a reliable source? Regarding #58 why does the article say "against"? Why does #65 use a different form from other book sources here? And I again wonder if it's reliable for this kind of claim. Rolling Stone sometimes is linked and sometimes it isn't, and sometimes in italics and sometimes not. Similar inconsistency applies to other sources too, where newspapers sometimes have their title italicized and sometimes not. What makes Guitar.com and holler.country a reliable source? Honestly, a number of AllMusic sources makes me wonder which are reliable and which not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what you mean on the Paul Franklin pic.
  • I'll see if archive.org has the Loveless pic.
  • The AllMusic source should be fine. WP:ALLMUSIC says that "some editors" question its use for biographical info, but I didn't see anything in the AllMusic bio that was contradictory to other sources in the text. Compare Pirates of the Mississippi, where the AllMusic bio was so egregiously wrong that I didn't even bother using it. Using AllMusic for attributed opinions in a review is considered acceptable.
  • Oklahoma History and Culture source seems to be edited by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
  • The Boot and Taste of Country have been considered reliable in past GAs and FAs. Taste of Country is listed as reliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and so it can be presumed that the similarly-formatted The Boot can be used too. Both The Boot and Taste of Country were used on Randy Travis with no issues.
  • Citation 65 (Country Music: An Illustrated History) is a novelization of a documentary by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan. I see no issues using this as a source, as it's a bit more accessible than citing the documentary itself.
  • Not sure about guitar.com. I will defer to others to find any argument either way. @Gog the Mild:, @Hog Farm:, any verdict here?
  • Holler.country has an editorial staff with explicitly stated experience in the field, and can therefore be presumed to be reliable.
I'll get to work on formatting the citations you caught. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will just repeat the obvious: at FAC to establish that a source is reliable is insufficient, it needs to be demonstrated to be "high quality". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should the Boot and ToC sources be replaced? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: The Dayton Duncan source uses "chapter" instead of "page" because I was told that's what to do when a publication does not have numbered pages. Sounds Like Nashville is down for maintenance and archive.org is running very slow right now, so I put an archive.org link in. Other than Rolling Stone, which I fixed, which other sources are inconsistent in italics use? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be several broken sources on my end at the moment (#18 and #52). Billboard is not italicized in one instance and italicized in others. Entertainment Weekly and Variety are italicized in the text but not the source section. With respect of The Boot and ToC, the main question is whether the authors and editors of these sources are good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: do you think the Boot and ToC sources should be replaced? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That or indications that they are high-quality reliable sources. Say by being frequently cited by academic and major newspapers, the publication of corrections, a reputable body of editors and authors etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taste of Country has a credited editor in Billy Dukes, whose bio claims work in magazines and the Kalamazoo Gazette. I also found a LinkedIn for another editor named Sterling Whitaker, which claims further journalistic experience. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find several other citations so I guess that ToC might pass. Dunno about Boot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Boot also has a credited editor in Angela Stefano. Boot and ToC have several staff overlap (I've seen Billy Dukes on both sites), so I would think that if ToC is considered reputable, then so is the Boot. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The asterisk in the Sounds Like Nashville archive url is causing the template to freak out. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any idea how to fix this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Need to specify a particular snapshot. A generic link to the archive list is less useful, as that list can include archives of usurped/broken versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't figure it out. I've tried 50 different things and the URL is still breaking the template no matter what I do. Can you fix it for me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... currently it does work for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor fixed it. Did I get all your other issues taken care of? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

@ChrisTheDude: @Gog the Mild: @Hog Farm: what is your stance on the Boot and Taste of Country citations?

My gut instinct is that they're some of the more important web country music reporting. So long as it's not supporting potentially controversial BLP information, I'd be generally fine with them as a source. They're definitely above the Whiskey Riff-type tier, and a long way above the Saving Country Music type-tier (which I would not use on a BLP at all). Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have used them on many of my FLCs and nobody ever questioned them over there. Both sites are published by Townsquare Media, a multi-million dollar media conglomerate. I have no issue with them as sources, personally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have I addressed all your other issues? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Franklin.jpg on Flickr is licenced as all rights reserved. Why is the local licence different? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: addressed, any other issues? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "ballads and up-tempo material" - sentimental ballad and uptempo would be useful wikilinks
  • Grand Ole Opry should probably be italicized
  • "a pastime which Gill himself would develop" - I think "that" would read better instead of "which"
  • "the Beach Boys's" - no need for the "s" per MOS:'S
  • Some incidents of "country charts" are confusing, e.g. "peaked at number five on the country charts". It would be better to indicate if these are US charts, for example "peaked at number five on the US country charts", since there are also Canadian country charts, etc..
  • "in 1991, where Gill was also awarded" - "when" instead of "where"? or alternatively, "at the 1991 ceremony, where...." would be fine
  • "was nominated for Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals" - "a" or "the" is probably missing before "Grammy Award", I would also check for other similar incidents throughout the article
  • I think Country Standard Time and Taste of Country should be italicized as well since they are websites
  • "the song received a platinum certification in 2023" // "Both The Key and Breath of Heaven: A Christmas Collection were certified platinum" // "Let's Make Sure We Kiss Goodbye was certified gold after release" // etc... - It would also be great if we could indicate that these are US certifications
  • "The former was issued as the project's lead single" - If we're talking about "Take Me Down" here, then this is stated twice, unless I'm mistaken
  • "about his relationship to her" - I think "with" instead of "to" would read better
  • "Distinguished Service Award from Professional" - "the" is probably missing before "Professional"

I think that's all from me. You've done great work on the article! Medxvo (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Medxvo: @David Fuchs: Sorry, I went on vacation the last few days and forgot to put a notice up. I just got back home, so I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Medxvo: I think I addressed all your issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: "The lead single to the project was "Take Me Down" [...] "Take Me Down" was issued as the project's lead single". I could be mistaken, but this info seems to be repeated twice.. Medxvo (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, got that too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support :)) Medxvo (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "in addition to writing several songs of theirs." Consider 'in addition to writing several of their songs.
  • "Gill has 65 entries on the Billboard country music charts". "has" or 'has had'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 May 2025 [20].

Berners Street hoax

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another footnote-to-a-footnote-to-a-footnote of history, this time a monumental practical joke that had most of London talking. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks as always for your sharp eye. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added and removed several commas; see the article's history.
  • Introduce by Theodore Hook → by the writer Theodore Hook
  • Hook spent six weeks → He spent six weeks to avoid repetition
  • four thousand letters to tradesman → four thousand letters to tradesmen
  • I did not notice issues in the body. All reads well.

What an interesting read. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these, User:Vacant0: all sorted in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks better now with UC's recommendations. Support on prose! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vacant0. That's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

Footnote-to-a-footnote-to-a-footnote? That sounds absolutely frivolous, and thus amusing. I will try to find the time to review this. As an initial comment, "tradesman" in the WP:LEAD seems like it should be in the plural, but I think it would probably be best to just use "tradespeople" as in the body. TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tompa - I look forward to seeing them. In the meantime, I've swapped to "tradespeople". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The Berners Street hoax was perpetrated by the writer Theodore Hook in London in 1810. He had made a bet with a friend that he could transform any property into the most talked-about address in London." – reading this, I came away with the understanding that the hoax was undertaken because he had made that bet. That this is not the case became evident upon reading the article, where it is mentioned that the bet was made in November 1810 and thus after the six-week preparation period had begun. The final paragraph of the body even states that "There has never been an explanation as to why the hoax was undertaken". I don't know exactly how to fix it, but the current version of the lead feels unintentionally misleading.
  • "goods deliveries included organs" – I would link organ (music) for clarity.
Background and build-up
Incident
  • "&c", as a fairly uncommon (and thus, to many, unfamiliar) abbreviation, should probably either be linked to et cetera or wiktionary, or explained using Template:Abbr. MOS:LATINABBR deprecates its use in WP:WikiVoice, for what it's worth.
Aftermath
  • "By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax" – how come? Do the sources say?
  • "By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax and confessed to it in his 1835 semi-autobiographical novel Gilbert Gurney" – this feels awkward as written. I parsed the beginning of the sentence—"By 1812 Hook was suspected of the hoax and confessed to it"—as the confession coming in 1812, which was of course immediately contradicted. Changing it to "[...] hoax, and he confessed" would likely do the trick.
  • "The site at 54 Berners Street is now occupied by the Sanderson Hotel." – should probably use a "since [year]" phrasing instead, per MOS:NOW.

That's all I have for now. TompaDompa (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa. Huge apologies for being so slow on getting round to these. I saw them once you posted, then completely forgot to actually do the editing. All sorted now, I hope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you with the apologies, as I have been a bit busy with off-Wikipedia things and not found the time to give the article another look. My comments above appear to be satisfactorily addressed; I shall give the article as a whole another go-over to make sure there's nothing else before too long. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good to me. TompaDompa (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TompaDompa - I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS

[edit]
Lead
  • Hook spent six weeks sending between a thousand and four thousand letters to tradesman and businesses... Shouldn't it be "tradesmen" here?
Background
  • The identities of his accomplices—one male and one female—are unknown, but it is thought that one of them later became a famous actress. You could change one of them later became to the latter later became for clarity.

I've offered a few minor suggestions above (hope that they are useful). The article is well-written otherwise. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more
  • Hook was unidentified at the time, but later admitted his involvement in a semi-autobiographical novel published twenty-five years after the event.

Is the comma required in this sentence? It could be dropped.

  • Attempting to stop the situation, the police blocked off both ends of the street,... How about using "To contain the situation, "... in this case?
  • Theodore Hook was a writer of comic operas and farces for the stage and the author of several novels. Could "farces" be linked in this sentence?

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked farces. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MSincccc (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Enjoyed this one. Reminded me of The Shed at Dulwich! UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to forty fishmongers—who turned up with lobsters and cod—and forty butchers, each with a leg of mutton, there were 50 pastry chefs with 2,500 raspberry tarts: MOS:NUM would prefer that we used figures consistently.
  • As the officers arrived at Berners Street they found "six stout men bearing an organ, surrounded by wine-porters with permits, barbers with wigs, mantua-makers with band-boxes, [and] opticians with the various articles of their trade".: quote needs to be attributed inline (I'd quite like to know specifically if this was eyewitness testimony from the Times's correspondent.
  • the culprit to the hoax: not sure about the idiom of culprit to -- can't find good examples either way, but in general I think we normally just see it written as "the culprit". Perhaps something like "Police investigating the hoax searched for the culprit"? Happy to be overruled by a counter-example.
  • I would start the blockquote with a capital letter (in square brackets if you like), as it is, at least visually, a new paragraph.
  • an undertaker with a coffin made for Mrs Tottenham, which had been made to her measurements: this seems slightly repetitious: simply "for Mrs Tottenham, which had been..." or even "a coffin made to the measurements of Mrs Tottenham"?
  • estimates of the number of letters vary from at least a thousand to four thousand: I would be tempted to put quotes around "at least a thousand" to tidy up the very improbable misconception that the uncertainty is with us (as in, we aren't totally sure what the estimates are, but we know that the lowest is >999), and to avoid the current slightly awkward phrasing (we wouldn't say "there were between at least 100 and 600 people in the crowd".)
  • For some, the notes asked if the recipient "will call on her at two to-morrow, as she wishes to consult him about the sale of an estate: sequence of tenses isn't quite right with the quote, which would need to be "[would] call on her" -- however, might be better and more international to say asked the recipient to "call on her...", as "asked him if he would do X" is potentially ambiguous, particularly to non-BrE natives.
  • a post-chaise and four may be at her home: "four [horses]"?
  • To businessmen, the notes read: suggest "the notes to businessmen read" unless some form of psychic paper was in use.
  • a version sent to dance teachers, asked them: no comma here.
  • as she is desirous that her daughters should receive instructions: not instruction?
  • attend on the deathbed of a family retainer: another possibly contentious idiom, but I think you "attend [someone] on their deathbed", in old-fashioned English, or "attend the deathbed of [someone]" in more contemporary style.
  • Graeme Harper, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says the selection was made at random: comma after Biography. As we've dated Chambers, I think we should date Harper too.
  • The journalist and author Robert Chambers wrote in 1879 that there was a grudge between Mrs Tottenham and Hook and his friends, but no details are provided: were provided, surely -- or perhaps better as provided no details?
  • he pointed to the seemingly random house at number 54: I'm not sure about random as an adjective to mean randomly-chosen: "he pointed, seemingly at random, to the house..."? Our current phrasing implies that there was something in the appearance of No. 54 to make it appear random.
  • At 5:00 am on the morning of 27 November 1810: redundant, as we've said "am".
  • Hook and his friends had hired rooms in the house opposite 54 Berners Street so they could observe the proceedings of the day. At 5:00 am on the morning of 27 November 1810 a series of chimney sweeps knocked at the door, saying they had been sent for.: of Hook's rented house?
  • a dozen bakers turned up to deliver elaborate wedding cakes, who were followed by a series of bootmakers.: I think we need to cut who were here, as the grammatical antecedent of who ought to be the cakes.
  • I understand the linking of unusual professions, but why bootmakers but not undertakers? The former seems quite hard not to guess; the latter is probably quite obscure to some.
  • Would it be worth naming any of the illustrious dupes in this story, like the Lord Major and the two chairmen?
  • I've added the Lord Mayor, although as he isn't notable enough for an article, I'm not sure it's terribly illuminating. The sources don't bother with the names of the chairman, and while we know William Astell was the chairman of the East India Company at that point, I have no idea who was Chairman of the BoE - although I'm working on the assumption that the Chairman and the Governor are two different roles. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location for Fone 2019?
Added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mayer 1969 would seem to be too old for an ISBN: they were introduced in 1970.
  • Was there definitely more than one organ? The Guardian article seems to suggest otherwise. It also mentions the outbreak of fights, which our article doesn't. They also seem to spell it "Hooke": is that a widely-used alternative?

Support from PMC

[edit]

I doubt there'll be much left to say after the thorough reviews above, but putting my name down anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After several weeks of preparation ... Hook spent six weeks" - I've read this over a few times and I find the tightness of the writing hampers understanding. I think introducing a little more detail about the bet might help; there's room for it. Can I suggest a revision to something like... "In November 1810, Hook made an apparently spontaneous bet with a friend that he could transform any property into the most talked-about address in London. Unbeknownst to the friend, Hook had spent the preceding six weeks sending between a thousand... [rest of sentence]."
  • Is it possible to clarify that Mrs Tottenham was a real person? I somehow assumed she was also a fake until I reached the end of the article
  • I've tweaked her intro a little which should help: is that better?
  • No other comments all the way down into Aftermath
  • "The hoax was repeated in other British cities as well as in Paris." - do we know when, or how many times?
  • Organization of para 2 under Aftermath feels a bit odd. We go from aftermath (repeats and operas) to 2025 then back to disputing the identity of the hoaxer in 1841.
  • I've moved the Sanderson Hotel info, which is the rogue bit. Does it look better now?

That's all I have for you, and it's not too much :) Another charming oddity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC. All dealt with: I hope successfully. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good to me, I'm a happy support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
Source review

Doesn't look like anyone has done a source review here so I'll give it a go. I focus on formatting first then on spotchecks.

  • Formatting is consistent. Capitalization is consistent, as is wikilinking authors and not wikilinking the publishers.
  • Were there no available clippings for the news sources? I know it isn't strictly required however, it would make my life easier if you had links available.
  • Chambers is verified
  • Hook is verified
  • Davis is verified

I was only able to verify 3/14 citations which is a little less than I would have liked to. If you do have links for the newspapers then I'd be happy with those. Otherwise I will go hunt down some of the book sources. Ping with reply. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IntentionallyDense, I don't have links, I'm afraid, but if you ping me, I can email across copies of anything you want - just send me a list and I'll get back to you with copies. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that there isn't links available online but tis life. I will send you an email with the sources that I feel would be most beneficial for me to check. Thanks! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks IntentionallyDense - I've emailed copies back to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for the source review! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, IntentionallyDense! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ID, thanks for the formatting check and source/article verifications. Can you confirm if your review speaks to the reliability of the sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops looks like I forgot to mention that. I do believe that the sources are appropriately reliable given the subject. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

You're a dark horse, SchroCat! I had no idea you were brewing this article up. A delight to read, although not so delightful for the numerous victims. (I agree with The Times's dismissal of the hoax as a "very malignant species of wit".) Happy to support. Three quibbles so minor that they don't affect my support:

  • "the wager was set for one guinea" – could do with a blue link
  • "followed by a series of bootmakers.[16][6][5]" – any reason for the numerical order? (No rule against it that I know of, but it looks strange.)
  • There are four mentions of "the police", and this puzzles me a bit. I thought the first police force in London were the Peelers, set up two decades after the hoax, but I see The Times refers to "Marlborough-street Police Office, and having raised the point I now put it down again.

The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim - the top two tweaked along your lines. The Bow Street Runners were there before the Met (from 1749, so back while America was still a colony) and they were known as police, among other names. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIM

[edit]

I'm late to the party (had to fight my way through a load of job-seeking servants!) but a couple of suggestions re. chronology. I think the sentence 'In November 1810...' would flow better somewhere in the second paragraph as well as removing the necessity for a one-sentence paragraph. Likewise, I'd suggest the material after the duke of Gloucester's retainer, being neither background or build up, could be moved to either the aftermath section or perhaps a subsection (e.g. 'Motivation')?

Also, this biography has got a few pages (52–56) on the hoax; apparently he'd already carried out a dress-rehearsal for Berners St previously. Nice work this. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks FIM. The "In November 1810..." sentence is chronologically in the right place at the moment - he did all the letter writing in the six weeks running up to the event, and (possibly while that was still going on) only then did he make the bet. Obviously the exact dates are unknown, which is a shame, but I'd like to try and keep as close to the chronological path if possible.
You're right on the 'motivation' paragraph, of course, and that's duly been moved to the very end - if you think it should go elsewhere in the section please call out.
I've tried to avoid too many 'facts' from older works, as they can be a little unreliable (newspaper descriptions to give a little colour are a different thing to my eye though), so I had seen that and decided not to use it. I'll go back over the more modern sources to see if there is anything from there I can use instead, which should ensure no complaints on the reliability of sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point re. chronology. I understand the concern re. 1853 guy, but I think you're on safe ground using it (very) lightly, for near-contemporary opinion, as it's also cited by your Davis (2013). Perhaps along the lines of 'a near contemporary believed that...' or the like. In any case, there's no reason not to support the promotion of this neat bit of microhistory. Nice one. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks FIM. I found a bit tagged on the end of the story in Flanders that covers the point nicely, so that's now been added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

i'll leave some comments SchroCat :). coming soon! 750h+ 05:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my problems won't be too large and feel free to refuse mt suggestions with justification!

lead
background and build-up
  • A large number of letters were sent ==> "Many [or synonym] letters were sent"
incident
  • The chairmen of the Bank of England and the East India Company and the Duke of Gloucester all turned up during the day maybe add a comma after "East India Company", i feel like that might make it easier to read
  • including, at 5:00 pm, a large number of domestic ==> "including, at 5:00 pm, many [or synonym] domestic"
aftermath
  • no problems here.

@SchroCat: all done; no remaining comments. I do have an open actor FAC that is in need of reviews so one would be appreciated! thanks! 750h+ 08:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks 750 - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice work! 750h+ 23:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Mayer, 1969. Could we have the OCLC? (900844444)
  • "In total, Hook spent six weeks sending between a thousand and four thousand letters to ..." I am unsure if "In total is meant to refer to the six weeks or the number of letters - the latter not being a total, but a broad range. Recommend deleting "In total".
  • "The police were called to try and manage the crowd but they did not manage to clear the street". "manage ... manage"; any chance of a synonym or a rephrase?
  • "but later admitted his involvement in a semi-autobiographical novel published twenty-five years after the event." Delete "later". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gog: I missed this entirely first time round - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [21].

St Scholastica Day riot

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. My absolute favourite Wikipedia article. Reads like a skirmish from the Hundred Years' War - which was ongoing at the time. More on this later.

  • No ISBN for Crossly and Elrington?
And should "Vol. 4, the City of Oxford" be 'Vol. 4, The City of Oxford'?
  • Cites 3 and 16 are inconsistent with cites 52 and 53 re case.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog: these sorted. I look forward to any more comments you may have. Looking at the first FAC, you were quick to put your name down then too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed." Inserting 'annual' or similar in that would make its meaning a little clearer. (I only know this because I queried last time.) In both the lead and the article.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1349 the Black Death affected the town; there are no reliable figures for the deaths in the city." Which gives a reader no idea at all as to how bad it might have been. I can give you two solid modern sources estimating that it killed 45% of the population of England, and a very thorough and reputable 2004 source giving 62% +. Including something like this would at least give a reader some idea of the scale.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fined the town's authorities 80 marks", "fined £200 in damages" etc. My way of putting this sort of thing in context is the footnote "To give a very rough idea of earning power, an English foot-soldier could expect to earn £1 in wages for, usually seasonal, military service in approximately three months." Let me know if you would like the source.
    I've connected it to agricultural workers instead, which should serve just as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is as a result of the settlement following the riots." Try it without the "as".
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the practice was allowed to drop". Maybe "drop" → 'lapse'?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that in Background you mention that England was 18 years into the Hundred Years' War - Edward was to campaign in both France and Scotland within a year. His son was to fight the Battle of Poitiers and capture the French king the next year. By 1355 tens of thousands of Englishmen had served in the military and experienced battle. Eight years before he had led the largest English army to be deployed overseas prior to 1600. Thousands of these men were convicted felons serving in exchange for a pardon. Between the Black Death and the near constant warfare, with large numbers of battle-hardened and/or traumatised men moving between more-or-less civil and military activities it was a toxic societal background which I feel a little more could be made of.
    I've added something to the resolution section - explaining the speedy closure of the matter, given the other pressures on him. I've done some research to try and find anything that comes close to the 'toxic society' being a factor in the riots, but I've drawn a complete blank, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog. A few done and I'll be back in the morning with the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All now addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS

[edit]
Image
  • All of them have alt text for their captions and the images in public domain have a US tag.
Lead
Background and Dispute
  • Could Royal charter be linked in this section as it is the first occurence (the Resolution section comes later)?
  • The article Excommunication has been linked twice in the same section.
  • Small "c" in "chancellor" in these sentences -
    • In 1349 scholars from Merton College rioted to have John Wylliot, their preferred candidate, elected Chancellor of the University;...
    • The following morning, in an attempt to stop any recurrence of the violence, the Chancellor issued a proclamation at the churches of St Martin and St Mary that no-one should bear arms, assault anyone or disturb the peace.
Resolution

A fine article overall. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim

[edit]

Didn't take Gog long to gravitate to this article, I see. Drawn by the body count, no doubt, though it wasn't on the Crécy scale.

I dunno. 93 dead Englishmen is more than was reported at the time for either Crécy or Poitiers, two major battles with tens of thousands of combatants. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, not much from me. I supported on the article's previous appearance here and I haven't found much to carp or quibble about now that it has reappeared.

  • "which stood on Carfax, in the centre of the town" – but as you tell us later it wasn't called Carfax at that time I think perhaps you need "the street now known as..." or some such here. And American "on" rather than English "in"?
  • "the resulting melee turned into a riot" – the OED and Chambers both give "mêlée" its circonflexe and aigu.
  • "63 members of the university" – this is a bit vague: did "members" include undergraduates, graduates, dons and support staff?
    Possibly. The sources don't specify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of students killed in the riots is variously given as 63" – this looks a little odd to my eye. I'd have expected "variously given as" to be followed by more than one figure.
  • "the work is in Latin and many are held in the Bodleian" – the work is but many are? Not quite right, possibly.
  • "petitioned Thomas Wolsey about who held jurisdiction on various points" – might be helpful to explain in passing who Wolsey was.
  • "One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century" – I struggle to understand why the civic authorities' weakness prevented plays and theatre until the sixteenth century. Did the University authorities object and put the kibosh on them?

That's all I can come up with, apart from quibbling with your preamble on this review page: whatever was wrong with the wine, it wasn't corked. Cork wasn't used as a stopper for wine bottles till the 17th century. But I digress. No apologies required, constant digression being the saving grace of senile reminiscence. – Tim riley talk 15:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim; all done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I find it chilling how cheap life was then in Oxford (but then anyone for Gaza in 2025?). 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]
  • As a parent of a current Oxford University student, I feel drawn to this one, so will review it in due course. I'll also advise said student that if he is unhappy with the quality of beer in any establishment in which he drinks, maybe express it in a calmer manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Signing on! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC; just the very gentlest of gentle nudges on this... - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies, here we go.
Lead
  • "students' accommodation" suggest swapping to "student accommodations", purely to be neurotically consistent with the plural "university halls" (won't die on the hill of it)
    'student accommodation' or 'students' accommodation' would be much more common in BrEng (as is 'university halls'). We aim to confuse! - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the lead looks pretty reasonable to me, although given Borsoka's concerns, I'll look again when I'm done the article
Background
  • "while there were lay students, those who attended were called clerks" I was confused about the connection here. After a little googling, I see that "clerk" is derived from "cleric", so presumably it was originally a religious title/position. That may not be obvious to most readers. Could we footnote?
    Certainly: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tonsure?
    Linked - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the "unpunished" statement which was so problematic to Borsoka, I have thoughts (see subsection below)
    • To the accusation of close paraphrasing: it is close to the source, but it's also the kind of simple statement of facts where there are not many other ways to write it without tying ourselves up in knots of elegant variation
    • I think the source is actually fairly clear that neither the university nor the legal system undertook to punish many of these acts
      • The context of the paragraph is coroner's inquests. Coroners are judges. Their inquests are legal proceedings. It's pretty clear that the law is involved here.
      • The author then states that many of these incidents "seem to have been countenanced by the University". okay, "to countenance" is to support or approve of something, so that covers the University not giving a shit that their students were doing riot-murders.
      • Then in a new sentence, the author writes that these "offences frequently went unpunished". We've already established that the University is countenancing these, so it makes no sense for the author to be referring again to University punishment. In the context of the fact that we started out talking about coroner's inquests, I think it's fairly clear that he's saying that the legal system also did not care that students were doing riot-murders.
      • In light of this, I think the original version, "unpunished by the university or the law", is more accurate to the text, and more clearly communicates to the reader that neither of the big power players here, the university or the legal system, cared to punish the students for being hoodlums
    • I do think it may be worth emphasizing that the students were claiming religious privileges to escape punishment, since I think that does make it somewhat more clear why they were being let off the hook
    The source only mentions the religious privileges in connection with the 1314 riot, so I've added it there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the info about previous incidents of violence could be condensed a bit. There's quite a bit of detail about individual incidents that at this stage don't appear to have a direct bearing on the Scholastica riot, whereas a more general overview might be more effective. I reserve the right to reassess this comment after I'm done, I just don't want to forget to write it now.
  • I'm not entirely sure the paragraph about student on student riots is needed, since this is a student on townsfolk riot. Could be condensed?
    I've trimmed off the last part, but increased it with the benefit of clergy explanation - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute
Resolution & Aftermath
  • It's not entirely clear why the Bishop's response was to ban the townsfolk from religious services. Does the source go into greater detail about that?
    No details on why, unfortunately. My OR is that I think the church would always favour the university (it was seen as at least a quasi-ecclesiastical body), and an attack on the university and students would be considered an attack on the church, so the townsfolk needed to be punished - and putting their souls in jeopardy by refusing them access to services etc was certainly a punishment. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the interdict was lifted by the Bishop of Lincoln" - do we know when?
    It seems to suggest it was at the time the royal charter was issued, but doesn't clearly says this, so I've gone with over a year later, which requires no reading between the lines. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of poems, "Poems Relating to the Riot Between Town and Gown on St. Scholastica's Day", was written; the poems are written" it may not be plausible to write around, but the flow is a bit awkward with the repetition of poems 3x and written 2x
    Reworded a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the poems are anonymous, but we should say so
    They are similar to those of a named friar, so I've put in a possible connection to him. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Rigg cite the following verse as an example? If so, we should say as much, if only to introduce the verse a bit. Right now it's just there.
    OK. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of theatre is curious to me, mainly because it's not entirely clear from the text why it's such a big deal that the town didn't have these facilities. Would it be possible to briefly touch on the significance?
    There isn't anything about the significance, just that there weren't any plays being performed to speak of, unlike towns of a comparable size like York or Wakefield, where there was a thriving theatre culture. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several previous mayors...were fined" do we know when these happened? Even the latest one, at least. I'd be interested to see how far the fines persisted
    Me too, but the reporting is as bald in detail as out reporting of it, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have, sorry again for the delay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much PMC. I think I've covered everything, but please let me know if I've missed anything out. I haven't yet added back in the "by the university or the law" line, but will leave it pending until others have chipped in on the point. (And no need to apologise - I'm just delighted and grateful for your comments). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me, so I'm happy to support. Well done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC - I'm very grateful for your comments, which have been a great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subsection for discussion of "unpunished"

I only comment here because you mentioned me above. My main concern is that the text "remained unpunished by the University" implies that the University had the legal capacity to punish its students for murders or other violent acts. Did it indeed have? Based on the background's section I rather understand that church courts/magistrates had the authority (but it is unclear, so should be clarified). For me, the text that the crimes "remained unpunished ... by the law" is ambiguous, implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. I doubt this was the case: they were unpunished because they had clerical status in contrast with the townpeople with whom they were fighting. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the university had the legal capacity to punish its students. Most organisations can and will punish an individual who has committed a crime: the individual can be given a fine by the police and be sacked from work or expelled from school or university. The university has a form of jurisdiction over their students (they did then, they do now). Neither the law nor the university punished these students. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we are in the middle ages: if canon law said that clerics could only be punished by a church court, no one else had the authority to punish them. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Borsoka, I think SC is correct in his reply here. You may be overthinking the meaning of "punish" as being something done under the auspices of the legal system, but that isn't necessarily the case. Being expelled, for example, is a punishment for bad behavior, but it is decision made by the administration of the university, not the legal system. I am not sure I understand why you think the source is implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. There does not have to be an official act permitting whatever for the law to just not give a shit. Consider the thousands of rapists who go uncharged every year simply because there is no will to investigate, arrest, charge, and punish them. There is no law that decriminalises rape, but because nobody cares, they get away with it. So again here. For whatever reason - it looks like religious, primarily - neither the university nor the legal system really cared about students doing murder. (Consider also that this was in the year 1355, when society was considerably more violent and the law considerably less sophisticated than it is today.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above about canon law. We are in the middle ages. (Actually, medieval law was much much more sophisticated than modern law, because people did not have the same status: clergy, noblemen, burghers, peasants, slaves, Jews were treated differently by legislation and many groups had their own courts of justies. For instance, clerics could not be sentenced to death and they were not imprisoned, but sent to a monastery by church courts.) Borsoka (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your comment. Did you read mine? You have responded to almost none of it. I think this discussion will be more constructive if we are discussing the text and not one another's commenting, so let's both agree to focus on that going forward.
I don't understand your confusion on the matter. Again, I think you are overthinking the definition of "punishment". If canon law prevented the legal system from inflicting criminal punishment on clerics, then that accounts for why they were not punished by the legal system. It does not prevent the University, as an organization, from inflicting its own administrative punishment on the students, such as expulsion or suspension. The reactions of the legal system and the law are different animals here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read. The article's text emphasised that the students were not punished by the university or by the law, although the cited source does not say this, and this silence is not by chance: only church courts had the authority to punish clerics for murders and violent acts in any way. You are both assuming that the university could have expelled or fined a cleric for murdering a layman, but this assumption is not verified by the cited sources. The cited source only says that the University protected its students. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife if we could cite a relaible source saying that his wife protected the murderer? Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the university would have been able to take action of its own, if it so desired, but chose not to. They were punished neither by the university or the law.- SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although the cited source does not say this - this is where we disagree, because by my reading, it clearly does. this assumption is not verified by the cited sources - it is a reasonable inference from Musgrave's statement that the university "countenanced" the murders. If the University authorities were helpless in the eyes of the law, he would have said so, but he didn't. He chose to use the word "countenanced", as in, accepted, supported, or tolerated. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife... The word "punishment" generally refers to a consequence imposed by an authority (parent, court, school, job, etc), so we probably wouldn't in a formal encyclopedia setting, because unlike the University over its students, a wife is not usually considered an authority over her husband (although husbands should be careful which wives they argue that to). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new assumption: you are assuming that universities had any authority in cases of murders commited by clerics in the 13th and 14th centuries, although anybody who ignored the privileges of clerics and the jurisdiction of church courts risked serious sanctions, such as excommunication. However, I think we do not need to discuss this issue any more. The present wording ("there were no punishments given to the students") is fully in line with the cited source. I would add an example about possible reasons, but otherwise I do not challenge this text. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was fully in line with the sources before too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SC, and I repeat that I think the previous version is more informative and more accurate because it tells the reader who exactly was doing the not punishing. It might help if other users weigh in as well so a consensus can be developed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked closely I concur with PMC: SC's text accurately reflects the source and is more informative. Tim riley talk 12:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the cited sourced should be reflected not editors' assumptions: "The university protected the students, and there were no punishment given to them.", or something similar. Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're on (or possibly passed) the point of bludgeoning in this review, given this is the third section you are commenting in. As PMC has said, it would be best to hear from others, rather than constantly from you. Let them have their say without further bludgeoning and maybe a consensus will have a chance to develop. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As other opinions have been solicited here’s mine.
The disagreement is over whether this:
"Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law."
Is accurately sourced to this:
"A large percentage of entries on the Oxford coroners’ rolls deal with riot-deaths. Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished."
I think it is because "countenanced" means at least tolerated if not approved of by the university, and "coroners’ inquests" covers the "law". It is not close paraphrasing as there are limitations on the ways of saying such straightforward facts. I prefer SC's original sentence: it is truer to the meaning of the source. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the same view as Graham Beards, immediately above. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support (and two comments) from Graham Beards

[edit]
  • Can you live with this fused participle "with armed gangs coming in" ?
  • I had to read this twice, "the town burghers surrendered the rights of their respective entities to the King." I don't want to seem thick, but "entities"?

A lovely article, which is clearly of FA standard. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Graham. Both these tweaked - I hope satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

Adding my two cents. More to come. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On 10 February 1355—Saint Scholastica Day" Here, the saint's day is written differently than in the lead, where it is presented as "Saint Scholastica's Day" and the proper noun is linked completely. Per MOS, we should link the full proper noun in both places. While it's not consistent with the name of the article, "St Scholastica's Day" (with the abbreviation and possessive) is the correct form.
  • Not something I'd insist on, but the position of bailiff is not immediately obvious to those without at least a passing familiarity with medieval offices. Perhaps a two word description of the post? Certainly not mandatory.
  • "After the rioting ended both" My understanding is that there ought to be a comma between "ended" and "both".
  • The first two are done. The third isn't, as it's fine in BrEng not to have a comma after the introductory date or phrase. Many thanks for these and I'd be delighted if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At least one previous mayor had refused to take part" This strikes me as a bit different in meaning from the statement "several of his predecessors", which seems to indicate at least two mayors tried and failed to end the ceremony.
  • On a similar note, I think we would benefit from clearly indicating that the penance was perceived as a humiliation by the city's government. Adding that to the start of the final paragraph in the Resolution section would also provide a more natural transition.
  • Although I think it probably was taken that way by the city, I don't think there's anything to actually say that. Cheetham, for example, calls it "this humiliating ceremony", but that doesn't actually say the city council found it humiliating (it could be percieved as Cheetham's personal view of the ceremony). - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merton College, Oxford appears to be linked twice in the body. They are separated by quite a bit of text, but I think this still constitutes overlinking.

Comment

[edit]
"Constructive" and Fowler are not natural companions; the less we see of him at FAC, the less trolling happens and the less dramah is stirred up. Either way, I care not one iota about his comments. The article—this article that stands now—is here for examination by reviewers, who seem to happy with it, so far. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In essence SC is correct, if rather enthusiastic in the way they express it. Each FAC starts with a clean slate. Previous nominations are listed at the top of each nomination page and if any reviewer feels that any issues in them still apply they are free to bring them up again. In the case of previous opposes a coordinator will usually have at least skimmed them, and if they feel it necessary will bring them up again themselves.
"Constructive": usually the community self polices. Ultimately the coordinators decide what if any weight to give a comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Borsoka

[edit]
  • I think a very short introduction to the scholars' (and possibly the townspeople's) privileges is needed to better understand the context of the events. I would also add a general statement about the causes of frequent conflicts between townspeople and scholars.
  • I will go through the sources when I'm back, but much of this is not in any of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main concern about the whole article is that the basic question "why?" remains unanswered several times. Why was the relationship between the university and the town/scholars and townfolk tense? Why were the scholars unpunished several times? I think chapter "Town and University" in Crossley (1979) contains relevant background information. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first part of the fourteenth century the population was aware of the decline of Oxford's fortunes, and this coincided with disturbance and unrest between the town and university. I would delete it. First of all, there is no reference to the decline of Oxford's fortunes between 1301 and 1349.
  • On the occasions when peace settlements were imposed on the two sides, the outcome favoured the university. I would delete it because the statements raises the question "Why?", and subsequent sentences explain the whole issue in details.
  • Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law. Why? Were the acts sanctioned sometimes only by the university, sometimes only by the "law"? I do not understand the reference to "law" in context.
  • Not in the source. There was nothing "sanctioned" by either university or law, but we don't claim there was.
    I'm not sure what's confusing about saying someone wasn't punished by the law - can you clarify where the confusion lies? - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that murders were not punished by law (whatever the term "law" means in context). Could you quote the text verifying this statement? Borsoka (talk)
  • My problem is that the sentence is not fully verified by the cited source, which says "Such offences frequently went unpunished", without any referenct to the university or "the law". The phrase is also closely paraphrased. After rephrasing it, I would also add an explanation, because the cited source states that in a specific case studens "claimed having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for deleting the unverified statement in an attempt to stop my silliness ([22]). You could save much time for both of us if you were more cooperative. For instance, if you had checked/quoted the cited source as I proposed above you could have fixed the problem without forcing me to add a tag in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Your WP:POINTY actions and the untruths you have written are more than silly: they are disruptive. If you had waited before you added a childish oppose, then there may have been cooperation, but while I was travelling I had no chance to do anything too much, but despite me asking for a few days, you didn't bother and just opposed. That's a piss poor approach to take. Asking for me to give you a source when you had access to it and being pointy and adding tags is worse: there's no point in asking for cooperation if you're going to play stupid games to disrupt a review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think my actions are disruptive, you can take me to ANI. I added my childish oppose after it became clear that you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised. Believe me or not, I had no access to the cited source when I requested a quote. Now I am not surprised that you did not want to qote the text that did not verify your full text. I still want to help you to improve this article. For instance, you could address the issue I raised below. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised": that's yet another bald-faced lie. Look at your comments and see how many have been addressed and corrected. You think that's me "unwilling to address major issues"? FFS: just because you think something doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and I've pushed back where I do not agree with a comment you have made. You can be as "surprised" as much as you want. I didn't even bother digging it out because you were not clear in your opening statements which particular parts you were not happy with or why: that only came much later when it became clear you already had the text: why piss about asking me for a copy when you already had it? You could have been constructive and said 'Looking at the source, it doesn't mention the university or the law when saying no-one sanctioned them'. You didn't: you played silly buggers and asked for a copy. It's no surprise cooperation is not forthcoming when disruption and stupid game playing is going on and when you turn around and make up fatuous lies that are so easily shown as such. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are really entertaining, so I invite you to my Talk page to share your negative thoughts about myself. However, could you address the issue below? This action might improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...there were no punishments given to the students. Why?
Not covered in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I quote it again: the [students] "having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether" - an example from the same source. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) No, your text mentions coroner courts held between 1297 and 1322: "Violence continued to break out periodically and 12 of the 29 coroners' courts held between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders committed by students. Many of these went unpunished." (2) The cited source covers the same period, explaining one of the 12 cases that "went unpunished": "Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished. After a riot between Northernmen and Southern-men in 1314, of thirty-nine students known to have committed manslaughter, only seven were apprehended, the others having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether." Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same problem still applies. The privilege of the clergy only affects some of those from the 1314 riot. I’m not going to apply that to everyone between 1297 and 1322. As a reminder, this article is about the St Scholastica day riot, not generally about violence in medieval Oxford, so readers don’t need to know every detail of everything that preceded it. At the moment we are briefly covering the background to give some context: it is a poor step to bloat the background too much with extraneous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the cited source only mentions the 1314 riot from the period. If the cited source's author thinks that this is relevant in the context, this could also be mentioned in the article to give an example why the students were not punished. Especially, because we know that most students were clerics. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’Could’, but I don’t intend to. We’re too far away from the riot and moving in the wrong direction with this. This is not an article about all medieval violence in Oxford. I’ll pass on this suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to delete all references to previous riots? Or do you only want to emphasise that the rioters went often unpunished without mentioning the possible reasons? In the second case, why? Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already explained and I don’t intend to repeat myself. You’ve left your oppose, and that’s fine, but I’m not going to waste my time dealing with things I’ve already dealt with. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the antiquarian Anthony Wood, among others,... I would delete "among others".
  • There were reports that some of the clerics were scalped... By whom? (I assume they were scholars and were scalped by the townsfolk, but I am not sure.)
  • The charter... I would specify that this is King Edward's charter.
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete it, for it is not connected to the riot.
  • One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century, largely because the small and weak guilds were not able to produce them. The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete both sentences because the cited source does mention the riot, but does not make direct connection between it and the lack of theatres in Oxford. That Oxford had no cathedrals and the guilds ceased to exist by the second half of the 13th century had no connection with the riot (at least according to the cited source). "Oxford was not a cathedral town and therefore not a religious center where pilgrims would congregate and the performing of plays could serve a religious need. ... <<By the second half of the thirteenth century, many of the trade guilds...had ceased to exist;>> ... The first overt clash recorded between Oxford and the new University took place in 1209, and the violent climax of terror was reached in the famous St. Scholastica's Day riot in 1355. The throne consistently supported the University in this conflict by granting it more and more authority...so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the town of Oxford was practically governed by the University. Thus, it does not appear strange that the town did not nurture any plays;..." Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not make the connection between the lack of cathedrals, the decline of guilds and the riot. It does make a connection between the riot and the lack of theatres in Oxford. We reflect the source. There is no Synth: that’s a false claim. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not a false claim. Do you say, if I found a source stating that it was raining on St Scholastica Day in 1355, I could expand the article about information of average number of rainy days in Oxford between the 13th and 16th centuries? The source does make a connection between the lack of theatres and the growing power of the university as a consequence of a series of riots in Oxford, but not between the lack of theaters and St Scholastica Day riot, furthermore there is absolutely no connection between the lack of cathedrals and the riot in the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're using logical fallacy to twist the point. I shall add information about the lack of cathedral, which should put this silliness to bed: the source makes a connection between the riots and a lack of theatres/plays: we need to do the same to be honest to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can agree that we do not agree on this point. I say that a source that only tangentially mentions the riot as a background to the lack of theatres in Oxford cannot verify the two statements. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the practice was allowed to lapse By whom and why?
  • Not given in the source. Common sense would suggest that the university didn't kick up a fuss, given it was all a bit silly after so long, and obviously a possible cause of friction, but that's my OR that isn't covered by either source used, nor any of the others I've looked at. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead): ...on 10 February 1355, St Scholastica's Day I would rephrase to avoid two mention the same term twice: "on 10 February 1355, the feast day of St Scholastica".
Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead): ..., which stood at the crossroads now known as Carfax,... I would delete this.
  • (Lead): ...reports of clerics... I would clarify that these were scholars (if indeed this is the case).
  • (Lead): Violent disagreements between townspeople and students had arisen several times previously, and twelve of the twenty-nine coroners' courts held in Oxford between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders by students. The University of Cambridge was established in 1209 by scholars who left Oxford following the lynching of two students by the town's citizens. I would delete it. I feel if extremly out of context between texts about the riot and the royal judgement. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think so. It’s the background to the riot, but for Wiki leads we don’t have background in the opening paragraph, but a v brief summary of the event. It’s valid info, and I think worth retaining as it is, where it is. I certainly won't "restructure" it to the end of the lead.- SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we start with the background there would be very real complaints from all quarters, so that’s not going to happen. The first paragraph has to carry the main event of the article. I’m not going to leave the background out if the lead, as that would then fail WP:LEAD. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not, if the first sentence would properly introduce the event as a violent conflict between students and townspeople in Oxford. This would be fully in accordance with our relevant policy: "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." Presently, we are informed that St Scholastica Day riot occured on St Scholastica Day, and nothing more in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a guideline, not a policy; it has a measure of flexibility and shouldn't be taken as holy writ. And the article follows in in letter and spirit: we say that it was a riot on St Scholastica's day: that is what the guideline tells us to do. If you really want a sentence that also includes a lot more background, I am sure I could introduce bad writing and bloat it to a monumental size with all sorts of bits and I'm sure someone would oppose based on MOS:LEADCLUTTER. But presently, the sentence does exactly what the guidance tells us to, and the opening paragraph fleshes it out further. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m away from my sources for a day or so, but will deal with the remainder on my return. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I think the article does not meet FACR 1a (lead section) and 1b (the lack of explanations). Furthermore, it may contradict WP:SYNTH. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting: I think the lead structure makes sense to me, similar to how event articles on Wikipedia are generally written: describing the event, the background and then the aftermath. Also in my source review, I don't believe there are strong cases of WP:SYNTH since the facts presented by the sources are also in context describing the background of the event.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADSENTENCE is obviously ignored (that a riot is named after St Scholastica Day occured on that day is not a surprise for anybody). Could your refer to FAs which follow the pattern you are mentioning above? The cited source attributes the lack of theatres first of all to the lack of cathedrals, than to the decline of guilds in the 13th century, finally to the growing power of the universities as a consequence to a series of riots (among them mentioning St Scholastica Day's riot). This apporach is not reflected in the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple historical articles that follow this pattern, but I'm not going to dignify your misguided oppose by wasting my time digging them out. As has been explained above, we follow the guidance at LEADSENTENCE. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand you do not want to search for articles. It would obviously be a time-consuming process. My oppose is quite obvious at the very beginning of the section. I still think the article needs significant improvements. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a complete waste of time. They are there (I know, because I've reviewed many of them and written a few others). Your oppose is noted, but it's based on your misunderstanding of a guideline that isn't reflected in the realities of a few hundred FAs written by dozens of editors over the last fifteen years or so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate that you have written and reviewed FAs, but MOS:LEAD is only one of the reasons I am opposing this article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed what I have said entirely, but I won't try and explain further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Allow me to do a source review on this. I noted in the previous FAC some chaos was stirred up regarding claims of "primary sources" and the citation formatting, but even from my understanding of Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, and having undertaken source reviewing elsewhere before, I don't see any of the so-called issues pointed out. So, I shall ignore all that and do my own.

The article is well-cited to plenty of academic sources. The only trivial concern I have is the potential use of using a couple of Oxford University sources as it could be considered WP:PRIMARY with some concerns of bias, but even then, such commentary are published plenty of centuries after the event. Also it's Oxford; it's a renowned reputable university. There are also sufficient in-line citations when citing to Oxford publications. Overall, the sources are of high-quality.

Spot checks:

  • Ref 1 I would actually cite both pages 75 and 81, since page 81 shows the map and 75 itself is just the description.
  • Ref 8, 10, 15 (both times) check out
  • I will like to see the relevant quote from History Today to support Ref 21. Either link a screenshot via imgur or just quote.
  • I can't really find in Ref 25 about the bailiffs partaking in the violence.
  • Ref 30 checks out. But I found it in page 100
  • The references of FN 33 check out
  • FN 34, 35, 46 check out
  • I was initially confused that for FN 55 you linked to a book of possibly a different title and author... until I double checked that Lawrence is the author of the said chapter.
  • I might want a couple of screenshots of pages from Cobban, for FN48 and 60. And also Ref 52 for the poem, if it's possible.

Overall, rather satisfactory. Will be happy to pass the source review once a couple of issues are cleared up.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the pages once again. Also a minor prose comment: Maybe also for like monetary values (e.g. £200) I wonder if you can give like the modern inflated values? I suppose 200 pounds is actually a lot more money back then.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve done them as a footnote, along with a wage comparison.
Thanks very much for your efforts here. They’re much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find no further issues. Happy to pass.
Addendum: I actually also have an ongoing FAC which is pending a source review and I would appreciate if you are also able to take a look. But you aren't obliged to. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZKang123: I found three unverified statements in the article although I only checked three sentences (two of them have been fixed) (by now all of them have been fixed: [23], [24]). Furthermore, I also found a closely paraphrased sentence. Did you check each sentence? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my honest opinion, I think you are being needlessly aggressive and grilling too hard into a veteran FAC nominator. I also did my spot-checks every five footnotes and my main concern was ensuring the facts are as stated as per the cited sources. Is that not enough for a source review? Must I scrutinise every citation and sentence such that you are satisfied? I might not have as much experience in source reviewing, but I have done plenty for various GANs and other FACs, and familiar enough with how source checks should be done. Also, why should I satisfy to your unreasonable expectations, since you aren't a FAC coordinator or the nominator? --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read FAs and FACs written by veteran FA nominators that were filled with unverified sentences. Each FA nominator are expected to be cooperative and I am too old to accept arguments that "I have written and reviewed dozens of FAs and I know how to write an FA". When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. No, you need not to satisfy my expectations. I only indicated that each sentence I compared with the cited source contained unverified claims. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with ZKang123 that Borsoka's contributions to this review have become aggressive and unhelpful. This is not the way we conduct our transactions in Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. This is a tremendously arrogant statement for any reviewer to make at any FAC, and does not appear to be borne out by the difference between pre- and post-Borsoka versions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say I am tough when reviewing. If I wanted to list examples of agressive and arrogant comments and edit summeries, I would add the following items: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. According to my experiences both in WP and real life, aggressivity and arrogance to critical (or tough) statements are typical signs of uncertainty about the quality of our work. I maintain that I have reviewed few FACs of lower quality than this one. The article has improved but I still cannot regard it as an FA. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More silliness. I am entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions you make - and I have done so when they did not improve the article. Thank you for those comments that did improve it, but the ones that were poor were turned down. If you endlessly push something that has been refuted, it's unsurprising that people get irked as a result. Now, you've said your piece, left your oppose and I think we can all move on with no more bludgeoning required. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We agree: nominators are entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions reviewers make, and reviewers are entirely entitled to oppose an article's promotion if they think the article has not significantly improved. Yes, I leave my oppose, and we can move on. Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Another enjoyable read. I will try to avoid unkind remarks about Oxonians in what follows. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely "St Scholastica Day" not "St Scolastica's"? Most saints' days are normally said in the possessive (e.g. tomorrow is St George's Day, not St George Day, as are other feast days (e.g. "All Hallows' Eve"). A non-scientific scan on Google Books seems to favour the possessive, though most of those are hardly HQRS. I notice we go for the possessive in the body.
    • The title was like this when I got here, and I noted that sources are split between the two forms, so left it like this. Like many of the sources, we talk about something happening on "St Scholastica's day", but refer to the events as the "St Scholastica Day riot" (aside from in one quote, where I've retained the original use of the possessive). - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is king -- I must admit that the distinction doesn't make much sense to me, but you're within your rights to make it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My usual question on The town was fined 500 marks: was that a lot? Later, we have the EFN A medieval English mark was an accounting unit equivalent to two-thirds of a pound., but that only pushes the question to how much 2/3 of a pound was worth. There's a better EFN a bit later that could be adapted with a routine calculation.
  • The practice was dropped in 1825; in 1955—the 600th anniversary of the riots—in an act of conciliation the mayor was given an honorary degree and the vice-chancellor was made an honorary freeman of the city.: this sentence hinges on the reader knowing that a mayor is a civic official and the vice-chancellor a university one: suggest "the city's mayor was given an honorary degree, while the university's vice-chancellor" or similar.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone put an oar in to say why the state (monarchy?) seems to have had such a soft spot for the students -- probably in general, rather than in this specific case? My naive assumption would be class, but it sounds like that isn't quite right, since the authorities seem to have fairly consistently sided with fairly ordinary students against fairly prominent townsfolk.
  • Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096: any way to slightly hedge/fudge this so that we don't categorically state that nobody learned anything in Oxford in 1095?
I don't think so, no -- I'm a secondary teacher, and my boss is the "Deputy Head (Academic)". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, swapped to 'university', although technically that may be a bit misleading, as it wasn't a university at that stage. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like "formal", "institutional" work, or else "academic colleges have been operating..."? I don't know how far the latter works for the very early stages of what the university was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those really do it for me for various reasons. 'Formal' and 'institutional' seem wrong (neither signify a level of education) and I'm not sure we can go as far as 'academic colleges' - the source doesn't and I don't think it was that structured at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096; as a university it grew rapidly from 1167 and was given a royal charter in 1248,: I would think about rephrasing this. We start the sentence with "Oxford" referring to the city: that city is not a university, but contains one by the same name. How about "its university grew rapidly..."?
  • "Clerk" is derived from the Latin word clericus and originally meant "man in a religious order, cleric, clergyman", according to the Oxford English Dictionary: we normally attribute matters of opinion or statements that we consider doubtful, so I would probably cut here -- the attribution suggests that we're not sure of this, and we have the footnote to show on whose authority we're saying it.
  • The secular clergy made up most of the student population and between 1200 and 1500, some seventeen per cent of the students were monks: I would explain this term, which looks at first glance like an oxymoron -- especially as its meaning is critical to understanding the force of the underlined bit. I might also be tempted to reverse: something like "Around seventeen per cent of the students were monks, while secular clergy -- other priests and deacons -- made up the majority of their numbers". Was there a third category?
  • Reading that way round makes it look like secular clergy made up the majority of the seventeen per cent...
  • Henry V went there and he probably makes up most or all of it! - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so could we say that seventeen per cent were monks, and the remainder were overwhelmingly secular clergy, in that order? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth wealthiest settlement in England. -- two citations and two footnotes! Any way to collapse those down?
  • including some who settled in Cambridge to start the university that year. The university remained shut: unfortunate repetition, as there are two different universities here. Suggest "that city's university ... Oxford's university".
  • Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law: this could be slightly ambiguous (do we mean that sometimes the law didn't punish them (but they were sent down), sometimes the university didn't punish them (but they were beheaded)...? I'm chewing on whether adding either helps ("Many of these went unpunished, either by..." -- I don't think that does!). I think it works with "both": "Many of these went unpunished by both the university and the law" -- like "the elephant went unnoticed by both of my great-aunts". I suppose we could equally just say "went unpunished"?
  • There's a consensus elsewhere on this page that the additional wording is helpful in clarifying matters, so I don't think removal is right, so I've gone with 'both'. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • civic authorities requested that a papal legate intercede to bring the matter to a close. Included in Niccolò de Romanis's judgement in 1214: I would be tempted to allow this to breathe and state absolutely explicitly that de Romanis was that legate. Suggest something like "That legate, Niccolò de Romanis, included in his judgement of 1214 a clause..."
  • a clause that stated that if a scholar was arrested by the civic authorities, they would have to hand him over to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy is requested: if requested, I think. We capitalise "Bishop of Lincoln" in the EFN, but not here: I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES favours the capital. I think this whole sentence could be done more concisely and clearly: perhaps "a clause requiring the civic authorities to hand over, if requested[by whom?], any scholar they arrested to the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln, or the bishop's named deputy"?
  • Done, but not done the final part of rewording. The request would come from whoever of the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln or the bishop's named deputy requested it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so "to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy, if any of the three requested?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1298 a citizen was murdered by a student; one of the students was killed by townspeople: the semicolon suggests (at least to me) that this was a revenge attack: was it? If not, suggest "a citizen was murdered by a student and a student killed..."
  • This was the first occasion that the town's bailiffs—officers of the court who executed writs—were recorded as taking part in the violence: we didn't actually say that they did take part in the violence: could we build them in a bit earlier and explain what they actually did?
  • 39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter; seven were arrested: MOS:NUM would like "7".
  • Cricket St Thomas in Somerset and de Chesterfield was the rector of Ipplepen, in Devon.: why the difference of comma?
  • You could consider multi-imaging the Swindlestock Tavern with one of what's now called the Carfax Tower (like this one), as it was once the tower of St Martin's.
  • The Chancellor of the University: here I think PEOPLETITLES wants lc.
  • chased them to the Augustine priory: I note with surprise that this form does get used, but as the proper noun is Augustine (like "Benedict", "Franciscus"), surely "Augustinian" is a better adjective?
  • to rally the respective supporters: I think we need "the respective factions' supporters, or a similar noun.
  • students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction: I can't quite tell from this whether there was an influx on its way, or whether they were simply preempting one that might turn up.
  • any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: cut, unless we mean that the town had jurisdiction when students were on both sides. Equally...
  • The town authorities were left with the power to take action in legal situations where it involved citizens on both sides; any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: we could lead with the change -- that the town authorities lost the authority to take action in a legal situation involving a student or the university on either side.
  • meaning that renewed warfare with both France and Scotland was imminent: might be nice to have an EFN saying when (and that) it did actually break out.
The grande chevauchée was the 1356 one. In the 1355 one he marched to the Mediterranean and back - 675 miles. Suggest 'By the autumn of 1355 Edward III was in northern France leading an army against that of the French King, while at the same time his son the Black Prince led a destructive chevauchée 675 miles from English held Bordeaux to the Mediterranean and back.' or similar. You may wish to add more Wikilinks. I recommend citing to Rogers WC&S pp 296-304 for the former and Wagner pp 95-96 for the latter. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thansk Gog - much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was a unique position for any university in Europe: this seems to imply that some non-European universities had the same position?
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century: I need a bit of explaining as to how these two things are related. Is it that the city authorities were poor -- we say "weak", but what sort of strength do you need to put a play on?
    The source reads "Oxford was not a strong commercial center during the period when the cycles were being written and performed in England. Thus, there were no large and prosperous guilds to produce such plays in order to enhance the renown of the town and bring in tourists with pence to spend." (It's on JSTOR, so available), but the line of argument is shown, but not expanded upon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it quite right to lump guilds under "the town's authorities" and, later, "the civic authorities"? I know guilds had influence and clearly had a lot of power over their members, but I'm not sure I've seen them promoted to being part of the actual state apparatus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They were part and parcel of the town's authorities - the Guilds were the power source for most. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the mafia are the power source for many people in Sicily, but I'd be uncomfortable calling them "the island's authorities". Do you have a reassuring academic quotation you can throw out to calm my nerves? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworked it a little, although the official power of guilds was clear at the time (see the make-up of the City of London for example - the Court of Common Council was made up of guildsmen; Exeter was the same, and so was Oxford). However, I think if I dig out sources that show the direct correlation between the guilds and local authorities we could be open to a charge of SYNTH in making the connection from there to the lack of theatre, so I've tweaked what we have. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian the Rev Herbert Edward Salter in 1920. The historian Jeremy Catto: I would cut the Rev (we don't call the others "Prof.", "Dr" etc etc -- MOS:HONORIFIC?). Anything to be done about the repetition here?
  • A couple of journals don't have ISSNs.
  • The plaque commemorating the site of the Swindlestock Tavern from 1250 to 1709: I would give this caption another look: as written, it suggests that the plaque commemorated that site for nearly 500 years, but hasn't since 1709.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [32].

Roon-class cruiser

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a pair of armored cruisers built by Imperial Germany in the early 1900s, one of which was sunk during World War I. This article is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany Featured Topic, and should this article pass, it will be one step along the way to turn all of the icons into stars. It passed a MILHIST A-class review last month, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

A few comments after a read-through from someone who knows almost nothing about warships. I enjoyed the article: it's clearly written from a place of huge knowledge, and on the whole was clear and engaging throughout.

  • The two ships served in I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance force of the High Seas Fleet, after they entered service in 1905–1906: the High Seas Fleet didn't exist until 1907, which does not sit well with this or, later, On entering service, Yorck joined I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance squadron of the High Seas Fleet.
    • This is a fair point - the fleet existed, just under the name Heimatflotte - I've created a redirect from that name and updated the article accordingly
  • the group flagship and the deputy commander flagship: this may be navy-speak, but should this be deputy commander's flagship?
    • Probably just an oversight, since I used the possessive further down in the article.
  • By the early 1910s, the first German battlecruisers had begun to enter service and Roon was decommissioned in 1911: we need to split this sentence: Roon was not decommissioned in 1911 by the early 1910s.
    • "By the early 1900s" refers to when the battlecruisers entered service
      • Yes, this is a grammar problem: as phrased, it governs the whole sentence, but we want it only to govern the first clause. Accordingly, we need something like By the early 1910s, the first German battlecruisers had begun to enter service: Roon was decommissioned in 1911.
        • Sentences are split
  • n armored cruisers for both service overseas in Germany's colonial empire and as scouts for the main battle fleet in German waters: I think we can do without overseas here, which made me scratch my head a little (don't ships by definition operate overseas?)
    • "overseas" as opposed to in home waters, but I suppose it's redundant, since Germany had no colonies in Europe at the time
  • The design for the new ships, completed in 1901, were slight improvements over the Prinz Adalberts,: singular, not plural, needed here (and probably a slight rewrite). I'm not convinced about the mixed languages and fonts of "Prinz Adalberts": suggest keeping it singular as "the Prinz Adalbert class".
    • Rewored - take a look now
  • which necessitated a longer hull and provided an increase by about 2,028 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp): an increase of what? It would be useful to know what it was increasing from, as well: was this a marginal gain or a massive one?
    • Added a note
  • length to breadth ratio: hyphens: "length-to-breadth ratio" (compound modifier).
    • Good catch
  • The Roon-class ships shared many of the same layout characteristics as the contemporary German pre-dreadnought battleships: slightly mixed constructions: we either want shared many layout characteristics with or had many of the same layout characteristics as.
    • Fixed
  • And as with all of the preceding German armored cruisers, they received less armor protection than their opposite numbers in the British fleet: it's not strictly verboten to start a sentence with "and", but here I think it jars and adds little: would advise cutting.
    • Removed
  • Further, they suffered the same fate as many pre-dreadnought type vessels completed in the mid-1900s, having been rendered obsolescent by the advent of all-big-gun warships like the British battlecruiser Invincible, launched in 1907.: there seems to be an elephant in the room we're not directly mentioning here?
    • They're different ship types with different roles - Dreadnought did not render armored cruisers obsolete, only Invincible did that
  • the follow-on Scharnhorst class, which proved to be far better fighting ships, more than a match for their British counterparts: I think it might help to be explicit about what we mean by "counterparts": you surely don't mean Invincible, for example?
    • No, their counterparts would have been the last generation of British armored cruisers - but Dodson doesn't say specifically which class he's referring to (and the British built several during the period in question).
  • There's a lot of technical terminology in the first paragraph of "General characteristics and machinery". This isn't a problem per se, but I think it might help non-expert readers to have a little explanation of, for example, the point of having watertight compartments and a double bottom. This article section is rapidly becoming my gold standard for explaining detailed material without becoming simplistic.
    • I don't think I agree (and I don't really think the Preston article should go that far into detail on background information); FA criterion #4 states that articles should be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Part of the benefits of an online encyclopedia is that readers can follow the links if they don't understand what a double bottom means, or how displacement is calculated.
      • Right, but FA criterion #2 includes "It follows the style guidelines": WP:GENAUD has "An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive", and MOS:NOFORCELINK has "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence". I don't think we need necessarily to explain what a double bottom is, but it would, I think, be helpful to explain briefly why you would want to add one to a ship.
        • But then you get back to the SYNTH problem; no references discuss general topics like a double bottom with regard for a specific ship. Even though it should be relatively innocuous to state something along the lines of "Roon had watertight compartments and a double bottom.[1] Watertight compartments and double bottoms are used to contain flooding in the event of a hull breach.[2]", it's still synthetic to take unrelated sources and put them together to make a point.
          • Here I disagree (or at least, I disagree that it's bad) -- if you follow that logic to its conclusion, we can't join any two facts unless a source has joined them in exactly the same way, and so every article must either fail WP:CLOP or WP:SYNTH. We have a different audience to most publications, and it stands to reason that we would explain things that academic works for an expert audience would consider obvious. However, I do take your point that summary style is part of the FA criteria, while clarity and comprehensibility aren't, as long as the prose is professional in quality -- and that it certainly is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ships lost up to 60 percent speed: of their speed? Again, possibly naval-ese (on which see WP:JARGON), but we wouldn't say "the car gained double speed" in my dialect of English at least.
    • Added
  • The ships' casemates were placed too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet, which rendered them impossible to use in heavy seas.: is that a retrospective comment on the design, or did someone mess up at the shipyard? What does "exceedingly wet" mean in this context, exactly?
    • It was a very common problem of just about all countries' navies at the time, so not a particular person's screw up. "Exceedingly wet" means water could easily splash into the casemate openings (to say something is "wet" is a bit of naval-ese)
      • OK -- I think it should be clarified that "The ships' casemates were placed too low" is talking about the design, rather than that the fitters placed them lower than the naval architects intended them to.
        • Done
  • drove one of the ships' three screws.: with the apostrophe here, it sounds as if the ships had three screws between them.
    • Reworded slightly
  • The central screw was 4.50 m (14 ft 9 in) in diameter, and the outer screws were 4.80 m (15 ft 9 in). Steam was provided to the engines by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers built by Düsseldorf-Ratinger Röhrenkesselfabrik (Dürr). Each boiler had 4 fireboxes for a total of 64. The boilers were ducted into four funnels. The propulsion system produced 19,000 ihp (14,200 kW), which had a rated top speed of 22 knots (41 km/h), though on trials neither ship reached that figure, with Roon making 21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph) and Yorck only 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph). The ships had four turbo generators, which provided 260 kilowatts at 110 volts: again, a lot of technical details which don't give the reader much to contextualise them, or much of a clue as to what they should take away about them. I find myself asking "was that a lot?" throughout. Footnote a, interestingly, does a very good job of contextualising a similarly unintuitive measurement.
    • The trouble is, it's hard to put most of these things in context without veering into synthesis; I could very easily cite figures for other ships of the era, which would make it easier for readers to compare them, but that's a bit closer to WP:SYNTH that I'd like to go.
  • The forward conning tower had 150 mm (5.9 in) thick sides and a 30 mm (1.2 in) thick roof: these measurements should be hyphenated, as they are adjectival in apposition.
  • At the waterline, their armored belt was 100 mm (3.9 in) thick amidships where the ships' vitals were located: with apologies for repeating myself, I would like to know whether this was a lot.
    • Same as above; and these sorts of comparisons are more difficult than just measuring thicknesses. There were different types of steel used, different arrangements of armor protection, etc. And it inevitably leads to Top Trumps comparisons, which isn't really helpful in understanding a particular ship design.
  • By this time, Roon had been disarmed: this comes out of the blue: we haven't yet put the ships on the water, as far as the article's narrative is concerned. I wonder if this section would be better moved down to the end of the service history, especially as these changes never actually happened?
    • I get the point, but I generally don't like to mix technical details with the narrative section.
  • Capitalisation: why "raid on Yarmouth" but " Battle of the Åland Islands"?
    • Fixed
  • on returning to Wilhelmshaven on the night of 3 November, the ships encountered heavy fog and were forced to anchor in the Schillig roadstead outside the port to avoid running into the defensive minefields there. Yorck's commander decided that visibility had improved enough to enter the port, but in the haze he led the ship into one of the minefields. : if it's possible, it would be useful to have an indication of when he did this.
    • Do you mean a specific time?
      • Or at least a vague one: did the other ships anchor there, and Roon, push on, or did the captain wait for a couple of hours while the fog lifted, decide that it had lifted enough, and prove himself wrong?
        • Clarified
  • with a joint Army-Navy assault: endash, not hyphen. We should probably also decapitalise and consider a rephrase -- do we mean that the Navy actually assaulted Libau, or did they provide support from the sea to army troops who did the assaulting?
    • Done
  • Design work commenced in 1916 to convert the ship into a seaplane tender: this contradicts the date of 1918 given further up (but see my comment there about combining these two subsections).
    • Corrected
  • the war ended before the project could be carried out, so the ship was stricken from the naval register on 25 November 1920: it may just be clumsy phrasing, but this is a non sequitur: we can't draw a straight casual line from "the war ended" (in 1918) to "so the ship was stricken" (two years later). Why did it sit around for two years?
    • Added a bit of context (namely, the Treaty of Versailles)
  • Tucker 2005 is missing place of publication.
    • Added
  • Taylor 1970 was published before the introduction of ISBN-13, so should have a 10-digit ISBN.
    • ISBNs can be converted from one format to another, and in my experience, preference at FAC is to standardize on one format.
      • We have different experiences at FAC: WP:ISBN has Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. The ISBN-13 is often found near the barcode and will start with either 978- or 979-. However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it.
  • By early 1915, it had become clear to the German naval command that older vessels like Roon were insufficiently armored to take part in an action with the powerful British Grand Fleet,: Scheer puts it very slightly differently: he says " The Third Scouting Division, which contained the oldest armoured cruisers ... had long since been handed over to the commander of the Baltic forces, as, owing to their lack of speed and inferior armour plating, the vessels were not suitable for use in the North Sea". He doesn't explicitly mention the Grand Fleet here, but I think it's a reasonable inference.
    • In context, it could really only mean the Grand Fleet; it was the only game going in the North Sea, aside from (from Scheer's perspective inconsequential) light forces in the Channel (and with which Roon wouldn't have had much trouble).
  • The copyright on File:NH 92713.jpg does not look good to me. We have an explanation that "most" of the images in its colleciton are free from known copyright restrictions, but that isn't quite good enough. The last known source is someone who was in a position to give it in 1981, so we're about 45 years tops PMA, and it was taken c. 1914, so absent publication information, it isn't PD in the United States. Assuming it was taken in Germany, copyright expires 70 years after production for an unpublished, anonymous work, but we don't actually know for sure that this is the country of origin.
    • We've always relied on the NHHC disclaimer in cases like this. It's basically impossible to track down the original photograph, so we have to use the information available to us. But @Nikkimaria: may want to comment, since she's regarded as one of the foremost copyright experts on the site.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UC, your comments have been very helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: a few replies above. In the other cases, I'm generally happy or at least happy to agree to disagree -- in particular, I do take your point on the difficulty of contextualising e.g. speeds and armour plates without going into SYNTH. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming that all comes back OK on the image licensing (and if it doesn't, that any problem there is fixed) -- we disagree on a few things, but you've got solid reasons for doing things your way, and those deserve to be respected. It's clearly an excellent article and a worthy addition to the long list of warship FAs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and just so we're clear (since it can be difficult to judge tone on the internet), I appreciate you pushing me in this review - it can be easy to become complacent on these things, and we all need to be challenged from time to time. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

What an excellent article! Aside from UndercoverClassicist's comments, I support with the following additional (but merely suggestive) comments that can be actioned or ignored at the nominator's discretion.

  • The lead seems incredibly long for an article of this length (392 words). While it comes just under the 400-word maximum suggested, but not mandated, by WP:LEADLENGTH, the article itself is concise enough that it feels a bit "off".
    • It's tough, since I don't know exactly what could be trimmed without losing the key details of the topic
  • "for both service overseas in Germany's colonial empire and as scouts for the main battle fleet in German waters" For clarity, this might be better represented as "for service both overseas ..."
    • Done
  • "provided an increase by" I think (?) of is the correct preposition here, not by.
    • I think you're right
  • "Roon and Yorck were powered by the same engine system as the preceding class, three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove one of the ships' three screws." I think a colon instead of a comma might work better after "class" but this also might simply be a question of personal preference. I had to double-check the use of colons for non-lists and it doesn't appear to be a hard or fast rule that they must be used for explanatory statements [33].
    • I think that reads better with the colon

I'm sorry I don't have more comments. I attribute that to the thoroughness and excellence of Jackyd101's GA review. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chetsford! Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I meant to list criticism here but reached the end without complaints. I made a few changes to image placement, - feel free to revert, of course. The very last sentence doesn't quite belong under "World War I" but doesn't need an extra section ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the ships had comparatively light armament and thin armor protection". Compared to what? If the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers then this doesn't seem to be the case. If foreign armored cruisers then the sentence structure is not perhaps as clear as it could be. (Eg, both "comparatively" and "compared" in the same sentence.)
    • The latter - does changing "comparatively" to "relatively" help?
It would. 'The ships' relatively light armament and thin armor protection compared poorly with their foreign contemporaries, particularly the armored cruisers of their primary opponent, the British Royal Navy.' would be even better.
Works for me.
I note that this hasn't been changed ...
Apparently I forgot to actually save the edit (which I had done at work the other day and gotten distracted - so I had to log back in to my remote desktop to actually save the page!)
My usual self sabotage is having too many windows open at once.
  • What do you mean by "their primary opponent"?
    • The German fleet was being built more or less directly to challenge the Royal Navy
Then something like 'their potential opponent, the British Royal Navy.' or 'their anticipated opponent, the British Royal Navy.' seems to fit better.
Done
  • "Though the additional boilers were meant to increase the ships' speed, both vessels failed to reach their designed top speed." So did the additional boilers succeed in increasing the ships' speed compared with the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers?
    • Yes, it did increase their speed compared to the Prinz Adalbert design, though those ships also failed to reach their design speed (I don't know that we want to get too far into the weeds in the lead)
Those additional boilers are explicitly additional to the number in the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers, so either don't mention them again, or - better - tell the readers whether they did their job. Whether the ships met their design speed is something else - perhaps they failed this by half a knot but were 5 knots faster than the Adalberts?
Added to the body, but I don't want to get that far into the weeds in the introduction.
  • "Both ships were reactivated after World War I broke out in July 1914." Were both ships reactivated in July? I note that the main article uses a slightly different wording.
    • The war broke out in July - the ships were mobilized after that (being recommissioned in August once crews were assembled)
Then maybe use the same wording you do in the main article?
Reworded with a bit more specificity
  • "tasked with screening for the main body of the German fleet." Possibly this works in US English, but could I interest you in 'tasked with screening the main body of the German fleet.'?
    • You could ;)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove the ships' three screws." Just checking that you don't mean '... each of which drove one of the ships' three screws.'?
    • Lot of threes in that sentence - should be read to mean 1 engine per screw. Would it be easier to say "three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines, each of which drove a screw"?
Good point, and yes, it would.
Done
  • "Reconnaissance Forces of the Baltic". Worth a red link?
    • I don't know - de.wiki has a section in their overarching article on the scouting forces of the Imperial fleets (which we also lack). It's obscure enough that I don't know that it has a standard translation in English, so I'm somewhat hesitant to impose one
Ok.

That's it from me. Nice to see it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Are we sure that an all-English sourcing on a German ship class isn't leaving any important source out? What's the logic between linking some sources to the Internet Archive and others not? What's the "Naval Records Club"? Does "Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart" not have an ISBN OCLC or other identifier? I am pretty sure I have seen many of these publishers in other FACses and the formatting seems consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe certainly isn't English ;) (and Gröner is a translation of a German book, by the way). As for the ISBN/OCLC number, for some reason, Vol. 8 doesn't show up in Worldcat, and the hard copy I have doesn't have an ISBN included.
The links were added piecemeal by multiple editors over the years, but I haven't bothered to dig up the rest. I don't know how useful they are for the non-PD sources anyway.
The Naval Records Club was the original name for the International Naval Research Organization. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, satisfactory responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]
  • The two ships of the class, Roon and Yorck, closely resembled the earlier Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers upon which they were based.
The Roon & Yorck are punctuated as an appositive, indicating that they are non-essential to the meaning of the sentence. Since readers already know that there are two ships in the class,
it would seem appropriate that R & Y would be the topic of the sentence.
I don't think I agree with this - yes, it should probably be assumed that Roon and Yorck are the two members of the class, but I don't like the idea of mentioning the names without introducing them at all
  • The ships were easily distinguished from their predecessors by the addition of a fourth funnel.
distinguished should be distinguishable from
Done

Design

  • These failures were primarily the result of their length-to-breadth ratios, which was the result of limitations imposed by the dock facilities in Wilhelmshaven.
Could one result be substituted with amother word?
Reworded

General characteristics

  • Like the preceding Prinz Adalbert-class ships, Roon and Yorck were good sea boats; when the fuel bunkers were full they had a gentle motion.
  • Punctuation is unneeded before when if what follows is essential to the meamig of the sentence.
  • But they aren't directly related - a ship need not have a gentle motion to be seaworthy
  • It would have taken more than weight to experience gentle motion-the rate of speed and sea & weather conditions would have been determining factors, which are noticably absent fron the sentence.
  • Presumably yes, but Groner doesn't exactly specify the conditions, he simply states "Good sea boats, with a gentle motion when lower bunkers were full"
  • While serving as a squadron flagship the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 62 men, and as a second command ship by 9 officers and 44 sailors
Add a comma after squadron flagship -> It's an introductory phrase
Done
  • Steam was provided to the engines by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers built by Düsseldorf-Ratinger Röhrenkesselfabrik (Dürr).
  • The steam was transferred to the engines from... -> provided means to supply or make something available: transfereed means to move something from one place to another
  • Actually, in the scheme of things, steam was first generated–a process–by the sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers and then it was transferred–through pipes and valves–to the engines...
  • True, which is why I simply stated that the boilers provided steam - I don't think we need to get into the nitty-gritty about generating and then transporting steam. It's enough to state that the boilers' job was to supply steam to the engines
  • The ships had four turbo generators, which provided 260 kilowatts at 110 volts.[12]
Could you show readers some of the things that the generators were used for?
Nothing specific I can point to, but I can add a general comment

World War I

  • Following the outbreak of World War I in July 1914, both cruisers were mobilized and assigned to III Scouting Group in August, which was initially assigned to the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea; Roon served as the group flagship
what is which referring to?
III Scouting Group
  • During that action, a group of Russian cruisers attacked several German vessels on a minelaying operation and Roon sortied to reinforce the German ships.
During this action...
Done
  • But higher priority projects at the shipyard delayed that was to carry out the work delayed the conversion,[30] and the war ended before the project could be carried out.
Clunky!
Reworded

@Parsecboy: This is it for now - Pendright (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pendright:! Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [34].

Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Not in Love" was originally a song by Platinum Blonde that Crystal Castles decided to cover for their second album. It didn't get much attention from critics until Robert Smith replaced the original vocals, resulting in Crystal Castles' highest charting single by far and one of the best songs of the year. I believe it is ready to be featured following GAN, PR and GOCE. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Averageuntitleduser

[edit]
  • "more-impactful" — remove dash.
  • "named it as one of the best songs of 2010" — remove "as"
  • "for their eponymous 2010 studio album" — "self-titled" may be even more recognizable when discussing albums.
  • "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo' he intended to re-record but it was used for the finished version and released on the album." — suggest: "Ethan Kath recorded his vocals as 'a scratch demo'. He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version..."
  • "Smith recorded 'raw demo vocals' for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the way the demo was sung and decided to retain Smith's demo and canceled their plans to re-record Smith in a studio." — suggest: "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song; when the band listened to the result, they became attached to the delivery, which they described as "raw", and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio."
  • "stronger structure" — this is hard to conceptualize, or a bit vague. Try revising the phrase.
    • I've quoted directly now.
  • "Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote the song" — "wrote that"
  • "A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release, adding it is one of the best covers of the 2010s and 'a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried'." — suggest splitting the second half into its own sentence, e.g., "They concluded that it was one of the best covers..."

All minor comments. Very nice article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser: Thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "second studio album Crystal Castles (2010)" - "second studio album, Crystal Castles (2010)"
  • "re-recored" can be linked to re-recording (music)
  • "when the band listened to the result, they decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio, as the band became attached to these "raw" vocals" - "when the band listened to the result, they became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio" -- reads better, in my opinion
  • "distortion" can be linked to distortion (music)
  • Shouldn't "[t]here's" and "[t]he" be "There's" and "The" since the sentences were separated with a colon?
  • "crescendos" can be linked to crescendos
  • "Rolling Stone characterized the version" - Shouldn't this be "Rolling Stone's Andi Harrima characterized the version"?
  • "chorus" can be linked to refrain
  • "synthesizers" and "synths" can be linked to synthesizers
  • "filler" can be linked to filler (media)
  • "the "Not in Love" re-recording with Robert Smith" - Does Smith's full name need to be mentioned again?
  • "said Smith "elevates" Crystal ..." - "said he "elevates" Crystal ..."
  • "catchiest" can be linked to catchiness
  • "He also said this was one of Smith's ..." - "He also considered it one of Smith's ..."
  • "ballad" can be linked to sentimental ballad

I think that's all. Great work! Medxvo (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: thank you! All done. Skyshiftertalk 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image licence, use and rationale seem OK to me. Might want to add why these particular parts of the song were clipped and why it takes two non-free samples rather than just one; remember, "must significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, and its omission would be detrimental to said understanding". Is undertheradar.co.nz a reliable source for interviews? What makes DrownedInSound a reliable source? It looks I have reviewed most of the magazines and sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Two non-free samples are needed to show the (sourced) differences between the original version and the version with Smith. The same part was clipped in both, which clearly shows the pre-chorus, its vocals, and synthesizers and part of the chorus in Smith's version — aspects which sources commented on. I will add this to the rationales. Drowned in Sound is listed as reliable on WP:A/S. undertheradar.co.nz does multiple interviews with NZ artists/artists touring NZ, and they then republish on their official media accounts (example); I don't see any reason to doubt the legitimacy of the interviews. Skyshiftertalk 14:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the differences a significant aspect of the article topic, though? It doesn't seem like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like most of the "Composition" section is about comparing both versions and noting said differences. Skyshiftertalk 10:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Commercially, it appeared in the singles charts of Australia, Denmark, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, and was certified gold by Music Canada." It may just be me, but consider either deleting "Commercially" or expanding a little (eg 'Commercially it was a modest success, appearing in ...'). I had to pause for a few moments to think through the connection.
    • Fixed
  • "He intended to re-record the song, but the demo was used for the finished version and released on the album." Is it known how that happened?
    • It is not.
  • "asked if he could remix one of its tracks". Remix any track, or did he specify "Not in Love".
    • Any track in the album. I've changed "Following its release" to "Following the album's release" for clarification.
  • What are "home demo vocals"? Is there a link?
    • Just vocals that were recorded in his home.
The uninitiated may find "Smith recorded demo vocals for the song at home" more self explanatory.
  • "It was planned to be released in the United Kingdom via Fiction Records with acoustic demos of "Celestica" and "Suffocation" as B-sides on December 6." And was it?
    • It was not. The article previously had something like "but the release didn't happen", but it was removed for being unsourced.
Ah, the good old trying to cite a negative. Drat.
  • " "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio on January 11, 2011". This sounds a bit shorthand. Is it short for ' "Not in Love" was sent to American alternative radio stations on January 11, 2011'?
    • Fixed
  • "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson said this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.[17] Mark Pytlik, also writing for Pitchfork, said the track is "much tamer" than the version with Smith's vocals.[13] Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant ..." "...said ... said ... said ..." Synonym time?
    • Fixed
  • "Larry Fitzmaurice of Pitchfork said this version has a "more muscular framework" than the first, and powerful synths with an anthemic intensity." The first part is a comparison, the second a statement. Did you mean something like '... and has more powerful synths with an anthemic intensity'?
    • It is supposed to be like that, but rearranged.
Better now. (IMO)
  • The album version section is rather "A said "short quote" ... B stated "short quote" ... C described "short quote" ..." Is it possible to make it a bit more "engaging"?
    • Tried my best
  • "Robert Smith version" is an improvement, but is in much the same style in large parts.
    • I've changed a word but I'm not exactly sure how to improve it much.
  • ""Not in Love" was ranked as one of the 20 best songs of 2010 by ..." Which version?
    • Clarified

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thank you! Responded. Skyshiftertalk 20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • The last part of the first paragraph now has three x "described" in a row: "while Cosores of Beats Per Minute described it as "pretty pedestrian". Emily Bick of The Quietus described it as "[shifting] towards discomfort, disillusion, despair". Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as "pretty" and said it sounds "the way twinkling Christmas lights look"." Maybe something like 'while Cosores of Beats Per Minute considered it to be pedestrian. Emily Bick of The Quietus wrote of "discomfort, disillusion, despair", although Justin Jacobs of Paste described it as pretty and as sounding "the way twinkling Christmas lights look" '?
I realised that this left 2 x considered in one sentence. I tweaked it but messed up my edit summary. Let me know if the revised version doesn't work for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "said the song is "massive" ... its "high-definition angst" feels unique to the band." Why the shift to present tense? (is instead of was, feels not felt) You use past tense elsewhere in the same paragraph. (described not describes, considered not considers)
  • "Robert Smith version" section. you need to lose some of those verbs. Eg (just a suggestion) "Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork described the song as having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision", calling it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads"." → 'Molly Beauchemin from Pitchfork called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision".' Wa'da'ya think? It loses one "described", which you use six times in three paragraphs!
  • If you like - or can at least can live - with what I have done in my first and third suggestions above, have a go at extending the principles over the rest of the reception section. Note that it is not required to put single words in quote marks if they are clearly and closely associated with the source. (Although you can if you wish.) If you are not happy, have a look at how other FACs have handled the issue and see if you can come up with a different approach. Bedtime now, so no responses for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've applied these suggestions but I'm not sure if it is sufficient. Skyshiftertalk 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thing that you are now close to "there". It seems to be missing a summary of the critics view of "Robert Smith version". And the comments on Smith and on the band seem mixed together. How would you feel about separating them thematically?

Eg: 'The majority of critics were enthusiastic about Smith's cover. Pitchfork named it the "Best New Track" and Fact staff called the track "as satisfying as you could have hoped for". Larry Fitzmaurice, writing for Pitchfork, said the song was "massive", evoking chills, and that while a cover, its "high-definition angst" felt unique to the band. Molly Beauchemin, also from Pitchfork, called it one of Crystal Castles' "finest, most cathartic ballads", having an explosive, "life-affirming" chorus that transitions into Kath's tender interludes with "triumphant precision". Brandon Stosuy of Stereogum said this version could be considered the best the Cure song in years, while providing a new perspective on the "saturated, blasted goth-noise prettiness" of Crystal Castles. A writer for DIY described the song as the most-destined for festival stages and the purest of any Crystal Castles release; they concluded that it was one of the best covers of the 2010s and "a crazed re-creation of a song that looked to be dead and buried".


Smith's vocals in particular drew praise, with most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment that Smith's emotional vulnerability reveals "the tender longing[s] beneath Crystal Castles' cool, icy facade". Slant Magazine staff wrote: "The crunchy production combined with Smith's familiar pangs is heart-wrenching and nothing short of blisteringly gorgeous". Fitzmaurice also considered it one of Smith's best performances in a long time, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia with the immediacy of life. Pitchfork's Ryan Dombal described Smith's vocals as "loud and clear", making this one of Crystal Castles' catchiest works.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Regarding this, I will try my best to explain. The correct structure is: "Someone said (past) the song is (present) this". The song is something, because the song is a definite work and its attributes don't change. Critics have said something about the song in the past, saying that it is something. This is used in many parts of the article: "Pitchfork's Mark Richardson wrote that this version is filled with digital noise and heavy distortion.", "Cameron Scheetz of The A.V. Club said Kath's "distant, distorted vocals" on the first version provides a ghostly feel to the lyrics.", and the entire second paragraph of Composition. I have followed this with other FAs such as Worlds (Porter Robinson album).
Got it.

I have applied your suggestions with this in mind. On "most critics agreeing with Scheetz' assessment"... I wouldn't put it like that if they haven't explicitly agreed with Scheetz' specific assessment, so I've reworded it. Skyshiftertalk 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think that it would be helpful to have two infoboxes as this article is about two covers. An article like "Forever & Always" this an example of t. I would think that the album version would have an infobox, along with the one for the Smith version.
  • Apologies for the double-reply, but I wanted to comment on the following edit. I think that it would be better to have both infoboxes in the lead, with the first release (in this case, the album version) coming first so the information is presented in more of a chronological order. This article is about both versions of the song, so I do not think that it makes sense to put a preference on the single version by having that appear first and separate in the lead. I would suggest looking at the article that I have linked above or at "You're Not Sorry" or "Hey Stephen". I know that all of the examples are Taylor Swift articles, but I think they are closest equivalent to this article, as they are all songs recorded multiple times by the same artist. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the single version is much more notable than the album version, and thus it should be the main infobox of the article. I'd say the album version is more of a context for the single version, and that's why I think it belongs better in the Background section.
  • Sorry, but it still does not make much sense to me for the reasons that I have already listed above. The current placement in the "Background and release" section is also a bit odd as most of that section is on the single version. I disagree with the idea that "the album version is more of a context for the single version". Again, this article is about both versions of this song, to the point that it includes audio samples from both. At this point, in my opinion, it may be best to just eliminate the album version infobox entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • For the lead's first paragraph, I would put the part on Ethan Kath before the bits on the second cover and Robert Smith. It seems a bit jarring to go from the first cover to the second cover back to the first cover again.
  • Rearranged lead.
  • This is likely a silly question, but what does "impactful" mean in this context, has more impactful beats and synthesizers? To me, it reads more like a review, but it could also just be a more objective description that I am missing.
    • Changed to stronger
  • For the lead's last sentence, it is unclear which version of the song appeared on those charts. It is also unclear in the "Commercial performance" section. I am guessing that it is the Smith version since that was released as a single, but it is always best to avoid any potential confusion.
    • Fixed
  • I would recommend linking demo for readers who may be unfamiliar with music jargon.
    • Done
  • What does "home demo vocals" mean? I am unfamiliar with that phrasing. Does it just mean that he recorded his vocals at home? If so, I think that should be stated more clearly.
    • Done
  • For this part, they became attached to his "raw" vocals, it is unclear who is saying this quote.
    • It is the band. I believe this can be inferred through context (when the band listened to the result, they became attached...)
      • When it comes to quotes, the reader should not have to infer anything. The article should clearly and explicitly attribute the quote so this would need to be addressed. This could be fixed with something along the lines of: According to Kaith, the band became attached to his "raw" vocals and decided to retain Smith's demo and cancel their plans to re-record him in a studio. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the announcement of the Smith cover notable enough to mention in the article? I am only wondering because while announcement can be notable, this does not appear to be the case.
    • I don't see a reason to remove it if there is sourcing confirming when the announcement was made.
      • That does not really answer my question though. Sure, the announcement can be sourced, but why is the announcement notable enough to mention at all? Why not just say when the song was released? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be mindful of using "released" multiple times in close contexts. I know that it can be difficult while discussing this kind of thing, but it is helpful to avoid repetition.
    • I've used "launched" in some cases.
  • Is there any further information about the music video, other than the director and release date?
    • I have added some information.
  • Is the song's inclusion on FIFA 12 notable enough to mention here? It seem a bit trivial to me.
  • I would recommend adding some sentence variation in the "Composition" section, particularly for the first paragraph. The prose come across as a listing of random critics and for that reason, it is not as engaging in my opinion. It may be helpful to look at other song FAs, like "I'm Goin' Down", to see how this section is handled.
    • Because there is no connectivity between the critics' opinions, and due to the relatively low number of reviews, I don't know how to make it more engaging than just listing their views separately.
  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "massive" and "life-affirming". In the past, I have been told that they can take away from other quotes in the article, and for both of the instances mentioned above, they are used in the same sentence as what I view as more impactful quotes. That and it is always good to be mindful of quote usage in general.
    • I have removed the quotation marks.
  • I would avoid the following sentence construction when possible, with Richardson judging that he improves Crystal Castles' first version, balancing nostalgia and the immediacy of life. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I have seen notes in other FACs that say to not use the "with X verb-ing" phrasing. This is the only instance that I see in the article, but it would be good to double-check.
    • Fixed
  • For the "Accolades" section, I think the information should be presented with prose rather than in just a table.
    • I had all the table information listed in the prose, but some of it was removed after the GA review to focus on the higher listings. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
      • I would honestly convert the table into prose. I could be wrong, but I just have not seen a song FA with a table like this as a replacement for prose. It may be worth seeing how other FAs have handled this kind of thing. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Personnel" section does not include the credits for the album version of the song, instead only discussing the Smith version. Do the liner notes for Crystal Castles provide any further information on the personnel for the original version?
    • Added
  • For Citation 19, it should be Harriman, not Harrima.
    • Fixed
  • For the citations, make sure that album titles like Crystal Castles are italicized to comply with WP:CONFORMTITLE. I noticed this with Citation 21, but I would double-check the other citations as well.
    • Fixed

Great work with the article. I think that this article would provide some nice diversity to the current pool of song FAs. I hope that these comments are helpful. I have never heard anything by Crystal Castles, so hopefully my very outside perspective is beneficial here. Once everything has been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure that I did not miss anything. Just to be clear, I am primarily focused on the prose, as the source and image reviews have already been done. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyshifter, is there some hold up over responding to these? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I will begin responding soon. Skyshiftertalk 13:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I think it would be best to just remove the album version infobox. I disagree with the current placement, and since this was not something brought up by other reviewers, it is likely not really needed anyway. There are only two points left: the "raw" quote (because quotes should be clearly attributed) and the accolades table (as I am not sure about using a table as a replacement for prose, but it is worth looking into). After these points have been addressed, that should be the end of my review. I have left other replies as well, but they are not requirements. Thank you for your patience and I hope that this helps to get this FAC promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: thank you, I have applied these suggestions. Skyshiftertalk 16:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you! I have responded to your comments. Skyshiftertalk 21:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the double reply. I just wanted to add to voorts' comments below about print magazines. I think that it could be worthwhile to look for further coverage in newspapers, which are accessible through a database like Newspapers.com. For instance, I found this article from The Independent about a live performance of this song and review of that. There is also another article from The Independent and a review of the album version from Guelph Mercury. I am only bringing this up now as my review was focused on the prose, but I wanted to expand on voorts' comments below and bring up up some ideas/examples. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have also found another source through archive.org. I will add everything soon. Skyshiftertalk 14:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I was able to help. I just wanted to point out some potential examples to expand on the comment below. I am happy that you found another source on archive.org. Just to be clear, this does not affect my review, and I still support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with your work on the article! Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Just a couple things I picked up from a skim. Citation numbers from this revision.

  • Though I understand why you wrote it that way, I share Aoba's concern over the opening sentence, which seems to imply the article is about two songs which happen to have the same title. The article is about one song which happens to have two versions.
    • Fixed
  • A handful of duplicate links: in § Album version, Beats Per Minute; in § Accolades, Beats Per Minute, Pitchfork, Slant Magazine, Rolling Stone, and goth.
    • Fixed
  • Citations 3 and 27 are missing archive links. The Link Dispenser tool makes it easier to find these.
    • Fixed
  • I recently learned about MOS:WEBITALICS, so the majority of the |publisher=s in the citations need to be |work=s or |website=s.
    • The only three uses of |publisher= in the article—AllMusic, BBC Radio 6 Music, and Spotify—should not be italicized.
      Could you elaborate on why these shouldn't be italicized? The footnote at that guideline specifically cites an RfC where this was discussed and advises against using the |publisher= parameter in this way. —TS
      The policy suggests that italicization depends on the type of website it is, which is mostly "magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" as well as encyclopedias. AllMusic is a database, BBC Radio 6 Music is a radio station, and Spotify is a streaming service. Additionally, the title of these articles aren't italicized in their respective articles. You can also see other FAs that have also followed in not italicizing AllMusic or Spotify, such as "I'm God". Skyshiftertalk 22:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is certainly true where the website is being mentioned in the prose, but the footnote states that citations should have things italicized regardless of what kind of website they are — the rationale being that we cite the publications, not the publishers — which appears to be supported by the result of the RfC and the template documentation. This seems to be a lesser-known guideline, so I'm not surprised if there are FAs that have passed using that style in the past (I'm pretty sure Worlds has a few as well that I haven't gotten to looking at yet). Ultimately, I'm not going to support or oppose on this alone, but I thought I'd at least bring it up. —TS

Nice work as usual, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: thank you! All responded. Skyshiftertalk 22:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from voorts

[edit]
  • I've copy-edited the article / made some clarifying edits. If you have questions/concerns, happy to discuss here.
  • There are some full-sentence quotations. Can those be summarized?
    • Tried my best
  • Has anyone written about the music video?
    • Not that I could find, except for the "VHS-styled" thing.
  • I think the infobox should have information on the album version as well.
    • I think it's better to just have the single version info there, otherwise it can create confusion.
  • Have you checked print magazines (Billboard, Uncut, Rolling Stone, etc.) for reviews of the single?
    • I'll add some soon.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter any response to this or TS's comments above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond soon. TS's comments have already been addressed. Skyshiftertalk 14:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter, this has been open for ten weeks and is in danger of timing out. Do you have any thoughts as to when you will be able to respond to Voorts comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing left now is adding the newfound sources and paraphrase the full-sentence quotations, which will be done shortly. I am sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, Voorts, David Fuchs, and Gog the Mild: everything has been addressed and I am sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue regarding media review I see is the use of two non-free audios but given that critics reviewed both versions of the song and drew certain comparisons, I think their use is justified. Promoting. FrB.TG (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2025 [35].

Spyridon Marinatos

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another Greek archaeologist, I'm afraid. Marinatos, for better or worse, dominated Greek archaeology for much of his life: he is best remembered for his excavation of the "prehistoric Pompeii" site of Akrotiri, and his associated theories about the Minoan eruption, but had several other high-profile turns, particularly the discovery of the battlefield of Thermopylae. He was in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service during two periods of dictatorship -- that of Ioannis Metaxas and the Regime of the Colonels -- and used his influence to shape the institutions of Greek archaeology in his own image, which included taking aggressive steps to push out leftists, women, and people who disagreed with him.

Marinatos was a fascinating if not particularly pleasant character, and not always an easy one to write about -- he inspired huge loyalty in many of those who knew him, and some of his students remain prominent in Greek archaeology today, but has also attracted huge criticism for his enthusiastic support of Metaxas and the nastiest parts of the Regime of the Colonels, and for undoing decades of institutional progress in Greek archaeology to serve his own ego and political ends. As ever, all comments, quibbles and suggestions most gratefully received.

Credit to Cplakidas for the GA review last year: I have expanded the article a little since then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: [[Bronze Age]] [[Minoan]] is a bit MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • The Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin was not the "Humboldt University of Berlin" before 1949. (WP:OR: There are some letters from 1946 in my family's archives with the letterhead "Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin").
  • Same in the Education section.
    • Good catch: I've added the "Royal", per our article: I assume that was indeed the formal name, even though there was no longer a king in Berlin? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may have been the formal name (although it seems to not have been used in Latin [36]; I have also looked at a few PhD certificates), but never the common name. I guess nobody would use "Royal" unless they wanted to show extra deference to the King of Prussia. Friedrich Wilhelm University, our dab page, doesn't even mention the "Royal". This publication by the HU about the renaming generally uses FWU. I think "University of Berlin" (it was the only one at the time) is more common than "Royal FWU of Berlin", and you don't use the names "National" or "Kapodistrian University" for the one in Athens either. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now "the Friedrich Wilhelms University of Berlin" throughout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "monthly salary of 3,500 drachmas" is there any comparison that would tell us whether he was right in calling it inadequate?
    • I tried to do some magic here with the inflation template, but it threw up silly numbers (making it approximately $400,000!). Doing some shameless OR, this document suggests that a well-paid weaver in 1924 made about the same number, and the drachma was significantly if not dramatically weaker in 1929 than in 1924, so Marinatos probably wasn't being totally ridiculous. Currently drawing a blank as to how to source and show that, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "epimelitis"?
  • First directorship of the Archaeological Service: That Thera = Santorini is too important to be relegated to a footnote, especially since you use "Santorini" in the lead and "Thera" in the body.
  • Footnote f: Who is "Petrakos"? He has not been mentioned yet.
  • Regimes of the colonels: "from whom Marinatos secured $2000 (equivalent to $16,253 in 2021)" reduce the false precision. Did they really give him US dollars?
  • Apparently he died in an accident; is that worth mentioning in the lead?
    • I'd rather not, because of the uncertainty as to exactly what happened (see the relevant body section): slight OR, but I'm fairly certain that he actually died of a heart attack while the excavations were on, and that later on the legend grew up a heroic "death in action" that is often said to have involved a collapsing wall. Certainly, the latter story doesn't appear in any remotely contemporary reports. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read "Contemporary accounts related that he had died from a fall" as also indicating an accident, but of course "a fall" can indicate all kinds of medical issues. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed. Personally, when I see "an accident at a dig site", I think of e.g. a collapse or a disaster with some sort of machine, rather than someone falling over (very likely as the result of a tragic but unremarkable medical event). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his daughter Nanno" we didn't know he had a family until here, and she is only linked later. I am not convinced that the placement of marriage and family at the very end is a good idea.
    • Placing personal life and family at the end of a biography is fairly standard (and common in FAs): what would your suggestion be here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. In most of the biographies I write, family connections are more significant to the biography and work than here, so I am used to putting them in a more prominent place. Here it is interesting and seems relevant that Nanno followed her father's footsteps (although she was a woman), so I'd like to hear this a little earlier. Maybe you can start the personal section with the family instead of the pith helmet? —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see a problem with that, but then to be honest I don't see a material difference: it only "promotes" it by a minute or so of reading. It seems more natural to end the story of someone's life with the people who survived them, rather than their fashion choices. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life, honours and character: this is the weakest section of the article, collecting many semi-random bits without much of a structure. I don't understand the way it is sorted.
    • It is a bit scrapbooky, but they're all things that, under WP:DUEWEIGHT, really need to go somewhere, because they're prominent in secondary sources. Broadly, the scheme is "What he did other than digging -> what people say he was like as a person -> his cultivation of the press and his image -> honors and honorary degrees -> family and other relationships. Alternative suggestions gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Nanno's mother called "Emily" or "Aimilia" (see Nanno Marinatos or [37]) And should it be mentioned that Nanno's real name is Ourania?
    • "Emily" in the cited source, but that's just the English form of Aimilia, and we were originally citing the NYT. I've swapped Aimilia in, since it seems likely to be what she generally went by (it's pretty common for English sources to Anglicise Greek names of the period: see George E. Mylonas, John Papadimitriou etc.). As for Nanno, that's the name by which she publishes: it's certainly crossed into WP:COMMONNAME and seems to be what she's been known by in all contexts since very early childhood. "Nanno" isn't a form of "Ourania", so I think it would be more confusing than helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another very interesting archaeologist who was involved in a huge number of major excavations. I couldn't find a lot to complain about but would suggest to think about where to place the family and what to do with the rest of the personal life section. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusma. Replies above, some of which I'd be grateful for your thoughts on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments above. If I haven't replied, I am happy with what you have done or accept what you have not done. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support after reviewing recent changes. —Kusma (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kusma -- all of the issues you raised were well worth drilling into, even if I haven't been able to fully tie off all of them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas

[edit]

Reviewed this as GA, reserving a spot here for a review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: No rush, but if you do have any thoughts, I'd be very interested indeed in hearing them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I've had to scratch about a bit to find anything all to quibble about here. These are my meagre gleanings:

  • "A recipient of several honours in Greece ... A native of Kephallonia" – a mildly tabloidese construction ("A resident of Reading for the last six years he combines being a committed Christian with support of Reading Football Club"). OK on a single appearance, but perhaps not twice in close succession?
  • "southwest Greece" – you may or may not care (I don't) but the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "south-west".
  • "firstly ... secondly between 1955 and 1958" – being an ancient relic I cling to the traditional (though illogical) construction "first ... secondly". It is true that even in the original 1926 Modern English Usage Fowler says "the preference for first over firstly in formal enumerations is one of the harmless pedantries in which those who like oddities because they are odd are free to indulge, provided that they abstain from censuring those who do not share the liking". All the same the traditional form seems to me more pleasing, but I am perfectly happy for you to take the opposite view.
  • "illegal antiquities trading" – as the antiquities themselves were not illegal, perhaps "illegal trading in antiquities"?
  • "he discovered over twenty archaeological sites" – another old-fashioned and I'm not sure justifiable preference but I was brung up to write "more than twenty" rather than "over twenty" (which I have been for more than half a century).
  • "and to commence the purchase of the land" – commence? A bit refained surely? What's wrong with "begin" or "start"?
  • "Marinatos held strong right-wing and Greek nationalist views ... he was a supporter of Eleftherios Venizelos, a broadly liberal politician" – this reads a bit oddly as it stands: why would a man with strong right-wing views support a broadly liberal politician?
    • Good eye. I made a slight adjustment for TSI: Marinatos Jr has On the contrary, in matters of foreign policy he was on the side of Great Britain, being a follower of the pro-British Greek politician Eleutherios Venizelos (and hence on the side of the Entente). Assuming his support for Venizelos did go further than that, it would probably be down to the Megali Idea -- Venizelos was the great advocate of Greek expansion into its "lost" territories in Asia Minor, and marched Greek troops into Constantinople at the end of the First World War. Like many, I suspect, Marinatos took his nationalism as the main part of his politics, rather than his (undoubtedly strong) social conservatism (see his contemporary Georg Karo for someone who, perhaps tragically, made the same decision for the opposite reason). Venizelos was, at any rate, briefly a national hero, and the "broadly" of "broadly liberal" is doing a bit of work: he also weaponised antisemitism for his political ends in northern Greece. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The conference has been described by the archaeological historian Georgia Flouda as "a propaganda venue" – this might flow better in the active rather than the passive voice, on the lines of "The archaeological historian Georgia Flouda has described the conference as "a propaganda venue". Just a thought.
  • "his most significant contribution to scholarship" – I'm sure I've bored you with this before, but this, from Plain Words seems to me sound on "significant": "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of 'important, considerable, appreciable', or 'quite large' ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'"

That's my lot. A top-notch article, well up to the UC standard, if I'm any judge. – Tim riley talk 16:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever, Tim: replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and has been a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, Tim -- thank you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • Archaeologist could be delinked as per MOS:OL.
  • A native of Kephallonia, Marinatos was educated at the University of Athens, at the Royal Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin and at the University of Halle. Could the repetition of "at" be avoided?
  • Could this phrase be used:collaborating with Carl Blegen, who was simultaneously excavating the Palace of Nestor at Pylos.
    • I'm not sure I see the improvement. It is fewer words, but does give me the sense that he was doing all the spade-work himself. 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • You could use this sentence-He later became an enthusiastic supporter of the junta- rather than repeat "he" more than twice in the same sentence.
Early life and education
Regime of the Colonels, Akrotiri and death
Personal life
Politics

That's all from me. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a couple comments from sawyer777

[edit]

i don't have the real-life time to do a full review or anything, but i have a few ideas.

  • the works cited section is pretty long; it may be helpful to the reader to split it up a little - maybe "news articles" and "academic works" or something along those lines.
    • Possibly. It is a bit long, but the overwhelming majority is academic material: there are two or three obituaries and news articles (themselves usually written by academics), so I'm not sure that would change very much. I'm also not sure that many readers actually read the Works cited section in full, as opposed to jumping in and out of it as they follow up citations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      fair enough! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the infobox it lists his field as "archaeology" - do you think it'd be better to specify "Bronze Age archaeology" or "Aegean archaeology" or something similar? this isn't necessarily a suggestion but just something i noticed.
  • i'm curious about Later, in 1950, he suggested that the story of Atlantis may derive from an oral tradition of myths concerning the eruption of Thera. is there any more information about this theory or its reception among academics?

that's all i have for now... great read :) ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, Sawyer777: replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up; this can be considered a light support as i have no objections. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: passed

[edit]

Source review to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Hood. You have "Pp", where all the other uses have "pp"
  • How do Karadima and Prevedorou pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • The criterion for doctoral theses is Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised (I seem to remember this being stronger, as something like "PhD theses are assumed to be reliable", but maybe that's changed or I'm misremembering).
  • Karadima is used once, in a multi-cite: I can't remember where I got the other source from (Vlachopoulos), but it was certainly online, and I can't at the moment pull it up. However, the two together support The project was funded by Johanna Goekoop, the widow of the Dutch businessman and amateur archaeologist Adriaan Goekoop, who had paid for excavations by Marinatos's former teacher Kavvadias on the island in 1899, none of which strikes me as massively controversial: I think Karadima was only supporting the fact that Adriaan Goekoop had sponsored Kavvadias. She cites Kavvadias's publication of the excavations: I can't see that her bibliography is published online, but this is almost certainly in the Archaeological Bulletin, which isn't easy to get hold of in the UK outside a university library. On balance, I think the use of the thesis is justifiable, and certainly qualifies as "with care": it's a completed thesis, so it's undergone scrutiny and corrections; the claim is uncontroversial, and the only reason the thesis would be wrong here (as the detail is completely inconsequential to Karadima's argument) would be a bizarre fantasy or an equally bizarre error of reading, which was then not caught by the examiners.
  • Prevedorou is used for the Tsepi excavations: she does give bibliography, and cites Marinatos's reports (in Greek) in the Proceedings of the Archaeological Society: those are easily available, and Marinatos calls the tumulus that of the Plataeans. For the fact that most people now don't agree with him, she cites a Greek book I can't readily access, as well as this 1995 work by Vasileios Petrakos, who confirms the dates and goes into detail as to why the tumulus is probably not that of the Plataeans (pp. 65–67). Xavier Duffy makes the same point here, talking about the "uncertainty among modern scholarship" about the identification and concluding that it can "only be accepted tentatively" (and see Anthony Snodgrass here, p. 166, who is less diplomatic). I've made a small change here: "rejected" to "considered unsound". If it would help, I could add these additional sources in support, but again I think that following up the thesis's references and confirming that they stack up meets the "use with care" test.
  • I thought a bit on this and answered my own question: I've added those three sources in on Tsepi and the tumulus of the Plataeans. The PhD thesis is now holding very little weight: I think only the second-hand judgement that scholars generally don't put much in store by Marinatos's identification, which probably could be cited purely to Snodgrass, but Prevedorou phrases it more clearly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 118: ""Gold & Power in the Peloponnese", 2017, National Hellenic Museum". Single quotes for 'Gold & Power in the Peloponnese' would get rid of the double quote marks (MOS:QINQ applies here, as "the term quotation includes conventional uses of quotation marks such as for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, and so on", per MOS:QUOTEMARKS).
Reliability and range

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current sources are all appropriate (c.f. the discussion on the theses above)
  • Searches have shown no additional sources that could or should have been used instead (there is the caveat that the searches I've made for sources were in English only, so I am AGF on the searches of Greek sources.
  • Source review is a pass - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Regarding File:Spyridon Marinatos Akrotiri 1968.jpg have there been any efforts to find a free image? ALT text and image placement are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best efforts on Google and in printed books -- there are a few other images of him out there, lots of which are crops of this one, but I haven't been able to find evidence of publication before 1930. As far as I can see there are none at all released under free-use licences. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, I have asked an archaeologist I know for a comment on the article and they said it seemed balanced to them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jo-Jo: your archaeologist friend is surely owed an honorary FAC barnstar by now! Not that there's any rush, but did you have any further comments on the images? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see anything else, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "He also discovered and excavated the battlefield of Thermopylae and the Mycenaean cemeteries at Tsepi and Vranas". I can't see where in the main article it says he discovered Vranas. Could you point me towards it?
  • A sentence which starts and ends "In the late 1930s ... he was later an enthusiastic supporter of the junta." is liable to confuse non-students of 20th century Greek politics. Perhaps the last part could be moved to the previous sentence when the junta is first mentioned?
  • "cronyism" is linked in the lead. Any reason why it is not in the article?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog: replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2025 [38].

Weird Faith

[edit]
Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been at GA for months now, and it don't do me good to keep it there, so I'm taking the same risk I always do when I come to FAC. I've got weird faith that everything, almost, will go well during this process, although I'll understand if the obsessive thoughts take hold and you all tell me to kiss the wall. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • It was written in Nashville and upstate New York, recorded in upstate New York by Diaz ... This sentence could be rephrased as It was written in Nashville and upstate New York, recorded in the latter by Diaz... to avoid repeating "upstate New York" in close proximity.
  • Nashville could be linked at least once in the lead.
Background and production
  • Diaz said in Nylon that the album was inspired by her father.[8] Diaz worked with several co-writers,... Mentioning "Diaz" in consecutive sentences could be avoided.
  • Glide Magazine and Glide both have been used in the article. MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above is done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. MSincccc (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 12:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe link Grammy Awards in the lede?
  • Mention Diaz: Cohen co-produced the album with Konrad Snyder. → Cohen co-produced the album with Diaz and Konrad Snyder.
  • Likewise, in Glide Dillon said → Likewise, in Glide, Dillon said
  • Nylon is wikilinked twice. Remove the second wikilink in Themes.
  • Is it necessary to mention the ratings in the prose? We already have a table for that.
  • Reading through the article, I'm concerned over the overuse of quotations, especially one-word quotations. I don't have any particular recommendations, but maybe try paraphrasing some parts of the article to cut down on the number of quotations?
First 4 done.
  • RE Is it necessary to mention the ratings in the prose? We already have a table for that: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Album ratings templates seems to indicate that they should be described in prose.
  • RE your last bullet, I did another read through and cut down a couple, but I think the short/one-worded quotations are fine. I can't think of a good way to paraphrase phrases like "delicate uncertainty", "stylized but diaristic", or striking a "defiant" tone without changing the meaning.
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Reading through the article again, most quotes are hard to paraphrase. I'll support then on prose. Cheers. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 12:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The album follows her fifth studio album, History of a Feeling, and tours" => "The album followed her fifth studio album, History of a Feeling, and tours"
  • "It was featured on several year end lists" => "It was featured on several year-end lists"
  • "Following the release of her critically acclaimed fifth studio album" => "Following the release of her critically-acclaimed fifth studio album"
  • "She wrote the album from her home in Nashville" => "She wrote the album at her home in Nashville"
  • "When writing the songs on Weird Faith, Diaz told BrooklynVegan that she spent time" => "She told BrooklynVegan that, while writing the songs on Weird Faith, she spent time"
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: anything else? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise you had replied. I'll take another look later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Will take notes as I read --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check inbox and lead again after reading all, checking if they match the content. For now: the word "album" is repeated with only one word in between.

Background ...

  • "went on tour and opened for" - I may be the only one who doesn't know what "opened" means here.
    • It means to perform before the main act.
  • "where she recorded the album with Sam Cohen. Cohen co-produced the album with Diaz and Konrad Snyder." I may be the only one who doesn't know why Cohen's name (and hers) comes twice.
    • I'm not sure how else to phrase these two sentences. Do you have a suggestion?
      • "where she recorded the album with Sam Cohen who co-produced the album with Diaz and Konrad Snyder"? --GA
        • Fixed.
  • I wonder if why she wrote it might come before it was already produced.
    • I think the current layout of the section is fine.
  • "learn[ing] how to trust [her]self" - I wonder if that has be framed as a quote, - it seems like a normal expression.
    • Changed.
  • trust in a label?
    • Her record label.
      • English isn't my first language. I'd not put trust in a label on the same level as trust in a person. --GA
  • as before: "quietly ask [her]self questions", - I don't think that needs to be a quote, but if then "quietly ask self questions" would illustrate her language better and still be clear.
    • Changed.
  • "by her father" - that tells me nothing without explanation or background who her father was.
  • I reached the end of that section without getting to know why weird and why faith ;)
    • That's for the themes section.
      • But I don't see an explanation there. I only guessing from "houses of worship" that there is a religious undertone in "faith" which is a pretty ambiguous word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added the first sentence here: In an interview with Exclaim!, Diaz acknowledged that while faith can be a "triggering word" for many people, it is an indescribable form of peace for herself. She said that the album was about "having some weird faith and walking forward" when falling in love in a new relationship.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Coming from classical music, I am surprised how little I know from reading this section how the music actually sounds. Much of it reads more like reception to me. I also wonder if it would be better to first have Themes and then let follow how the music expresses the themes.

I just reviewed an article for DYK, África Brasil, which has the detail about lyrics and music that I'd expect in a FA. --(forgot to sign, some time ago) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The order of the article sections is based on MOS:ALBUM. I think this article adequately summarizes the views of critics and their analyses of the album's composition/themes without going into an undue analysis of the lyrics of each of the songs. Unlike Jorge Ben, most of the songs on this album get a sentence or half sentence per review, and the analysis of those songs is captured in the general thematic overview.
    • Yes, understood, but I don't know a thing after reading the composition section about composition details, such as tempos, instrumentation (perhaps different in different songs?), relation of music to text, such things. What I read - as said - seems a listing of what critics have said, where I'd hope for a summary about how it sounds. ---GA
      • I think the section contains those things. For example, it notes that Critics have generally said that the album's mostly-acoustic tracks are minimalist compositions that highlight Diaz's vocals and songwriting. and then goes on to summarize the views of several critics. For example, the article states: In Glide, Ryan Dillon stated that the album had a "very honed sonic landscape", featuring minimal arrangements that support, rather than "outshine", Diaz's vocals. I think that's a fair summary of the paragraph that Dillon devotes to the album's composition: The arrangements Diaz picked for this album were just as important as the album's impact. There is not a lot of flash to gawk at here, Diaz seemingly didn't want anything to outshine her. That was the right choice, while some of the arrangements bleed together and follow a similar formula of minimal acoustics that lead into epic crescendos. You won't notice these similarities on the first listen, Diaz is too powerful to let that happen. The very honed sonic landscape of this album was a necessity, at a pivotal moment in her career the last thing Diaz needs is danceable tempos or added elements. This allowed her to put her full self out there and pen some of the most moving songs of her career. Pop critics writing for magazines don't generally use the sorts of in-depth, more objective analyses of chord structures, tempi, etc. that musicologists do when they write about classical compositions. Everything is opinion and there's not really much that can be stated in wikivoice as opposed to being attributed.
        • Note that I would add those things that you're asking for if they existed. For example, see my FA on Running Out of Time (song): The song opens on the off beat with a bluesy guitar riff, resolving to F-sharp major for the verse. The verse, with a syncopated beat, has Williams singing over chromatic mediant and stable tonic chords, and features sixth chords. In the pre-chorus, the chords remain the same as those in the verse but with a less-syncopated rhythm. In the bridge, the guitar takes on a groovy tone, over which Williams sings several blue notes.

Themes

Again quite generally, it reads more like a list of how different people see the themes, not without contradictions (new love vs. long-term relationship.

  • Per WP:SS, our job is to summarize what reliable sources say. In my view, these should be attributed to critics.
    • Understood, but there could still be a summary, no? ---GA
      • There is a summary: According to critics, Weird Faith addresses themes of love, trust, and intimacy.. See also my response in the composition section above.

Release ...

  • Weird Faith tour - shouldn't that be Weird Faith tour.
    • Fixed.

Critical ...

Track listing & Personnel

Looks fine, just what does "ambient cool shit" mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gerda, I think it's time for that further look over. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it again. I am still surprised that composition comes before themes - which is different for classical music where the text and themes come first and then how they are expressed in the music, but I won't take it up with the MoS. I understand that obviously the sources don't provide musical details, - too bad but what could we do? - I think the lead might be a bit more detailed on themes and compositon but see that I seem to be the only one. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Image use, rationale, ALT and licence are fine. Source formatting is consistent. Some sources I haven't checked, nothing that jumps out as a red flag but I must stress that music sources aren't something I am deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2025 [39].

Llullaillaco

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the tallest volcano with recent activity on Earth (measured from sea level), which among other things features a major Inka archaeological site, mummies of children, and mice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "A weather station installed on Llullaillaco in 2004 was for some time the highest in the world.[23] " Do we need to be so vague? Given the recency, I'm sure we can say definitely how long it was the highest.
    The source was similarly uninformative, I'm afraid. However, this source proffered by Perplexity AI suggests that in 2011 a weather station on Everest was destroyed by winds, so probably beginning from there to 2019? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sala de Llullaillaco" redlinked on second usage, then again somewhat later.
    Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 178 volcanoes are found in the Andes, 60 of which have been active in historical times. In addition, there are large calderas and monogenetic volcanoes.[74]" This small paragraph seems isolated in theme. Can it not be incorporated to your discussion of Andean vulcanism that begins this section?
    Hmm. That paragraph is a bit aside from the topic of the section beginning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total magma output at Llullaillaco is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.012 cu mi/ka)[47]-0.02–0.04 km3/ka.[45]" Are the parentheses in the proper places here?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paths on Llullaillaco are not simple footpaths but equipped with retaining walls, delimited edges[204] and above "Portezuelo del Inca" with staircases." The end reads very oddly.
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 24 June 2014 " should in be on?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the 5561 m high Azufrera Esperanto mountain 5 km north of Llullaillaco little original volcanic substance is preserved and where erosion has exposed deeply altered white rock.[34] " The last clause reads oddly."
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for the typical nitpicking; I'm a sucker for citation consistency. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, where are we up to with this source review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i'm so sorry, i forgot i never supported! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Kusma

[edit]

Planning to review, but might take a few days. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow! —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditions on Mars: maybe mention in which way this resembles Mars? [40]
    Possibly, annoyingly that source is quite sparing when directly comparing Llullaillaco to Mars, since it talks about these volcanoes in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cerro Paranal, 190 km away as measured through Google Maps." the source says they used Google Earth.
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It rises about 2.2 km[27]-2.5 km" usually you do not repeat the unit in such ranges; can you move the ref and drop the first km?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morphologically, these flows are reddish-black aa lava flows and feature black and reddish glassy blocks with sizes of 5 m" this sentence is repeated soon after.
    Not sure how that happened, but yanked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only Quebrada de las Zorritas carries permanent water.[53] There is a permanent spring there,[54] possibly in Quebrada de Llullaillaco and Quebrada de Tocomar as well" So is it possibly wrong that only Quebrada de las Zorritas carries permanent water? Or can a valley have a permanent spring without permanent water?
    Yes, since a single pond doesn't a creek or flow make. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debris avalanche: "The landslide occurred no later than 156,000 – 148,000 ± 5,000 years ago,[40] it might coincide with the 48,000 year old lava flow.[61]" I don't think I understand the error bars. If the lava flow could have coincided with something 48000 years ago, surely we can't say it was more than 143000 years ago? Also, is the ± 5,000 the error bar for just the end of the period of the landslide or for both beginning and end? (I understand that the landslide took several thousand years; if my understanding is wrong, can you perhaps write error bars that are easier to interpret?) If these are several studies that disagree with each other, perhaps saying "no later than" in wikivoice is not optimal.
    So, the problem with dating landslides by the age of the rocks that make them up is that the rocks can be much older than the landslide (which probably took minutes not millennia). I corrected this to "no earlier than" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology: "Volcanism is not continuous along the Andes, rather it occurs" isn't this a place for a semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 178 volcanoes are found in the Andes". "Llullaillaco is one[77] of more than 1,000 volcanoes in the CVZ". But the CVZ is part of the Andes, so the other volcanic zones in the Andes have a negative number of volcanoes?? Also, can you try not to have a one-sentence paragraph here?
    Specified, dunno where to attach it to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanism in the Central Volcanic Zone mostly occurs, [..] where high stratovolcanoes [..] occur" perhaps find a different word than "occur"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reviewing so slowly! I'll look at the rest (and your responses) soon. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Local setting: Is there a layman's version of this section? As a non-geologist, I am not so sure what I need to know here.
    Mostly the geography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basement in the 70 km thick crust" what is the "basement"? Link to Earth's crust? Tell us that 70km is extremely thick?
    "Basement" is one of these fuzzy terms that geologists love. 70km is indeed tick. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition: What is "plagioclase crystallization"? It is not even linked.
    Crystallization of plagioclase, rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total magma output at Llullaillaco is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.012 cu mi/ka)[47]-0.02–0.04 km3/ka" the value and the range contradict each other; you could give an approximate value and footnote it with the literature references to make this more readable.
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate: "the close coincidence between summer solstice with the day where Earth is closest to the Sun" I understand that being in the Southern Hemisphere gives a potential higher daily maximum for the insolation. Is this what is meant? Over the course of the year it should not matter too much whether perihelion and solstice are far away or not (or if it does matter, it is not obvious without some computations).
    Yes, for the purposes of determining maximum UV radiation it does make a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my point is that "sunniest place on Earth" makes me think "place with the maximum total amount of solar radiation per year", not "place where the sun is the most powerful at some point in the year"; it would be nice to clarify that the second is what is meant.
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "radiocarbon years ago" is that usual jargon? Or would it be better to say "Radiocarbon dating of deposits indicates..."?
    Oy. Misplaced digits in page numbers suck. I rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow and glaciers: "Some traces of past glacier activity are found in the summit area,[39] cirques may have existed" semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flora and fauna: "A scorpion species is named after the volcano." what is the name of that species and is it found near the volcano?
    Added, apparently close to the northern foot of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A species of bacterium was discovered in the lake" does it have a name?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archeology: "After the initial discovery in 1952, further expeditions by various researchers and organizations took place in 1953, 1954, 1958, 1961, 1974, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1993" do you really need this incomplete list of years? If you do, why do you not list the 1999 one? And the 1972 discovery of the cemetery?
    No, pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portezuelo del Inca" better with {{lang}}? Translation?
    Not without a source; false friends are a risk with placenames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • staircases(above "Portezuelo del Inca") spacing.
    Fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeological sites on mountains are widespread in the Andes" this paragraph puts the archeology section into context and would be nicer to read before reading on the specifics of archeology on Llullaillaco.
    OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rest by tonight I hope. —Kusma (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Children: " They were a 7-year-old boy, a 6-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl (later research has suggested lower ages for all three" either use "they were originally described as a 7-year-old boy ..." or just use only the most recent research. Currently you are claiming in wikivoice that the later research is wrong.
    I am not sure that Ceruti's conclusions have been accepted, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not sure they have been rejected either, you should not state the older report's conclusions in wikivoice without hedging as "have been reported as" or similar. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick lookover, it seems like Ceruti's conclusions have not been widely accepted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It is not clear how they were killed" at this point in the article we do not even know that they were killed, so perhaps "it is not clear how they died"? You could explain that there were cult human sacrifices a bit earlier, then this would work better.
    Moved it up, but now I am unsure if the sentence is overly long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-Columbian": do we know more precisely when these children were sacrificed?
    Oddly, I can't find any reference to radiocarbon dating of the mummies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But are they Inca empire? (That would be possible to establish by cultural clues and mean 13th to 15th century?)
    Yes. I prefer to punt details on dates etc to the subarticle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption history: "two stages of construction are recognized, Llullaillaco I and Llullaillaco II" does this mean that the currently existent mountain was built up by eruptions during two different periods, and the eruptions are called Ll I and Ll II? (Can you write this using less jargon?)
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "unidentified" about the "unidentified young flow"? Does nobody know where it is, or do you just mean the sources don't say where it is?
    The source can't be bothered to say which flow it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just say "another younger flow" or something; that this particular source doesn't give the location doesn't mean it isn't known. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Went with "different" because "young" in many cases refers to the three major Llullaillaco lava flows, which might not include this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical activity and hazards: I am confused what "recorded but unconfirmed" means. Why do we have more detail about the 19th century ones than the 1960 one? What do the archeological sites (which are hundreds of years older) have to do with "steam and ash" in the 19th century?
    My understanding is that sometimes there are reports of eruptions and it's not clear if they are legit (confusing mountains with each other - see Copiapó (volcano) for an example - or fumarolic activity for eruptions). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climbing and access: do we know why there were landmines in the area? (Also, if they were removed, there were landmines in the area, not reports of landmines).
    It's probably to do with political disputes between these countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From [41] it seems the Chileans knew how many mines there were (1987 anti-personnel, 400 anti-tank mines) so it does seem clear there were indeed landmines, probably Chilean ones. If you say "there are reports of landmines" instead of "there are landmines" it casts doubts on their existence; is there a reason to do so? —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the problem is that a 2010 source speaks of an existing minefield but is ambiguous on whether they are talking about 2010 (which would imply the mine removal effort didn't get all) or an earlier year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to John Biggar, some roads are dead ends" this is one of very few places in the article where you attribute statements instead of using wikivoice. Is there a good reason to attribute here? And who is John Biggar?
    A mountaineer who has written on the region. I am not sure if he's a very reliable source (it has been cited a couple of times in more reliable ones) but since it's literally the only one I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two ascents with camps" ... "The first known ascent" you use "ascent" to mean two different things here: the ascent route and the act of going up the mountain.
    Renamed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Chileans "Westerners"?
    For the purpose of this analysis, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prehistoric ascents" is there an estimate on how early these were? (A lot earlier than the children?)
    No, dating ruined stone constructions on mountaintops isn't something that's routinely done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done reviewing. The archaeology together with the extreme height and aridity makes this a really interesting volcano. (I wish we had more archaeology and culture and less geology, but that's just me). I'll go and look at your responses soonish. —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Ambiguous in Lead: Despite its height, it is not clear whether the volcano has any glaciers or merely patches of perennial snow and ice. Kinda confusing sentence. It could mean (a) there is year-round snow; but geographers have not determined yet if they are true glaciers; or just snow; or (b) It is not clear if there is any year-round snow/glaciers. I'm guessing it is (a), but in the lead, readers should not have to slow down & parse. Suggest clarify the wording.
    To be honest, even from reading the sources I am not always exactly sure what there is there. Never mind that the observation timespan spans decades and a snowfield reported in 1985 might not be around in 2025. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing in Lead: The mountain's first recorded climb was in 1950, but traces of earlier climbs and a number of archaeological sites were found on the mountain and at its feet; Llullaillaco marks the highest archaeological site in the world. In 1999, the mummified remains of three children,... There is a big difference between the nouns "climb" and "ascent". Starting off, I thought "Okay, modern climbers climbed to the peak in 1950, but archaeologists are not sure ("traces of earlier climbs") if pre-Columbian people climbed to the peak. Then it says there were mummified remains at the top, so there was a pre-Col ascent. I suggest making it clear that there was a Pre-Columbian ascent of the mountain _before_ mentioning the 1950 modern ascent.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • InfoBox: "First Ascent" - First ascent 1950, but previous climbs by Inca The WP article on First_ascent says first ascent is the "date of the first documented ascent". The purpose of the qualifier "documented" is to sift-out false or unverified claims of making it to the top. "Documented" in that context is not limited to modern photographs or magazine articles, correct? Mummies left at the top are 100% concrete documentation of an ascent, and meet the "First Ascent" criteria, IMHO. Suggest change InfoBox to read First ascent: circa 1500. First ascent in modern era: 1950. or First ascent: circa 1500.
    Actually, cut the 1950 part. I aren't comfortable with saying "modern" because that leaves ambiguity about potential ascents in 1600 or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only limited climate data from Llullaillaco. I presume the lack of detailed data is because there are no weather-recording devices on, or near, the peak. If the sources say that, maybe the article could also say so. Not a big deal.
    Yeah, not many data but nothing I recall explicitly says so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate: There are reports of landmines in the area; Can you add a few words explaining why the landmines where placed there? A border dispute between Chile and Argentina?
    Don't know much about the regional political history or sources to say so, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "parent" category: Category list at bottom has both Category:Volcanoes of Antofagasta Region and Category:Volcanoes of Chile. The latter should be deleted because since it is a grandparent of the former. When category A contains subcategory B, only B should be listed at the bottom of an article, not both A and B.
    Seems to be already gone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's all I can find. Notify me when the above issues are addessed/resolved. Note that some are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander: Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: More landmine questions: the article has the mines were removed in 2006 thanks to a multinational effort.[263] and cite [263] is Rivera, Jorge Riquelme (2015). "El MERCOSsUR y la formación de una comunidad pluralista de seguridad en el Cono Sur". Revista Enfoques: Ciencia Política y Administración Pública (in Spanish). 9 (14): 41. ISSN 0718-9656. The cite says publication year is 2015, but I looked online for the article and found only an article from 2011 ... is the publication year 2011 or 2015?
    The URL says "Publicado: Jan 5, 2015 ", dunno why they say both 2011 and 2015. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2025 [42].

Heartburn

[edit]
Nominator(s): IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about heartburn! Heartburn is something that even non-medical editors have probably heard of and even experienced. With this article, I aimed to make it as accessible as possible. This means that I did a lot of simplifying technical terms to hopefully allow non-medical editors to understand the article's content. For such a prevalent issue you may expect there to be way more information and sources available on the topic, however I found it incredibly hard to find studies focused on heartburn alone, hence why there is some older publications here. Thanks in advance to everyone who gives this article a look! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. 750h+ 02:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this topic, so my comments will mainly be on the prose and grammar. Feel free to decline suggestions (with justification of course)

lead
  • Heartburn is a symptom that is commonly linked to acid reflux. The word "heartburn" is used in the previous sentence and subsequent sentence, making this three consecutive uses. It would change this one to "It is a symptom that is commonly linked to acid reflux"
  • commonly linked to acid reflux, and is often remove the comma
  • Does "lying down" require a wikilink?
definition and symptoms
differential diagnoses
  • The differential diagnosis, a process used by healthcare professionals to help differentiate a diagnosis from other similar disorders, for heartburn includes motility disorders such as achalasia and gastroparesis reads a bit weirdly to me. I would make 'a process used by healthcare professionals to help differentiate a diagnosis from other similar disorders' into a footnote. This is grammatically correct i think, it might just be me.
pathophysiology
  • which send signals to the brain and causes the sensation ==> "which send signals to the brain and cause the sensation"
diagnostic approach
treatment
  • compounds like aluminium hydroxide since most of this article seems to be written in American English, "aluminium" should be "aluminum"
treatment
epidemiology
history
special population

@IntentionallyDense: excellent work on this article; i really couldn't find many problems. feel free to address my above concerns and i'll be happy to leave a !vote. 750h+ 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented all except for the aluminium recommendation due to WP:ALUMINIUM (something I wouldn't really expect anyone outside of chem to be familiar with lol), and the differential diagnosis part. The reason that I'm not sure what to do there is because I added in the definition at the request of another editor and adding it as a footnote would be more effort on the part of the reader than just clicking the wikilink of the term in the lead. I'm honestly not sure what to do with that part. If you have a strong opinion on whether or not the definition should be included, please do voice it, but I personally don't. I'm not sure what is proper protocol here but I'm wondering if it may be a good idea to wait till some other people review the article (hopefully) to help decide whether or not it should be included? Thanks for all of the useful feedback, I really appreciate it! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good and i'm happy with that, happy to leave a support. 750h+ 14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Needs some more words? The differential diagnosis for heartburn includes motility disorders such as achalasia and gastroparesis, peptic ulcers, ... I gather that within the medical profession, that sort of shorthand wording is common; but in a general purpose encyclopedia, a few more words may help readers understand what a differential diagnosis is. Perhaps something like: The differential diagnosis for heartburn considers illnesses with similar symptoms, including motility disorders such as... or The differential diagnosis for heartburn distinguishes it from illnesses with similar symptoms, including motility disorders such as... [emphasis added].
I think there are two ways the article could be improved: (a) "Differential diagnosis" should be briefly defined in the heartburn article, because many readers will be unfamiliar with the term. The Lead has a blue link, which is good; but perhaps the first mention of DD after the lead should have a few words defining it? (b) Differential Diag is a method or procedure, correct? It is a process used to figure out exactly what the illness is. The heartburn article's wording does not make that clear. The wording is simply listing many diseases: "The d.d. is A, B, C....". But that could mislead readers, no? Better is "The d.d. process for heartburn involves assessing for various illnesses including A, B, C..." Noleander (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't exactly support your second wording but I went with The differential diagnosis, a proccess used by healthcare professionals to help differentiate a diagnosis from other similar disorders, for heartburn includes..., thoughts? Does this help clarify things? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space? .. onset of symptoms ≥50 years of age... I'm not sure what the WP MOS says, but it may look nicer with a space: .. onset of symptoms ≥ 50 years of age.... Better yet may be to use prose: .. onset of symptoms over 50 years of age.... Even if medical articles are permitted to use shorthand symbols like ≥ , that symbol may be off-putting to some readers.
  • Where? About 25% of people experience heartburn at least once a month, while 12% have it at least once a week. US? Globally?
I cannot access the source; but the author appears to be from France. If the author's data set is France alone, that is kinda significant. This WP is English, so the data set (if France only) would not apply to the majority of readers of this encyclopedia. Suggest either (a) Specify the location of the data set (? Does the source provide a footnote where they got the % figure from?) or (b) Find a source that covers an English-speaking country. Noleander (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling with this one. The source text reads prevalence of GERD is going up in Western countries [3]. About 25% of population experience heartburn at least once a month and 12% at least once a week. The prevalence of GERD follows the prevalence of obesity[4]. (slightly reworded to avoid copyright issues). I checked ref 4 [43] and it does not support the 25% claim. Ref 3 [44] does say that the prevalnce of GERD is 18.1%–27.8% in North America, which somewhat fits the 25% claim, however because it does not specify heartburn (although we can reasonably assume that extends to heartburn since heartburn is a key feature of GERD) I am hesitant to claim the figure is for North America alone. The 25% figure is from a textbook [45] so I would like to assume that it wouldn't just be focusing on france, however assuming will not work here. It's hard to find figures on heartburn alone since it's often lumped in with GERD in literature. I will keep searching but so far the only other source I can find discussing heartburn prevalence is this one [46] which I'm not sure the reliability of, but it does state If all of the studies from Western countries were evaluated cumulatively, the prevalence of heartburn was 23% which does mention a location and is similar to the 25% statistic. This study [47] shows that the prevalence of heartburn in Asian countries 30% (however that is annually). This study [48] is older and has some older figures that are all over the place. Not sure what to do with this one. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I encounter situations like that, my fallback solution is to pick the 2 or 3 most reliable sources, and have the article re-state exactly what they say (paraphrasing to avoid copyright issues). That way I'm 100% sure the article is consistent with the sources. Granted, the data may not be the ideal data (which, here, would be global heartburn %) ... but if the sources are imperfect (e.g. their % is for GERD in China, not global hearburn) so be it. Noleander (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I have done in the article with the About 25% of people experience heartburn at least once a month, while 12% have it at least once a week. Clinically significant heartburn affects about 6% of the American population. Those two sources are the most WP:MEDRS compliant sources and I have provided all the detail that the sources have provided. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source coverage: Lifestyle changes such as weight loss, .... As a person's symptoms improve, physicians may decrease the frequency or dose of medications. I cannot access the source used for that paragraph. The entire paragraph is supported by the single source?
  • Citations for pic captions? e.g. An endoscopy may be used to help find the cause of heartburn. When the caption states a fact (rather than merely restating what the picture shows) it should include a citation (for FA quality). As a reviwer, I don't know if the fact (in the caption) is or is not also repeated in the body with a citation.
  • Distinguish from "Functional heartburn"? The article uses the phrase "Functional heartburn" in several places. Is that different from plain hearburn? A subset of plain heartburn? Whether it is the same, or different, that should be explained. In other words, if they are the same: article should explain why the word "Functional" is used sometimes, but not others. If they are different: then Functional heartburn should be defined (distinguished) in its first occurrence in the article.
  • ... more on "Functional heartburn" term: The differential diagnosis for heartburn includes motility disorders such as achalasia and gastroparesis, peptic ulcers, functional dyspepsia, angina,[6] eosinophilic esophagitis, coronary artery disease, functional heartburn,[7] ... Following up on prior note: Functional heartburn appears in the list of other illnesses.... need to explain that to the reader. If footnote [7] explains the distinction, consider taking the explanation from [7] and putting it into the body.
  • Bold outside lead? Because the pain was felt in the chest and the focus was on the heart at the time, doctors initially believed heartburn came from the heart rather than the esophagus. This is why the terms "cardialgia" or "cardialgy" were first used to describe heartburn. [quote from the History section]. I've never seen bold used for synonyms outside the Lead section before. Is that consistent with the MOS?
  • per MOS:BOLD#OTHER Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section I suppose bitter belching could be moved to the lead but cardialgia makes more sense in a historical sense. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same or different? Lead has two similar causes mentioned: Causes of heartburn include acid reflux, ....Some causes of heartburn, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), may be .... [emphasis added] The article should make it plain to readers if those are the same cause or not. If they are the same: consider unifying the wording in those two locations. If those two causes are distinct (or if one is a subset of the other) consider adding some words helping readers understand that they are not the same.
  • They are different things. Acid reflux is just the mechanism of stomach acid going upwards into the stomach. GERD is a disease in which acid reflux plays a major role in. Someone can have acid reflux without GERD. GERD is chronic, while acid reflux can be occasional. I'm not sure what the best way to make this distinction would be, maybe a footnote? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers would be happy if you simply put that exact sentence ("Acid reflux is just the mechanism of stomach acid going upwards into the stomach. GERD is a disease in which acid reflux plays a major role in. Someone can have acid reflux without GERD. GERD is chronic, while acid reflux can be occasional.") into a footnote attached to an early location where GERD is mentioned in the article. Noleander (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote at the first mention of acid reflux. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that Rome IV is not focused on Hearburn: ... functional heartburn is diagnosed according to the Rome IV criteria:... Some readers may think, from that sentence, that Rome IV is some kind of document specific to heartburn. Consider clarifying. Maybe remove "Rome IV" from the body and put it in a footnote? Or generalize: ... functional heartburn is diagnosed based on the following criteria from an international diagnostic manual:.. [footnote here identifies the Rome IV document].
  • Can the Lead specify the exact position heartburn holds in the medical sciences? Is it a Condition? Symptom? Disease? In the Lead: This article is about the medical condition.... Heartburn is a burning sensation felt behind the breastbone.... Many readers will assume, as laypeople, that Heartburn is a disease. If the medical sciences consider it to be a symptom, NOT a disease: that should be made plain in the Lead of this heartburn article. Consider something like Heartburn is a symptom common to several diseases, such as GERD, blah, blah, .... Or Heartburn is a symptom which can be presented by several diseases, including GERD, blah, blah, ... (Contrast with the WP article on GERD which calls GERD a "disease"; and "heartburn" is listed as a symptom in that InfoBox).
  • I don't see Esomeprazole mentioned in the article. Is it not a commonly used medication for heartburn?
  • In the US, there was a massive advertising campaign for Esomeprazole for several decades, marketed as the "purple pill". Readers may benefit if that connection were made in the article. Consider including a pic of the purple pill (to illustrate Esomeprazole) ... there is a picture of Esomeprazole in the Esomeprazole article, that could be used. Noleander (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Esomeprazole is a PPI which are mentioned in the article. I didn't list all the common PPI's because there is so many. I only mentioned specefic drug names when it was a certain drug used and not the class or when the class of drugs is more unknown and there is less of them (such as with prokinetics). I did add an image of it tho. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review from SnowFire

[edit]

I am in source review debt to IntentionallyDense, so will be doing this one. Disclaimer that I don't normally edit MEDRS topics, but can obviously still read the literature, and the current sources appear to be prima facia good ones (recent, mostly secondary sources, etc.). I might ask for shared PDFs if there's anything crucial I can't reach that is in unique sources not available over the Wikipedia Library, but we'll see. Did a read-through of the article and it's nice work; will do some spot-checking and source-combing, but nothing leapt out as immediately problematic or weird. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usual comment goes here that by default, these comments are just suggestions, not demands - if there's something really off, I'll make it clear. (Spoiler from the future: Nothing was really off. Great work!) Basically feel free to disagree, it's fine.

Definition and symptoms

  • Didn't get access to Poitras & Bouin 2022, but it's a simple claim covered by another reference.
    Jumping in here to confirm that the claim is backed up in so many words: Sensations of thoracic or retrosternal burning are usually due to the reflux of acidic material from the stomach into the esophagus. [...] Regurgitation describes the esophageal reflux of gastric contents which can be perceived as a chest discomfort. -- Reconrabbit 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything checked out, had access to all the other sources, checked the refs for the endnotes too, looks good. ✓

Differential diagnoses

  • The most important source here is Buchan 2016, which unfortunately I don't have access to. Assuming that the big list is accurate to it, it should be fine, though.

Pathophysiology

  • Couldn't get access to Argüero & Sifrim 2024, but found everything else, and I don't think that source seems particularly key anyway.
  • Everything checked out, looks good. ✓
  • Nit: I think this distinction doesn't matter at all, but shouldn't the Basnayake ref use pp not p?
  • Side chatter (non-sourcing related): Esophageal balloon distension, especially in the upper esophagus, can trigger heartburn symptoms. When I read this I was very confused - WTH is an "Esophageal balloon" and why is it distending in some people? Some obscure part of the esophagus? Reading the sources saved the day and made clear that this is talking about literally having a doctor throw a medical device in your esophagus and inflate it to stimulate it, but most readers won't dive that deep. I think this could maybe be a little friendlier to a casual reader that this was more a demonstration of the effect in medical studies, not a threat regular humans not in a study face that could cause them heartburn - maybe move up the mention of "esophageal balloon studies" in the next paragraph and clarify a tad?

Diagnostic approach

  • Everything checked out, looks good. ✓

Treatment

  • Couldn't check most of this section, unfortunately. Wiley on the WP Library, despite working for other refs, won't give me Buchan 2016 (per above). Couldn't get access to Saravino et. al. either. Oh well. Domingues, Moraes-Filho & Fass 2018 checked out.
  • They were commonly used before stronger acid-lowering drugs were discovered, mainly for occasional, post-meal heartburn or as needed Okay I don't have access to the cited source so consider this more side chatter, but this reads like Antacids aren't still "commonly" used. A quick Google has a press release claiming the market will be 10 billion+ for Antacids, so I suspect something might be up here. (Did the source mean clinical treatment specifically, perhaps?)

Epidemiology

  • About 25% of people experience heartburn at least once a month, while 12% have it at least once a week. Checks out, but the impression I get from context in Roman 2020 is that this might be "Western" people specifically. In particular, to the extent the issue is rising obesity in Western populations, this might be a narrower claim than "people in general." Any thoughts? (Optional, even if my hunch is right maybe this isn't easy to express succinctly.)
  • only 5.4% of participants with heartburn had addressed their heartburn with a doctor in the past year, even though their symptoms were moderately severe and had lasted for over five years. This checks out to the source.. but.. the last clause makes it sound like "5.4% of participants with moderately severe, lasting over 5 years heartburn." The cited source wasn't 100% clear on what was going on here, so I checked the primary study for clarification - "Although 869 subjects reported an episode of heartburn or acid regurgitation, only 47 (5.4%) reported a physician visit for heartburn or acid regurgitation." In other words, it's 5.4% of all participants who reported having heartburn, not 5.4% of severe cases. This one is up to you - any thoughts? I don't want to privilege the primary study over the secondary source, but I'm not 100% certain that the secondary source is entirely clear here in the first place.
  • Everything else checked, looks good. ✓

History

  • Throughout the 1500s–1800s, stonecrop, chewing green tea, and chalk or magnesia were used as remedies for heartburn. This might be overly nitpicky but "were used" can both mean "someone somewhere used them once" and "were used in general as common wisdom." I think the second is an easy reading, but I'm not sure the source is quite that confident. It just says that some 1500-1800s (English) writings claimed that these were effective. How commonly? Who knows. And the overall tone of the source is that people were really clueless and I'm not certain that it's making claims that these remedies were used outside English regions (implicitly, since the section seems a study of older English literature on the topic). Our article on John Gerard says his book was popular, at least. Like I said, nitpicky, but I might be tempted to qualify or weaken this claim a tad, to make clear that these were some remedies we have records of being recommended in old literature (but leave it at that). Up to you.
  • Other refs check out, looks good. ✓

Pregnancy

  • Vasquez & Ali et al. refs check out, looks good. Sources are strong. ✓
  • Side chatter (non-sourcing related): We currently have During pregnancy, the lower esophageal sphincter moves into the chest,. This is correct but "chest" is a tad vague - maybe [[Thoracic cavity|chest cavity]]?

General thoughts

  • The hardest thing to say is to know if there are important sources that are not consulted. This is especially true with MEDRS requirements, as it's easier to make exhaustive Bibliographies on dusty old History topics where a work from 1897 might still be relevant. That said, I don't get the impression that's really a problem here that there's some major review left unconsulted that would offer something different from the current article. If I had to make a comment on an area of possible omission - the history section is heavily sourced to Modlin, Kidd & Lye 2003. It might be interesting to see if there are any other deep dive sources out there on this, as well as on what people knew about heartburn pre-Shakespeare and in non-English speaking areas. But this is an optional thought, not a blocker.
  • DeVault 2016 is consulted quite a lot. However given that the author is (was?) at the "Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic", and it's an overview article rather than a specific study, it's a great source for Wikipedia purposes. So that gets the SF star of approval.

All in all, excellent work! Just a few thoughts above, most of which are not even sourcing related. SnowFire (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the beautiful source review! I do have pdf access to all of the sources, so if you want to give those a look, feel free to email me and I'll send them your way!
  • "Assuming that the big list is accurate to it, it should be fine, though." to explain the big list a bit more, a lot of the sources were focused on GERD differntials meaning they had disorders that commonly cause regurgitation and/or heaartburn. For the purposes of this article I only included the ones that the source specified could cause heartburn.
  • Good catch with the Basnayake ref, I wasn't sure if it needed pp since it wasn't a page range
  • It's unfortunate that we don't have a page for Esophageal balloon distension, unfortunately there isn't too many great sources on the topic either. However I'm thinking adding "a test used to evaluate esophageal chest pain"[49]
  • As for the antiacids being used, I do believe that they meant that antiacids were perscribed by doctors for something like heartburn/GERD before ppis were discovered, vs now where a doctor would most likely trial a PPI. I have unfortunately lost access to that source and forgot to save the pdf form.
  • The figure from the epidemiology section was discussed in detail above with Noleander, and to put it lightly, it's complicated. Maybe some of that will answer your question? Basically I can't really find any evidence what population that figure is from but it does seem to match with other figures on heartburn and GERD
  • I'll play around with the wording in the history section a bit to better reflect this because it's hard to say how commonly any of those treatments were used
  • Chest cavity is probably the most accurate term, sometimes my attempts at simplifying lead to some odd wording choices
  • I'll see if I can dig up some more sources on the history side of things. The issue I mainly ran into here was that most of the history related publications focused on GERD and there were only passing mentions of heartburn, however I will do another check.
Thanks for all of the helpful feedback, I should be able to finish up my fixes of the article in the next few hours. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I fixed all the above issues and was able to find one more source for the history section [50] unfortunately it doesn't give us much of a worldwide view but I should be able to get a couple sentences out of it. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! Your edits & additions look good, and were mostly optional or nitpicky anyway. Great work!

Airship

[edit]

Couple of comments on the "History" section. Following "Throughout history, the terms cardialgia, heartburn, pyrosis, dyspepsia, and indigestion were often used interchangeably and there was little advancement in differentiating the terms till the 1900s.", the natural question, which the article doesn't address, is "who differentiated them, and how and when?" There seems to be a focus on early modern Europe—might be worth investigations whether any other explorations of heartburn were done at another place/time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Regarding your first point, I'm first going to explain terminology a bit. Cardialgia, heartburn, and pyrosis are all synonyms (with cardialgia and pyrosis being historical terms) and dyspepsia, and indigestion are also synonyms (dyspepsia being the more "medical term"). The issue with both heartburn and dyspepsia is that they are both symptoms, meaning they have no single disease linked to them. Therefore it is hard to say who first discovered each one, as these symptoms have been documented throughout history under many slightly different definitions. This basically means that the main historical events we have related to discovery of these symptoms are tied to the discovery of other disorders which have these symptoms as main characteristics. Looking at the source it does say "In 1958, Bernstein and Baker in Illinois further corroborated the hypothesis that heartburn was a characteristic symptom of GER by demonstrating the reproducibility of heartburn in patients with GER upon acid irrigation of the lower esophagus." and mentions that in the 1950s "Physicians increasingly considered that a large portion of patients with functional dyspepsia, i.e. patients with indigestion symptoms and a work-up negative for any organic cause, may actually have gastro-esophageal regurgitation.". That is all the source really has to say on the topic. I'm not sure if that answers your question but it is all I have been able to find in reliable sources.
As for the focus on Europe, this is due to sources. I have searched for any mentions of heartburn history outside of Europe and have not been able to find anything. Thank you for your feedback! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Heartburn.png: if this includes elements from a CC BY-SA file, it cannot be straight CC0
@Nikkimaria Good catch with the Heartburn png. I made the image myself so I can edit the commons page, if I changed the licence to a CC BY-SA tag could the image still be included in the article or would I have to find a different image of a stomach to make the image? Regarding the Esomeprazole image, it was suggested by another editor above as a commonly recognized PPI however I wouldn't have an issue removing it. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the pill could be commonly recognized from that image, even among people who've heard of it.
CC BY-SA shoud work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Done both, thanks so much! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No issues in the lede.
  • I don't think that we need wikilinks for chocolate, onions, and tomato. These are common words.
  • Wikilink breastbone in Definition and symptoms.
  • Heartburn is sometimes → It is also sometimes avoid repetition
  • GERD is first mentioned in the body in Pathophysiology only as an abbreviation, recommend changing it to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
  • Note b should start with: Esophageal balloon distension is a...
  • Esomeprazole is not mentioned in the prose
  • I'd recommend getting rid of the Pregnancy subsection as Special populations only covers Pregnancy.
* Vacant0 done [51]. I removed the Esomeprazole image per another persons suggestion so that isn't an issue anymore. I also went with "in pregnancy" as a heading since other special populations (such as the elderly and children) aren't mentioned and casual readers may not be familiar with the layout for medical articles. Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elias!

[edit]

Hello @IntentionallyDense, volunteering to review after seeing a polite invitation on WP:DISCORD. These are prose comments from a non-specialist.

  • I boldly made some copyedits to the article. Feel free to partially revert as you deem necessary
  • I know there is an earlier comment about mentioning GERD on the lead's first footnote to clarify its difference from acid reflux. Makes sense enough to me. However, I find its current placement in the lead a bit odd. From an outsider perspective I'm unsure why the footnote should mention GERD, even though the article itself has not gotten to that part yet.
  • I think "bitter belching" should not be in boldface per MOS:NOBOLD? Same with "cardialgia", "cardialgy", and "pyrosis" in #History.
  • Being a non-specialist, I have to ask: why is esophagus wikilinked in the article whereas the other organs aren't? This is just intuiting, but I wager more people know what an esophagus is than a duodenum.
  • In the article prose itself, PPIs are not explained prior to the first mention of the initialism
  • "alarm symptoms" -> is this meant to say "alarming" ?
  • "The esophageal 24-hour pH test or the multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH test, is often" -> the comma and the "is" are throwing me off; not sure if esophageal 24-hour pH tests and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH tests are the same thing.
  • "H2 receptor antagonists" and "H2-receptor antagonists" are both used; which is it?
  • "PPIs reduce stomach acid by blocking an enzyme involved in its production" ... "P-CABs are a newer type of acid-reducing medication that work by blocking an enzyme involved in acid production" are these the same enzyme?
  • Can we get a brief explanation of what a nonerosive reflux disease is, whether it be through a footnote or a link etc ?
  • "Historical descriptions of heartburn from the 1500s to the 1700s" and "Throughout the 1500s to the 1800s" - it will help to clarify, in the prose, specific locations where these descriptions were written down and remedies were used.
I'm not sure if you're fully done with feedback but I'm going to provide a partial response to some of this feedback, the rest I will address in the morning.
Those are the only comments I have at the moment, yes - Elias
  • Most of your copyedits looked good but I'll double check them when I'm more well rested.
  • Regarding the GERD footnote, I agree the placement is a little awkward however I'm not quite sure where else to put it.
    • I think what you can do is (1) move the first mention of GERD in the lead to directly after "Causes of heartburn include acid reflux..." (2) leave only the abbreviation at "Some causes of heartburn, such as GERD", and move footnote [a] to after "Causes of heartburn include acid reflux, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),[a]" - Elias
  • Regarding the boldface, I added it in accordance with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. The two policies are a bit contradictory and I'm willing to remove it if needed.
    • From my understanding that applies virtually only on the lead section? Someone can correct me on that one though. - Elias
  • Regarding the wikilinking of organs, that was my attempt to fix an issue raised at the GAN Talk:Heartburn/GA1 however I agree it's a bit odd.
    • You can wikilink them all, wikilink none of them, or wikilink only the ones that the average reader won't recognize. e.g. the duodenum. - Elias
  • "alarm symptoms" is in fact the correct term (medical talk can be weird) and is commonly used in literature to mean symptoms that could indicate cancer or a more serious disease (examples: [52][53])
    • That seems like a fair explanation - Elias
  • Yes they are the same enzyme however I was trying to be less technical but if the current wording is unclear please let me know.
    • Well if both of them refer to hydrogen potassium ATPase then I think you should just use that term for the second instance - Elias
That should hopefully answer most of the easy questions. The rest require me to use my brain. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the footnote
  • Removed the boldface
  • wikilinked all the organs in the differential section
  • Added full term for PPIs in the patho section
  • They are two seperate tests, this is a typo on my part. Changed is to are.
  • It looks like the literature uses both H2 and H2- but I'll stick with H2 since that seems slightly more common.
  • Changes wording to make it clear that I am referring to Hydrogen potassium ATPase
  • Added a footnote for nonerosive reflux as we don't have great coverage of it on wiki
  • The issue with this is that the source [54] only uses last names so I'm not sure who they are referring to or where the quotes originated from. For example for the quote "a sharpnes, sowernes of stomack, hartburning" they credit "Percivall" (1591) which I'm pretty sure is a common name for the time. "a sharp gnawing pain at the orifice of the Stomach" is credited to Wesley (1747). The remedies are attributed to Gerard (1597) Buchan (1790) and Beale (1880). This source [55] does claim that Gerard lived in London but that's all I have for that
Thanks so much for the review and copyedits, I really appreciate it! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @IntentionallyDense; I did some final copyedits in light of your changes. I believe your replies above satisfy my concerns, and from a second read-through I don't really have any nits to pick. Support. If you have the time and energy to help with the FAC backlog, I recently started an FAC for Big Boys (song). Like with any review here ofc there's no obligation to take the offer Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 15:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Works cited: for books you need to consistently include publisher locations or not.
  • Where you are citing just a chapter or an article from a book or journal you need to give a page range.
  • "Potential differential diagnoses for heartburn include ..." MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Could we have a brief in line explanation of differential diagnosis.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed these comments somehow.
  • Regarding publishers and locations with books, I do believe all of the books have the publishers included but let me know if I missed something. Since the location isn't avaiable for all the books I have just removed them.
  • Added page ranges
  • a process used by healthcare professionals to help differentiate a diagnosis from other similar disorders is the inline explanation but let me know if it needs to be clearer
Thank you for taking the time to review this and I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 1 May 2025 [56].

Hume MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This relatively short article is about Singapore's first underground infill station which opened just a month ago. After a rather vigorous GA review by Starship.paint, I decided to bring this to the FAC stage. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I can leave some quick comments later. However, I was wondering why the {{Singapore MRT stations}} template was in the "References" section and not in the "External links" section below it. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
  • Para 1: "located along the junction of Hume Avenue and Upper Bukit Timah Road" - At least in American English, we typically say that something is located "at"/"under" an intersection or "along" a singular street, never "along" an intersection.
    • Done.
  • Para 1: "and the interior features a colour scheme of green, yellow and white" - This doesn't really fit in with the first part of this sentence, which is about Hume being the first underground MRT infill station. I would recommend splitting up the sentence.
    • Done
  • Also, would it be a good idea to combine the sentence about the colour scheme with the sentence about the artwork?
    • Done
  • Para 2: Could you briefly address why it wasn't built in 2014? I see this wasn't addressed in the body, either. Was it because of a lack of development (as with other MRT infill stations)?
    • LTA said there's a lack of projected ridership levels
  • Para 2: "After petitions by Hume residents" - Residents of Hume Avenue, or residents of a neighbourhood called Hume? If it's the latter, you haven't introduced the neighbourhood yet.
    • I wrote nearby residents instead. There isn't really a clear delineation of the Hume neighbourhood.
  • Para 2: "an artwork of the Former Ford Factory" - This phrasing typically is interpreted as "an artwork from the Former Ford Factory", but looking further, it seems that the artwork depicts the Former Ford Factory. I think you should clarify this.
    • Wrote "an artwork depicting..."
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shell station:
  • Para 1: "The tunnels between the Hillview and Beauty World stations" - I think it would be beneficial to add a little more context about the rest of the DTL before this sentence. It doesn't have to be long; you can just add a sentence about when the line was approved and when construction started.
  • Para 1: I suggest clarifying that the "shell structure" is the structural provisions that are mentioned in the second-to-last sentence.
  • Para 2: "In 2014 and 2015, Hume residents petitioned for the station's opening" - Would it be better to say "station's construction" rather than "station's opening"? The latter implies that construction was nearly complete and that all that had to be done was to open the station, when that wasn't the case.
    • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "did not justify a full construction of the station." - I'd change "a" to "the".
    • Fixed.
  • Para 3: "Land Transport Authority (LTA)" - The LTA's full name is already given in the previous paragraph, so no need to mention it again.
    • Fixed.
  • Para 4: "Janil also acknowledged thatg" - typo
    • Fixed.
  • Para 4: "Nevertheless, Hume residents interviewed by Today expressed dismay over the six-year wait for the station's opening." - I suggest linking to Today (website).
Station construction and opening:
  • Para 1: "Most of the works had to be conducted at night as the station was constructed on the operational DTL" - I would change "was constructed" to "was being constructed". Also, it may help to clarify that the line was closed to passengers at night, which is why this had to be done at night.
  • Para 2: "Without direct above-ground access, construction materials for the station had to be manually transported 700 m (2,300 ft) from Hillview station" - Not to be pedantic, but looking at the source, it looks like they used a trolley to transport the materials, so it wasn't 100% manual (even though "manual" is the wording used by the source).
  • Para 2: "fire-resistant walls were installed before removing the station's access panels" - This goes from passive to active voice. I would make it consistent, e.g. "workers installed fire-resistant walls before removing the station's access panels" or fire-resistant walls were installed before the station's access panels were removed".
  • Para 3: "The installation of high-voltage and traction power equipment at the station had to be done carefully as the station is located between the operational Hillview and Beauty World stations" - This implies that the installation of the equipment could have disrupted power supply to these stations, but this isn't stated directly. Can this be clarified a bit, because I don't think readers will immediately get the connection between the power equipment and the stations' location?
    • Well I'm not sure how to rephrase according to the source: "For example, high-voltage and traction power equipment, which supplies electricity to trains, was added at Hume station, which had to be done carefully because it is located in between two “live” stations – Hillview and Beauty World. Other systems, such as signalling and tunnel ventilation, also had to be modified to include Hume station."
  • Para 4: "Before the station's opening on the day itself, The Straits Times reported that a crowd of more than 100 people were already waiting outside of the entrance" - The highlighted section seems a bit clunky to me. Is there a better way to word this, e.g. "Just before the station's opening on that day [28 February]"? (The date is mentioned in the sentence immediately before it, so it doesn't need to be repeated here.)
  • Have any articles, mentioning the impact of the station's opening, been published since 28 February? It may be too soon for there to be an impact, but in other places around the world, the completion of a project like this is covered for several days (or even weeks) afterward.
Details:
  • Para 1: "with an official station code of DT4" - I'd remove "official" unless there's such a thing as an unofficial station code. Also, was this station code reserved before the station opened, or were all the stations after this renumbered? (I think it's the former, but the article doesn't explicitly say.)
    • It's reserved, since it was omitted from previous versions of the map. [57] and [58]
  • Para 1: "Being part of the DTL, it is operated by SBS Transit." - I would clarify that SBS Transit operates the rest of the DTL, e.g. "As with the rest of the DTL, it is operated by SBS Transit."
  • Para 2: "with previously built infill stations Canberra and Dover being elevated rail stations" - I suggest rewording to "with the previously built infill stations, Canberra and Dover, being elevated rail stations" for better flow. (Or alternatively, you can change the comma after "Singapore" to a semicolon and treat this as a standalone clause. For example, "Hume station is the first underground infill station in Singapore; the previously built infill stations, Canberra and Dover, were elevated rail stations."
  • Para 2: "Near the station's entrances are 60 bicycle parking lots for cyclists." - Might be an ENGVAR thing, but do you mean parking spots/spaces? Parking lots in North America mean something completely different (i.e. a carpark).
  • Para 3: "The station is designed to be barrier-free with wider fare gates that allow easier access for wheelchair users into the station, and a tactile system that guides visually impaired commuters through the station" - I never got around to asking this on your previous FACs, but don't most MRT stations have these features?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "As part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme" - I would say "Commissioned as part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme".
  • Para 4: "The internal structure" - You mean, the depiction of the internal structure?
  • Para 4: "The work intends for commuters" - It was the artist who intended for commuters to do these things, so I would rephrase this.
That's all from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made the above fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Comments:

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisions for the station were built during the construction of the DTL in 2014 → During the construction of the DTL, provisions for the station were completed in 2014 match closer to the text in the body
    • Fixed. Though it caused some repetition so I further condensed.
  • who represents → who represented
    • Fixed.
  • Introduce Land Transport Authority
    • Done.
  • What is "civil works"?
    • It's later explained under what the contract covers.
  • could only take place → only took place
    • I keep this, because it's to show ability.
  • The Straits Times, Hillview and Beauty World, is wikilinked twice
    • Fixed.

Did the above fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dracophyllum - Image review

[edit]
  • img1: license good, caption good, alt text could be changed from ...and black cladding, at the street level to ...and black cladding, located at street level.
  • img2: license good, took me a sec to understand shell station so caption could go from The shell station in the DTL tunnel in 2020 to > The empty shell station in the DTL tunnel in 2020 > or maybe The shell of the unopened station in 2020. or similar. Alt text good.
  • img3: license good, caption good, alt text could have the second in Singapore. removed.
  • img4: license good, caption good, alt text good.
  • img5: license good, caption good, Alt text long but good.
  • img6: license good, caption good; has full stop as is full sentence not just fragment, alt text long but key info in first sentence.

That is all. cheers, Dracophyllum 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above. Thanks for the IR.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I can support for images. Dracophyllum 05:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shell station
  • "provisions was": 'provisions' is plural, so it should be 'were'
    • Fixed
  • "However, the Land": 'However' isn't needed (it's not contradicting anything preceding it)
    • Fixed
  • "in its media replies": these four words are unnecessary and should be removed
    • Fixed
  • "Additionally, the LTA cited" -> "The LTA also cited" reads more smoothly
    • Fixed
Station construction
  • What does "manually transported" give us that "transported" doesn't?
    • Well, I was going with the source and I debated whether it should be retained. However, since this was raised again, I think I shall delete this.
  • "signalling, communications, and tunnel ventilation": you use a serial comma here, but don't in the lead (with "the Rail Corridor, the Rail Mall and the Former Ford Factory"): best to go through an ensure you are consistent with the approach
  • "Dover –being": space needed between the dash and being
    • Fixed.
  • "a homage": should be "an homage"
    • Fixed.
That's my lot. An interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the fixes above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review: pass

[edit]

To follow soon - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The capitalisation goes a little awry in a couple of places with a mix or styles:
    • Ref 10 is in sentence case and should be in title case
    • Refs 15, 31 are in start case and should be in title case

-SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed for Refs 10 and 15, but I'm unsure how for Ref 31 should anything be changed: "Hume MRT Shell Station to Be Fitted Out by JSM Construction Group at $34m", since "Be" should also be capitalised as per MOS:CT, and "Out" being used as a phrasal verb.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the verb is Fit and that 'out' should be lower case - as it would for Fit up.
Made the changes accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability and range
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 May 2025 [59].

Daily News Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the New York Daily News, it was designed by Raymond Hood and John Mead Howells as one of New York City's first major Art Deco buildings. Its most notable architectural features include a bas-relief above the main entrance and a globe in the lobby. Used by the Daily News until the mid-1990s, the skyscraper was described by Daily News historians as having done "a lot for the paper".

This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by the late Vami IV, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Images
Lead
  • New York City should be delinked as per MOS:OL.
  • Why not use "the building" throughout the article instead of repeatedly saying "the Daily News Building," given that the article title already makes it clear which building is being discussed?
  • The Daily News Building was commissioned by Joseph Medill Patterson, the founder of the New York Daily News. The definite article before "New York Daily News" in this sentence should be dropped (unless it's part of the newspaper's name).
    • This would not be grammatically correct. Many newspapers' names are preceded by the definite article anyway, so saying "the founder of New York Daily News" would be rather awkward. Epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Site
Impact
Critical reception
History

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm talk 20:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The building was among the first skyscrapers to be built without an ornamental crown; - I'm struggling to find this on the cited pages - could you please point out what this is supported by?
  • "It is L-shaped, with a frontage of 91 feet (28 m) along the middle of the block on 42nd Street" - unless I'm missing it, the source actually gives the round number of 90 feet
  • "The larger setbacks are two bays deep, and the smaller setbacks are one bay deep" - should this from note [a] be source?
    • No, as this is an explanatory note clarifying something in the source. The source itself (Robins 1981, p. 11) described the setbacks "one bay deep" and "two bays deep". To avoid repeating these phrases excessively, this article describes these as "small" and "large" setbacks. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " An additional five stories were built in the late 1950s," - page 457 of Stern, Mellins & Fishman 1995 should also be included in the citation, not just 456 (which provides the date, but not the five stories, which are on 457)
  • " The figure atop the word "He" may be a representation of Lincoln" - I can only get the Google snippet view, but what I'm seeing is saying that the possible Lincoln is below "He", which the photograph of the entrance in the article also appears to support, rather than "atop"
  • "Under this ceiling, in a stepped pit" - Cited to Robins 1981 p. 7 but I think you want Robins 1998 p. 7?
  • "and contain bronze plaques memorializing Daily News employees who fought in major wars" - I think this is another instance where you want Robins 1998 not Robins 1981
  • "was inspired by the tomb of Napoleon " - Would it be better to link to Napoleon's tomb directly, rather than to just Napoleon?
  • "The city names were changed to reflect new distances and spellings, and a hallway was extended to the entrance on Second Avenue" - another cited to Robins 1981 that looks like it should be Robins 1998
    • I found additional instances of Robins 1981 being used instead of the correct citation, Robins 1998. I have fixed all of these. I will also be going over the rest of the article later this week, or next week, to spot-check some citations. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at the beginning of the history section; I think the citation accuracy could be improved a bit. Hog Farm talk 03:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments HF. I expanded the article a while ago and thought I had fixed everything when I checked the article, but it seems this is not the case. I'll have a deeper look at the entire article later this week. Epicgenius (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HF, I might not be able to finish looking through the sources until 1-2 weeks from now, due to real-life commitments. I hope that's okay with you. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine, just let me know when it's ready. I probably won't have much time next week anyway. Hog Farm talk 21:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm still working on this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, how's it going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, slowly but surely. So far I've checked everything except part of the Architecture section, and I've rectified the issues I found so far to the best of my ability. Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've finally finished double-checking the sources. Thanks for your patience, and sorry to keep you waiting. I'd appreciate it if you could take another look. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I might be able to get to it this evening; if not I'll see when I can because it's going to be a busy week for me at work. Hog Farm talk 20:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why the 1944 annex plans never happened?
  • "Within a decade of opening, the lobby's research desk had served 625,000 annual visitors" - this just doesn't read quite right to me, but I can't quite express why. I think the "within a decade of opening" is leading into a cumulative total, but then we're presenting an annual number. Is this annual number an average of several years? Would it be better just to state what year this figure applies to?
  • "By August 1950, the News Syndicate Company had acquired all of the lots at the southwest corner of 42nd Street and Second Avenue," - what is the News Syndicate Company? This hasn't been explained to the reader. I thought Tribune Media owned the Daily News
  • I've taken a look at this. It seems like the News Syndicate Company was a subsidiary of Tribune Media, so I've clarified this.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the previous mention of Tribune Media earlier in the article was removed - I'm a little confused why. If that sentence is going to stay out of the article, wouldn't it be best to relink Tribune Media where it's been added with the News Syndicate Company mention? Hog Farm talk 00:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, I belatedly realized that the sentence was referring to a completely different building; that was my mistake. I've linked Tribune Media in the "Early years and expansion" section. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I feel comfortable supporting now. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me for now. Hog Farm talk 01:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, thanks for taking another look. I've addressed or replied to your comments above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Nice to see one of your FACs here @Epicgenius:, i'll give this a go. 04:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • Upon its completion, the building received mixed reviews, and many observers described the building as having "the building" is used twice in the sentence, so i would change the latter one to "it".
  • includes several setbacks at higher floors. ==> "includes several setbacks on higher floors."
site
architecture
  • practical needs in mind, saying that "I do not ==> "practical needs in mind, saying, "I do not" i feel like 'that' makes the flow slightly worse
  • based on its perceived utility, because the interior space the comma's not needed
  • was relatively luxurious, since Hood was given comma not needed
  • budget for the entrance's design. ==> "budget for its design." since 'entrance' is used once already
history
  • newspaper moved out during May 1995 ==> "newspaper moved out in May 1995"
tenants
impact

@Epicgenius: thanks for the article! I have an open FAC on an actor if you'd like to check it out (no obligation). Best, 750h+ 07:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review 750h+. I've addressed all the issues you raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! thanks for the article! 750h+ 13:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Ambiguity: ... window bays that are separated by irregularly placed sections of white brick wall, as well as multicolored brick patterns and red curtains. Does "curtain" here mean draperies for the windows? or curtain walls? I'm speculating it is curtain walls, but I'm not sure. If it is a curtain wall, suggest use the 2-word term & link to Curtain wall (architecture); if it is a drapery, suggest adding words to clarify (e.g. "rayon curtains").
    • Yes, these are draperies. The sources don't go into detail onto what material these are made out of, and that would be a rather trivial detail, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm looking at the photos in the article, and I do not see any draperies (red or otherwise) ... instead I see white pull-down blinds. I also cannot find any draperies in Google-search images. Have the draperies been removed? Suggest removing the "curtain" info unless stronger confirmation that they are still in-use today. Noleander (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-sequitur: The architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson perceived the building's design to have sacrificed functionality for effectiveness, saying that the "crisp square termination" on the roof "is a deception" the word "saying" tells the reader that the following clause elaborates on the prior; but I do not see how a deceptive roof is related to a sacrifice. Can you clarify what the critic's point was?
    • After some though, I should trim the "sacrificed" part. Hitchcock and Johnson basically thought that the roof should not have been flat, because it had mechanical equipment and a water tower (so the roof didn't reflect the true shape of the building so to speak). The "sacrificed" part isn't really necessary and merely introduces more ambiguity. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: ... have sacrificed functionality for effectiveness ... That is confusing: functionality is pretty much the same as effectiveness, in most senses. Can you improve the wording to be more meaningful (while still relaying the sentiment of the critic)?
  • Clarify: During the blackout, film crews lent their Klieg lights to Daily News editors so that the following day's issue could be published. Can the article clarify what happened? Klieg lights, I think, are huge lights used outdoors. Were they used indoors inside where the reporters were writing their stories? or indoors in the room housing the printing-press? Or were they used outdoors? My gut feeling is that the lights were not particularly useful, but this makes for an interesting feel-good story, so is perhaps it is a myth/urban legend? I tried to read the accompanying cite, but it is paywalled.
    • You are correct, the lights were used indoors because of the blackout. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually on further inspection, the source doesn't specify whether the interior or exterior was illuminated. I guess the author just thought it wasn't important. To maintain text-source integrity, I left out which parts of the building were illuminated, though please let me know if you think this detail can be removed entirely. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Klieg light episode sounds like a minor event that was exaggerated for marketing purposes. I suspect that during/after the blackout, news reporters were running around NY looking for human interest stories, and wiling to bend the truth a bit to boost their readership. My gut is telling me (based solely in the impracticality, due to the size & brightness of the lights) that the story is mostly false or, at least, misleading. Recommend delete it unless you can find multiple independent sources confirming the facts. Noleander (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate: Prior to his death, Hood had disregarded the building's "architectural beauty" and "composition", instead focusing on its "effect" Seems like a pretty important evolution; but I'm not sure what to make of it. The word "disregarded" seems out of place; can a more precise word be found (regretted, scorned, dismissed, was ashamed, etc). Can you add words giving more insight into this transition?
  • Tense: present/past: The building houses the former Daily News TV broadcast subsidiary WPIX, channel 11, which later became an affiliate of The CW network. NewsNation opened up their New York bureau at the structure in 2023. It was also home to WQCD, the smooth jazz station ... Most of this paragraph seems to be present tense, but the word "was" is used for WQCD. If you want to list historical tenants, suggest have 2 paragraphs: first paragr for historical (no longer tenants today); second paragr for current tenants.
    • Actually I think WQCD might still be headquartered there. I'll have a look. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Apparently it is not. I've removed WQCD as it is already mentioned above. This paragraph has been repurposed to describe only current tenants. The previous major tenants are already listed in the History section, and it would be unwieldy to bring them all down to this section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is today? The building houses the former Daily News TV broadcast subsidiary WPIX, ... This paragraph will quickly become out-of-date as tenants change over time. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia MOS suggests for handling that situation, but it is a problem that a large fraction of WP articles face. Maybe add prefatory words such as: As of early 2025, the building houses ...
  • Clarify In November 1929, several mechanics were given craftsmanship certificates for "outstanding work" on the building's construction; .... The word "mechanics" is vague, and could mean any of several jobs: can you add a link to WP article, and maybe make the wording more precise? e.g. "mechanical engineers" "construction workers" etc
  • Artist? At the base of the tower, on the 42nd Street side, is a three-story-tall granite-clad main entrance that takes up the width of five bays. Over the entrance is a carving of the phrase "The News", below which is a large bas-relief with carvings of people and the phrase "He Made So Many of Them", all in capital letters. The photo of that carving shows a rather spectacular piece of art [[File:NY_Daily_News_door_jeh.JPG]] Perhaps it is not as famous as the art on Rockefeller Center, but it is certainly comparable. I don't think this article meets FA quality unless the artist is identified (I cannot find the name of the artist in the article).
    • The artist was Raymond Hood, the architect of the rest of the building. Since this wasn't a standalone piece of art or contracted to another artist, I felt that it was redundant to mention Hood's name, because he designed the rest of the building as well. However, I've added it. Thanks for the initial comments, Noleander. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key fact is not made clear: The structure was occupied by the Daily News until 1995, after which it was converted to office use. I presume that, prior to 1995, the Daily News used a lot of the building as office space, correct? I think the primary goal of that sentence is to tell the reader that the Daily News vacated the building and moved to another building at 450 West 33rd Street (except for a radio station) correct? Suggest that sentence be changed to In 1995, the Daily News moved the vast majority of its operations to a different building in New York, but retained ownership of the Daily News Building and began leasing office space to other companies. or something like that. If the move was caused by declining circulation (was it?) readers will want to know that.
    • Yes, that would be correct; other tenants began moving into the space vacated by the Daily News. For several years before 1995, though, the Daily News had been moving its operations to other buildings. Declining circulation wasn't the reason for the move, but there were numerous other contributing factors, which are mentioned in the "Post-Daily News era" section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give reader a sense of the era: Was this building part of a cluster of skyscrapers all built around 1929-1933? Empire State bldg? Chrysler building? If so: consider adding some words to the lead to give the reader that sense of excitement & growth, e.g. The Daily News Building is a skyscraper at 220 East 42nd Street in the East Midtown neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City, United States. The building was one of many important NY skyscrapers built around 1930, along with the Empire State building and the Chrysler building. (wording here is for illustrative purposes only, I'm not 100% sure that is factually accurate).
  • Drawing alone was inspiration? Hugh Ferriss drew a rendering of the Daily News Building in 1930. The rendering inspired the design of the fictional Daily Planet headquarters in the Superman franchise. That latter sentence raised more questions than it answered: the building was completed in 1930, and photography existed at that time: did the Superman artists not see photos of the building? Was the drawing so awe-inspiring that it, alone, was their source? Or did the Superman artists begin drawing their own derivative building before the Daily News building was completed?
    • Unfortunately, the sources don't go into that level of detail. The Smithsonian source says that "everything Ferriss drew looked like it belonged in a comic book", which could've been the reason why the Superman artists were inspired. But the sources don't mention whether the Superman artists began drawing their sketches before the Daily News Building was finished (or even when they began drawing the sketches). I'll have a look to determine whether there are other sources that talk about this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphasize Superman inspiration more directly: .... The rendering inspired the design of the fictional Daily Planet headquarters in the Superman franchise. I'm no comic expert, but doesn't the inspiration for Superman go much deeper than the building shape? If there are sources that make these parallels, suggest you include them here: The Daily News building served as inspiration for the Daily Planet's building in Superman, including the building design, the name (Daily News and Daily Planet), and the globe motif (both had a large globe as their logo/icon).
  • Photo available? The globe /lobby still looks pretty spectacular in the 21st century, more so that the dated photo in the article. Is there any way to find a free-use photo of the current lobby? If none is found, consider asking for a WP volunteer who lives in NYC to take a picture of the lobby & post it to Wiki Commons? Noleander (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I live in NYC and have tried to get a pic of the lobby several times, but have been unsuccessful each time (though this was back in 2020-2021 during the pandemic). Unfortunately, my job doesn't take me around this neighborhood often, so I can't drop by and take an image of the lobby, the same way I was able to take pics of other buildings a few years ago. I'll look through Flickr and/or ask a few fellow NYC editors to get a pic. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I have for now. Note that I posted two follow-up comments, indented, above (draperies & Klieg lights). Noleander (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Regarding WP:FACR #1 ("prose is engaging") I find a lot of the text to be choppy, i.e. sequences of short declarative sentences with no overall flow. For example, this paragraph from Tower:

The facade of the tower is composed of vertical window bays that are separated by irregularly placed sections of white brick wall.[11][22] There are also multicolored spandrels on the facade.[8] The panels between the windows are made of reddish-brown and black brick, laid in a contrasting pattern.[20][21][22] The spandrel panels at lower floors contain geometric patterns, while those on upper floors have been simplified into horizontal bars. On floors with setbacks, the panels also contain miniature setbacks.[23][21] The vertical bands were similar to those on the residence of Daily News publisher Joseph Medill Patterson, at 3 East 84th Street, which Hood had also designed.[26] The tops of the vertical bands terminate abruptly at the setbacks.[27]

In addition to the individual sentences being disjoint, there's lots of repetition; in a section titled "Tower", it's not necessary to say "The facade of the tower". And once you've told the reader in the first sentence that you're talking about the facade, there's no need to tell them again in the next sentence. Phrases like "There are also" and "that are" add volume without adding information. The comparison to Patterson's residence is interesting, but out of place in the middle of the paragraph. Something like this ties the narrative together and presents the same information in about 2/3 the space (obviously with appropriate citations added):

The facade is composed of vertical window bays separated by irregularly placed sections of white, reddish-brown, and black brick in a contrasting pattern, with vertical bands terminating abruptly at the setbacks. Multicolored spandrels are used throughout, with those on the lower floors containing geometric patterns and those on the upper floors simplified into horizontal bars. The vertical banding is similar to those on the residence of Daily News publisher Joseph Patterson, at 3 East 84th Street, which Hood had also designed.

I picked this paragraph more or less at random; the choppy style is used throughout and I think the entire article would be improved from this kind of rewrite.

Thanks for the feedback. I do see where you're coming from, but I think I can resolve this by rearranging/condensing some context, rather than more drastically rewriting the page. I can take a look soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Site and Architecture sections and streamlined these a bit. I will look at the rest of the article in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm still working on this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've chatted briefly with Epic off-wiki about this. Overall, I'd say there has been significant improvement in the flow of the prose. I'm giving it a read-through now and I'll call out some other items as I see them. As an aside, I live in NYC and have been past this building probably hundreds of times. It always astonishes me that we seem to move about the city trapped in a flatland-like existence, only aware of those portions of these monumental structures that we can see from the sidewalk.

  • In Form, I suggest starting with an introductory sentence that broadly describes the structure: "The building consists of three main parts; a 36-story L-shaped tower, a 14-story southern portion which was originally the printing plant, and an 18-story annex on the northeastern portion of the lot". From there, drill down to the details of each section.
  • You use the phrase "Daily News Building" 47 times in the article. I would reduce the repetition by using just "the building" or other generic terms in many of those places.
    • I actually tried to do this already. Of the remaining 47 uses of "Daily News Building", 25 are outside the prose (e.g. in the infobox or reference titles). Nonetheless, I've reduced this a little more. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • larger setbacks at the 27th floor and above the 36th what's the difference between a setback being "at" a floor vs "above" a floor?
  • Hood had initially been conflicted about how to design the top stories, and one account has it I suggest "... the top stories; one account has it"
  • the architect Frank Lloyd Wright I know it's common style here to introduce people, but I think we can expect our readers to know that Frank Lloyd Wright was an architect without having to tell them.
  • The original structure has a floor area of 663,000 square feet What comprises the "original structure"? I'm guessing that means the tower plus the original nine-story printing plant, but you should clarify that.
  • When the Daily News occupied the building, the press rooms and circulation departments were on the lower floors I assume you're talking here about the printing plant building?
  • along with the Lincoln Building, Chanin Building, Chrysler Building, and Tudor City it would be a good addition to the article to make a map showing the locations of these buildings (and all the other buildings mentioned (the NY Times, Grand Central, etc).
  • Printing plants typically have structural features specific to that use: extra-strong floors, tall ceilings, wide open spaces uninterrupted by columns. Is any of that information available for this building?

Thanks for taking another look at this, Roy; I appreciate it. Sorry for the late response - I've been busy with work lately, but I will address these within the next day or so. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks for your comments and for being patient. I've responded to all of your above comments. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well; I've been dragged off on a bunch of other projects so haven't been able to get back to this. I see it's already got four supports so at least I'm not holding it up from that point of view. RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Architecture
  • 'not "feel that The News Building': should be a lower case 'T' per MOS:THECAPS
Form
  • "The massing": I think a v short description of "massing"—much like you ha* ve in the lead—would work well here
Other stories
  • "seventh floor was the feature": -- > "were the feature..."

Done to the start of the History section. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments SC. I've fixed these, and I've also just realized that I accidentally wrote "eight floor" instead of "eighth floor", which I've also fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good so far. Just a final few bits:

Daily News use
  • "In addition, United Press International": I'm not sure what the "In addition" brings to the sentence
Reception
  • "the English architect Frank Scarlett": is his nationality important? It jars, as no-one else's is flagged.
  • After Hood's death in 1934, critics and the media described Hood as": -> "described him as" would read more smoothly

I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @SC, I've taken care of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I will be doing a source review on this. I also realised my university has proquest access so I can spotcheck the NYT articles as well. Will be reviewing as per this revision. Though I shouldn't expect many problems.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 checks out. But what's with the "summary listing" in the website title?
  • I used the reference number for ref 2 (NPGallery Digital Asset Search) and was directed here. However, I can't find that the official designation date is November 12, 1982, only that the pdf was published two days after the supposed date.
  • Refs 3 and 4 check out. However, should it just be the number or the full designation code (e.g. LP-1982 instead of 1982?)
  • Ref 7 is dead. Though from the archived version I don't see Daily News Building marked; but ref 6 is sufficient.
  • Also you might want to add access-date to the urls here.

More checks to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued as per this revision:

  • I strongly recommend adding citations in the infobox for architectural style, address, completion date, ownership, height, floor count etc.
  • Ref 9 is missing original url. Both refs 9 and 10 checks out on the height. Though for "the Skyscraper Center", shouldn't "the" be capitalised as well?
    • For Ref 9, the original url is suppressed because the url has been usurped; the original URL now links to a completely different website. The Skyscraper Center was lowercased per MOS:THECAPS, but I guess the linked article consistently capitalizes "The", so I've also capitalized this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 checks out. I also note that for this building, Hood did not employ Gothic ornaments. I know it's kind of implied from how it's written now (as you mentioned how this contrasted against his previous works), but I would reworded it directly that this building did not have Gothic ornaments unlike his past two works.
  • Ref 17 Architectural Forum link is dead but I'm still able to access the archived link. Checks out.
  • Ref 21 checks out on details of the setbacks, the northern facade and "the northernmost seven bays". I was initially confused how there could be "the northernmost seven bays" on the east but, well, I figure out.
    • Basically, the eastern facade is divided into southern and northern sections. The northern section is on the right-hand side of the eastern facade (when you're looking at it from across the street), while the southern section is on the left-hand side. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 checks out for the construction of the new annex and Harrison & Abramovitz being contracted for this job. Though for the sentence concerning The project more than doubled the building's floor area...: by expanding "more than 50%" to 1,009,700 square feet, did the building's floor area really "doubled"? It's more like expanding by 1.5 times than 2 times as claimed by Ref 42. Even from ref 43, the expansion was from 663,700 sqft to the 1 million, which still falls a bit under than the claim.
  • I can't really find for Ref 28 (Architectural Forum 1930, p 532) on Hood's claim, though ref 29 supports it.
    • I cited the wrong page. He said on page 531 that "At no place, even at the comers of the building, was this uniform fenestration varied, as it was the intention to create what has been shown by experience to be the best and most flexible space for high class office rental." I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31 checks out. I was deliberating whether to delete "Streetscapes/3 East 84th Street" from the title but I think it's fine. Just add a space after the semicolon.
  • Refs 33, 38, 41, 44, 50, 54 check out
  • Daily News historians said that Patterson had proposed the idea for the lobby – Might just rewrite to: Daily News historians credited Patterson for the lobby's design...
  • I might also name who is Hood's biographer (Walter Kilham), mentioned in the LPC overview.
  • Ref 57 checks out on the description of other stories
  • Refs 58, 59, 65, 70, 80 check out
  • Curious, why was Patterson rather against a "monument". Did the source clarify about this?
  • Also "eleventh meeting"... per MOS shouldn't it just be 11th meeting?
  • Refs 84, 89 and 90 check out. Particularly the quote. Although for Ref 89, I think a colon instead of semicolon is more appropriate. But also I understand you took the title from the NYT website directly. Ref 90 I would just keep the bit before the semicolon.
  • Ref 101 checks out. But I would change that dash to em dash.
  • Through the early 1990s, the Daily News continued to reduce the amount of space it occupied; – Might rewrite to: Through the early 1990s, the Daily News continued to reduce its occupancy space;
  • Refs 111, 126 check out
  • Ref 135 supports the annoucement, but I can't really find in the NYT article mentioning the reasons: The move was motivated by the cost of maintaining several spaces, the pending expiration of the lease, and the fact that the newspaper's operations in the building had been downsized over the previous decade.
    • The source says "Officials would say only that the move would involve 300 employees, save money and offer a host of technological advantages, from under-the-floor space for electronic wiring to uninterrupted power supplies." The latter two-thirds of this sentence was cited to the other sources in the paragraph, so I trimmed that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the fact that the newspaper's operations in the building had been downsized over the previous decade. – and the downsizing of newspaper's operations in the building over the previous decade.
  • Refs 149, 157, 161, 165, 170, 191 check out. Though for Ref 149 I would say "in January 2019" or "The Real Deal reported in January 2019 that..."
  • A short query, how reliable is Commercial Observer?
  • I have difficulty finding the quote "practically a complete functionalist" for Ref 180.
  • I think it should be page 19 for Ref 185. The quote checks out.

That's all for source comments. Majority of the sources are by architectural commentary or local news which are reliable enough (particularly NYT) for coverage of this building. I don't see major issues besides a few clarifications of some quotes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the source review. I've fixed the concerns you raised above, but it seems like I have to go through some of the sources to check the precision of the page numbers (especially for claims that cite both Robins and another source). Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me again once you have done checking through. I can understand that the rewrites would lead to some sources and attribution being jumbled up.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed similar issues in my review a couple weeks ago - would it be better for this source re-working to occur outside of the FAC environment? Hog Farm talk 01:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, I was considering it, but this article already received several prose supports, and I didn't want to waste the time of the reviewers who already commented on this. If I withdraw the article now, I would probably not be able to renominate it for several months due to time constraints.
From ZKang123's review above and from the checks I've already done, it seems like the source issues are mostly limited to multi-page sources (with the exception of where I misinterpreted a 50% increase in area as a "doubling" in area). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123 and @Hog Farm (sorry for the double ping): After looking at this again, it looks like fixing the sources may be easier than I thought. I already checked most of the article for text-source integrity except for the Impact and part of the History sections, and the Site section was checked as part of ZKang's source review above. I should be done with checking the remainder of the article within the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issues I pointed out are that sufficient to fail the source review just yet, and I'm willing to give good grace (at least a week) for any source cleanups. I can understand that some misattributions are perhaps due to article cleanups and moving around of citations. At this point it has at least passed 75% of my spot checks (which would be sufficient for a GA), but certainly a bit more time is needed to bring it to an A+, if you get what I mean.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response ZKang123. Yeah, a week or so should be enough time for me to flesh this out. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please give me until Monday. I'm going to be a little busy IRL. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: I've finally finished double-checking the sources. Thanks for your patience, and sorry to keep you waiting. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did a couple more checks. Satisfied with the changes. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Lobby and Globe in News Building.jpg and File:Daily News Building.jpg have the absence of a copyright notice been verified? I think the ALT text of the infobox image could be more descriptive, since it's meant to show what the building looks like. Everything else seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the image review. For both images I couldn't find any evidence of a copyright registration in https://vcc.copyright.gov/browse or any of the volumes listed in https://archive.org/details/copyrightrecords (I searched both databases for "Lumitone" but could not find any relevant images from the time period where the photos were published). I modified the infobox image's alt text. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a copyright notice might show up more on the back of these postcards than in a database, I suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, for what it's worth, the back of the globe postcard looks like this, and the back of the tower-exterior postcard looks like this. Neither of these explicitly has a copyright notice, just the name of the company that printed it. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Publisher locations. You need to consistently include them or not.
    @Gog the Mild if I may drive-by your drive-by, why do you insist on consistency here? The rule I have always used is to include the location if it's not already part of the publication. {{cite news}} says publication-place: ... omit when the name of the work includes the publication place, for example, The Boston Globe, The Times of India which makes sense. Are you arguing for something different? RoySmith (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roy, I was only referring to books. I think (hope) that Eg understood this. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bessie, 1966 needs an OCLC. (7405335)
  • " was completed in 1960. Upon its completion, the building received mixed reviews". Perhaps add "originally"?
  • You get bonus marks for including "spandrel".

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm busy tonight but I shall get to these tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gog the Mild. I've addressed the comments you've raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2025&oldid=1293136404"