Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio does not really need an introduction unless you have been living under a rock for the past 25 years. He starred in that long-forgotten film about that ship that sank, those films in which he constantly loses his shit, or those ones where plays a character playing a character. He is the actor that hasn't gone wrong with a single role choice (well almost). Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading his article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Next in a series of bad or bonkers barons, here's Lord Bonville. Nothing to do with this, unfortunately. The early part of his career was pretty run of the mill—suing relatives, fighting the French—but in middle age, he found his niche: engaging in a long-running bitter and bloody feud with a more powerful neighbour, the Earl of Devon, in which they both had their share of victories and defeats. A small feud like that, of course, couldn't really stay the course against its bigger and badder brother, so both they and they squabble became part of a national political crisis which culminated, in early 1461 in both Bonville and his rival dying violently in quick succession for their favoured causes. Decide for yourself whether he was stitched up.

Having received an excellent GA review from User:Gog the Mild of this parish (thanking you), hopefully, it's time to give Bonville the treatment. All comers welcome, and many thanks for looking in those who do! ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring an article on a Soviet destroyer built by the Russian Empire during World War I. One of many given ideological names, she saw extensive combat during World War II and was sunk as a target afterwards. The articles has previously passed a GA review and Milhist ACR earlier this year. Kges1901 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Brennus

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

As part of our recent push bring French battleship articles to FA-class, we present for your consideration the first modern French battleship, named for your favorite sacker of Rome and mine. The article passed a MilHist ACR last month. As usual, we'd like reviewers to look for any stray bits of BritEng and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

Comment by CPA-5

  • Sturm you sure it should be written in British English? Because if so this nomination needs a major overhaul in replacing American spellings with British ones. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Other way around, we want stray bits of BritEng identified so that we can them to change to Am Eng.

Portrait of Mariana of Austria

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not one of Diego Velázquez's most heavy weight paintings, but a favorite for those interested in 17th century clothes and fashion...we do exist:) There is drama here, she married young, in a rush and ill advisedly, born out by her unhappy pout in this and later portraits. Feedback gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

No ALT text that I can see but image placement is reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Done NikkiJo-Jo will address. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so to be clear, * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to {{PD-100}}. was from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm loosing it - yes and thanks. Am working through alt text. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The decipherment of these scripts, of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young. I've also tried to write in British English, given that all the English-speaking figures in the story were British, but some Americanisms may have crept in. This article complements our FA on the Rosetta Stone and GA on Champollion, and it has been informally looked over by User:Andrew Dalby, who contributed to the former, and User:Iry-Hor, who has helped maintain and improve the latter.

The tables of glyphs use WikiHiero, but unfortunately WikiHiero characters don't display in the mobile version of Wikipedia. I've filed a bug report but do not know if it will be resolved. There are alternatives to WikiHiero (images and Unicode characters), but they aren't as flexible or easy to integrate into a table as WikiHiero. I hope this problem will not be an obstacle to the article's passage. A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Review by Iry-Hor

I would be glad to review this stellar contribution to Wikipedia. I will write my comments shortly.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I will write all the things I see, but some might be nitpicking, so feel free to ignore them:

  • Lede: " in the fourth and fifth centuries AD", should it be "fourth or fifth" or is it really fourth and fifth ? We the "and" I understand this as a gradual loss. Leave it like that if this is so.
It was a gradual loss, and the last hieroglyphic text was written in the fourth century and the last in demotic in the fifth. See also my response to the point about decline in the body text.
  • Lede: "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars..." given the nice way of explaining the history of decipherment in the lede, it seems to me that it would be better to specify the periods meant here, e.g. as in "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars during the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods..."
I've specified the time period, although I think with the added words it was best to rearrange the sentence a bit.
  • Lede: "perception of hieroglyphs as ideographic hampered efforts to understand them up through the 18th century." I seem to remember that some people continued to hold such ideas in the early 19th century as well, i.e. concurrently with Young and Champollion's earliest efforts. If so, you might want to end with "[...] understand them up through the 18th and early 19th centuries".
Hard to say. The ideographic orthodoxy held sway up until Warburton, but after his time there seems to have been some willingness to acknowledge phonetic signs might exist even in the hieroglyphic script (e.g., in Zoëga's work), even if many people were attached to hieroglyphic mysticism. I was thinking particularly of Young, whose failure to acknowledge phoneticism outside the cartouches is often wrongly attributed to the old orthodoxy. As Iversen says and the article mentions, he looked for phonetic signs but was stymied by the wild variety of spellings, not by the assumption that such signs did not exist.
  • Lede: "many of the phonetic signs in demotic. He also identified the meaning of many hieroglyphs" could we replace of the two "many" to avoid repetition?
Done.
  • Lede: "grammar and vocabulary of Egyptian" perhaps replace with "grammar and vocabulary of Ancient Egyptian" ?
I generally refer to the language as just "Egyptian", as that is its name, but in this case I suppose the distinction is necessary. Done.

Now on the first section:

  • "sometime before 3000 BC." Could you perhaps give a reference here ? I think that the latest research, notably from the discoveries of tomb U-j, has pushed this back to c. 3100 BC. I will see if I can find Dreyer's opinion on this.
Allen 2014, the citation for this sentence, actually says c. 3200, but between the uncertain dating for the Protodynastic and the problem of what actually counts as a writing system, I thought it safer to be vague. I'll specify c. 3200 if you want.
  • Beautiful paragraph from "Many Greek and Roman[...]" until "[...]same consonants" !
  • "Both hieroglyphic and demotic died out during the third through fifth centuries AD" seems to contradict the lede that says "fourth and fifth".
I've tried to clarify this. The decline, which coincided with the sharp decline of the temple priesthoods, began in the third century. Loprieno, p. 26: "the third century CE represents the turning point: hieroglyphic texts exhibit a progressive decay both in their grammatical structure and in the formal appearance of the signs". Egypt in Late Antiquity by Roger Bagnall, which is in Loprieno's footnotes for this passage, says that only at the temples of Hermonthis and Philae did knowledge of hieroglyphs even survive into the fourth century. However, the scripts didn't completely cease to be understood, as the lead section puts it, until they died out at Philae. I hope this no longer looks like a contradiction.
  • "[...]Egyptian example of such a source was the history of Egypt written by Manetho in[...]" this sentence would be better with the explicit name of this work Aegyptiaca. You can wikilink it to the appropriate section on Manetho's article.
Done.

Second section:

  • "Europeans were ignorant of Coptic as well. European scholars" I think that by the context it is clear that the second sentence pertains to European scholars and so I would advocate for remving the second "Europeans" to avoid repetition. It is debatable however so this is as you see fit.
Done.
  • "Coptic monks, and no Europeans of the time had the opportunity to learn from one of these monks" It might be worth stating why this is so. I presume it is because Coptic monks were in Egypt (as today), however this may not be clear to all readers.
Correct; Hamilton says that the way Europeans in this period tended to learn non-European languages (in the 15th century, even Greek!) was for a native speaker to visit Europe and be recorded, and no one who knew Coptic seems to have gone to Europe in that time. I've clarified.
  • "European contact with Egypt increased during the 18th century. More Europeans visited the country and saw its ancient inscriptions firsthand,[38] and as Europeans collected antiquities, the number of texts available for study increased.[39] Jean-Pierre Rigord became the first European[...]" too many "European(s)" here for my taste. Could we perhaps remove the middle ones ?
Done.

I have reached the "Reading texts" section with no further comments for the moment. I will wrap up soon.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reached the end, it is an excellent article. One would like to read about the next stages of research on the matter, perhaps a paragraph on modern research pertaining to understanding the Egyptian language although I guess this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the feeling that one would like to read more testifies to the quality of the present article. Good Job!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is comforting to read. I worried I was going a bit too far beyond the scope in the last paragraph, but it really did strike me that 1866 and 1867 seem to have been the years when the basics were absolutely nailed down. Linguistic developments beyond that (the Berlin School and beyond) really would be a separate article, and much of it beyond my comprehension. Thank you for your comments. A. Parrot (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Coropuna

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the third-tallest mountain in Peru and one of the world's highest volcanoes. It began forming during the Pliocene or Miocene and its last eruption was during the Holocene in the last 2,000 years. It also has a large but shrinking ice cap, the largest in the tropics, and a major source of water for the dry surroundings. In addition to these natural science aspects, it was considered a holy mountain by the Inka, who built a large archeological site in its surroundings. Note that there was some prior discussion at peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the various ice diagrams
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:I've added ALT text, but I did not succeed at increasing the size of the gallery images. They come from this publication; perhaps you know how to get larger versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder about the possibility of reaching out to the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I've never been good at contacting complete strangers with such requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Paleocene

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct. There're no other GA or FA geological periods so I'm trying to make a really good template for it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Deactivators

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominating this article again after getting it a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. This short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum is ready for another shot at the bronze star. GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Saving Light

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 trance song by Gareth Emery and Standerwick, featuring Haliene. I believe that the article has sufficiently met the criteria to become a featured article, with it undergoing a peer review very recently. Although it is quite short, it's length seems fine compared to other featured articles such as MissingNo. and articles for various tropical cyclones. Most of the article's problems (including the reliability of sources, non-free data, proper usage of sources, etc) were fixed in the previously mentioned peer review, alongside its good article review and previous featured article reviews. It's non-free content (music video screenshot and cover art) have been properly covered with respective licencing and should have no problems. If there are any problems, they would be mostly minor and easily fixable. Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I unfortunately do not have the time to do a full review for this nomination, but I just wanted to let you know that the Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the music video screenshot is incomplete. There are two portions that are left as "n.a.". Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know, I thought those were fine. I've replaced with with pretty sufficient portions and should be fine now. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For the future, the Media data and Non-free use rationale box should be completely filled in, and "n.a." does not provide the necessary information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the women's conference which paralleled the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Because the French records of the conference hosts were stolen by the Nazis, scholarship on the conference did not emerge until the 21st century. When taken to GA, it was suggested by Gog the Mild to prepare the article for FA status and as a preliminary phase to send it for a Class A review. Both GA and Class A reviews passed and the article significantly improved during the process. In preparing it for a FA nomination, consultation with Gog and Ipigott, both veterans of the process were sought. In the final stage, the list of participants was removed and converted to prose within the article and 4 additional photographs were located and added from those reviewed during the Class A process.

(Note, this is my first FA nomination, so I am not very sure how the process works. Should anyone need access to the materials provided to me by professors Cobble and Siegel, I can e-mail them upon request.) SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll do my best to actually review this, but SusunW, It's great to see you here! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Sticking my flag here, intending to look at this in a few days. I've read the first couple of sections already and I must say, this is very good. CassiantoTalk 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Great to see this here, SusunW! I remember how FAC can be a bit intimidating for first-timers. Although I looked this over at Milhist ACR, I have some more comments:

Nice to see you as well Peacemaker67. Thanks for your comments. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link League of Nations (at first mention, and rm link from the second mention), Human trafficking and Suffrage in the lead
done SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • also in the lead, "and the transformation of education to include the humanitarian rights of all persons in each nation." could do with some improvement, as I am unsure what it means. I'm not sure it is a clear reflection of the proposals mentioned in the body.
This is a tough thing to summarize further, Gog and I worked on it, but please feel free to make a suggestion. In the body we have: "The women's final point was that provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation and the obligations of citizenship, with a focus on respecting the humanity, cultures, and human rights of all citizens of each nation." Basically, they wanted the League of Nations to transform education and internationalize it so that young people were taught about general culture, history, and the moral and societal development of each nation to instill "in each individual conscience the sense of human solidarity, and the respect due to the liberties and rights of each nation". (Oldfield, p 106) So in essence, they wanted, but didn't say so in so many words, anthropology, sociology, political science, theology studies, and global news rolled into basic education studies so students would develop empathy for other people and cultures. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson"
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • there is a bit of a chronological hiccup in the Background section. I think the info about the French delegation to Wilson should follow the response to the letter of 25 January, then go on with the Labour and Socialist International Conference.
Okay, I moved February 1 up and reworked the section. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nine days later, when the conference opened" which conference, the parallel conference or the peace conference itself, it isn't immediately clear. In general, I think this section would benefit from some re-organisation along chronological lines to make things clearer.
See above. I moved 10 February to "Actions" section and hopefully rearranged it to flow better. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • daily dispatches for Tthe Chicago Tribune Foreign News Service
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest something like "On 11 February, a delegation led by chair Millicent Fawcett, a leader in the British suffrage movement and president of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, called on Wilson. The delegation included... The delegation asked if a Women's Commission could be included in the Peace Conference to address the concerns of women and children. At the meeting Wilson suggested, that instead of having a Women's Commission included in the conference, that the male diplomats on the commission form a Women's Commission to which the Inter-Allied Women's Conference could serve as advisers." You just need to re-state what commission the men were on. The League of Nations Commission? Or is it the Council of Ten?
We had this originally that way, but thought that by the time one got through the list of delegates the idea of the meeting was lost. I'll flip it again. At this point, they were speaking only to Wilson, at his lodging (sometimes it is called the Hôtel Murat, other times the Villa Murat). There was no men's commission. He suggested creating one from the delegates of the peace conference. Changed text from "male diplomats on the commission" to "male diplomats from the peace conference". SusunW (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "and delegates from Belgium, England, France, Italy, and possibly Australia.[Notes 2]"
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • when first mentioning Poincaré, give his first name, then refer to him just as Poincaré thereafter
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "suffragists testified" were all these women suffragists?
yes. (well except maybe the Polish woman, who I cannot figure out who was). Remember that they invited suffragists from all Allied Nations, thus, it I think can logically be assumed the people who responded were suffragists. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after Cécile Brunschvicg
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link Pacifism
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think what might be missing is a short explanation of the structure of the Peace Conference and the subsidiary commissions. Doesn't need to be too long.
I'm not sure how that would have fit into this section, so I wrote a paragraph "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers ..." in the "Background" section. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link Child labour, Parental leave (for maternity pay) and Vocational education (for trade education)
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The resolutions the women's conference delegates presented to the chair of the Labour Commission..."
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • when referring to delegates, make sure you specify delegates to which conference or commission
I think I have got all these, but if not, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest inserting subsection headers in the Actions section for the Labour Commission and League of Nations Commission to break up the section
Maybe instead, since they spent February just asking to be heard, dates are better separators? If you don't concur, advise. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link child marriage, prostitution, human trafficking
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation" needs some sort of modifier, doesn't read right.
changed to "internationally, basic" for more information see above response to your 2nd query. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • where someone has been mentioned with their full name, thereafter they should be referred to just using their family name, per MOS:FAMILYNAME unless there is more than one person in the article with the same family name.
Okay, again, I think I got all these, but if I missed any, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, down to Aftermath. Will have a look at the rest tomorrow. This is a great article on a very important subject, well done for developing it to this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review Peacemaker67. I think I have addressed your queries, though some discussion may still be required. I really do appreciate your review(s), which have certainly improved the article. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it was a great read and I learned a lot. I will read through again over the next day and give you my thoughts on the changes you have made. My only remaining comment is that some work is needed on the gallery of Conference participants. I have two screens, and even on the biggest one, some of the names wrap onto a following line. They should be restrained to only have each name on a single line. I don't work much with galleries, so I'm not sure of the solution, but perhaps you could use a different template, or you could ask at Template talk:Gallery for some help? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker. I have just (re)checked the gallery on four devices and six screens and it displays fine every time. Is there any chance that you could email me a screenshot so I can see what the problem is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Gog the Mild, I think we all know I have no idea about technical stuff. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like it is just me. Not to worry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, have had another read through, and all my comments have been addressed. Well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Peacemaker67 It has been a pleasure to improve the article with you. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

SC

Overall this is excellent. A few suggested tweaks:

Lead
  • " their efforts were significant in that they marked the first time" -> " their efforts were the first time ..."?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " They were also successful": don't need the "also"
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Background
  • You have organisations and organizers. (Organis~ has the majority over organiz~)
It was decided at GA phase that since the Paris Peace Conference was written in British English (but not Oxford, I forget which dictionary, maybe Collins?) this article should be as well. Thus, I always have to have someone follow behind and "Britishize" the English. Thanks for that. done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers": It took me 3 or 4 reads of this to understand it. Perhaps a rephrasing along the following lines or similar may help: "Although the Peace Conference organisers had planned to make the plenary sessions key to framing the treaties, the need for secrecy and to quickly resolve terms prevented the public sessions from doing so"?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "that labour issues": as this is written in BrEng, this does jar for me: "employment issues" may be better, but I won't push the point if you demur.
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as Armenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, and South Africa": I'm not sure we need to link all these (per WP:OVERLINKING). If there is a good reason, then Great Britain, France and Italy were all named above, where the links should have been. (I know they are all technically different legal entities than the current modern states, but unless it makes a difference to how they acted and unless it's identified as being the former entity, I'm not sure the link is needed). Ditto Greece and Serbia in the section below
There was a big debate at the class A review about what should be linked. As you can see from the discussion, it was felt that the links gave historical context. I have moved the links on the UK, France and Italy, to be less of a sea of blue. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with the conclusion, but as there is a consensus, I'll not object. I think most people will acknowledge that countries were different, but as the names are largely the same, the nuance of a former legal entity compared to the present day will be lost on pretty much everyone. (In other words, it's fine to leave them as they are, but I'll harrumph about it, then forget it). - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 :) Thank you for your honesty. It is often difficult to harmonize many varying views. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "[25][26][27][28]" You could think of using citation bundling to avoid the string of links – I have a rule of thumb of three as a maximum)
The problem to my mind with the instructions on bundling is that the citations end up as a note. Since these are not the same thing, I have zero idea how to make them not appear as a note. All four are necessary as Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, South Africa, UK, US appear in the The Star Tribune; Siegel does not list Poland but does list New Zealand; Oldfield is the only source listing Armenia; and Andrews is the only source listing Romania. If you have another solution, I'll gladly try it, but I stress again, I am not a coder and have very little skill with wp technology. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done it for you here - it's a trick that isn't used too often (mostly because it's a little fiddly), but it can be useful. If you really don't like it, then remove it, but I find it's easier for readers who don't want to get smacked round the head by long strings of blue links! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I've learned a new citation skill. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
February
  • "Though their conference did not begin until February, when they arrived in Paris, the women immediately got to work" I'm not sure what this is adding. The previous sentence says their conference was "mid-February to mid-April", the next sentence says the conference opened on 10 February. This middle sentence seems superfluous – or I've missed the point of what it is trying to say.
Removed it. done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe tweak the image caption to read "Millicent Fawcett in 1913"?
The problem to my mind with adding a date is that for consistency then all the photographs would need a date, which in some cases is impossible to determine. We know when they were published, but not necessarily when they were taken. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Note 2) "Australian delegate[55] Neither": full stop needed
done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several uses of the terms "United States" and "United Kingdom": after the first use they can be trimmed to US and UK (unless in a formal title). You also use United Kingdom, Great Britain, England and Scotland in various places: best to pick one for all.
Having done many GAs, I have been advised numerous times to avoid acronyms, as it forces the reader who is unfamiliar to have to go back and find the original meaning. (I lean that way as well, as I often have no earthly idea what people who speak in wiki acronyms are referring to.) Far clearer to my mind to spell it out. I have (tried to) adhere to what the sources called the countries they were representing, which is why there are variances. It seems to me a more specific, rather than a broad general term is contextually more helpful, but veering too far from the sources is also not preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the UK and US are sufficiently well known to allow the shortened form. In terms of the locations for the UK, I think we're in danger of being too specific for a couple and not consistent in picking one name for all and sticking to it (and that includes England and Scotland - Lady Aberdeen, for example was born in London, so I'm not sure we can call her Scottish). Again, consistency is key, and I think readers would be best served with UK throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed them all, I think, to US and UK. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Same sort of thing for the "National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies": the two mentions after the first can be as "NUWSS".
See above. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you'll have a few other reviewers pointing to this and the US/UK for changing too. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
March
  • "In all,": Not needed – just begin the sentence as "The women's conference delegates"
done SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the final sentence of this section repeat the essence of the final sentence of the February section, or is there a difference I've missed?
I think you must mean the last parts of March and April? (I see nothing in the February section that seems similar). To my mind, granting them approval and actually having it written in the Covenant of the League of Nations are two different things. Lots of things were promised with the creation of the League, but implementing is far different. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Legacy
I am going to assume based on your comment above that we are okay with the links, but have unpiped Germany. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Participants
  • I'm not convinced that the gallery of images meets WP:GALLERY guidelines. I expected that the section titled "participants" would list the attendees, rather than just be a selection of images of some of the attendees. I won't oppose over it, as I suspect the consensus will be against me on its inclusion, but it's worth keeping the comment in mind if others also disagree with the inclusion.
As I said in the introduction to this nomination, initially the participants were simply a list of names, but after discussion with Gog and Ian, it was felt that they should be incorporated as prose within the text. Thus, there is no duplication here with a list of the participants. At the good article stage, the photographs were presented as a banner, but it was pointed out that that created difficulties with the photographs overlapping the text when viewed on mobile applications. To prevent that issue, they were converted to a gallery. If you would like, the section can be renamed to "Gallery of participants". SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its not necessarily that, I just don't think the gallery explains anything to the reader – which is the primary aim of images. And, as it doesn't explain anything, it probably fails WP:GALLERY. As I said above, however, I won't oppose over it, but it's worth bearing in mind if others also complain about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
References
  • You shouldn't include countries (eg. "Cheltenham, England": "Cheltenham, Gloucestershire" will suffice; just "London", rather than "London, England" and "Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom" just needs to be "Abingdon, Oxfordshire" – ditto for all the other countries.
I am not trying to be argumentative and am genuinely asking if there is a rule about this. I typically follow what the sourcing says. How am I to know that Abingdon, Oxforshire is preferred; or Cheltenham, Gloucestershire? If there is no country, I typically list it because it gives context (and for me, an idea of whether or not I am likely to have access to it). It seems to me that this may be a personal preference (and is similar to that frustrating bot that is constantly removing URLs if there is a DOI. I live in Mexico and having a DOI to a paywalled article or blocked site is not helpful to me. If I input a URL it is because it is accessible for people to read the entirety.) I am not inflexible and will change it if need be, but I would like to understand why this is preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Have a look through the examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates, or pick a selection of FAs to look through to see how they do it. I've not seen that many articles that include the country, and when they are, it tends to be an American that lists every other country except the US - that's not a solid basis for an international encyclopaedia, and consistency of approach is necessary at FA. The article has "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Chicago, Illinois" without the need for USA, and so it should be true of Paris and London or Abingdon, Oxfordshire. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through all the refs and removed the countries, I think. It makes no sense to me, but it isn't a point I am going to argue. (Besides which, going through them, I see that awful bot I referred to above has replaced links with DOI and others with links that were not where I got them, i.e. archive.org as opposed to project Muse.) Such is life, as you said above, I am not going to lose sleep over it and after grousing about US/UK-centric oddities, will forget about it. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be a bit long, but these are all rather nit-picky points in an excellent article, and I look forward to being able to support shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the time you took to improve the article and am very grateful that you taught me a new skill. I am not sure if I have adequately resolved all of your comments. Please advise of next steps. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Another read through, and I'm happy to support. You should bear in mind the points above where we disagree, and if other reviewers also point to it as a problem, you should think about taking action. An excellent article and worthy of the FA star. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SchroCat I truly appreciate your review. It's been a pleasure to make your acquaintance and work with you. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

[Revised nomination statement]: Somewhere between 2 and 3 million people in India perished in 1943–44, and their suffering and the ends of their lives were arguably preventable. I have labored for three full years now, from February 2016, because I felt keenly all that time that their deaths deserved to be explained in full, or at least as fully as any ordinary citizen can do – including the very complex array of (possible) causes, the tragedy of their suffering, the response of many others at the time and later. Some inquisitive high school or college student in Melbourne or Vancouver or Bern or wherever who wishes to take the time to read it should be able to quickly access a completely free, one-stop resource that uses a stringently neutral and consistently meticulous approach. The article at least attempts to unpack the manner that several complex forces can interact in genuinely terrible ways. The goal was to avoid making an article that is splashed with shrieks of blame, while not avoiding potentially uncomfortable facts. The article should look at every aspect of the issue from all available angles, and explain the relative weight that scholars attach to those views in retrospect. That article is now up for FAC review for the fourth time. I welcome all comments.

Changes since the last FAC include but are not limited to:

  • Trimming the footnotes by 1/3. [And readers who do not like footnotes are always very free to ignore them anyhow].
  • Adding women journalists to the Media etc. section (still searching for more)
  • Specifying that the Provincial Government of Bengal was largely composed of Muslims. [The (British) Government of India laid the blame on them for the famine]
  • Paragraphs about prioritised distribution re-inserted.
  • Added mention of Wavell as among those who repeatedly practically begged for grain shipments (full details should rightfully be added to Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell)
  • Reordering of some sections
  • Various trimming and copy editing, etc.
  • Promotion to GA and nearly immediate review at GAR (for technical reasons, I'll explain if requested). Excellent review by Vami IV
  • Other things I don't remember at the moment.
  • As a small note, I think the breathless pace of my replies in the previous FAC was distracting. I hope to move at a steady, measured pace. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Prenomination FAC Support by Fowler&fowler:
    • Pre-nomination, Fowler&fowler wrote on the GAR page (see diff here: "I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC. I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA. The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC. May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks, admiration, and congratulations to Lingzhi2 for persevering with this article through thick and thin. All the best, Fowler&fowler.
@Lingzhi2: I am on vacation. Someone emailed me, so I am making this post. My earlier post elsewhere, which I stand by, expressing support is a general expression of support born of intuition and experience. It is not one arrived at in a formal FAC review. I would be more comfortable if you changed its heading to "Pre-nomination support by Fowler&fowler," or simply refer to it with a link in the nomination note. Speaking of the nominator's note, I am a little disappointed that for it you have copied a post of mine (verbatim), without attribution. Please fix this in some fashion. Finally, you have replaced the infobox image I had supplied File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg with the previous one, File:Statesman j.jpg (size 387x257). I understand that the licensing for my image is incorrect. As I have pointed out, my image has more detail. By magnifying the image you can see the details of the sari border which you cannot in the previous image; the child's face is a little more discernible. Also, the fringe object on the left is now absent in my image. I have further reduced my image to size 386x254. If @Nikkimaria: and others knowledgeable about images feel my image has more encyclopedic value, then the thing to do would be to upload it on Wikipedia as a fair use image and replace the previous image with it. I will not be here to respond to any queries. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the inconvenience. I had already asked Nikkimaria what to do about the images, but her reply left me with numerous options, all of which seemed to require either switching the license (wasn't sure I could do that, licensing issues can be tricky) or bothering you (didn't want to do that, since I have a full measure of respect for your wish to have a wikibreak). As for your comment which I copied, I apologize and will now delete (not strike through). I am sorry that someone felt it necessary to bother you with this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My objection to Fowler's image was with regards to the licensing, which I don't believe to be correct; either image could be used under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

() OK. This gets complicated. Fowler&fowler's img is/was on Commons, so no Fair Use rationale can be used. Moreover, this img is also already in use on another WP article... so... I did the best I could. I selected "Upload a new version", uploaded Fowler&fowler's cleaned version to my WP img file, changed the rationale to mention Fowler&fowler's source (not mine), rename/moved my WP img to Fowler&fowler's file name (simply so it would be obvious that we are using that file), and nominated Fowler&fowler's Commons version for deletion. I hope this is satifactory. As I said, I did the best I could. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Question One of the reason previous FACs failed was due to a lack of support for the changes to the article and the nomination by other editors who are working on the article. Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard? No such discussion seems to have been started on the talk page before this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have missed F&F's rather detailed Support above, which explicitly states that he changed his mind about his past Oppose. F&f is among the most respected of editors in areas related to India that Wikipedia has on hand. You could at least make a reasonable case that F&F is the most respected editor in this area (I won't say that unreservedly, out of simple respect to other very admirable editors). Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
A number of editors have been involved in this article. Do they also support the nomination? @SlimVirgin: do you have views regarding this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, re Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard?....of course not yet, though major editors and those most closely involved (not me, I'm just a copy editor) view it now ready for FAC. Is it perfect? No. Is it ready for our best and most astute minds to help and pick over? Yes. As such, can you engage, and also, would like to ping @RegentsPark: for input and help. Note as Lings friend I won't be supporting or otherwise, but for me, having been benefited in the past from her (and F&F's) reviews of FACs I helped put up, a view or review from Sarah would be hugely valuable. I do appreciate the less than sterling past history here, but given the significance of the page, and its potential, I hope that people can one again roll up the selves and work towards improvement. Obviously, Fowler's opinion is held by all in great stock; until Lingzhi appeared here, he was alone in covering southern Asian famines - these are among his other India related achievements. But to be clear, he indicated that it should be reviewed, NOT that it should be passed. There is a great distance there, which Nick, is where we need you to come in. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been following the article and monitoring the changes for a bit and am generally supportive of putting it through the FA process. However, the article is an important one, is also long and complex and contains many references, and it needs to be put through the wringer to make sure that statements in references are not cherry picked or removed from proper context (if I recall correctly, the methodology used in identifying sources was an issue in the previous FA iteration). There is also the, admittedly difficult, issue of whether the article is missing important content but Fowler's support above is reassuring on that count. The point I'm trying to make is that this could easily be one of our finest featured articles, but we won't know that unless it is thoroughly reviewed. I'm mostly a gnome these days but will try to do my bit with some leg work over the coming couple of weeks. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I genuinely appreciate your time and trouble. I still have the vast majority of the resources on hand. Email any requests... Thank you again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil

Note, am involved as a copy-editor, so wont be supporting or opposing or otherwisee. IMO the article needs to be less polemic; some claims are reasonable and obv true on their face, but stated harshly and with an obv POV that could be removed without the meaning changed. i see this as actionable and within the scope of a FAC. Ceoil (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, for bringing up the topic of WP:NPOV.
My first line of argument against accusations of POV concerns what is not on the page. If you search through talk page history, you will find that I again and again and again deleted that "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" quote of Churchill's. I consider its use a polemical anti-UK tool, spoken by a man who was under unspeakable pressure, who may have been racist and was probably drunk. Ditto for recent research.. crappy research IMHO... that drew the polemical conclusion that its findings constituted "proof" that the famine was man-made. You may recall in the previous FAC that one early commenter made emotional anti-UK comment "there is no question where responsibility lies... It feels like Ireland all over again." diff but I gently requested that the editor delete it or strike it through diff (edit summary: " May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply?"). I recently added a bit about nationalist female journalists. What I did not choose to include was a quote from one of them: "The dead men, women and children of Bengal make short work of the so-called democratic fairy tales of Churchill and Roosevelt," or mention the accompanying cartoon of Puran Chand Joshi pouring the blood of Bengal into a chalice held by a British officer. I seem to recall the tone of Churchill's Secret War, which I cited many times, being relentlessly anti-British. [IIRC, she had a few kind words for Wavell, mainly because Wavell hated Churchill]. Yet when I quoted her anti-UK, anti-Churchill sentiments, I did so by explicitly calling them nationalist, and framing them as only one (POV) voice among many. Time does not permit me to list all the anti-UK quotes I did not use. Oh wait, speaking of Wavell, here's a Wavell quote I did not use: "...the vital problems of India are being treated by His Majesty's Government with neglect, even sometimes with hostility and contempt". But as I said, Wavell hated Churchill... So to be honest, I have bent over backwards to avoid a polemical, anti-British stance.
My second argument against POV is to ask where the POV is. "Scorched earth", for example, sounds harsh, but our WP page defines it as "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy when retreating from a position. Any assets that could be used by the enemy may be targeted. This usually includes obvious weapons, transport vehicles, communication sites, and industrial resources. However, anything useful to the advancing enemy can be targeted including food stores and agricultural areas, water sources...". Which is exactly what the denial policies did... That's an example. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I dont doubt you, and am only bring up matters of prose. Obv (given the above statements to Nick) I see the article as a significant feather to the project as a whole. My recent edits have mostly sorted out what I was on about. I dint detect POV in terms of pro or anti, say imperialism, more so that the wording is emotional at times. Obv, how could that not come through after deep research, but its all mostly now sorted into detached ency language. I am conflicted but if was a neutral editor, IMO yes this should be an FA, though I look forward to further input. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a really old Venezuelan film! There's not much information, given the collective lack of info from Venezuela in general and the age of it, however, I have covered everything that is publicly available and there are not dramatic areas of lack (very little information exists on the production, to the point there's no solid idea of the director). It has been worked on and improved a lot since the last FAC, which was rather quickly closed for needing better prose - it's had two ce's since, and I would love any and all constructive criticism on how to improve it even more. I feel now more than the last time that it's a good candidate for FA. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

Just a few preliminary observations/comments:

  • Whatever happened to the Hotel Europa? Does is still exist, or has it been demolished, and if it was demolished when?
    • At some point between 1898 and the 1950s, the hotel was rebuilt as the Hotel Zulia, changing ownership; in 1956 it was demolished to build the Maracaibo municipal council building at the site. Diccionario General del Zulia Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I feel like that should go somewhere in the article, as a single sentence, but I'm not quite sure where. Perhaps in "Production and director", although maybe also in "Modern critical views." – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I've added a sentence to the bottom of the Film content section; tell me if you feel it fits elsewhere/could be better written. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Which Duran brother is which in the photograph?

I'll almost certainly think of more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at some more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Frame_from_"Un_célebre_especialista_sacando_muelas_en_el_gran_Hotel_Europa".jpg: if the author is unknown, how do you know they died over 70 years ago? Same with File:ZPA_image_of_dental_extraction_1890s_Zulia.png, File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png
  • File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The images are from videos, or, in the case of the hotel image, a higher quality version that is discussed in one of the videos (included in article sources). It's explained that they're from the 1890s, which puts them in the PD in terms of Venezuela, which should be fine. For extra security, we look to PD in the US: regards the author, that would be the director, since at the time that vaguely meant 'person with the recording device'. The only proposed directors are Manuel Trujillo Durán and Gabriel Veyre, both of whom died over 70 years ago, so no matter which it was, he died long enough ago. As a note, the images were also released before 1924, but since they were not released in the US, I wouldn't know if that version of PD-old applies.
    • If you have suggestions for how to improve the descriptions etc. on the commons image pages, I'd appreciate the help - I tried some improvement a little while ago re. commons file pages but couldn't think of much to do. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • For each of File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg and File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png , the image description indicates at least doubt that these were included in the film. Venezuela PD status depends on publication, not creation, which is why the use of PD-Venezuela requires inclusion of publication details. Publication date will also impact US status - the pre-1924 tag applies only if we can verify a publication before that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
        • So, more detail and finding maybe the images' archive entries, or moving to fair use if there's no solid evidence, would be the way to go? Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Absolutely: more information would be very helpful in determining if there is an applicable PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sega

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sega is a Japanese video game and arcade company most well known for Sonic the Hedgehog. It is also the world's most prolific producer of arcade games. As a contributor to Wikipedia, I found their story intriguing not only as someone who grew up playing Sega games, but in the unique stories of corporate success, and failure, that they endured. It's in many ways no longer the same company, but one that is fondly remembered by fans and critical reviewers alike for its days before being acquired by Sammy Corporation in 2004.

This is the article's second review, after the first one was unsuccessful for a lack of feedback. Instead of a quick renomination, though, I chose to take it to a peer review, where Megaman en m was very gracious in providing a thorough and in-depth prose review. I feel more confident now than ever that this article is ready for FA status, though as always, I welcome all of the feedback that I will receive in this process. Not counting blocked users (and noting that to avoid WP:CANVASS concerns), I ping the following additional reviewers from the first review: @Ritchie333, SnowFire, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Indrian:.

Thank you for reviewing, and to finish my statement with a former Sega marketing slogan: Welcome to the Next Level. Red Phoenix talk 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems like my previous image review still applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There was some discussion on whether or not File:Sonic 1991.png met NFCC#8 or not. I thought I'd leave it up for a final decision here, and I don't have an issue removing it if we're still favoring that it does not. Red Phoenix talk 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lee Vilenski

Hi! Nice article. I'll try my best to give some comments below:

  • Perhaps the lede sentence should also mention it created video games consoles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is note [b] necessary? I don't need it shouldn't be in the text somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about translations, but usually we cite notes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Should probably mention Tokyo, Japan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Same for the next two locations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is "Sega Interactive Co., Ltd." bolded, but Sega Holdings Co., Ltd. isn't? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1969, Sega was sold to Gulf and Western Industries. - weirdly short sentence here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

More to come

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. To address your notes so far:
  • I don't think the first sentence should, because that's not the present, but I threw in a line at the end of the first paragraph. I think it does actually fit in well there.
  • Removed note [b]. Wasn't my addition to begin with. There always has been some weird push for the text "short for SErvice GAmes" as if someone has to see the capitals to understand, and I don't think it's really necessary.
  • Usually I haven't had any problem with needing a translation cited. Has not been a precedent in any of my previous FAs.
  • Also my understanding of precedent is that the largest cities don't usually need a country added, but if it's a sticking point I'll add them. I did add Shinagawa as the specific ward of Tokyo where Sega's HQ is located.
  • Bolded
  • Gave that sentence a slight expansion.
Red Phoenix talk 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the financial diagram
  • File:Sega_Annual_Income(Loss)_1993-2004.svg: some of the source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the event surrounding the most famous snooker match of all time. The 1985 championship had Steve Davis, three times a champion of the world, unplayable, meet Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor in the final. The event was murred with new drug testing laws, where this was the first snooker tournament to have players tested. The final, which Davis led 8-0 looked like it would be Davis' fourth title, before Taylor fought back to tie the match at 17-17, and be played on a deciding frame.

The final frame went all the way down to the final ball, with whoever potted the black ball would become champion - both players missed - Taylor finally potted the black to win his sole world championship. The match was known as the "black ball final" (for obvious reasons), lasted over the two days permitted, finishing in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The event made all sorts of records, including still holding the record for highest viewership of a broadcast after midnight in the United Kingdom (That includes Northern Ireland, if you were wondering). The event fell into folk status for snooker, and over 30 years on, the match, (and the event as a whole) is still relevant.

Article is one of my favourites to have worked on, and I feel it meets the criteria. Please let me know your thoughts, oppose/support, or any comments on the article as a whole. Thank you.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:1985_World_Snooker_Championship_book_cover.jpg: FUR needs completion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - thanks for taking a look. My knowledge if NFCC isn't great, and I just used to wizard to upload. I have added some information, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

@Lee Vilenski: I'm still working through the article but here are my first comments for you to look at:

Lead section (suggested wording changes)
  • was the ninth time the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible; the first event took place in 1927. > was the ninth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible, the first being in 1977. (surely here we want to refer back to the 1st one at the Crucible in 1977, not the very first one in 1927?)
  • was held from 27 to 31 March for 87 players at the Preston Guildhall; > was held at the Preston Guildhall from 27 to 31 March for 87 players;
  • 16 players reached the main stage, with 16 invited seeded players. > 16 of these players reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players.
  • The event was broadcast in the United Kingdom > The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom
  • The total prize fund for the event was £250,000, with the winner receiving £60,000 – the highest prize pool for any snooker tournament to date. > The total prize fund for the event was £250,000, the highest prize pool for any snooker tournament to date; the winner received £60,000.
  • who had won the event three times > who had already won the World Championship three times
  • Davis met Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor in the final, > He met Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor in the final, which was a best-of-35-frames match.
  • Davis taking an early 8–0 lead in a best-of-35-frames match. Taylor battled... > Davis took an early 8–0 lead but Taylor battled...
    • I prefer the change due to the above. Any thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Yes looks fine. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • who potted the ball winning the event > who potted the ball winning the title
  • his sole world championship > his sole World Championship
  • a 143 in his first-round match > a 143, in his first round match
  • with 10 more in qualifying matches > with ten more in qualifying matches (to be consistent with "ten" elsewhere in article? or change the others to numeral "10"?)... "tenth seed Tony Meo", "in the tenth frame", "after ten frames", "There were ten century breaks"
    • MOS:NUM is confusing, but the current is correct. It is supposed to be consistent with other numbers in the sentence, so the 14 in this case. In fact, this would be true if there were 9 centuries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Fine by me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The event was the first professional snooker championship banning performance-enhancing substances > This was the first professional snooker championship to introduce a ban on performance-enhancing substances
  • with drug tests being given to all players in the main stages > with all players in the main stage having to undertake drug tests.
  • It holds the record > The final between Davis and Taylor holds the record
  • of a program shown after midnight > for a program shown after midnight
  • and broke the existing records for most-viewed > breaking the existing records for the most-viewed
Scoreline fixes
  • Tournament summary...
  • he lost to Wayne Jones, 10–6 > he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10
  • before losing 10–2 > before losing 2–10
  • but lost 10–6 > but lost 6–10
  • First round...
  • to lead 5–8 but eventually lost 10–8 > to lead 8–5 but eventually lost 8–10
  • to trail 8–1 > to trail 1–8
→→ Ok. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Francisco trailed 8–1 > Francisco trailed 1–8
  • and lost the match 10–2 > and lost the match 2–10
  • lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 24–16 > lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 16–24
  • in the second session to trail 9–7 overnight. > in the second session to trail 7–9 overnight.
    • We keep scores the same once they are denoted, we can't just change the scores around. Score was already denoted at 8-0. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Not sure what you mean by this. The subject of the scoreline has switched from Davis (who was leading 8–0) to Taylor who now trailed (7–9). You can't trail 9–7, that's a leading scoreline. Would be true to say Davis led 9–7 but not Taylor trailed 9–7. Taylor was at the wrong end of the 9–7 scoreline! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Missing player tags (when first mentioned in Tournament summary)
  • second-seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones > second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones
  • won his match against Neal Foulds > won his match against qualifier Neal Foulds
  • defeating Willie Thorne 10–6 > defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6
  • defeating John Spencer 10–3 > defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3
  • during the season by Eugene Hughes > during the season by qualifier Eugene Hughes
  • Alex Higgins and Dean Reynolds > Alex Higgins and qualifier Dean Reynolds
  • defeated Ray Edmonds 10–8 > defeated qualifier Ray Edmonds 10–8
  • Rex Williams and Terry Griffiths > qualifier Rex Williams and eighth seed Terry Griffiths
  • but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 > but defeated qualifier Joe Johnson 10–8
  • his first session against Dennis Taylor > his first session against 11th seed Dennis Taylor
    • Do we really need to mention that each player is a qualifier? We already have a sentence saying a seeded player plays a qualifier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Yes you have a point but sometimes it just makes it a bit clearer. Also, if you look at the Knowles/Jones match at top of First round section, it says "between second seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones" but on next line it says "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames..." so why not just say "between second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones" in the first place? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---More to come later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Overview (suggested wording changes)
  • Referring back to first paragraph of 2019 Background section: I prefer the wording of first sentence there: "The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." then second sentence could be "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before spreading to Europe and the Commonwealth."
  • Link world championship in first sentence? + link snooker in first sentence in "of the game of snooker"
  • "The world championship features" > "The World Snooker Championship features"
  • "The first world championship, in 1927" > "The first World Snooker Championship, in 1927"
  • "the event has been held at the" > "the tournament has been held at the"
  • "...in the final.[9][10] This was Davis' third championship; he previously won in 1981 and 1983." Need to clarify that we're still referring to the 1984 event here, not the 1985 one, can be sorted by combining the sentences with semi-colon and slight reword. "...in the final;[9][10] this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983."
→→ Is this better? "...this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The winner of the 1985 event received a prize" > "The winner of the 1985 championship received a prize"
  • "The tournament was the first to feature drug tests" (first WSC or first snooker event overall?) > "...the first snooker event to feature drug tests"?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Format (suggested wording changes)
  • "which began at Preston Guildhall on 27 March" (did it not also end there!?) > "which was held at the Preston Guildhall between 27 and 31 March"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "who went into the main draw" > "who progressed to the main draw"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to play one of the top 16 seeds" > "to play the top 16 seeds" (the 16 qualifiers didn't all play the same top 16 seed, they all played different ones!)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London" [ref.5 is not relevant to this statement] + WHEN was the draw made?
Removed - No idea when it was made. BennyOnTheLoose might know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski It was 16 January 1985. Guardian article from 17 January 1985 says "when the draw was made yesterday at the Savoy Hotel.." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players"... Is it worth linking "seeded" to Seed (sports) for the layman? (Either here or in lead section where it's first mentioned.)
  • (Note b wording):
    • "defending champion was ranked outside world the top 16" > "defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • "would have replaced the world 16th-ranked player as..." > "would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as..."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Note b now has a big chunk of text missing – should read: "If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings, he would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as an automatic qualifier." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 16 in the semi-finals" > "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 25 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 31 in the semi-finals" (according to Main draw tree below anyway!)
I think you've misread. 31 frames to win the semi-finals was more of a 1960s thing! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Yes, my mistake, I saw that as meaning the maximum number of frames in the match, rather than the number needed to win, d'oh! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Six former world champions participated..." Order list according to number of titles thus: Reardon(6), Spencer/Davis(3), Higgins(2), Griffiths/Thorburn(1)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ Use correct chronology in former champions list? ...swap Steve Davis / John Spencer (JS did it first!) + swap Cliff Thorburn / Terry Griffiths (TG did it first!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Add "six titles:" inside parentheses, etc.?
I don't think this is relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Reorder first sentence of Prize fund section? > "The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 in the winner's prize money from the previous year."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Main draw (suggested wording changes + date inconsistencies)
  • "Shown below are the results for each round" > "The results for each round of the main stage of the championship are shown below."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Need space below Stevens/Edmonds first round match
I'm not sure what you mean. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ This is what I see: after the Stevens/Edmonds match, the date 16 & 17 April is shoved up against the bottom of the box instead of having a nice space to separate the top/bottom halves. Maybe this is a display problem. Is there any way of forcing a gap between 'bottom of top half' and 'top of bottom half' in tree? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no date above the Charlton/Campbell first round match
added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • According to match tree, the second round matches were played from 17 to 21 April but Second round section above states "from 18 to 22 April"
  • According to match tree, the quarter-finals were played 22 & 23 April but Quarter-finals section above states "on 23 and 24 April"
  • According to match tree, the semi-finals were played 24 & 25 April // 24, 25 & 26 April but Semi-finals section above states on "25 and 26 April"
  • The first round dates probably need checking for consistency too, e.g. only one of them is showing up as 17 April (Thorburn/Hallett)
I agree. Maybe Benny who I pinged earlier can help with this (he gave me the offline sources for this one). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski First round was 12th to 17th April. Second round started 17th (there were both first and second round matches on 17th) and finished on 21st. Quarter-finals 22nd and 23rd. Semis 24th to 26th. Thorburn vs Hallett was on 16th and 17th. The first round dates will need checking, as suggested - e.g. Stevens v Edmonds finished on 17th.

I'll see what I can do, hopefully in the next day or so. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Amended dates for two matches based on reports from The Times and the Guardian. Was able to get evidence from these two sources supporting all other Crucible match dates except Reardon v Hughes (may have started on 15th) and Charlton v Campbell. I'll check elsewhere for those later. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we could talk about only linking players' names in first round column to reduce overlinking? (This would obviously affect all WSC articles.)
WP:OL does not effect tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
→→ OK you're right. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

---These are my latest comments. Still looking at Tournament summary section and Refs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Tournament summary (suggested wording changes in intro)
  • "Qualifying rounds for the event were played from 27 to 31 March" > "The championship's qualifying rounds were played between 27 and 31 March"
  • "There were five knockout rounds, with 87 players" > "There were five knockout rounds in qualifying, starting with a pool of 87 players."
  • "The second to fifth qualifying rounds had 16 matches each," > The other four qualifying rounds each consisted of 16 matches, with 32 players taking part in each round." (full stop at end)
  • "with the winners of the earlier round meeting the 16 higher-ranked players" > "The 16 winners of each round met the 16 higher-ranked players"
  • "he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10" > "he lost to Wayne Jones in the first qualifying round, 6–10"
  • "Danny Fowler made the highest qualifying break" > "Danny Fowler compiled the highest break of the qualifying rounds"
  • "in the following round." > "in the subsequent round." OR "in the next round."
  • "in the fourth round" > "in the fourth round of qualifying"
  • "in the fifth (and final) qualifying round" > "in the fifth." (can we get away with this elipsis?)
First round (suggestions/queries)
  • "matches in two sessions" > "matches, each played over two sessions"
  • Not sure about the phrase "pegged back" !?
  • "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames" > "Jones took four of the next five frames" (do we need to say he's the qualifier, as you said before that doesn't need to be mentioned after the intro)
  • "drug tests were performed" > "drug tests were carried out"
  • "first-round matches, with Patsy Fagan defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3" > first round matches: Patsy Fagan defeated 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeated 13th seed John Spencer 10–3"
  • "Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis shortly after the tournament; it affected his vision" > "Shortly after the tournament, Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis which affected his vision"
  • "After being defeated twice during the season" > "Having been defeated twice during the season "
  • "A low-scoring match ... Reynolds did not see a break of over 30 points in the first three frames from either player." > "In a low-scoring match ... Reynolds, neither player scored a break of over 30 points in the first three frames."
  • "who eventually won 10–4" > "who eventually won the match 10–4"
  • "Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break" > "Johnson 10–8, scoring a 143 break"
  • "break at the championship to date" > "break of the championship up to that date" ?
  • "reportedly by Silvino Francisco" > "reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco"
  • World Snooker chairman Rex Williams??? (I thought he was one of the players!) Did you mean Rodney Walker by any chance!?
Williams was Chair of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) at the time, as well as being a player. His statement at the press conference was in his role as Chair rather than as a player. I'm not sure whether "World Snooker" was used as a name for the organisation at that time, I'd keep it as WPBSA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and said that the statements" > "and admitted that the statements"
  • The Silvino Francisco paragraph could do with re-ordering. I'd mention the match outcome first (the important bit), then go into the controversy afterwards. E.g. "Francisco trailed 1–8 after ... and lost the match 2–10.[31] A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championships was based on statements reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco,[36] who held a press conference with World Snooker chairman [RW?] after the match. [W?] said ... in the sport; Francisco apologised ... and admitted that the statements..."
  • Put something at start of last sentence like: "Four more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
  • You forgot to mention the Jimmy White / Wayne Jones match, so the above sentence would be: "Five more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
Second round (suggested wording changes)
  • "and eleventh" > "and 11th" (I understood your explanation in previous reply, where you said that we keep the style consistent within a sentence, but I don't think we were careful to do that in the 2019 article!)
  • "scoring century breaks in the eighth (100) and eleventh (105) frames" (sure there must be a clearer way of phrasing this?)
  • John Parrott has double 't' at end!
  • Welshman Terry Griffiths? — why are we singling him out as a Welshman? We haven't said "Welshman Ray Reardon" anywhere!
  • "the final black ball of frame 13" > "the final black ball in frame 13" ?

---My next set of comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

King brown snake

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a big nasty Aussie critter. Have scoured sources and it is about as comprehensive as I can make it. I think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. I'll fix stuff up quick. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:King_Brown_Mulga_Range.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
the map was made many years ago by someone other than me. I have looked at the IUCN redlist map and it matches and have modified the page to indicate same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, at first glance I see a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this photo[1] showing the whole snake would be better as infobox image?
that was the orginal image. I wondered whether the snake was dead as its eyes looked a bit cloudy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The uploader seems to only have photos of live snakes, but hard to say, he seems to not be active anymore, otherwise he could be asked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I have asked anyway...you never know...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The current infobox image is also nice, but since it actually shows the animal in its habitat, I wonder if it would be better under the habitat section, and then the photo of a captive snake there could maybe be moved down to the captivity section, where it is more relevant?
the captive snake is slightly out of focus and is in an unusual yellow-orange light. The one in the description section is better. I am feeling a bit frustrated about the images in the article TBH. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I meant the captive snake seems misplaced in a section about distribution, would seem better under the captivity section? That part of the article is also quite bare. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote 1 could get a citation.
damn - lots of sources describe it as the largest, and others note that hte taipan is the longest. Now I can't remember where I saw them discussed relative to each other! Still looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "described Pseudechis darwiniensis" and "distinguishing P. darwinioides", not sure if this is a typo or if we are talking about different names? The latter name seems rather unlikely, though, "similar to Darwin"?
a typo - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You present some writers but not others.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "lineage of smaller snake)" Snakes?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "with no general agreement on other species described until 2005" Not sure what is meant here. Other related species? Relation with other species?
I meant older taxa that had been described as separate species, but no-one used those names at all...so there was a general agreement...that they were synonymous. Changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to a lineage of large snake found" Snakes?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "determined that the P. australis" Why the?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and recommends dropping the name and the old term "Darwin brown snake"" What was proposed instead?
"mulga snake" - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "it is known as atetherr-ayne-wene "budgerigar-eater"" Shouldn't a comma, colon, or similar separate the two names?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems more synonyms are listed in the taxonomy section than are in the infobox.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the taxonomy section goes into a lot of measurement and danger stuff, but is it really relevant there instead of elsewhere?
the items mentioned are used to explain the names - not sure how we can rejig Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Made more sense on second read. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "is up to two metres" Elsewhere you abbreviate to m and convert.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The scale terminology is pretty esoteric, perhaps the locations could be explained in parenthesis?
found one more link - but that is why there is a see also link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales to assist with looking at it all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I won't press the issue, but in dinosaur FACs one is always ask to provide in-text explanations even though there are links. I recall there is a guideline saying "don't make the reader chase links", but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I added something for the more obscure ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Within their arid to semi-arid parts of their range" The?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The species is tolerant of cold and active at night across most its range, although those occurring" Since you say "the species", saying "those" is ambiguous, perhaps say those populations or individuals instead.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the incubating temperature has been recorded as between 22 and 32 °C (72 and 90 °F).[36] They average" Though you of course mean the eggs, the preceding sentence is about their temperature, so you should mention the eggs again ("the eggs average").
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "watching it bleed blood" Blood seems redundant.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "If the snake were killed" Was.
that is the subjunctive construction...but doesn't really fit so fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The victims should move as little as possible, and to be conveyed to a hospital or clinic" Why to?
a leftover before a rewording. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "assuming a king brown snake agent is reasonable if a snakebite victim had a raised apTT and signs of haemolysis." Why change in tense?
a leftover before a rewording. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "high proportion of bites on occurring on upper limbs." Is the first on needed?
no. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "He reported later that he had impulsively decided to commit suicide by placing his hand in a bag and stirring it up" Not sure what this means, was the snake in the bag?
yes. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "called "chewi"" Do we really need this information?
I think it breaks up the repetitiveness of the prose...and it's cute too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " When using 0.1% bovine serum albumin in saline rather than saline alone, The venom" Something wrong here, should it be "the venom"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You use both ise and ize endings.
In Australia we tend to use British spelling plus "-ize". I keep forgetting to change... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "member of the genus Pseudechis (black snakes)" perhaps state the common name when you mention the genus name in the article body too?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, still wondering about the footnote source and if the captive snake image should be moved down to the captivity section. Then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have moved down the image and commented out the footnote (I can't find the source that specifically says it now) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looking good. Perhaps better images will turn up down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav submarine Hrabri

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the first Yugoslav submarine, made from parts left over from a British L-class sub that was never completed during World War I. Peculiarly, she had two deck guns rather than the usual one. Due to lack of funding for the Yugoslav naval arm, she had a quiet interwar period, being involved in a couple of "showing the flag" cruises only. When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, she was captured by the Italians. Given her poor condition, she was scrapped soon after. She is part of two Good Topics, one of which will become Featured if this nom is successful. It is fairly brief, but I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

This is a very short article with prose length of 795 words, of which about 150 are in the lead section; so the unique text length is about 650 words: a short essay. Comprehensiveness is not the synonym for "covering everything presented in the sources". If the sources don't provide enough information, then the article is not comprehensive and should not be listed as FA. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That is contrary to the definition of comprehensiveness, of "including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something". A subject can only be covered comprehensively to the extent that information about it is known. Its sister sub, Yugoslav submarine Nebojša is only slightly longer and passed FA four years ago without any issues on that score. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A stub/start class article can contain all that is available in the sources, but that won't make it comprehensive. Also what happened with the other article is irrelevant here.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, it demonstrates a consensus that short articles can be comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • lead boat of the Hrabri-class diesel-electric submarines built by Sea of blue.
    Unavoidable in first sentence of a lead IMHO, but dropped diesel-electric as that set-up was the standard in the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yugoslav naval policy in the interwar period lacked direction until the mid-1920s,[1] although it was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing with the limited resources made available to it Split the sentence it is too long.
    Not sure about that, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No link for HMS L-67?
    Not built, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • she had an overall length of 72.05 metres (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft) --> "she had an overall length of 72.05 m (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft)"
    Am I missing something, they look identical to me? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is one "metre" who's written in the full word in the sentence while others are only written in the symbol of metre. Try to standardise them in this sentence. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I aim to introduce a measurement in full at first instance and use the abbreviation thereafter, unless the abbreviation is obscure (which isn't the case with metres/m). Which is what I've done here, and which is standard practice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • armed with six bow-mounted 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes --> "armed with six bow-mounted British 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes"
    Well, the whole boat was British-built, until it was Yugoslav? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I know it is but Britons use English units so in this sentence the English unit should be the primary. Because it is British we should add"British" in it to make it clear to other editors and the readers that we're talking about British torpedo tubes who use English units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the whole article is with metric first, because it was a Yugoslav boat (and they used the metric system). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. But it is a really short article, but there is no min. length required for an FA. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Just a query about one point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've replied to your responses PM. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

I've looked at formats, verification and quality/reliability. No concerns were raised at the A-class review in 2015, and I can't find any now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

The sole image is appropriately licenced, captioned and alt-texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. "All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "coastal torpedo boats, torpedo bombers and conventional bomber aircraft" Optional: → 'coastal torpedo boats and torpedo and conventional bomber aircraft'
  • "10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on their electric motors when submerged" Consider "on" to "using".
    These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and one machine gun£ Do we know where this was mounted?
    as I understand it, it was stowed inside and mounted only when surfaced, but the sources don't say where. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "on a cruise to Malta, the Greek island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea, and Bizerte" Was this the order in which they were visited?
    Yes, a round trip. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned" Could it be made a little clearer that this was by, and then not by, the Italians?
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"Comprehensive"?

For what it is worth, I consider that the article meets the criterion "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

In particular I am opposed to the idea that this criterion requires a minimum length or number of words. I could, for example, readily rewrite this article to be over, say, 1,000 words. This would make it a worse article, not a better one, and surely this kind of perverse incentive should be avoided. The criterion seems both appropriate and clear and I feel that it should be interpreted as it is written. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this article has all that is in the sources. Should be quite comprehensive on your standards, and worthy of FA. No? Based on your criteria, half of Wikipedia articles would qualify to be comprehensive. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
They are not my criteria; they are the FAC criteria. I have expressed no opinion as whether I think the article, or any other, is "worthy". I have said that the FAC criteria seem clear and that this article meets 1b. If you disagree, suggest a fact or detail which you believe it neglects, or explain why you don't believe that it places the subject in context. Alternatively, open a RfC to have 1b changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

1957 NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We're back, on the Heels of a copy-edit performed by the Guild of Copy Editors's wonderful Twofingered Typist. As the prose seemed to be the primary issue following the dismissal of my last attempt. I feel that now this article's writing is of the caliber for FA status. I'm more than happy to talk any adjustments and reviewer may feel need to be made.

This article details one of the most legendary NCAA Championship games in history as the Wilt Chamberlain led Jayhawks faced off against the undefeated Tar Heels in what turned out to be a triple overtime affair. I know many of you will be clamoring to watch the game upon completion of the article, so here is the link when you would like to view it. Thanks, Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Goldfinger (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

After a fairly long hiatus away from FAC for the Bond books, we're back with a biggie. Not necessarily the best of the series, but certainly one where the writer's imagination was allowed to run a bit wild. Goldfinger is the seventh in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. Any further constructive comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Support I'll have another read through tonight, but I see nothing to warrant anything other than my support, here. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Solid stuff, love the movie and saw this was nominated so giving it a read through. Here's my suggestions, feel free to comment if you don't think they should be fixed, I'm no professor of English or anything:

  • "and the round of golf played with Goldfinger was based on a tournament in 1957 at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship." ---> ".... based on a 1957 tournament at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered with The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" to shorten the sentence a tad and remove a comma
  • The phrase "The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" is a false title, so I've retained that part, but I've moved the year ealier in the sentence, per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ".. well received by the critics and was favourably compared to the works of Sapper and John Buchan." --- Explain briefly who sapper and john buchan are here cause - for me atleast - just saying their names doesn't tell me if they're authors who publish espionage related works or not.
  • In Background and writing you mention that it was to be called The Richest Man in the World; however, if I am reading it correctly you don't mention when it was officially renamed to Goldfinger and why -- if you were able to find that.
  • There's no information in the sources on that. Fleming changed a few of the titles, but there aren't any reasons given for any of them, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Kinda seems like the part where you explain Fleming's love for gold in background and writing could go under plot inspirations too, but your call here on this.
  • I think I'd prefer it where it is: he had a long-standing love of gold, which is different to being inspired by an event or piece of news. (it's a slim difference, but I hope you get where I'm coming from). - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest adding something regarding Goldfinger's character to the lead as there was lots of coverage and analysis of him in the Development - Characters section
  • I've added a line about the character with some of the background information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The last is merely personal preference, but I would recommend to archive all the links if possible just to better preserve your work

Otherwise very nice. Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Disc Wheel, I've covered all your points above, but will get round to the archiving shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Goldfinger-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Rolls-Royce_Silver_Ghost.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Swapped for archive sources - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Barnes: that ISBN seems to match a different edition
  • What makes Griswold a high-quality reliable source?
  • Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hemley link is dead
  • Re-aligned to the new URL - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in where you include retrieval dates
  • All sorted now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of the entries under Websites should be using |publisher= rather than |website=.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Nikkimaria - all should now be sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties to review -- big fan of the Fleming Bond books and glad to see Gav's back in harness...

  • As long as I haven't damaged anything with my copyedit I don't really have probs with the prose. The parts detailing critics' observations do suffer a bit from the usual synonyms for "said", which I've tried to vary further, but it's always a challenge to make the language fresh.
  • Nothing really springs to mind as having been left out; about the only thing I can think of right now might be argued as belonging more in the film's article than here, but I fully agree with Benson (p. 179) that this is one of the few Bond books whose plot was actually improved in places by the film, e.g. having Bond discover Jill dead, taking Bond prisoner rather than employing him, irradiating rather than stealing the gold, etc -- if you did want to expand a bit on that aspect under Adaptations then it might buttress the earlier claims in the article re. the novel's more fanciful elements.
  • MOS-wise, there are some duplinks you could lose -- let me know if you need the script that highlights them.
  • Taking Nikki's image/source reviews as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Cheers Ian. Your tweaks were all great, thanks - I have no complaints about them. I've added a slice about the film plot and removed the duplicate links. Thanks for taking a look over. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi SchroCat, great read! Here are some suggestions for possible clarification for parts that tripped me up and a couple of typos.

  • Bond as Saint George figure - 'a' Saint George figure?
  • Goldfinger is obsessed by gold - the last subject was the real person Goldfinger. Maybe reword to 'the character Goldfinger is obsessed by gold', or add Auric
  • Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship - "the winner of" sounds like there was only one championship, 'multiple winner' or 'a winner' or 'an Open Championship winner'?
  • I think this may be an Engvar thing: this reads correctly to my British eye as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • as a comic strip in The Daily Express, before - does that paper have a "The" in its name or should be 'the'
  • businessman whom Bond briefly met and - 'had' briefly met?
  • does Canasta take a cap C? (at Themes section is canasta) Can't see where name comes from but bridge, poker, rummy, etc aren't capped.
  • to spy on DuPont's cards. - space Du Pont
  • paying back DuPont's lost money - as above
  • smuggling gold out of the country - which country? (it's not noted yet that Goldfinger operates in UK.)
  • meet and play round of golf with - 'a' round?
  • factotum - wlink?
  • adapted with armour plating and armour-plated glass - are 'armour-plated glass' Fleming's words? just 'plated'?
  • and fits them to the Mecca Charter Airline, in which he holds a large stake - fits seats into an aircraft of that company or does Airline represent only one plane?
  • and it turns out that Leiter has - '"turns out" eventuates, becomes apparent, is revealed
  • will protect her, but she is killed by Oddjob - Pussy or Tilly?
  • managed to hijack a BOAC jetliner -'the' jetliner, ie the one Bond is on? Did Bond knowingly catch a flight but he was drugged later? Did Goldfinger hijack the plane before it took off or in the air?
  • did not date the event within his novels - events?
  • The architect Ernő Goldfinger threatened to sue Fleming ... Fleming threatened to add an erratum slip to the book changing the name from Goldfinger to Goldprick - when did Ernő find out, before or after the book was printed/distributed? Was Fleming going to simply put Goldprick on the erratum slip - or was he going to change Auric's name to Goldprick throughout the book and then explain on the slip how that name came about?
  • Jonathan Cape, paid Golfinger's legal costs - missing 'd' in Golfinger, plus add Ernő for clarification (this slightly confusing when 3 separate uses of same name ie Goldfinger novel, the character and the architect)
  • ran the double cross system - hyphen double-cross
  • Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road. - add 'in Hampsted'?
  • "Fleming's golf partner, John Blackwell" and "Fleming's golfing friend John Blackwell" - repetition
  • Englehard had established a company - typo Engel
  • had established a company, the Precious Metals Development Company - any way to avoid 2x company? 'established a firm' or maybe 'established a company, the Precious Metals Development, which...
  • Black considers that Bond - introduce Black here?
  • Synott highlights the sentence - typo double N
  • Burgess, in his 1984 work Ninety-nine Novels - italics
  • examination of 20th century British spy novels - hyphen? ie 20th-century
  • Elizabeth Ladenson, the general editor - Elisabeth with an 's' (and at Sources)
  • Janet Woollacott and Tony Bennett consider that many of the female characters in the Bond series depart from Fleming's accepted cultural norms; both Pussy Galore and Tilly Masterson conform to this rule - are they writing about the novel or film ie masterton/son
  • and" Enemy action" - move quote mark after and
  • biographer, Matthew Parker - wlink
  • Benson and Fleming's biographer, Matthew Parker, - ambiguous? consider moving comma ie 'Benson, and Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker,
  • Benson identifies a theme of Bond acting - this para has 2 x "St." and 2 x "St"
  • to open the vault[59] "Bond sighed wearily. - needs punc after vault?
  • Maurice Richardson thought that - wlink
  • "Guilt-edged Bond",[10] The critic for - full stop after Bond (or decap The)
  • McKellen - uses Sir in lede and caption but not in Adaptations, intentional?
  • quote box "I propose to wring the truth out of you" - full stop?
  • The pair highlight irradiation the gold in Fort Knox - irradiation 'of' or 'irradiating'

That's me for now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • JennyOz, a fantastic list to work to: thank you so much for all your comments here. I've demurred on one only (up above), but the rest are all now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple more "The" Daily Express to address
  • Book cover alt "a skull with coins for eyes" - maybe 'gold' coins? (just to tie into theme)

Two more minor suggestions... I'm very happy to support promotion. JennyOz (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks JennyOz, both final suggestions addressed, and thank you again for all your comments and support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moise

Hi Gavin, glad to see you back with another Bond novel article. I've read through once (and made some minor edits) and am on my second read-through. I'll comment below over the next few days as I make it through the second read-through and notice things. First comment:

  • The lead says "Fleming had based the actual character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." but in the main text it sounds less certain: "According to the historian Henry Chancellor the likely model for Auric Goldfinger was the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr.,[10] whom Fleming had met in 1949." Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Moise, Thanks for dropping by - always good to hear from you. I've tweaked that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Minor comment) Consider changing Saint George to St George (two instances) for consistency with the quotations.
  • "Goldfinger does not consume cigarettes or alcohol—unlike many people of the time—but he does pay prostitutes; these tastes of Goldfinger's are condemned by Fleming for being outside normal appetites." I wasn't sure whether "these tastes" in the plural is correct as it seems to just be talking about paying for prostitutes, just one thing. I'm not actually sure how I would reword this, though. If you want to leave it as is, I won't object too strongly, but it feels just possibly a little bit off.
  • The tastes are plural - not drinking or smoking was a sign of a a flawed character, as far as Fleming was concerned. I'll have a think about how to tweak this so it reads a bit better and comes across more clearly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Moisejp, I'm much obliged. The first point done; I'll have a think about how to re-word the second and see if I can come up with anything more clear. How does this look for the second? OK, or still need a a bit of a tweak? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It all looks good, Gavin. It took me a bit to understand that Fleming was also condemning the "cleaner" behaviour of not smoking or drinking, but now I got it. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Very nice. All very minor things:

  • "Auric Goldfinger is obsessed by gold and—to Bond's eye—a gauche individual with unusual appetites; Fleming had probably based the character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." I'm not sure you need the "had".
  • "He is subsequently invited back to Goldfinger's mansion near Reculver" Does this mean a second visit?
  • Issued by MI6 with an Aston Martin DB Mark III, Bond trails Goldfinger as he takes his vintage Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (adapted with armour plating and bulletproof glass), driven by Oddjob, via air ferry to Switzerland." It has been some years since I read the novel, but this makes it sound, but for the make of the vehicle, that Bond may have been chasing the air ferry with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
  • I've added an image of the car, and added a link to air ferry, as well as tweaking it slightly to make it clear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • stealing the United States Bullion Depository's gold from Fort Knox" I might say "stealing the gold from the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox" or some such.
  • "at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths—one of the livery companies of the City of London" So they are, but I might mention their responsibility for ascertaining the purity of gold, hallmarking.
  • "Ernő Goldfinger" You mention the dispute and settlement with him twice.
  • Wehwalt, I can't see this twice: there's one in the Background section (para beginning "Fleming had originally conceived the card game"), but I can't see the other one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think you're right.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for all of these. Just a query on the last point, which I can't spot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Marwan I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Marwan I, the fourth Umayyad caliph. His reign was short, less than a year, but impactful—he founded the Marwanid house which ruled the Caliphate for a further 65 years. Having been expelled with his whole clan from Medina, where he had served as the right hand of Caliph Uthman and governor for Caliph Mu'awiya I, Marwan reestablished Umayyad power across Syria and Egypt after it was reduced to the environs of Damascus as a result of the Second Muslim Civil War and set up his sons Abd al-Malik and Abd al-Aziz for great political success. I started work on the article in January 2017. It passed GAR in March 2019 and has appeared on the DYK column. I've been editing it on and off since then and believe it is ready for the Main Page. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

OK, I know nothing about this stuff, so these are purely procedural tweaks, I can't comment on the accuracy of the substantive content:

Lead
  • when Caliph Ali is mentioned, it is worth mentioning that he was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, as the history of Islam is pretty scratchy during this period, with members of Muhammad's family fighting each other for the spoils
Thanks for reviewing this Peacemaker. Mentioned that he was a cousin—not sure if son-in-law is necessary. Uthman was also a son-in-law of Muhammad.
  • same with Caliph Mu'awiya I, it is worth stating he ended up as one of Muhammad's scribes
I don’t think this needs to be mentioned here. He’s much more relevant here as Marwan's kinsman and founder of the Umayyad Caliphate. For non-expert readers especially it would not be pertinent. Aisha is most relevant for being Muhammads wife, Ali for being his cousin, Talha for being a particularly close companion and all these things were directly relevant in the First Muslim Civil War. Muawiya is most famous for governing Syria, opposing Ali and founding the ruling dynasty to which he and Marwan belonged. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "As he was prepared to give allegiance" Who was prepared to give allegiance? Marwan or Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad? It isn't clear.
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "loyalist tribes" loyal to whom?
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the historian Clifford E. Bosworth"
Done.
Body
  • could we get Julian calendar years inserted, as well as CE, which are confusing to non-Muslims
Added (AD) next to CE. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • to father al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and mother Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe→ His father was al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and his mother was Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • link Nepotism
Done.
  • "the quarter of Marwan" was this a quarter of the city, or are you referring to his residence?
I’m assuming neighborhood, but I’m gonna look into this further. I doubt he controlled a whole quarter. Might revise to something like “sought safety with Marwan”.
  • "Upon Marwan's return to Syria from Egypt in 685, he had designated his sons" as the narrative has passed the point where he has died
Done.
  • "In the view of the historian Wilferd Madelung"
Done.

That is all I could find. I struggled a bit with the amount of unfamiliar names (which says more about me than anything else), but it otherwise reads very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Peacemaker67. I’ve addressed the last of your points. A lot of these names I had to learn along the way. Some are more important than others, but I believe they each warrant a linked reference as they played important enough roles as commanders or advisers. Their articles also provide more details that give additional context and details about this period that would not fit in this article. —Al Ameer (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, very happy to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Really happy to see another Umayyad caliph here. Will review over the next few days. Constantine 20:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • After a short term by Ali's son and successor the 'short term' is a bit unclear here; perhaps rephrase to the effect that Hasan was declared caliph in succession to his father, but Mu'awiya eventually prevailed, and provide a link to the Hasan–Muawiya treaty.
  • before serving two stints as governor of Medina for the uninitiated, it should be mentioned that Mu'awiya moved the capital to Damascus, and the centre of power of his regime was the province of Syria (with the implication that the governorship of Medina that Uthman held was a prestigious, but 'ordinary' gubernatorial position).
  • which was significantly larger than 'significantly more numerous than' (optional)
  • to the unusual step of naming his own son Yazid as heir to the caliphate during his own lifetime, to claim the caliphate based on the legitimacy of his father, abūʾl-jabābira (father of tyrants) because his son and grandsons later inherited the caliphal throne for a modern Western audience to understand this, it should be mentioned (a footnote would be fine) that the caliphal office was not originally hereditary, but elective, whence the accusations of tyranny habitually levelled against the Umayyads.

Otherwise I found nothing amiss, the article is very comprehensive, and, as usual, well written. I did a few copyedits here and there, nothing major. I will have a look in my own sources to see whether I missed anything, but otherwise, after the above points are dealt with, I will be happy to support. Constantine 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

PS, I also really wanted to express my appreciation for the map. Really well done. Could you please upload it also in svg format, for use/adaptation by others? Constantine 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thanks for the taking the time to look this over and your helpful suggestions. Please check my latest revisions to see if your points have been addressed. As for the map, I created it on Publisher and Paint and don't see an option on how to save it as an .svg file on either program. I'm still an amateur with this stuff. Any advice on how best to do this? --Al Ameer (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
My suggestions have definitely been taken care of, and better than expected (I hazily half-remembered that someone had some comments on Medina after Mu'awiya's triumph and Marwan's appointment, glad you dug Wellhausen up). As stated, I will check my sources whether there is something that I have missed, and get back to you. On the map, yes, now I see that it is a bitmap and not vectorized (which is a compliment, at low resolution it fooled me). Let me have a look, I may be able to cook up a vectorized version quickly. Constantine 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer son: Here you go: a vectorized version of the map. Please have a look whether I missed something. I did a few tweaks (Arminiya as a province, not a sub-province, Derbent outside the caliphate at this time) but otherwise tried to be faithful to your original. Constantine 19:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow amazing Cplakidas, how did you do that so quickly! Face-smile.svg (I'm lurking for now, but will probably review this soon) HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I second HaEr48 on that. Very nice work ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
It was easy, after finding an almost identical base map, the only issue was copying over the data from Al Ameer's map. And now it can be used for other maps related to the early caliphates (unfortunately the base map does not include the western Maghreb and the Iberian peninsula). Constantine 08:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son:I looked around but did not find anything really missing. Of the major reference works for the period, the only one that appears to be missing is Rotter's Die Umayyaden und der zweite Bürgerkrieg (680-692), but I doubt it will contain anything not covered already. I also found, if you want to include it, a brief discussion on Marwan's succession in the legal/customary framework of early Islam, in Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp. 22–25, who classifies it as a contest between the "Islamic principle" (the 'best Muslim' should be caliph, here that would be Ibn al-Zubayr), the strict hereditary principle (in which case Mu'awiya II's successor should have been Khalid) and the 'tribal principle', of selecting the eldest and most capable from the tribe or wider clan, which led to Marwan's selection. I can send you the text if you want to incorporate this somehow. That's all, and as this is optional, I will support the nomination regardless. Constantine 15:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Interesting find. Please send me the text and I'll incorporate it. And thank you for your efforts and support. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Please check the info I added and let me know your thoughts. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Your additions look good to me, well done. Constantine 11:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Medina_1916.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Found the author: Bernhard Moritz, died 1939. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_Minaret_of_the_Bride,_Damascus,_Holy_Land,_ca._1895.jpg needs an explicit tag for the minaret, an author date of death, and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: For this photo I could not find the original author/photographer. As it was created/published between 1890 and 1900 does the PD-US tag here suffice even without the author or should it be "PD-old-assumed"? Also, I'm not sure what is meant by explicit tag for the minaret. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Was it published between 1890 and 1900, or was it created in that period? PD-US applies in the former case but not the latter. As to explicit tag, as Syria does not have freedom of panorama, we need to include a tag that indicates the public-domain status of the minaret. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

AhmadLX

General comments

  • Per MOS, diacritical marks should be avoided, except for the first sentence in the lead and 'ayn in middle of a word: (sahaba instead of ṣaḥāba, rashidun instead of rāshidūn etc.)
If the MoS Arabic indeed recommends that we should drop the diacritics from all italicized Arabic terms except the lead sentence, I’m not sure if I agree with it—unless it’s strictly because of potential software compatibility problems. They’re truer to the original Arabic term and are helpful to readers—at least those familiar with diacritics. Is this a major sticking point or could we leave this be for now? For the record, I wouldn’t normally italicize Rashidun as it’s a proper word, but since it’s part of a quote in this case I kept it exactly as Donner spelled it. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Anything in quotes is of course exempt from it, but MOS compliance is part of the criteria. Also, as Donner says, anyone who doesn't understand these won't need them, and anyone who understands them also won't need them ;)AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If I read WP:MOSAR correctly, it just discourages (not ban) diacritics and give authors some wiggle room. Personally, I feel for common words like "sahaba" using diacritics is a little too much, but it is very helpful for less commonly known words such as "khayṭ bāṭil" or "ṭarid ibn ṭarid" to be able to know the original Arabic word. Of course, deciding which words are common enough and which can benefit from diacritics is a bit subjective, which is why I suggest letting authors decide. HaEr48 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@HaEr48: the page you are referring to is not a policy page. I was talking of MOS:ISLAM, specifically MOS:ISLAM#Arabic_transliteration. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • According to Donner (2014), p. 106, Marwan was maternal brother of Uthman; should be mentioned.
Intriguing, but likely a mistake. I added and removed it previously as I found it fishy since Uthman was Marwan’s senior by between 33 to 50 years (depending on the source). Indeed, no other source I came across corroborated it. I think it’s a rare error on Donner’s part, probably stemming from Amina’s kunya being “Umm Uthman”. In no other RS have I found Uthman’s mother to be Amina bint Alqama. His mother was Arwa bint Kurayz of Abd Shams. Moreover, none of the sources discussing Marwan mention that he was a half-brother of Uthman—which, if true, would have been an unavoidably notable fact to neglect—they only refer to him as a cousin. This may have also been confused with al-Walid ibn Uqba who was Uthman’s maternal half-brother and also his (distant) paternal cousin. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
He cites Ibn Sa'd, but yes, I checked at a few other places and it is Arwa. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Any info on his activities/life under the first two caliphs?
He emerges during Uthman’s reign from the shadows it seems. I’ll look into al-Tabari to see if there’s anything notable. Let me know if you have anything from your end. It wouldn’t be surprising; the Islamic sources hold that his father al-Hakam was exiled by the prophet and according to some, he may have remained exiled until Uthman’s reign. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea; maybe something in Ansab, but I can't read Arabic. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "confiscation of crown lands in Iraq drove the Quraysh and the dispossessed elites of Kufa and Egypt to oppose the caliph." Crown lands? Does this refer to the lands of Persian King? Also, it should be clarified why was this a big deal.
Yes, the sawafi in Arabic, which had been considered communal property for the benefit of the conquering Muslim troops. I’ll elaborate more on this tomorrow when I have my sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@AhmadLX: I added a footnote about the crown lands and why they were important to the Kufans. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Marwan recommended a violent response to the rebels." Narrative goes very fast here. It should be mentioned that the caliph was besieged by rebels from Iraq and Egypt.
You’re right. Filled in the gaps now, I believe. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Uthman publicly recanted his behavior and desisted from military action". I don't think desist is the right word here.
Just scrapped this sentence altogether. The material I just added together with the material I kept should suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Marwan's first dismissal from the governorship was the result of his criticism of the caliph's declaration that Ziyad ibn Abihi,..." It is only that Mu'awiya told him so. It may not necessarily have been the reason. Madelung relates the story, but doesn't comment himself on the reasons of dismissal. It would be better it present it as it occurs in the source: that upon Marwan's inquiring, Muawiya said so and so.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of Marwan encouraging Ibn al-Zubayr to refuse settlement proposal of Yazid, or prior to that his threats to Husayn.
I only saw in Madelung (p. 348) that Marwan secretly encouraged Ibn al-Zubayr to claim the caliphate with the Machiavellian idea that this would contribute to the downfall of the Sufyanids and that Marwan would then replace them and deal with Ibn al-Zubayr later. It all seems rather far-fetched and Madelung doesn't give us any indication where he got this particular bit of info. Do you have another source that discusses this? And for that matter the threats to Husayn? Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Madelung is a crackpot. But I got this info from Wellhausen. Let me look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wellhausen p. 148, Tab. v 19, pp.190-191. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Some of these ashrāf, such as Husayn ibn Numayr, had attempted to reach a similar arrangement with Ibn al-Zubayr" It was only Ibn Numayr, and the cited source is clear on that.
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • According to EI2, it is not certain whether Marwan sent the expedition to Hejaz. This article seems to be quite certain, perhaps based on Yauqbi. EI2's assessment should be given preference.
Tabari (vol 20, pp. 161–163) also holds that Marwan sent Hubaysh on the Hejaz expedition before his death, though it isn’t clear if Marwan died by the time this army was crushed at Rabadha. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Per MOS, Muhammad should be mentioned just by name or as Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  • E. J. Brill & Brill
It’s Brill, but the Encyclopedia of Islam templates are E. J. Brill. Should we change it in the template since it’s the same publisher? And since Cplakidas toiled over these useful templates, his input would also be appreciated here. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think template should be left as is, since changing it would create inconsistencies in other articles; also for the one below. Thanks.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@AhmadLX: So then change Brill to E. J. Brill and SUNY Press to State University of New York Press? Or leave it all alone? Al Ameer (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer son: Should be consistent: I would prefer E. J. Brill and State University of New York Press. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • State University of New York Press & SUNY Press
Similar issue as above; The History of al-Tabari templates have the written-out version, while in the other sources the same publisher is abbreviated. Which should it be? Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Albany, New York & Albany
Done, went with the former.
  • I. B. Tauris and Company & I. B. Tauris
Done, went with the latter.
  • Donner, Fred M. & Donner Fred.
Done.
  • Rihan, Mohammad (2014): location=London & New York
Done.
  • Donner, Fred (2014): chapter range needed.
Done.
  • Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Translator name needed.
Done.
  • Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Google Books link.
Done.
  • Mayer, L. A. (1952): Journal name instead of publisher name: "Israel Exploration Journal"
Fixed.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): Co-author Bosworth, C. E.
Done.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): pp=837-839; title= Umayya b. 'Abd Shams
Fixed.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000) (ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān): Co-author Khoury, R. G.
Done.
  • Both instances of "Della Vida 2000" link to "Banu Umayya": one should link to "Uthman b. Affan"
Fixed.
  • All sources high quality.
  • I have no issue with different ISBN formats.
Made them consistent anyway.
  • Surprisingly, no Kennedy error found 718smiley.svg --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@AhmadLX: Indeed, hard to believe ;) As always, your thoroughness is appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Marwan led his horsemen through Medina and launched a rear assault against the Medinese defenders fighting Ibn Uqba in the city's eastern outskirts." is not in Wellhausen 1927, p. 156.
Done, I added Vaglieri's "al-Harra" entry in EI2. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Marwan thanking tribes that supported him is not in Rihan p. 104, but p. 105. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From HaEr48

  • Lead: "including Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a rival claimant to the caliphate": I think this anachronistic, because Ibn al-Zubayr did not claim the caliphate until after Yazid died?
  • Lead: In the months that followed, Marwan reasserted Umayyad rule over the pro-Zubayrid territories of Egypt, Palestine and northern Syria, while keeping the Qays in check in Upper Mesopotamia: I think to put this in context, the loss of those territories needed to be mentioned before talking about reclaiming them.
  • Marwan was born in 623 or 626 CE: any Hijri year? Also suggest adding Hijri date/year for other key dates, such as accession, death. This is commonly done in scholarly article about early Muslim rulers.
  • in this capacity Marwan "doubtless helped" in the revision "of what became the canonical text of the Qur'an" in Uthman's reign: Is there any article that can be wikilinked here (about Uthman's compilation)?
  • as a result of Marwan's pervasive influence, which they blamed for the caliph's controversial decisions: I know the next sentence includes arguments about the lack of specificity, but can we have more detail here? E.g. which of Uthman's decisions? Or which traditional Muslim sources/historians put the blame on Marwan?
  • Uthman was assassinated by the rebels, which became one of the major contributing factors to the First Muslim Civil War: I think how it becomes a civil war can be explained a little bit more, if I recall correctly there was a dispute about punishing those responsible for the killing.
  • He used that occasion to kill one of A'isha's partisans, a prominent companion of Muhammad Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, whom he held responsible for Uthman's death: Are there more details about this, e.g. how it happened or what was the reaction? Just curious how one intentionally kills someone in their own side during a battle without causing disorder or outrage.
  • Ali was assassinated in January 661: by whom?
  • "to abandon their arrangement" : what arrangement?
  • who entered Kufa victoriously : How about "entered Hasan's capital at Kufa", to describe the significance of the city?
  • " marking the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate" was he also declared caliph in Kufa & did he receive allegiance there?
  • the fatherless Ziyad ibn Abihi, Ibn Amir's successor in Basra, as his paternal half-brother: Does this mean Muawiya claimed that Abu Sofyan was Ziyad's biological father, or did he just declare an adopted relationship?
  • Marwan's nephew, Amr ibn Uthman ibn Affan: If Uthman is Marwan's cousin, Uthman's son would be a removed cousin rather than a nephew? Or is this referring to the theory that Uthman and Marwan were half-brothers?
  • Afterward, Marwan participated in the funeral : Did Hasan end up buried beside the Prophet, or somewhere else?
  • Marwan was among the most senior Umayyads at a time: is it "most senior" by age, by experience, or?
  • After Mu'awiya died in 680: also mention the accession of Yazid here
  • Much of the first para of "Leader of the Umayyads in Medina" is cited directly to a translation of al-Tabari (Tabari might be too outdated to be an RS on its own). Do we have modern sources mentioning this? Especially the rather detailed account of Yazid's meeting with Husayn.
  • The latter died several weeks into his reign: mention the fact that he did not have heirs or designated successors.
  • "the governors of the Syrian junds (military districts) of Palestine, Homs and Qinnasrin subsequently gave their allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr, who proclaimed a rival caliphate based in Mecca." I think it flows better if first you introduce (1) IAZ proclaiming himself caliph and then (2) the governors changing side, in that order, rather than the opposite.
  • "As a result, Marwan "despaired over any future for the Umayyads as rulers"...": From reading Second Fitna, it appears at this stage Umayyad control only remained in parts of Syria. I think it's worth mentioning that first to illustrate the desperateness of the situation for the Umayyads.
  • "...forming the new super-tribe of Yaman": Maybe just "forming a new super-tribe"? The name Yaman and Yamani was already introduced.
  • Despite the victory at Marj Rahit, Marwan faced numerous challenges to his rule throughout the Umayyads' former domains: This is a rather vague description, I suggest being more specific like: "Despite having won a victory at Marj Rahit and consolidating Umayyad power in XXX, Marwan's authority is still not recognized in the rest of the Umayyad's former domains", better describing the limits of his powers at this time.
  • to conquer Iraq from the Zubayrids and other anti-Umayyad factions: Can we name the other "anti-Umayyad factions"?
  • In a poem attributed to him, Marwan thanked the following tribes: Is it possible to quote a few verses of the poem in-text, for flavor?
  • re-instituting the principle of direct hereditary succession: Does this mean this principle were also followed in the next successions? If yes, suggest mentioning
  • In later anti-Umayyad Muslim tradition: Does this refer to pro-Zubayrid tradition, the Alid and Shia tradition, Abbasid tradition, or others?
  • Is there any reason that in this article the al- gets shortened in Abu'l-Ash but not in Abi al-Ash?
  • There is a fair amount of direct quotation from modern scholars here, e.g. about the internal state of mind ("No wonder he cast envious looks", "may have been fears of the family of Abu'l-As that impelled him"), as well as evaluations (e.g. "a military leader and statesman of great skill"). This is fine, but I wonder if we can also supplement them with similar quotation from traditional historians/biographers, especially if they were quoted by RS?
  • Other than assessment from historian, are there assessments from later religious authorities that we can include? E.g. do notable religious authors in the Sunni or Shia traditions have something specific to say about him and his impact? Or is this actually covered by the third para of "Assessment"? (hard to see because the sources are named very vaguely)

That's it for me. Apologies if it's quite long, and hope that they can improve the article. Overall, I think the article is well-researched, written carefully in a neutral manner, and I enjoyed reading it. I hope you'll work on even more high-quality articles in this important era of Islamic history Face-smile.svg. I'm sure those article have high impact in terms of readership! (See this, for example) HaEr48 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that spent the first few years of the war at home in the UK. It was assigned to the 21st Army Group, and was the last British infantry division to arrive in Normandy. It took part in Operation Charnwood, followed up by a support role for Operation Goodwood, and then in subsequent fighting as the Second Army pushed south in the final stages of the Normandy battle. As a result of overall heavy losses among Second Army, and a lack of trained reserves, the division was broken up towards the end of the battle and the men largely dispersed among the other formations across the 21st Army Group in an effort to bring them up to strength. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

I went through this pretty comprehensively at Milhist ACR, so I mostly have only minor grammatical points to add:

  • in the lead, "and became the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • also in the lead, "was assigned to the Second Army"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • per my comment on the 45th Div ACR, suggest "from cadres that could be increased"→"from cadres around which the divisions could be expanded." and link cadre (military)
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • just check the 45th Div ACR and other ones for improvements to the Background section that have been mentioned in them, but not yet implemented here?
  • should the 177th Brigade be redlinked if there is no article yet?
    Somehow missed this. I have added the relevant link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "This freed up the 197th Infantry Brigade"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • to be transferred to the 59th Division→to be transferred to the 59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • move the link to battalion to first mention
    I have moved this further up the article to the first generic mentionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • not sure about the italicisation of Canute II per MOS:ITALICS. Perhaps "Canute II"?
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bradshaw and two of his brigade commanders"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The primary objective of the 21st Army Group
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "including Operations Perch and Epsom" with links piped to the names
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "part of the British Second Army and of the 21st Army Group"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and on 4 July the 59th Division"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the 176th and 177th Brigades"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "6NSR led the 177th Brigade's move"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "1st and 2nd Battalions of the 25th SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the 197th Brigade's 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the 1/7th Royal Warwickshire Regiment"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "attached to the 3rd Infantry Division"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "still resisting the 59th's push south"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Montgomery ordered the Second Army"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Buckley described the division as having"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "under the direct command of the 21st Army Group"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • what brigade were the 2nd Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment with? The 56th?
    Yes. I have inserted a sentence just after introducing the 56th, and mentioned what battalions it was made up of.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • had come to ahead→had come to a head
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I find the initials of the GOCs a bit jarring, could we use their common names, Ralph Eastwood, James Steele etc?

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. I have worked on some, and will tackle the rest later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    I believe I have addressed the points you raised above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    You certainly have. Nice work on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:59_inf_div_-vector.svg should include the date for the original work
    I have added that info inEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Second_Battle_of_Odon_EN.svg: what's the source of the data in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    The user who created the map has not been active in a while, so I don't believe I will be able to obtain that. So I have removed the map from the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 126 cites a quote. A page ref is required.
  • Sources: Hart - Maybe wikilink "Mechanicsburg", or at least add a PA to indicate state (it's not a particularly well-known location). Same might be said for some of the other locations, e.g. in minor British towns.
  • I have gone and added some linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Couple of general points, for thought if not necessarily action:
  • Footnote (a) ends: "For further information on how division sizes changed during the war, see British Army during the Second World War." This might be better in a "see also" section, otherwise it looks as though you're using another Wikipedia article as a reference.
I see what you are getting at, I have actioned your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the section heading "External sources". If you're not citing them in your article, they aren't sources. "External links"?
Updated the title header accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see – sources meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

MLS Cup 1996

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's almost playoffs season for Major League Soccer, so I thought it would be appropriate to try and bring the first-ever MLS Cup to featured status. The pitch was soggy from storms trailing a hurricane and had strong winds, but it didn't stop D.C. United from taking the first of seven trophies that they won during their run of dominance at the turn of the millennium. This article was expanded a few months ago and passed GAN in August, and relies heavily on newspaper coverage. SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

  • Could we get a little bit more overview at the start of the lede? Currently it says MLS Cup 1996 was the inaugural edition of the MLS Cup, the championship match of Major League Soccer (MLS), which took place on October 20, 1996. It was hosted at Foxboro Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, and contested by D.C. United and the Los Angeles Galaxy to decide the champion of the 1996 season. – this doesn't mention it was an association football match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a bit to the lead sentence.
  • In general, the lede is a little thin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure what else the lead needs without being filler.
  • Just for clarification, should it be "semi-final", or "semifinal"? I thought it was the former. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • In American English, it's usually not hyphenated. The league itself refers to the round as the "Conference Semifinal" (actually the quarterfinal in the bracket).
  • win-loss – There is an article on Winning percentage which could be linked here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • 34,643 of the 42,368 - do we need to be so specific with the numbers for the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Rounded up the lead figure, added a precise figure in the body; I won't touch the actual announced attendance figure because it's standard to leave it formatted as such.
General comments
  • Foxboro Stadium in the Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, was announced as the venue of the inaugural MLS Cup during a league press conference on August 29, 1996, beating out the other finalist, RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C., which was instead prioritized for the 1997 edition. - split this sentence Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • The league had planned to downsize Foxboro Stadium - could just be "The stadium", it's clear which one we are referring to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • We refer to the MLS Cup, but later explain what the MLS is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The Road to the final section has a description of the league's structure, which is more than other football cup final FAs provide. I think the description and links are sufficient for a reader that is looking for this kind of niche topic. SounderBruce 03:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Overall

It's a good article, will add more content here when I get some time.

Comments Support by Kosack

Venue

  • "The league had planned to the stadium to 33,000 seats for the championship", something missing from this sentence.
    • Fixed.

Road to the final

  • "consisted of ten teams organized into two conferences", may be worth mentioning that they were based on geographical location.
    • Added links to the conference entries.

D.C. United

  • "who signed former Virginia Cavaliers coach Bruce Arena as its manager", the mix of plural/singular with who and its reads a bit oddly to me.
    • Fixed, and will look out for other mixes. American English is weird about the plural/singular rule with regard to sports teams.
  • "D.C. clinched a playoff berth", you've already stated this two sentences earlier in the third paragraph. Could just start the new paragraph with "In the playoffs..."
    • Fixed.
  • "whose appearance required a referee decision on the ordering of kick-takers", I feel like this leaves more questions than answers and I can't access the sources to clarify it either.
    • Added a sentence explaining the situation.
  • Could link ejection to Ejection (sports) as it's not a common term outside the U.S., certainly not in association football.
    • Done.

Los Angeles Galaxy

  • "formerly of the U.S. national team, was hired as the first head coach of the team", double use of team is a little repetitive perhaps.
    • Fixed.
  • "including defender Robin Fraser, midfielder Jorge Salcedo, and defender Curt Onalfo", perhaps grouping the defenders together to avoid reusing defender? So along the lines of, "including defenders Robin Fraser and Curt Onalfo and midfielder Jorge Salcedo"?
    • Fixed.
  • Link Rose Bowl?
    • Done.
  • Could probably drop Hurtado's first name from the third paragraph given we've had it twice in this section already.
    • Done.

Summary

  • "Game 1 of the World Series", might be worth adding "Major League Baseball's" or "baseball's" to this as not everyone will know what the World Series is.
    • Added.

Details

  • The match report appears to have expired.
    • Fixed the link.
  • Might be worth adding inline citations for match officials otherwise there's no obvious sign where they come from.
    • Added.

Post-match

  • Worth pointing out which trophy is the MLS Cup in the image caption. Especially given we don't have an image of the trophy elsewhere.
    • Can't tell which of the two 1990s trophies is for the 1996 cup, but I did try to describe it in the caption.

A few points I noted on an initial run through. A nice article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have addressed all the points you brought up. SounderBruce 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
One further point I noticed, the term extra-time is used in the infobox and the match details section but overtime is the only term used in the prose. Is there a reason for the difference? Kosack (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The standard seems to be extra time, but overtime is more common (especially with the wackier MLS rules of yore). Switching them over now. SounderBruce 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support this. A high quality read and I believe it's of FA standard, nice work. As an aside, I have a football related FAC ongoing, Ninian Park, that could do with a few more reviews if you or any other editor is able to take a look. Kosack (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • "but conceded two goals in the second half to force overtime play." Seems like the last word doesn't add much and could safely be chopped.
    • Chopped.
  • Venue: "The other finalist, RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C., which was instead prioritized for the 1997 edition." For the sentence to work grammatically, "which" needs to be removed.
    • Fixed.
  • D.C. United: "until the winning goal from Peter Vermes. Vermes...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
    • Fixed.
  • Summary: "Game 1 of Major League Baseball's World Series, which was being played on the same night in Boston, was canceled." Um, the Red Sox didn't play in the 1996 World Series. This sentence needs to be removed entirely.
    • I mis-read the source; the same rainstorm had caused a cancellation, and I think it's worth including as it was affecting both league championships.
  • It's better if possible to not have a sentence start with a numeral like 42,368. This is also present in the lead, so that needs a fix as well.
    • Fixed both.
  • Post-match: "but were defeated 3–5 in the final...". Don't think the loser's score should be given first, since that style isn't used elsewhere in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues you pointed out above. SounderBruce 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Support – All of my comments have been adequately addressed, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Atlanersa

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Atlanersa, a Kushite king of the kingdom of Napata in Nubia (modern day Sudan), ruling in the mid 7th century BC. The impetus for working on this article was provided by the visit to Sudan of a photograph, M. Gehricke, who then proposed to upload his pictures to wikicommons. I hope this will be the first FA article pertaining to the antiquity of a poorly covered area of Africa on wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review this nomination, anyone! I will answer promptly!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mr rnddude

I'll do a prose review for the time being, will see if the requisite source review gets picked up by someone else. FAC appears to have slowed a bit, since there's a couple noms that have been up for near three months. Don't know if it's a time of the year thing, a greater influx or noms, or burnout from reviewers. Could even be a combination of the three.

General comments
Cite 76 is missing page numbers.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Lede
Atlanersa's most prominent construction however, [...] - As is always pointed out to me whenever I use the word, a stronger stop is needed before however. Either "[...] , however, [...]" or "[...] ; however, [...]". I believe the latter construction is preferred. This is repeated as well later in the article (twice if I counted correctly).
Done actually I removed all the instances of "however" as none were really required and all sentences read lighter without it.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
[...] which he finished and had time to partially decorate before possibly dying unexpectedly - A bit unclear here. Do you mean that he possibly died, or that his death was possibly unexpected?
Done I clarified by changing to "[...]which he finished and had time to decorate, but only partially. This suggests that he died unexpectedly.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Parents
An hypothesis [...] -> A hypothesis. An comes before vowel sounds: e.g An anecdote or An SMG (pronounced ess-em-jee). A before consonant sounds: hypothesis (pronounced hai-poth-a-sis).
Done it is a mistkae I keep on going, in writing as well as speaking.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
An alternative, cultural, explanation is also possible [...] - The second comma is unneeded: An alternative, cultural explanation [...].
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
[...] a young heir to the throne would be overlooked in favor of someone older until they reached maturity, and until then their right to the throne would be preserved - If I'm understanding correctly, this would basically be a regency wouldn't it?
Done Actually no because contrary to a regency, the person reigning is considered a full king and would continue to reign until he died. Only then and only if the heir is old enough, would his rights be reinstated. I clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Consorts and children
Khaliset was destined to be the mother of Atlanersa's heir as indicated by her titles but this was probably fulfilled by another of Atlanersa's consorts, queen Malotaral "mistress of Kush" and potential mother of Senkamanisken - A couple issues here. There's missing punctuation: Khaliset was destined to be the mother of Atlanersa's heir, as indicated by her titles, but this was probably fulfilled [...]. She wasn't really destined to be x if she never became x. The word "intended" would be a more apt descriptor.
Good points done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
At least one more queen might have been married to Atlanersa, his sister Peltasen while queens K[...] and Taba[...] may be yet further consorts of Atlanersa - The writing is somewhat awkward and repetitive, so in need of rephrasing, and particularly given that the following sentence lists yet another possible consort.
Done, see if you prefer this: "Further potential consorts of Atlanersa have been identified: his sister Peltasen and queens K[...] and Taba[...]. Finally, there is a distinct possibility that Amenirdis II, the Divine Adoratrice of Amun in Thebes was married to Atlanersa. In addition, she may have been his sister.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also possible, although uncertain [...] and [...] might have been his son, although this remains uncertain [...] - Possible means not certain, so this is redundancy. For the latter sentence, I can suggest tightening: Atlanersa's successor Senkamanisken, may have been his son, but could instead have been his brother.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
There are conflicts between the infobox and the article on this subject. You list Nasalsa as "uncertain" in the infobox, but state that she is known to have been his daughter in the article body. Conversely, you list Senkamanisken as a son of Atlanersa in the infobox, but state that his parentage is uncertain in the body. You also have "Peltasen, Taba[..], K[...]" listed as, effectively, certain consorts in the IB, but "might have been" in the body.
Done woops yes I seem to have mixed up the placed of the "Uncertain" mentions in the infobox. Corrected, as per text.
Temple B700
Originally, Reisner believed the stand to be an altar - You introduce Reisner later on in the article, but it's first mentioned in the footnote. Perhaps just double up on the introductions, because, if I'm reading along with footnotes, then the first time I see Reisner, I won't (or I will, but the reader won't,) know who you're talking about.
Done a nice intro is now given to Reisner in the footnote.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
After Senkamanisken's rule however, the temple might have served as a mortuary temple for Atlanersa and, even later, for all deceased kings - Presumably you mean king's of the Napatan Kingdom?
Done yes I mean subsequent Nubian kings. Actually it is not clear in the source whether the author meant all Nubian kings including those of the Meroitic period or not. I wrote "of the Kushite kingdom" which is vague enough to correspond to the source.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Tomb
Reisner's argument have been [...] - Either "argument has been" or "arguments have been".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It produced a [...] - You mention both antechamber and burial chamber in the preceding sentence, so grammatically it is unclear that you mean the burial chamber when you use "[i]t" here. Perhaps replace "[i]t" with "[t]he latter".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Collapse of the 25th Dynasty
[...] definitely expelling him from Upper Egypt c. 656 BC - Did you perhaps mean definitively here?
Done yes. Thanks!Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all the prose comments I have for the time being. I've not been sleeping well at all in the past few days, so I've likely missed things, and will need to do a second pass later on when I'm feeling better. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Well I wish you to get better promptly! Thank you for your first round of review.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I've revisited the article and checked in here. Moving to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • For the following parts ("reigning for about a decade in the mid 7th century BC", "Atlanersa is the only Kushite king of the mid 7th century BC", "Atlanersa reigned for a decade in the mid 7th century BC"), I believe there should be dashes for "mid-7th-century".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence "The pyramid produced many small artefacts which are now on display in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.", I believe the museum's name is just "the Museum of Fine Arts" and Boston is included in the Wikipedia title to disambiguate it from other similarly titled museums. I would rephrase the final part to "which are now on display in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the placement of the following sentence "He may also have started a funerary chapel in the same locality, now called Nuri 500." It follows right after the sentence on the Boston museum so it is somewhat jarring to jump back to talking about an Egyptian locale, particularly with the phrasing "in the same locality". I am assuming that phrasing is meant to refer back to the necropolis of Nuri?
Fixed Yes I meant in Nuri. I have changed the sentence and its location in the lede to "He built a pyramid in the necropolis of Nuri, now conjecturally believed to be Nuri 20 and may also have started a funerary chapel in the same necropolis, now called Nuri 500. Atlanersa was the second Nubian king to built a pyramid in Nuri after Taharqa.". I hope this fixes the issue.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Could this part "which he finished and had time to decorate, but only partially" be reduced down to "which he finished and had time to only partially decorate" to be somewhat more concise?
Done thanks this is much better.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be useful to wikilink pylon in this part "Atlanersa's mother was a queen who appeared on a pylon scene".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is "[...]salka" put in italics in the body of the article, but it is not done the same way in the lead or the infobox?
Done it is mistake, it should not be in italic. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful work so far. I have only gotten through the lead and the first section as I want to try my best to thoroughly review the article. I am not familiar with African history at all so apologies in advance if I have overlooked anything. I will try to get through the rest of the article this week. I hope my comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thanks for your comments, I am looking forward to your next observations!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a clarification question about this part "Foundation tablets bearing Atlanersa's name show that he started a temple dedicated to Osiris Dedwen", specifically "Osiris Dedwen". After clicking on both the wikilinks, they appear to be separate gods, but again, I have absolutely no familiarity with this kind of history. Is this phrase referencing one god/figure?
Done This is an example of syncretism. The ancient Egyptian relgion (and more generally religions of the Ancient world) were very fluid and allowed for the merging of gods: here Dedwen, a god originating from Upper Nubia was assimilated with Osiris by being perceived to be a local form of Osiris. This phenomenon happened throughout Egypt and can perhaps be related with the Middle Ages tendency to do the same with "Maria, Our Lady of...". I have added a link to syncretism just before the mention of Osiris-Dedwen in the text and in the lede.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, and apologies again for my ignorance on the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What does "fine" mean in this context: "A fine stand" and "a fine alabaster votive tablet"?
Fixed It means "of very high quality". I have removed these as, while they are supported by the sources, they are subjective judgments.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If it is technical term, then it should be alright for inclusion. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This part "weighing over 8 t (8.8 short tons) it is made of a single block of granite." reads like a separate sentence, and I believe there should be a comma after "(8.8 short tons)". Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Done I made two sentences and changed to ". The stand is made of a single block of granite weighing over 8 t (8.8 short tons).". I hope this addresses this round of comments Aoba47.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you for addressing everything. Although I am by no means a subject expert, I believe the article's prose meets the FA criteria. I have not looked at the sources or images so I am just basing my comments on the prose. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review by A. Parrot

I'll do a detailed review, including spot-checks, over the weekend. For now I can say that the sources used are all of high quality. Some are old, but at first glance it looks like the older sources are appropriately balanced with the current ones. A. Parrot (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've done several spot-checks, including all those to Pope, Dodson & Hilton, Reisner, and Török 1997, and everything seems in order except for two points.

  • The more minor one is that Citation 45 is based on a sentence that's divided between two pages, so it would make sense to change it to pp. 237–238.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The more major one is "Reisner's arguments have been broadly accepted", which is cited to a source from 1949, closer to Reisner's time than to ours. Do any of the more recent sources state that Reisner's view is the consensus, or do they simply take it for granted that he was right? If they take it for granted and Dunham and Macadam are the only ones who state it explicitly, you could keep the citation to Dunham and Macadam and supplement it with another that simply assumes the pyramid is Atlanersa's.
Done I have added a footnote with a more recent source. What happens is that Dunham and Macadam state that they agree with Reisner's argument, and from there on virtually all sources talking about Nuri 20 attribute it to Atlanersa without any discussion. So I have added the latest non-Dunham reference on the matter: Fontes by Török et al.

Beyond that, I have several points about the text:

  • The lead mentions the loss of control of Egypt in Atlanersa's time, but Török's point about the cultural transformation of Kush also seems worth mentioning in the lead.
Done I added " The same period also saw the progressive cultural integration of Egyptian concepts by the Kushite civilization" to the lede.
  • "…one of which was effectively put in place" feels rather unclear; perhaps "one of which was completed and set in place"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "a queen […]salka" will probably puzzle some readers. Perhaps "a queen whose name is only partially preserved"?
Done in the first instance of this in the lede. I kept the [...]salka in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Atlanersa was the son of king Taharqa or less probably of his immediate predecessor Tantamani." There's a slight ambiguity in the sentence about whether "his" refers to Taharqa or Tantamani.
Fixed I replaced "his" with "Atlanersa's".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 2 seems significant enough to move into the main text, which isn't terribly long.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "…this was probably fulfilled by another of Atlanersa's consorts, Queen Malotaral 'mistress of Kush' and potential mother of Senkamanisken" feels a bit awkward. Perhaps something like "…but it may have been another of Atlanersa's consorts, Malotaral 'mistress of Kush', who was mother to Atlanersa's heir Sekamanisken"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The colossal statue at B700 and its current location are mentioned in the lead, but it's not mentioned in the section on the temple, and its current location isn't mentioned anywhere in the body text.
Fixed, well spotted. I added this to the text: "A colossal statue of Atlanersa was placed on the western side of the temple entrance, where it was discovered by Reisner, albeit toppled with its head cut-off. It is now in the National Museum of Sudan".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The advancement of the temple…" I'm sure that "advancement" isn't the right word here, but I'm not sure what to change it to, or whether to do a more extensive rewording of the first half of the sentence.
Done I changed to "The progression of the temple construction suggests that...".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The obelisk is at Old Dongola, not Dongola; I changed the body text to reflect that. I think Egyptological sources sometimes use "Dongola" to refer to the old site as well as the new one, which is why I haven't changed the section heading, but given that the two sites are 80 kilometers apart, I think it would be best to change the heading as well.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A. Parrot I hope this addresses your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • Could we have another image on the left, per MOS:IMAGES: "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left."?
Fixed I put all images on the right: I tried two images on the left and it looked weird to me. I can change back to two images on the left if you want.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Ho hum. Well, I like the way you have arranged the images, even if it doesn't meet the MoS. So let's IAR and see if antone else says anything.
  • Alt text for the infobox image?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "File:Barque stand Atlanersa.png" I am unsure how the Source can be "own work", when it is stated that the photograph was taken in 1916 by George Andrew Reisner. (Reisner has been dead for over 70 years, so it is potentially taggable as out of copyright.)
Done: Well, I am indeed not Reisner, this is a stupid mistake on my behalf: clearly I did not pay attention when uploading. I changed the self license tag to PD-old and PD-US tags and listed Reisner as the author and source. Gog the Mild I hope this will be sufficient.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Caption, B700: could we add ", Boston"?
Done I wrote "in Boston"Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Caption, Scarab of Atlanersa: could we add ", Paris"?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As Sudan does not have freedom of panorama there needs to be a tag indicating the topic's copyright status for "File:Barque stand Atlanersa.png", "File:Pyramid Atlanersa Nuri 20.jpg" and "File:TombosQuarryIncompleteStatue.jpg". (I suspect that this is pro forma.)
Well I am lost there, what tag do we need ? I looked at other Sudan pictures on wikicommons and did not find a specific tag to add, for example this picture, used on wikipedia, of a place in Sudan does not have anything specific other than the self tag.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
You must be right. There are outdoor panoramas from Sudan classed as valued images, without an additional tag - eg File:Western Deffufa - Kerma.jpg. I am not sure why, but it seems to set a precedence.
Passing. A grand looking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi

  • Some warnings etc in references:
    • Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1986). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) (2nd ed.). Missing Publisher Location; Missing Publisher;
Done Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Reisner, George Andrew (1918). "Preliminary Report on the Harvard-Boston excavation at Nûri: the kings of Ethipia after Tirhaqa". In Bates, Oric (ed.). Varia Africana II. 2. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Publisher Location; Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Done added all missing info except p. numbers: it is an entire book, 64 pages long.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Morkot, Robert (1999). "Kingship and Kinship in the Empire of Kush". In Wenig, Steffen (ed.). Studien zum.. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
Done added all missing info.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Zibelius-Chen, Karola (2012). "II. 12. The Chronology of Nubian Kingdoms from Dyn. 25 to the end of the Kingdom of Meroe". In Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf; Warburton, David (eds.). Ancient Egyptian... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Done added all missing info.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope this answers your concerns Lingzhi2.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Reading now...

  • Atlanersa's name was present on a scene inscribed on the front pylon of the temple, now completely destroyed - err, how do we know it was there if it is now destroyed?
Done I added a footnote with an explanation: the pylon was still standing in the mid 19th century at which point several drawings were made. The pylon was destroyed between 1830 and 1916 as the temple was used as a quarry by local people.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Damn private rock-needers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The advancement of the temple suggests that Atlanersa died unexpectedly - I don't follow this..
Clarified The temple building was finished and its decoration almost completely so but not totally. The source deduces that the end of the decoration works were interrupted by the death of the king. I wrote: "The advancement of the temple suggests that Atlanersa died unexpectedly, shortly after completing the construction works and the decoration of the two interior rooms, as attested by the presence of his name there, but before completing the decoration of the exterior. This task was finished under Senkamanisken [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Aha ok, that makes sense Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Contrary to his predecessors and successors, Atlanersa is the only ....uncovered there - any speculation as to why this is the case? Even if no idea that is worth adding (if someone has said it)
Unfortunately only one source points this fact out and they don't elaborate on it. I should add that virtually all existing information pertaining to Atlanersa is given in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I figured that might be the case but just wanted to confirm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise looks pretty good on first read-through Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Casliber I am looking forward to your next comments (should you have any!).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
All good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Minor comment from Hamiltonstone (Settled)

Under Collapse of the 25th Dynasty, it says "Taharqa and Tantamani had lost control of Lower Egypt, which passed under the power of Assyrian vassals..." I have two quibbles. One is the phrase "passed under the power" - I would have thought "came under the power" or "power passed to" would be more correct. But my main concern is how a lay reader is to understand the word "vassal" here. Can you please look at the WP article vassal (which says it is about a term "in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe"), and have a think about how best to explain to a person outside the field what is being said in this sentence? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

hamiltonstone Done. I wrote in a footnote: "Scholars working on this time period use the word "vassal" to designate kinglets designated by more powerful kings to reign in their stead over a region or locality. Vassals of the Assyrian emperor, such as Necho I were expected to pay tribute to the king and rally troops with the Assyrians as necessary." plus a reference using the word vassal.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
have copyedited the note, and thank you. Note to coordinator - I'm not reading full article in detail, so not seeking to support / oppose etc. just wanted that clarified! hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

When there's an unfeatured article in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call, impartial reviewers. Yes, it is that time, an article created SIXTEEN years ago in 2003 based on one of the greatest comedies of all time is finally, IMO, in a position to be recognised as one of the greatest articles of all time. Do not be afraid, the worst that will happen is cats and dogs living together, perhaps some mass hysteria, but your input will be much appreciated. And remember, if anyone asks you if you are a god, you say yes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I'm wondering about the comprehensiveness of the source coverage here. The vast majority of the article is cited to news and popular web sources, but this particular film has received extensive coverage in scholarly literature.
  • I see a number of different box office numbers in the body, but not seeing that the one in the infobox and lead is cited anywhere - am I missing it?
  • Some of the other details in the infobox and lead don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as runtime or the haunted houses
  • Wizard Entertainment is a publisher not a work. Same with AMC, Stan Wilson School, check for others
  • MSNBC, PR Newswire, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN6: the catalogue itself is the work, so should be in that parameter rather than as part of the title
  • FN12: date doesn't match source. Same with FN94, 19, check for others
  • FN16 is missing author. Same with 52, 142, check for others
  • 150, 123, check for others. Also be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, and how you are ordering Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN17 and 22 appear to be the same. Same with 88 and 89, check for others
  • FN23 title is missing italics
  • What makes Beyond the Marquee a high-quality reliable source?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • Missing full citation details for Larson 1985
  • FN49 should use pp not p. Same with 29, 30, check for others
  • FN71 is missing agency. Same with 69, 68, check for others
  • FN97 is missing page number. Same with 98, check for others
  • Billboard is a work not a publisher. Same with Custom PC, check for others
  • Filmsite.org, Film.com, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Above the Law should be piped. Same with Custom PC, check for others
  • No citations to Browne or Shay
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

Oppose pending cleanup of citations and response to point 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking the time to look this over. I'm working the references but I don't understand what you mean by point 1. There are a broad range of sources used in the article. If you mean I haven't used as many books I just prefer to use sources that people can check at will rather than sources people have to ask the References noticeboard to go look up. That's just a personal style, I want everything able to be evidenced as immediately as possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand, but that means you're going to be including in the article primarily the content that can be supported by those kind of sources, and missing out on interpretations that are not typically reflected there - for example, something like this, or this, or this, or this. I'm not saying you need to use these particular publications, but by excluding academic sources I'm not sure you can say this article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as required by WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok this is every change I've made based on your input. I believe I've addressed the errors with the existing references but please let me know if I've not implemented them in the manner you meant. As for your other issues:
  • The scholary sources, are you meaning for them to be used in a thematic analsys of the film's content? I mean I have tried to do that in the section already there but it was a struggle to find sources, which isn't aided by the genius decision to release a 2016 film with the same name. I don't mind using sources if they exist, but at the same time I'm not going to spend $150 buying access to those documents. Maybe one day being an editor will be a paid position but sadly we're not there yet. Certainly if you can suggest an alternative I'm happy to incorporate information, but I've developed the article to the best of my ability with every source I could find.
  • Spending $150 is not your only option for accessing sources - we have a resource exchange which may be able to help, or possibly your local library, where no open copy is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I will ask at the resource exchange, but to clarify, are you meaning that this information should be used for thematic analysis?
Template:Nikkimaria, I'm working through the references I've been able to get from scholary sources but is this really what you wanted including? The one about Immigrants for instance is just like...projecting stuff onto the film. I want to make sure before I start inserting this into the article because I'm not 100% on the purpose of it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned above, my argument is not that these specific sources must be used, but rather that the article should reflect the scholarly as well as the popular press on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • BeyondtheMarquee. I did debate this but I believe wholeheartedly that the content it is sourcing is genuine and factual. The text is present in the video made alongside the person being interviewed so I do not believe it to be in error, according to this, other sites/notable people do comment on the site, they seem to have a clear, informed team, and a staff structure. They are the only site I've found that contained all of this information, and I believe I found the site as it was linked to by Gizmodo, who linked from Aintitcoolnews. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've done another pass based on your feedback which you can see here. I was ordering Bibliography entries by surname. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proteus (video game)

Nominator(s): Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 exploration game Proteus. The game was central to debates around video games as art and contributed to discussions around whether walking simulators could be considered 'video games'. Well received and the recipient of many awards, I think it's high time this article became featured.

This is the fourth nomination, the previous FACs being closed either as a result of lack of interest or due to prose concerns. Since the last FAC the article has undergone fairly substantial copyediting, and I think it's time for a formal review again. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editors who participated in previous FACs (and are still active): @Damien Linnane, JimmyBlackwing, Czar, PresN, and J Milburn:. If you have time for a fresh review I'd super appreciate it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Blue Pumpkin Pie

The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception, it should be the first sentence above the commentary of the game, it may not be 100% necessary in the prose either, but that's not a negative. there are some fixes that need to be made, primarily from the Reception section. I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence. Although I do see an effort by organizing certain topics or common opinions onto their own paragraph. It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers unless they hold additional merit outside of the respected website/magazine that they are representing. Some reviews still have scores in the prose, those should be removed and be left in the VG reviews box. If these can be addressed, I might support it for featured.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Thanks for the review! Responses below:
  • The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception
The intention on scores being in the middle was to have it be chronological (the section even used to be separate by pre/post-release sub-headings). There were pre-release awards and previews, then the aggregated scores are for the full post-release reviews. If you think that's confusing then I can shuffle things around to be more standard. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence.
Could you point this out? I might be missing the sentence(s) you're referring to. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers
Reworded to remove all names except in the case of Jim Rossignol, who has his own article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some reviews still have scores in the prose
Fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
After reviewing the reception section again, it appears that the first two paragraphs are reception prior to the release of the game, while everything after is after or upon release. It can be confusing because the article doesn't clarify what the second paragraph is focused on. I read it as post-release information. It could be a good idea to separate it into post-release section and pre-release section to avoid confusion.
These are the sentences that i was talking about earlier.
Eurogamer, PC Gamer, and IGN all gave praise to the game's dynamic audio, commenting on how it accompanied them through the game, with IGN writing, "It's oddly captivating to just walk around and let [the sounds] wash over your surroundings".
It might be better to just state "Multiple reviewers gave praise to the dynamic audio." as an opening sentence for the paragraph and highlight any specific quotes from each reviewer, not just IGN. Unless somehow PC Gamer and Eurogamer have very similar and its too difficult to differentiate, then instead just separate IGN's statement.
GameSpot thought that the game had little replayability, and PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs.
Although their opinions are similar, this is trying to highlight each opinion separately in one sentence. If you want to make each statement distinct, then they should be separated.
Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies, and PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"
The same issue mentioned before.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've made it clearer that the first paragraph refers to pre-release awards, and the second paragraph directly mentions 2011/2012, in addition to the IGN article being a preview. I've also hopefully now addressed the sentences flagged above. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You're asking the reader too much to know that the second paragraph is still related to pre-release reception. The average GA and FA video game article groups reception by accolades and reviews. The current method in the article is unheard of. The average reader will assume the first paragraph is about awards and not see the connection of pre-release. Adding "in 2011/2012" doesn't help either.
The reception section shouldn't have this much afterthought involved. It should be clear and not leave readers guessing on why you made the decisions you made. The easiest solution is adding a "pre-release" and "Post-release" section. Fewer changes that way. Or the more standard method: "Critics" and "Accolades". Having a non-standard method and expecting readers to understand it is out of the question.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
After further review, GameFront is also not recognized as a credible reviewer in WP:VG/RS, so this could definitely impact the FA. If you want it to be reviewed, you should follow the procedure of WP:VG/RS talk page.
GameSpot noted that while some events and locations weren't guaranteed on each playthrough, they found that later seasons of the game began to feel familiar. PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs. GameTrailers reviewer thought that the randomly generated islands provided an opportunity to see things players may have missed the first time. Similarly, IGN's reviewer found himself replaying the game many times.
In this paragraph, it is not clear why its considered mix reception. there is no proper flow and doesn't elaborate on their opinions very well. Did GameSpot find that as a negative or a positive? How about PC Gamer's opinion? IGN replaying the game many times doesn't add to the reception. It could imply that IGN enjoyed it, but again, its best to be clear and not leave it to the imagination of the readers. I read the reviews so I know there's room to elaborate.
Pocket Gamer gave a positive review, praising the extra features present in the Vita version, while noting it had some performance issues. Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies. PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"
Once again, elaborate on the reviews and be specific on what they focused on is important for a good reception section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Blue Pumpkin Pie - I've attempted to address all your concerns, shuffling and expanding much of the reception section. Let me know what you think. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • I do not think the semi-colon is appropriate for this part "Key first conceived Proteus as an open-ended role-playing game akin to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion;" because the following part is still part of the same sentence.
  • I have a comment about this part " The game was involved in numerous discussions of video games as art, with some debating whether it could be considered a video game at all.". I have been told in the past to avoid "with..." sentence constructions like this. I personally do not have an issue with it, but I thought it was worth discussion.
  • I do not think the references in the infobox are needed, as the release dates should be mentioned and cited in the body of the article as well.
  • I am not sure if both screenshots are necessary. I do not think the positioning of the second screenshot in the "Development" section makes much sense as the visual changes are not discussed there. I have been told in the past to keep non-free media usage to a minimal so I think only one screenshot is necessary.
    • The images are freely licensed, so we shouldn't be concerned about minimal usage. I think it's worth having both images because a central part of the game is the changing seasons. I'm not sure of best practice on image positions, the current positioning was primarily a way of spacing them out. Happy to shift the 2nd around. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Apologies for that. I should have clicked on the images before I made this comment. Since they are both freely licensed, then I think it makes sense to include both of them. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would link "role-playing game" in the lead.
  • For this part "Both during development and after the game's release the developers expressed interest in allowing player-created mods of the game", should there be a comma after "the game's release"?
    • Shuffled this sentence a bit. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "Proteus was released on 30 January 2013 for Windows and OS X", I would wikilink "Windows" and "OS X".
  • For this part "and on 8 April of the same year for Linux", I would wikilink "Linux".
  • For this part "whose team added new gameplay features to the Vita edition at Sony's behest", I think it would be better to say "at Sony's request". The word "behest" makes me think more of an order or a command, but the article says that Sony requested for additional features and allowed the developmental team to create them on their own terms.
  • For this part "Some called it an anti-game, a description which was controversial.", I would consider bundling the citations together. Since the citations are only used for this sentence, it would not cause any issues with the rest of the article, and it would avoid any concerns with Wikipedia:Citation overkill, which is usually raised with the use of four or more citations for a single sentence.
    • Huh, you learn something new every day. Hadn't considered bundling citations. While I like the idea, per the help page - "If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references". If we did this it would result in duplicating citations in the References section. Do you think that trade-off is worthwhile? Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not see the references, in this case Reference 47 through 50, being used elsewhere so I do not think it would cause any issue. Could you point out where one of the references is re-used elsewhere in the text as I seem to be overlooking it? Bundling the sources is not entirely necessary. I thought it might be an interesting point to raise as part of the review. It is not a requirement, but I was just curious about your thoughts on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
        • You're totally right, I saw they were named refs and assumed they were used elsewhere. Anyway, I've shuffled the cites around (and added one) so that they more closely match the information, and now we don't have 4 in one place, so I feel fine with how things stand. Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Great work with the article. Above are some suggestions that I have for the article after doing a brief read-through. I will sit down and do a more thorough look through the article in the future. I have very fond memories of this particular game after watching a YouTuber's ASMR videos with it. It definitely helped me in a not so great period of my life. I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This should be my final comment before I support this for promotion. Thank you for your patience. The following book (1) includes a discussion on Proteus in its preface and some of its chapter. If you search for the game's name on the Google Books link, then you should be able to find and read all of the relevant sections. I was wondering if this source would be helpful to the article? The book talks more about the debate of whether this should be considered a true video game or not and delves further into some of its mechanics, like the music portions. I do not believe this source is used in the article (major apologies if I somehow I missed it) so I thought it was worth asking about in this discussion. Ian Bogost also discusses the game in the following book (2), and I think it may be helpful for the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Aoba47: Thanks for those links, I'd totally missed them. I think everything the first book describes is already included and cited. The 2nd is more interesting to me, though I struggled to figure out how best to incorporate it. I gave it a go in this edit. Thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the response. The wording could use a little more work, primarily the two verb+ing phrasing. Maybe something like "Ian Bogost proposed that Proteus was intentionally unconventional, arguing that it is "a game about being an island instead of a game about being on one"."? Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I think two points from the first source may be helpful to the article. On page 322, it mentions the "gravestones" and "idols" on the island. I think adding a brief part about that would add some necessary context to what is meant by "memorial" in the first screenshot. The same page also mentions how the island is 3D, but all of the objects are represented in 2D. I think that is also a relevant point to incorporate. The same page also talks about "8-bit wisps" coming out during the nighttime portions of the game, but that may be too minor for inclusion. Just thought that may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Incorporated your suggestions in this edit. The wisps were mentioned in an earlier version of this article, but as you suggest, were removed because they were hard to explain and relatively minor in the grand scheme of the game. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you for addressing both points. I will look through the article one last time when I get the chance just in case I missed anything, but everything looks good to me. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

....although some [responded negatively to] the game's brevity and limited replayability. - bracketed bit seems a bit cumbersome....why not just, "criticised" or "complained about"?
is it cited as an influence by anyone else? (given we're now 8 years down the track....)

Otherwise looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated the lead per the first point. The closest I came to seeing it cited as an influence is this, but that's more by the author than the developers. Sam Walton (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is the quintessential German Expressionist film, was described by Roger Ebert as the "first true horror film", and has been widely praised as revolutionary work of cinema. It has been listed as a listed as a level-5 vital article in the Art category. The article is currently a good article and has undergone a peer review. Look forward to working with you guys on any additional feedback to hopefully get it to FA status. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Das_Cabinet_des_Dr._Caligari.JPG: since this is on Commons it should include a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Holstenwall.png: in order for the URAA tag to be valid, we need to know the image's status in its country of origin. Same with File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Werner_Krauss.png and File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Conrad_Veidt.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria I'm a little unsure how to handle this. (Apologies, I should have realized the image status should have based on German copyright law, not U.S.). If I'm correctly reading German copyright law, based on #33 on this link, the term of protection is the life and 70 years after the death of the longest surviving of the authors of the image; in this case the director and cinematographer. (I don't believe the screenwriters would apply here because the copyright pertains to an image, not the script.) If that is the case, because director Robert Wiene and cinematographer Willy Hameister both died in 1938, the image is no longer protected and can be used. But 1) would you say I'm interpreting this correctly and 2) how do I express this on the image tags? — Hunter Kahn 00:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Since images hosted on English Wikipedia are only required to be free in the US, I'd suggest an easier option for those: just switch the URAA tag for a pre-1924 publication tag. You could similarly upload the lead image locally. If you want to address the matter of German copyright I'd suggest taking a look at this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Nikkimaria, I think I've addressed this now. I've uploaded the poster locally Wikipedia, rather than Commons, with a pre-1924 tag, and I've added the pre-1924 tag to each of the other images you highlighted. Please let me know if I made any mistakes or need to do anything differently... — Hunter Kahn 01:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
          • What you've got now is acceptable. I'd recommend using the tagging from File:CABINET_DES_DR_CALIGARI_01.jpg on the other images, but I'll leave that up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Can do. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

It's not my favourite film, but I've seen it. Definitely a worthy topic for a star.

  • Could I ask you to add citations for the quotes in the lead? We should really be providing sources for all quotes, even if they're sourced elsewhere in the article.
    • Agreed. Added the citations. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a picture of Caligari next to Schopenhauer would add some visual interest to the writing section? Just a thought!
    • I've added the images per your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(See the Themes section for more.)" This strikes me as self reference, which are to be avoided. Maybe {{see also}} at the top of the section would be better? Same for "(See Visual Style for more.)"
    • I think you are correct that this is an unnecessary self-reference, and I actually think putting the "See also" reference to the top of each section is not only unnecessary, but could lead to confusion. So I've simply removed the self-reference altogether... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Critics widely agree that the discovery of the screenplay strongly undermines Kracauer's theory" Two things; first, do your cited sources specifically say that there's wide agreement on this? Second, perhaps the fact that the theory has been undermined belongs in the lead?
    • Yes, it does specifically state it in that way. And I've revised the lede to reflect this; let me know if you think the new wording works. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders (Die Spinnen)" Why translate one title but not the other? Also, I think you link The Spiders above.
    • I've changed the title accordingly, and removed the second wikilink. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The camera does not play a large part in Caligari, and is used primarily to show the sets.[28][80] The cinematography tends to alternate only between medium shots at straight-on angles and abrupt close-ups to create a sense of shock, but with few long shots or panning movement." I'm struggling with these lines. Could they be revisited?
    • I've tried revising; let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Stopping there for a time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments so far! — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Lotte Eisner, author of The Haunted Screen, writes that objects in the film appear as if they are coming alive and "seem to vibrate with an extraordinary spirituality".[91] Likewise, Expressionismus und Film writer Rudolf Kurtz wrote" Just a thought: I'd be more interested to know their expertise than the title of their books. "Film critic", "film historian", something like that. I note that Eisner's already been mentioned.
  • "As German film professor Anton Kaes wrote" When you say "as", you're editorialising a little - you're saying "Kaes is right to say that". This may run up against NPOV.
  • "and in the case of the film's characters represents an emotional response to the terror of society that Dr. Caligari and Cesare represent" Tricky - this could perhaps be massaged a little.
  • "a "cartoon and (a) reproduction of designs rather than from what actually took place on stage"" If the "(a)" is the addition of you or another author, you should use square brackets.
  • What does "iris-in" mean?
  • "(see the Themes section for more)" Another self-reference to be removed, perhaps?
  • "(See Writing for more.)" Ditto.

Stopping again - really interesting stuff. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Good choice of FAC material as an important film in the history of cinema - kudos for taking it on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Should Bundesfilmarchiv be italicised as it is a foreign word?
  • Do we have rule that on subsequent mentions it should be "Dr Caligari" or "Caligari" as both are in the Plot section...?

Hassium

Nominator(s): Double sharp, R8R 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We return with another superheavy element exposé after nihonium (me) and dubnium (R8R) to provide some retrospectives while the current march to the end of the periodic table has stalled! ^_^ After a copyedit by Baffle gab1978, I believe we're ready now! Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Some paragraphs end with unsourced statements. I'd fix these first. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Fixed all. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bohrium_hassium_meitnerium_ceremony.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've expanded the FUR; is my added text OK? Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Better, but could still be improved. The last sentence of "purpose" really belongs under "replaceable", with additional commentary about you not having found a free version and what you've done to try. Also, "portion used" would benefit from a brief explanation of why it's necessary to use the whole thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I have added the explanation. A free version seems possible only if the GSI donates the image; I admit I have not tried to contact them to ask if it would be possible (would be useful for the picture at Darmstadtium too, come to think of it). Should we try? Or is the picture not quite needed because it refers to simply a single-sentence statement that there was a naming ceremony held before IUPAC made its first decision on the names? (Pinging co-nom R8R as well.) Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
My supposition is that while it would most certainly be nice, that's not strictly required. It seems like there is no existing picture that fulfills the purpose right now (this picture has been around for many years now for a good reason), and if I recall correctly, this has to do with strict copyright law in Germany, which does not automatically give away media freely created by state organizations and public officials like in the U.S. I certainly believe that the picture is highly relevant here, which justifies the fair use claim. This is an event which must not have had many attendances (for instance, a similar ceremony for celebrating final recognition of element 118 does not even have photos from the hosting organization; in fact, their own website has pictures labeled "Photos are courtesy of the Press Service of the RF Ministry of Education and Science," which says a lot about how many photos were taken there), so it is highly unlikely someone has taken a photo. There was no reason whatsoever to make the event accessible for outsiders. Over the Internet, I've found a few similar photos, but all come from GSI.
To sum up, there is no photo from alternative source of origin that I could find over the Internet, and any such source is highly unlikely to exist in the first place. I hope this satisfies the requirements.--R8R (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Might be a dumb question but why haven't we made the isotopes with a long life yet (given the article discusses predicted isontopes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Casliber: Well, we don't know what they are. The article discusses predictions indeed, but they're a bit speculative, and those long-lived isomers may not actually exist. As for the missing isotopes – the ones in the middle of the list will probably require finding new alpha-decay branches in predominantly spontaneously fissioning isotopes. The ones beyond the end will need a sure observation of an even-Z nucleus with a higher neutron excess than the current record-holders of 293Lv and its daughters. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we source or explain this somehow? It is interesting that there are predicted isotopes with such a lengthy halflife Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this comment. I always appreciate it when people write a down-to-earth comment because it's these things that people are likely to take away from an article that are often overlooked.
I'd formulate it like this: As the atomic number increases, the amount of neutrons per proton in the most stable nuclei grows, and this trend is likely to continue into the superheavy elements. Currently, all superheavy elements are created by bombarding one lighter element with another, and both have lower neutron--proton ratios than the planned most stable isotope, hence the difficulty of synthesizing the most stable isotopes. Hassium can be synthesized either directly or from decay of heavier elements. Those heavier elements have a little higher ratios of both starting nuclei, which means a little higher total neutron excess, which will be carried over after the consecutive alpha decays that will bring us to hassium. This means that we are likely to get heavier isotopes from alpha decay, given that those original nuclei and their decay path will continue to hassium and an intermediate nucleus will not fission instead. For aforementioned reasons, these heavier isotopes that are within our reach are still lighter than the most stable ones. The beta-stability line (in our case, the beta-stable isotopes) has not been approached, either.
This is close to what I'd want to have. I'll add that soon enough, or maybe Double sharp will beat me to it.--R8R (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@R8R and Double sharp: This is indeed the general trend predicting the region where one might likely find the most stable isotopes, but it is practically impossible to give a set of likely candidates for longest-lived. It is very important to note the inconsistent predictions given in different models, as well as predictions of a region of quickly fissioning nuclei near the beta-stability line. For example, ref Zagrebaev 2013 (#37) shows the dominance of fission in the Z = 108 region below the island of stability, and this (not cited) shows some β-stable nuclides with predicted millisecond half-lives and the longest half-life of a few days for 283Hs. Additionally, some of the heavier isotopes such as 292Hs are predicted to have 184 neutrons (a magic number) in some publications, though the role of β decay is also not agreed upon. This is superficially illustrated in part in a paragraph I initially contributed months ago pertaining to natural occurrence.
I'll try to write more tomorrow or Wednesday and recheck some sources by then. I'd also say that a detailed description is not necessary as long as we highlight the absence of consensus for which isotopes are longest-lived and estimates of the longest half-life. It's important, though, to keep these questions in mind (questions like these motivate me to do more research). ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

(Incomplete)

I've started this review, but there are major issues which need attending to before I can proceed much further. I don't think there's a problem with the sources themselves, which appear to be appropriately scholarly and in accordance with the FA quality criteria. My concerns have to do, mainly, with verification and formatting.

  • Unreferenced notes: the notes (a) to (d) need generally better referencing. For example, note (a) is attached to the statement "...claimed to have discovered element 108—specifically the 267Hs isotope, which supposedly had a half-life of 400 to 500 million years—in natural molybdenite and suggested the provisional name sergenium (symbol Sg);" Note (a) only refers to the use of the symbol Sg, not to the substance of the ststement.
    • This one should be referenced by the next cite [25], as I have clarified (R8R should be able to confirm it, as I don't speak Russian). Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note (b) tells us that, in the table, "the most recently published values are listed", but doesn't tell us by whom, or when, they were published.
What do you exactly want cited for note a? It is a suggestion from 1970, as the date of ref 25 will tell, and the name "seaborgium" only appeared at all in the 1990s. I doubt there's any source that mentions both at all, but comparing dates is fairly trivial. I don't quite understand the precise problem with notes b through d. In each case (notes c and d) and for all cases collectively (note b), the statements are supplemented by the references in the table. There's a Ref column in there and I'm failing to see how it is not enough. Am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the list of references:
  • Ref 2: There are 26 citations to this book source, but no page references provided. In the absence of an online link, page refs are essential for verification.
  • Ref 3: The link goes to an abstract, and no page refs are given for the citations to the article
  • Ref 4: The page range needs proper formatting, per MoS, thus "pp. 215–217"
  • Ref 5: range given is 56 pages. Too wide for verification purposes
Condensed the range.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 6: This is returning a 404 error – "File or Directory not found". Please check the link
Thank you, the link has been rescued.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 13: Page ref. required.
  • Ref 21: Lacks publisher details; looks like someone's private blog
Added.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 24: A more precise page ref would be helpful
Well, this whole article, its main thesis is the source of the claim, not just a part of article, so the present range seems appropriate, doesn't it?--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 29: The page range given, "1250013–1–1250013–20", is pretty well indecipherable for verification purposes.
  • Ref 30: Page range R165–R242 (77 pages) too wide for verification
Done.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 31: As for 29 above, indecipherable range
  • Ref 32: As for 31
    • These (29, 31, and 32) are because the page numbers in the sources already have hyphens/dashes in them: the first one has pages numbered from 1250013–1 through 1250013–20. Is there a better way to write down a specific page range in this confusing-looking situation? Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      And it seems like this cannot be helped, either: I tried changing the first and last dashes to hyphens, but this had no effect on how the range is displayed.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I find that it displays okay when an em dash (—) separates the pages. Ref 32 already was formatted this way; I tweaked refs 29 and 31. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 33: p. range too wide.

That's just the first column of references looked at. As you can see, the main issue is with page references, which are often too wide, unclear or, in some cases, non-existent. These are all verification concerns. I'll leave it with you for the present, and I'll look again when you've had a chance to deal with these, and perhaps to apply the same principles to the second column. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. We'll improve on it.--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


Older nominations

Battle of Azaz (1030)

Nominator(s): Constantine 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs of the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo. Coming shortly after a period when Byzantine military might was at its highest under Basil II, the Byzantine army, under a vainglorious emperor, suffered a humiliating, although in the end not decisive, defeat. The article was co-developed by myself and Al Ameer son over the past few years, has passed GA and ACR, and is as complete as we can get it. Constantine 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

This is a splendid article and I expect to be supporting its elevation to FA, but first I have a few minor suggestions about the prose.

  • Lead
    • First sentence: you say here that the Byzantine army was led by the emperor "in person" but just that the opposing forces were "under" Emir Shibl al-Dawla Nasr. I see from the main text that the latter too led his troops in person, but that isn't altogether clear in the lead as it is currently phrased.
      • Good point. Hopefully fixed now.
    • I wondered at first what the strange r characters were before the dates: the pop-up "reign" is clever, but a little distracting, and I think unnecessary. If it is the usual form for such things, fine, but is it needed four times during the article?
      • Hmmm, you are the first one to complain about the reign template. I don't know if it is the "usual form", but generally I find providing the reader with regnal dates useful, as it gives a clue as to the interactions between the rulers and the position of the events described in their reign.
Interrupting comment: I think Tim Riley was referring to the tooltip underneath each instance of r. You can add "lk=none" to disable the tooltip after the first instance, which is a generally accepted practice (similar to how wikilinks are only included on first instance). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that is sensible, thanks. Done
    • Second para: "the emperor" appears twice where a plain pronoun might move the text along more briskly with no loss of precision.
      • Done.
  • Background
    • I think I can guess what "confessional clashes" means, but it isn't a familiar phrase and could do with a note of explanation or else rephrasing in plain words.
      • Rephrased.
    • "According to medieval Arabic chroniclers Yahya of Antioch ... and Ibn al-Adim" – the tabloidese false title here could be avoided by the insertion of "the" before "medieval".
      • Fixed.
    • "that all of the above versions" – perhaps lose the unnecessary "of"?
      • Fixed.
    • "whom Romanos likely sought" – unexpected Americanism in a BrE article. The Guardian's style guide sums it up neatly: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as 'they will likely win the game' sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
      • Fixed. I blame the dominance of US-style English online and in media.
    • "might wrest the city from them due to their youthfulness" – another point of BrE usage. In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
      • Fixed.
    • "Zakkar claims the latter figure" – I'd be cautious with "claim": it can be read as implying that you think the assertion is false or in bad faith. Something more neutral such as "in Zakkar's view" might be safer. Similarly with Psellos, later.
      • Good point. Fixed.
  • Battle
    • "to reconnoiter the area." – the OED admits "reconnoiter", but favours "reconnoitre", as do I, but to each his own.
      • Let's go with the OED.
    • Second para – I think it would be better to decide whether "army" is singular or plural and stick to one or the other. At present we have "the army departed its camp" but "demoralized the Byzantine army and induced panic in their ranks".
      • Fixed.
    • "who was nearly captured himself" – not sure the "himself" is wanted here.
      • Fixed.
  • Aftermath
    • "an annual tribute of 500,000 dirhams" – I realise it is terribly difficult to give even faintly approximate modern equivalents of ancient currencies, but is it possible to put 500,000 dirhams into context as, e.g. x per cent of the imperial income or some such? Quite understand if not, but it would be helpful if possible.
      • Usually I'm the one insisting on this with sums of money, so I understand. Unfortunately here it is rather complicated, as the Musim and Byzantine coins were similar but not identical in weight, and as the Muslim rate of exchange between silver and gold coins (from a canonical 1:10, it more usually ranged from 1:14 up to 1:20) was different to the Byzantine one (1:12). My co-author Al Ameer son has added an approximate value in dinars, but the rate (1:60) is clearly wrong, especially if it is meant to echo the Treaty of Safar, which used the plausible 1:16 rate of exchange. Even if we provide a rough analogy in gold dinars by that value (31,250) and ignore for a moment that the dinar was usually a little lighter than the Byzantine nomisma, unfortunately there is no basis for even a half-reliable estimate on the Byzantine budget in the 11th century. I've seen figures from 3 million to 6 million gold coins, but even there the authors acknowledge that this is extrapolation and speculation from the far better attested Abbasid state budget. Perhaps the most useful figure I've found is that 1-2 dirhams per day were the salary of a skilled worker or soldier in the 9th century during the Abbasid heyday, although how far this is applicable to a border emirate in 1030 is open to question, given the fluctuations in silver coinage availability affecting the post-imperial Muslim states. I don't know how to proceed here, I would like to avoid a lengthy explanation. What do you think would work best?
        • I hardly dare express a view, so little do I know of the period. If you think any of the above would be helpful to readers – perhaps as an explanatory footnote – that would be excellent, but having raised the point I really feel I should leave it to your best judgment. Tim riley talk 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
          • The figure I cited could very well be a typo in Zakkar's translation of Yahya of Antioch's work, with "60" (sitīn in Arabic) being mistaken for 16 (sitta'ash). It wouldn't be the first translation typo that I've spotted in the same source. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a long list of moans, but in fact I greatly enjoyed reading the article. I knew nothing of this period of history and learnt a lot. – Tim riley talk 13:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the kind words, and don't worry, I appreciate a thorough review. I've tried to fix/answer the points you raised above. Please have a look. Any further comments and suggestions, even regardless of FA requirements, would be welcome. Constantine 18:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support. As noted, I am very far from expert about the subject, but so far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced (I note HaEr48's points below, but I do not feel myself competent to express a view) and well and widely referenced. The article is well illustrated and an excellent read, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

Placeholder, will wait until you've addressed Tim's points before I stick my oar in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Great job with this, although I know nothing of this period, it reads well and I could only find a few minor things:

  • battle of al-Uqhuwanah→Battle of al-Uqhuwanah and redlink?
  • Done, in hopeful expectation...
  • suggest "Banu Kilab tribe"
  • Good point, done
  • suggest linking tribute and vassal
  • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, done. Anything else? Constantine 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

This is an excellent, well-written and well-researched article. The background section gives adequate information to situate a new reader on the topic, and major events are covered in prelude and battle. It is written in an accessible manner and I enjoy reading it. I have some small comments:

  • Infobox "Result" say "Arab victory", is there any reason that we don't say more the specific "Mirdasid victory" or "Aleppine victory"? In the infobox, none of the "belligerents" say "Arab". It may not be obvious to the uninitiated, and in any case it's good to be specific.
    • Done.
  • "presence in Romanos's entourage of Mansur ibn Lu'lu', the former ruler of Aleppo": is Mansur from the same dynasty, or is he the Mirdasid's former enemy, or ?
    • Clarified.
  • Is it possible to discuss more on the Mirdasid's side of the story, e.g. their planning, motivation, or notable events that happened during the preparation or the battle? We get a lot of this regarding the Byzantines, e.g. how the emperor was planning the campaign, his motivations, how the general advised him, some little details such as the army going hungry and disciplines breaking down, siege engines having to be burned, and so on. I know it's probably impossible to achieve complete balance if the sources are not equally complete, but seeing that you are already several Arab historians here, I wonder if we have anything more?
Access to these primary sources is limited but sufficient info from them is found in Zakkar's Emirate of Aleppo and Bianquis' EI2 entry on the Mirdasids. There's info about the Mirdasids' preparations in the third paragraph of the Prelude section and about Arab troop numbers in the fourth paragraph. More information has since been added about the strength and tactics/mode of operations of the Banu Kilab cavalry in Background and Prelude. The aftermath from the Arabs' side has been slightly expanded as well. As for their motivations, the article demonstrates they sought to avoid hostilities and only confronted the imperial army to defend their realm. Other than what's currently in the article, there's not much more available about the Arab side. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As Al Ameer wrote, unfortunately the battle is known chiefly from the Byzantine sources. What we could find about the Arab side, has been added; to Al Ameer especially goes the credit here.
  • I don't know if it's just me, but I feel the lead section a bit dominated by the Byzantines' point of view. The second para is almost totally written from the Byzantines' view, and more than half of the third para too. Could we balance it somehow?
    • As stated above, that rather reflects the situation of the sources, which allows us an insight into Romanos' mind (and even multiple variants thereof), whereas the Mirdasids are almost faceless. I've rewritten the lede somewhat, however, in view of your comments and some recent additions by Al Ameer. Please have a look.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions/comments. I've tried to address them, please have a look. Constantine 16:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Haha, "almost faceless" is the right word. But I understand your explanation about it. I thought because I'm already seeing some Arab chroniclers attributed in the article, we could have more. I think what you and Al Ameer added made it less faceless, so thank you. I'll read the article one more time and will add here if I have more comments. HaEr48 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately AFAIK the later Arab chroniclers don't go into so much detail as Psellos, who after all was a contemporary, a senior courtier, and an inveterate gossip to boot...
I suggest adding one more sentence to the first para of lead to summarise the battle and result, something like "The Mirdasids defeated the much larger Byzantine army and took great booty, even though they were eventually unable to capitalise on the victory". I think it's fair for the first para to be a very high-level summary and only the next para starts chronologically. HaEr48 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this, and thank you for your responses. Great work, Cplakidas and Al Ameer son. HaEr48 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and input, HaEr48. Constantine 17:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mr rnddude

I still owe a couple FA reviews, and I've been eye-ing this article up for one of those.

  • Lede
  • ... and attempts to break out were defeated - This conflicts with the article proper. You only mention one attack by the Byzantines in the article – The patrikios Constantine Dalassenos then led an attack against the Arabs, but was defeated and fled back to the camp – and this doesn't appear to be a break out, as described in the lede, but more an attempted assault.
  • Good catch, fixed
  • ... the disordered Byzantines, and the ensuing engagement resulted in a rout for the Byzantines - You can cut the duplication of "Byzantines" and tighten the prose by rephrasing to something like ... the disordered Byzantines, who routed in the ensuing engagement.
  • Rewritten and tightened
  • Aftermath
  • In the meantime, ... - you can spare a couple words by using meanwhile here. Just a nitpick.
  • Done
  • The failure by the Romanos ... - stray "the", I suspect this originally read "by the Byzantines".
  • Done
  • ... was followed soon after by ... - is "soon after" necessary here? It seems superfluous.
  • Indeed. Removed
  • General
  • You have a mixture of " s' " and " s's " in the article. Use either, but be consistent.
  • Hmmm, I can only find instances of " s' " in the plural, which is as it should be.

That's all I picked up on, on first read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude, thanks a lot, the suggestions above have been implemented. Anything else? How is the comprehensibility etc. of the article? Constantine 15:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've re-read the article. I had no issue with comprehending the subject matter, beyond the occasional Greek term, but these have all been linked. I didn't notice anything else, so I'm switching to support. It's an excellent, if brief, article. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • The source of "The Arabs drive the Byzantines to flight at Azazion.jpg" links to a 492 page document. Could you specify the page please.
  • Likewise "Emperor Romanos III encamps at Azazion.jpg".
  • Optional: consider alt text for the location map, if only to be consistent with the other images.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, done. Constantine 16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The Emirate of Aleppo had been a Byzantine vassal Link the Emirate of Aleppo.
    • Relinked
  • I see two howevers I think one is good enough because it's really small for two howevers (little too small in my opinion).
    • Both howevers are rather unnecessary, so removed.
  • Although his generals urged him to avoid action Remove the extra space between "urged" and "him".
    • Done, although this is not actually visible to the reader, only in Wikitext
  • leading in person the campaign against Aleppo --> "leading in-person the campaign against Aleppo"
    • I am not sure that is correct... As a non-native speaker, I may be wrong, but I've never seen this usage before, in contrast to "in person".
  • May I ask you why the source of Zakkar uses a Google Books's URL? By WP:GBOOKS we only should add a Google Books's URL to a book who gives us a preview.
    • Don't know, this was added by Al Ameer son in 2016. It often happens that GBooks links stop working or change over time, so that a link that gave a preview no gives only snippets or nothing. Still, I think that a link is useful to have, even for snippets.
    • PS, I just now notice that WP:GBOOKS is about linking to individual pages, which is definitely not the case here. Constantine 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change the "~20,000" in the infobox into "c. 20,000".
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, thanks for taking the time. I've answered your points. Cheers, Constantine 12:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: Checked, no issues found
  • Quality/reliability: no issues. All sources appear to meet the standard required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Apororhynchus

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is my first ever featured article nomination, so if it not up to standard I'm happy to withdraw quickly. I conducted a little experiment to see if I could research and expand the article for the first animal listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala, Archiacanthocephala, Apororhynchida, Apororhynchidae, Apororhynchus). I've now done my very best and appear to have gathered all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). Yes, I am claiming comprehensiveness (to the best of my knowledge) despite the relatively few lines for each species. Prove me wrong! I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which improved the article considerably. Fun fact: I'm also the creator of this article 10 (!) years ago. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

Looks pretty good to me, though I know nothing at all about the subject. The article will certainly have benefited from having the Chiswick Chap treatment, and all I can find to quibble about at a first read-through are the inconsistent –ise/–ize endings for "parasitise/parasitize". I'll re-read and look in again later. Tim riley talk 13:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) (Incidentally, and not that it matters perhaps, is the date of 31 July 2019, above, the right one? Tim riley talk 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC))

Thanks! And yes Chiswick Chap's review was fantastic. And almost nobody on earth knows much about this topic (including myself!), I think I've incorporated every article that exists and is available on google scholar. "ize" has been changed, and date fixed. Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
After second perusal happy to support. The co-ordinator should note my total ignorance on the subject, but the article strikes me as comprehensive, well researched and referenced, suitably illustrated and a surprisingly good read. Meets the FA criteria so far as this layman is any judge. Tim riley talk 17:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Verifiability
  • Ref 8: rather a wide page range (273–305 = 33 pages). Can the citation be more specific?
Yep, found the url as well.  Done
  • Note (b) appears to be only partly referenced
Oops. Fixed now. Very bizarre reference but I think I did it accurately. Done
  • Links to sources checked and working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 13: give language  Done
  • Ref 15: Publisher - the book lists about 16! Maybe choose one and add "and others"?
Used your suggestion, but also happy to type out all 16!  Done
  • Ref 22: Language?  Done
  • Quality and reliability: No issues - sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Apororhynchus_hemignathi.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death
  • I added the tag with the death year of 1927. I think I did this correctly, this is my first featured article nomination.
  • What's the source for the latitudes and longitudes in the distribution map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Each sample specimen (only 1 or 2 from each species exist) have a location attached. The citation of each location is included in the respective paragraph. I searched that location on wikipedia and used the latitude and longitudes to create the map. Is there a better way of doing this?
  • I'm not sure what alternative to suggest, but there are problems with this approach. For example, one sample was found in Hungary - this is a good-sized country, but your dot for that sample specifies particular minutes which don't appear to be supported by any source. If we don't know where in Hungary the sample was found, this level of precision is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if it is actually ok to simply reduce the precision in the data, the map itself won't change at all since the dot covering Hungary is larger than the country itself! So graphically there is no issue with precision, just in the underlying data.
Thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....

  • It'd be good to add that they are tiny or microscopic in the lead.  Done
  • Link cloaca in lead.  Done
  • The section marked Genus is more properly about the description/anatomy and should be called such. It does need a section on this anyway.  Done
  • There seems to be a lack of information on biology - the hosts section is very small. Do birds suffer and get ill hosting these things? Do we know? Does anyone speculate yea or nay?
  • A great question, and as far as I can tell there is no description of the effect on the birds, apart from the possible age at infection (which I included in the final paragraph) for one species only. The sources of information on any of these species is extremely scant.
  • Yeah a tricky one. Even ay source that says "the effects of infection are unknown" would be valuable here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I would be happy to write that, but as of yet have no source which claims that. Hmmm.... Ok I found one reference! It only applies to one species, but it's likely it's generalizable. Added to host section.  Done
  • Has anyone done any cladistics or DNA analysis on the group and its closest relatives?
  • I very much agree with the addition of this information (it was also brought up by Chiswick Chap in the GA review). But according to this recent paper [2] "insufficiency of morphological data seems also to explain why the taxon has not been included in phylogenetic analyses so far" so we are out of luck there apparently. This paper [[3]] claims to have molecular sequences for some related species, but I can find nothing on this genus or it's place in the larger picture.
  • Do you think it worthwhile to include this information in the article? "No phylogenetic analysis have been completed on this genus."
If a source says it, then yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep found the source that says that very thing. I added it to a new paragraph which I normally wouldn't do for a single sentence but it's not related to the other two.  Done
Great - the last sentence of the paper adds something about the anatomy and speculating on where the family lies in the Acanthocephala. It would be good to add something about this as it is about where these critters are likely to lie in the Acanthocephala family tree..fulltext at here..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that full text article you've given me allowed me to significantly expand the first paragraph of "description". It was a great find, thank you! I think I've incorporated all relevant information, and I'm just a bit weary of readability and closeness to the source material. I tried to summarize and reword, however I'm not sure how to approach list of anatomical terms any other way besides copying the list. What do you think Cas Liber? Is it an improvement? Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is very difficult as one cannot sacrifice accuracy. There are some similar sets of words but I can't think of alternatives. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall the article seems a bit on the slim side but can imagine this might reflect the meagreness of knowledge about the subject. Still would be good to confirm/rule out above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for the review! All changes I could make have been completed. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I found the last two points, thanks again for the review. I'm happy to continue to improve the article in any way. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I think I am in tentative support territory in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review, and digging up that paper. The article is much better now. Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

St. Croix macaw

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about an extinct macaw only known from a few bones, hence a fairly short article. The article has a chequered nomination history, and was originally brought to GA by a now retired user, who I recently asked "permission" to improve it further for FAC, which was granted. The article has been expanded and rewritten considerably from the GA version (the previous version can be seen here[4]), though some text under description (and the images there) is basically retained from the GA version. I had a lot of relevant sources lying around from writing about other extinct macaws, so I thought it was about time this one got the treatment. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Saint-Croix-Macaw-Distribution.png: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
Added. All that's known is that it was found on the islands shown. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Parrot_Skeleton_Lydekker_with_Saint_Croix_Macaw_bones_colored_in.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Added; though Lydekker was possibly not the artist, no artist is credited, but he is the author of the book. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

I had a look at this for GoCE and there was some interaction on the talk page, so hopefully there won't be much left to comment on.

  • "were imported or native species" Optional: → 'were native or imported species'.
Makes sense, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Its bones are intermediate in size between those of smaller and larger macaws" I know that we have already discussed this, but could you clarify how this statement, which does not, it seems to me, increase the knowledge of a reader, would not be improved by being replaced by 'Its bones are intermediate in size between those of the two main groups of extant macaws'. This does not, it seems to me, contradict the source.
How about this, which should be more specific: "Extant macaws can generally be grouped in either large or small size clusters, yet the bones of the St. Croix macaw are intermediate in size between the two". FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Spot on. Just what needs to be said.
  • It doesn't seem reasonable to present the reader with "Pomarrosa phase" without definition or explanation. Even more so as the only use of it I can find in the literature - I am open to correction - is in a single paper, dealing with this extinct species. Personally I would delete it and write something in English, but as a minimum it needs explaining.
It seems to have been discussed in this thesis:[5] But since it isn't free online, and it isn't that important, I've rewritten the text so it isn't named. Now it says "found in a kitchen midden deposit which has been dated to around 300 AD." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why the comment in Nicholls (p 263) "early reports suggest that many species still existed in large numbers at first contact" doesn't make the cut?
Doesn't really apply to this species, as it is not known from any reports, and may have died out before European contact (it is true for the Lesser Antillean macaw, tough, where it is discussed). FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The four cites to Wiley are each to a 32 page range. This makes it difficult to check them. Would it be possible to narrow this down in each case?
Broke it up as "125–128, 230–132, 137–145, 149–151" (a style I have been told before was ok), better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
An entirely acceptable style. Still 18 pages for a single cite though. Before I dive into the text, are you quite sure that all 18 pages are needed to support each of the four statements linked to?
Yeah, the thing is, much of the text here summarises several pages in few words within single sentences. For example, the following sentences cover ground that the paper takes many pages to cover in detail: "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets". That alone covers several chapters where the source examines each of these issues. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Native Caribbeans hunted parrots and held them captive" Why refer to parrots when the same source refers to Native Caribbeans hunting and capturing macaws? (pp 137-138)
Changed, macaws are parrots, but I see your point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Apologies; trying to be too succinct. Makes a little more sense for your "typical" reader now, I think.

Some quick first thoughts. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, should now be answered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that it took me so long to come back to you on this. A couple of comments above. Having just read through for probably the fifth time I can't find any additional quibbles. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm used to waiting for months with articles like this, so that certainly didn't seem long. And thanks for the coming source review! FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to offer some comments. If it's of any interest, I have a biology FAC seeking reviewers at the moment. Don't feel obliged to join in, though.

Thanks, didn't know there was another biology article up, I just took on Crusades, which is a bit of a whopper, so Ill try to have a look when I'm done with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Condyle" is undefined/unlinked jargon
Was linked and explained at the last mention of the word for some reason, now moved to first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation needed for "trochlea".
No article for this particular kind, so removed link and added "(a grooved structure where bones join)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "while the more robust shaft of the femur is consistent with the condition in Ara but dissimilar to Anodorhynchus." You've lost me, sorry. Condition?
Changed to "is similar to that of Ara". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the attachment of [pronator brevis (one of the two pronation muscles in the wing) on the humerus is placed farther upwards." What's going on with the brackets?
Was a partly removed duplink, now removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that we have no idea of the colour, but do we have an indication of the total size?
Isn't stated specifically in any of the sources, unfortunately. We can of course extrapolate from the sizes of the other species it was said to be close to in certain measurements, but that would be OR here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what jumps out at me. Please double-check my edits. Tough topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Added some replies, tough topic, but luckily very few historical sources to worry about (compared to other extinct birds). FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I have ended up looking so deeply into the cites and sources that there will be very little extra needed for the full source review. So I will do it formally once I have completed my review above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See initial comments in my "normal" review above.

  • The titles of cites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 should be in tiytle case.
You mean capitalised titles? Isn't that only for books (from my past FAC experience)? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, rereading the MoS I can see how it could be interpreted that way. (It probably needs clarifying.) Fair enough.
  • As mentioned above, I have serious qualms regarding the large page ranges in many of the cites. I do understand that on occasion this may be necessary. However, looking at specifics:
  1. Cite 5: Olson is used to source "In 1983, he indicated that if the macaw had indeed been transported, the specific name would be a misnomer." This is supported by "Given the fact that there was a lively trade in macaws between Indians in tropical Mexico and those in the desert southwest, it seems probable that trade in macaws would have been carried on in the West Indies as well, so that Ara autocthones may well not have been autochthonous to St. Croix at all." in the source. I fail to see why more than the single page which this is on is cited.
Furthermore, seems I haven't even given a page range for it, so either way it needs fixing... I'll just await your response to my comment below to see what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets. Since they are known from kitchen midden deposits, the macaws from Puerto Rico and St. Croix were evidently also used for subsistence. " has "Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets" supported by Nicols - fine. You offer 18 pages(!) of Wiley & Kirwan to cover the other two sentences. On the last two of these is "Extinction of West Indian macaws.— ... the combination of environmental changes and human-related pressures most certainly sealed the fate of all Antillean macaws. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect; although such persecution had been underway for some two millennia, the arrival of Europeans with their advanced guns must have vastly increased the efficiency with which macaws could be killed, thereby accelerating population declines ... The effects of other factors, including hurricanes and disease, are less easily predicted, but nonetheless potentially contributed to declines and extinctions." I am unsure why any other pages are cited, and some, eg 125–128, 230–132, seem irrelevant as support for the material.
I have removed 125-126. As for 230, that was a typo for 130, but 130 is exactly about this bird? But I have cut out page 131 and 132 from the range. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. To support "In 1978, the ornithologist Storrs L. Olson (using the spelling autochthones) agreed that the bone belonged to a macaw not assignable to any known species, but noted it may not have been native to St. Croix, since indigenous Caribbeans are known to have kept and traded macaws over long distances." you offer all 19 pages of Olson & Gill. But all that is needed is " The bone is indeed that of a macaw (although from an immature individual) and does not appear to be referable to any known species. However, since Indians elsewhere are known to have kept and traded live macaws, often transporting them long distances, the actual provenance of the species Ara autochthones may be subject to doubt." Most of the rest concerns itself with material having little to do with macaws of any species, much less the sentence it is offered in support of.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I could go on. Could you please check all of the longer citations to see if they could not be amended to only refer to the two or three sentences which actually directly support the material in your article which they refer to. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, before I do that, there has been discussions about this issue before; whether journal article page ranges should be broken down as books are, or if their entire page ranges should be given, as is de facto the norm, from what I can tell. Some seem to be for it, some against. Generally my impression is that it is mainly required for very long journal articles (30+ pages), and I can dig up some old FAC discussions that concluded that if we want to look at some precedents. Not that I don't see the merits of your suggestions, I'm just wondering where to "draw the line" for page range lengths. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Well WP:VERIFY says "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page ... " Personally I am what you might consider the stricter end, although I had considered myself, and been considered, pretty relaxed prior to checking this article. Basically I don't want a cite to direct me to any pages which are not necessary to support the statement they are attached to. So with Wiley & Kirwan, while all you need IMO is the section I quote I am not going to get worked up if you also cite 137–145 giving lots more detail, but I am going to come back asking for justification if you include 125–128, 230–132. I would be very open to an explanation, but if it is simply deep background, then I don't think that it meets WP:VERIFY. Hopefully this is clear and makes sense; let me know if not.
I am aware that off-Wiki there are other conventions, and that there have been attempts to import some of them into Wikipedia, but WP:VERIFY seems clear to me. All of that said, from the spot checking I have done it is clear that your sources do support your text, and I have no point nor principle to prove. Make verification a bit less time consuming and I'll be happy. (Just for comparison, in my recent FAC Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you generously assessed, for Lambert's 12 page paper I used six separate cites; and Wagner's encyclopedia entry, which is split over two pages, gets two separate cites. Purely for info, I will not be expecting that here.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll have a look soon, I just wonder if you'd want this done for all journal sources, or just the very long ones. As for the (on-Wiki) discussions I was referring to, here is one:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I had not seen that particular one, but my view is that editors can chatter, or even agree, as they wish, but unless it results in a change to the MoS, or at least a positive RfC, it is just chatter. (Note that I am not saying that I disagree with it, only that I don't believe that it meets the MoS.) I don't wish to be hard on you, I realise that you have put a lot of work into the citations in good faith, so do the longer ones, ping me, and I'll have another look. (But wading through 30 pages of Wiley & Kirwan to find three sentences right at the end 'did my head in' and is in my opinion an unreasonable burden on a reader. In addition to the MoS issues.) I note in passing that Template:Cite journal shows that there is parameter for "pages", to give the page range of an article within a journal, and another for "page" described as "The number of a single page in the source that supports the content". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing but respect for your judgment, so no problem, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made changes according to the three points above, as well as shortened some other ranges, Gog the Mild. I wanted to shorten the Wing 1989 range, but I only have access to a newer edition of the book where her chapter is at another page range, so I don't know exactly where the relevant page is in the original. And the reason why I need to cite the original edition of the book is that the later response to Wing's statement is found in the same 2001 second edition of the book, but is written as a response to the 1989 edition. So it's a bit complicated... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That all seems fine, thanks. And thank you for the explanation.

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have done a fair bit of spot checking, and the sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

  • ...meaning native, aborigine, or indigene - "indigene" is an unusual word. I'd remove as the first two give the meaning enough
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Though fossils of the parrot genera Amazona and Aratinga have been found in pre-human sites on Puerto Rico, none belonging to macaws have been found. - presumably second "have" should be "had" as this sentence predates the current discovery
By current discovery, do you mean of the St. Croix macaw? It was not found in pre-human sites (which would indicate it was native), but only in kitchen middens (which makes it unclear if it was native). Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment... I added "none such" in front of "belonging to macaws" to make it clear it is in relation to the other "pre-human" remains... FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
My bad - I misread the statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is likely that the St. Croix macaw became extinct due to these factors, but the date it happened is unknown - presumably there is a clear date when there are none...? So can be "date unknown but before....?"
You mean that we should be able to extrapolate before which date it should have gone extinct? None of the sources speculate on this, we don't even know if it happened after the arrival of Europeans... The only source which says anything about an extinction date is Hume, who just says "date of extinction unknown". FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
What I meant was it could be narrowed down to (say) "unknown but before 1700" but if no sources do that then don't worry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for support, none of the sources speculate on that, also, if the birds were imported from elsewhere, who knows how long they could have survived in their native area after disappearing from these islands... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, strong article and on track to pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Dundalk F.C.

Nominator(s): Daniel Sexton (talk 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a leading Irish association football club - Dundalk F.C., the current League of Ireland champions. It's quite a long read covering the origins of the club and its subsequent highs and lows up to and including its recent highly successful period. While the club itself is not of the stature of leading European clubs, I believe the article is worthy of interest. It has already received 'Good Article' status, and has, I believe, been improved since. I have been working on it for a number of months trying to ensure its neutrality, its accuracy and that there's a nice pace to the prose. I am keen to make the article as good as possible and will make any suggested improvements asap. Thank you very much in advance to anyone who spends time on this nomination.

Comments by Kosack

  • I don't think there's a need to repeat links for the history, European football and records pages at the bottom of the lead. I wouldn't include them in a see also section either, they're already included in relevant sections and in the club template at the bottom of the page.
    • Removed
  • There seems to be quite a few seemingly unreferenced parts. A paragraph shouldn't really end without a source.
    • Fixed, for many references are there just sentence structure used had them mid sentence. Inserted more citations where necessary.
  • Not sure about the heading "As you were".
    • Came from a referenced match report, have modified sections to remove.
  • The personnel section appears to be unsourced.
    • Added source from club website
  • What does the star indicate in the honours table?
    • A tenth title. This is explained in the "Colours and Crest" section, which links to appropriate Wiki article. Have removed the star anyway to avoid confusion.
  • There are a very large amount of references with no accessdates. I can also see a bare url (ref 194).
    • Fixed bare url. All access-dates inserted.

I think there's a decent bit of work to do to get this up to FA, a peer review may have been more appropriate before bringing it here. These are the obvious big issues I noted during a very quick read so there's something to get started on. Kosack (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Probably hubris on my part to go straight to FA, but I tried to follow the Cardiff City F.C. article style and thought it was pretty close. Thank you for your time! Daniel Sexton (talk 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice work doing the fixes so quick, I'll try and provide a few more points to keep the general improvements going:

  • Link UEFA club coefficients to UEFA coefficient.
    • done
  • "After reaching a Leinster Junior Cup final, and dominating the local scene for three seasons, Dundalk G.N.R. were elected to the Leinster Senior League for 1922–23 to replace sides promoted to the nascent Free State League", the ref included at the end of this sentence (5) only supports them being elected to the league, no mention of a cup final or dominating the local scene?
    • citations added
  • Ref 6 only appears as a headline for me? "Dundalk get in on the ballot" but no article?
    • The newspaper archive engine can do that - splits articles from their headings. I've added a second citation for the body
  • "On 21 August 1926 the team, still known as Dundalk G.N.R.", if the team's name hasn't changed I don't think we need to be pointing it out.
    • edited
  • "that season's Leinster Cup final", is this now the Leinster Senior Cup (association football)? Could do with a link if so.
    • yes, done.
  • In the second paragraph of "First successes", Dublin City Cup is linked twice in two sentences. No need for the repeat link in such close proximity, per WP:OVERLINK.
    • done
  • You use First World War earlier but World War 2 later on. Use one format for consistency.
    • done
  • Does public limited company need to be capitalised?
    • fixed
  • Bradford > Bradford City.
    • done
  • Top Four Cup is mentioned in the paragraph before it is linked, move the link to the first use.
    • done
  • "Oriel Park tasted", a little journalistic. How about simply "hosted"?
    • done
  • "The town swelled with pride at what its club was achieving", doesn't seem much like a WP:NPOV and the closest ref (40) doesn't do much to support this either.
    • edited
  • Dublin City Cup linked two more times in this paragraph.
    • edited
  • "an ageing team was getting less competitive", getting less is a little clunky. Was struggling to compete, perhaps?
    • better! done
  • "Dundalk Football Club", do we need to suddenly use the full name here?
    • edited - "club's board"
  • The "Decline and Upheaval" section features some rather dramatic wording for an encyclopedia. Phrases such as "facing into severe headwinds", "the long-feared financial crisis came to a crunch" and "the reality of life in the lower tier kicked in" are an example of this.
    • have hopefully edited appropriately.
  • It seems a little odd for the European competition section to be added on to, an otherwise chronogically ordered history section. Perhaps it is better suited for the records section?
    • agreed moved
  • No obvious ref for the European competition record table.
    • citation added
  • Do we need the enforced line break after the table? Seems to be adding whitespace for no obvious reason.
    • did that because of how it looked on a mobile device, but have removed.
  • "racked up while wearing them", informal wording.
    • edited
  • Developer doesn't need the capital letter.
    • done
  • "is approx", I'd spell out the full word rather than leave use approx in a sentence.
    • done
  • There are a lot of red links in the first team squad. If they don't have an article, I would be inclined to unlink them.
    • unlinked
  • Youth Teams and Women's Teams headings, drop the capital letter from teams.
    • done
  • There are some odd uses of capital letters throughout. For example, sentences such as "top of the League table" and "team to a ninth League title", I don't think league would need to be capitalised as you're referring to a league table or league title rather than any specific entity.
    • Have tried to tidy up - left 'the League' or equivalent as is when referring to the entity, lower case for the rest.
  • The last book in the bibliography doesn't have an isbn.
    • It was a limited print by subscription book. It has no isbn. Does that mean I can't reference it?

There's another few to look at from myself. I think you'll need a strong copy editor to have a run through to iron out the prose a little. If you can get someone like that to go through with a review, I think we'll be in much better shape moving forward. Kosack (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • thank you for your time - genuinely appreciate your efforts! I’m not sure where to find a copy editor tbh Daniel Sexton (talk 12:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Could be worth asking TRM, he's reviewing a lot of stuff right now although you may have to wait for the GA backlog drive to finish at the end of the month. Kosack (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


Comments by RetiredDuke

  • I did a cursory read of the article and spotted several uncited paragraphs. As a (very rough) rule-of-thumb, each paragraph should end with a reference.
    • Fixed, for many references are there just sentence structure used had them mid sentence. Inserted more citations where necessary.
  • This club is 134 years old (if we start counting in 1885). The article has large, detailed sections about "managerial eras" that last 5-8 years, isn't that a bit unbalanced in terms of coverage? I would recommend thinking on the bigger picture when naming the subsections, take a look at Cardiff City F.C. for instance.
    • Have reviewed. It's dictated by the number of trophies and amount of activity, e.g. a lot more happened in the 1964-74 and 2013-present time frames than in the Forties and Fifties. But have tried to rebalance to address. Had been trying to follow the general style of Cardiff City as it happens. Mustn't have done as good a job as I thought! Lol.
  • In that vein, I don't think the "As you were" section is needed, it's a summary.
    • Have incorporated into a 2013-Present section
  • There are two sections about European football.
    • One is in the context of performance history, one is in the context about home grounds having to be moved for European matches. Have removed sub-heading and modified slightly to avoid the error.
  • The social media section is not needed, every club has Instagram and Twitter accounts.
    • Removed
  • Some sentences seem out of place an should be removed, like "See also History of Dundalk F.C., Dundalk F.C. in European football and List of Dundalk F.C. records and statistics" in the lead and "McLaughlin's trophy haul while at Dundalk: three League titles, three FAI Cups, two League of Ireland Cups and two Leinster Senior Cups.".
    • All such sentences removed.

Some food for thought. (I also think it needs some work before hitting FA status). RetiredDuke (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Dundalk_FC_2015_Crest.png: should complete the FUR
    • Done
  • File:DDT_1903_09_26_13.png: what is the author's date of death?
    • Author used a pseudonym, this is a scan from a newspaper published in 1903. Does it fall under public domain (pre-1924)?
      • In the US, yes, but to be on Commons it has to be in the public domain in both the US and its source country. This image has a tag stating it's PD in countries with a term of author life + 70 - as the author is unknown and the publication is recent enough that the author could have survived longer, this tag should be replaced.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:DundalkGNR.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
    • Photograph is on display at Dundalk F.C. Image is a photo of the displayed photo. Photographer is unknown. As was taken at start of season in 1923. Does it fall under public domain (pre-1924)?
      • Depends - just because it was taken in 1923, doesn't mean it was published at that time. Is there any indication of it having been published before the more recent display?Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The photo on display appears to be an original. It is not reproduced in the Irish newspaper archives and the 2003 Jim Murphy book referenced in the bibliography, which is the guidance for the article, uses a photo of the photo without attribution. Murphy's book was the first published about the club, so I believe it is not published elsewhere. If it's safer to remove the image I will.Daniel Sexton (talk 01:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately without more information it's more likely than not that it's not free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Dundalk_Seal.jpg: according to the given source, while this is derived from a 1300s design, the current design is from the 1960s
    • Have made appropriate edits to prose and have removed image.
  • File:Dundalk_Coat_of_Arms.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • Assumed fell under public domain (pre-1924). Don't know author so have removed.
  • File:Dundalk_FC.svg: don't feel a non-free image is justified in this case.Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Have removed. Appreciate your time! Daniel Sexton (talk 21:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Descent (1995 video game)

Nominator(s): Gamingforfun365 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the article, Descent is "a spacecraft-based first-person shooter and shoot 'em up video game developed by Parallax Software and released by Interplay Productions in 1995". The subject is considered iconic for its unique combination of the six degrees of freedom and first-person shooter mechanics, and its success led to two immediate sequels: Descent II and Descent 3, also receiving critical acclaim.

Before I became a major contributor to it, the article was a mess. It had technical information that was not suitable for Wikipedia, as well as an inadequate lead and several inappropriate uses of news and announcements, particularly in the lead. I rewrote the lead to summarize the entire article and replaced the technical information with a history of the game's development. I managed to find an abundance of sources on the Internet, and I used them for expansion and to verify numerous unsourced contents. When I was done, I then took this article to GA, which passed the review, and even during and after the review, I made other improvements not addressed in the review such as correcting dates of the sales charts and adding an alt text for the cover art.

With my involvement, I have demonstrated passion and eagerness in fixing the article. In that, I have also demonstrated the patience needed to become familiar with the FA criteria and prepare the article for the status. There are no edit wars or any obvious mistakes, so I can reasonably expect constructive criticism with which I can readily and easily improve the article. Gamingforfun365 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi, I think this is your first FAC -- if so, a belated welcome! Generally we close reviews that haven't attracted any commentary after two or three weeks but I'll give this some more time. Can I suggest that you actively seek some reviews from members of related projects? Also you might care to review a few active FAC noms -- not that we encourage quid pro quo reviews (and certainly not qpq supports) but reviewing does get you noticed and can lead to others reviewing your work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial character in Guatemalan history. Castillo Armas was a military officer exiled during the Guatemalan Revolution, who then led a rebel force armed and funded by the CIA to topple the Guatemalan government in 1954. He was President for three years before being assassinated. I've dug pretty deep into the sources on this subject over the years; this is the fourth article from this period on Guatemalan history that I have brought to FAC. This page benefited from a detailed GA review from Midnightblueowl, and a A-class review from the military history Wikiproject. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, but I have a few comments from a another read through:

  • in the lead, suggest "US support tofor the rebels"
    Done.
  • do we know the names of his parents?
    I'm afraid not...I've looked quite a bit. I can't even find it in dodgy sources. Perhaps hard-copy records somewhere in Guatemala would have this information; perhaps not even there.
  • link President of Guatemala at first mention
    Done.
  • "The agrarian reform law angered" this needs introduction. When was it introduced and by whom? Also, should this be in past tense? ie "The agrarian reform law introduced by Foo in 194X had angered the UFC" and "it had been granted further favours..." etc Then the agrarian reform is introduced. I think this para needs rewriting.
    I looked at that whole section, and I was confused by it myself. I've reordered a lot of it, and added some context about Arbenz and agrarian reform. Take a look.
  • suggest "to see the Arévalo government as communist"
    I think this is now less important, see reorganization
  • Árbenz isn't properly introduced as becoming president. Suggest adding this in at the appropriate point.
    Per above.
  • "communist leaders in Guatemala" but were they really communist, or is that a misnomer
    Yeah, it's a misnomer. That was the excuse, not the reason. Tweaked.
  • "the former lieutenant of Arana"
    Done.
  • I think "Castillo Armas had eventually risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel" should be in the Early life and career section
    Probably. Done.
  • "Armas had beenremained on the CIA payroll" as we have already been told he was paid a retainer
    Done
  • "the rebels attempted to attacked the capital"
    done.
  • who was Monzón Aguirre? is this the same guy as Colonel H. Elfego Monzón?
    Same guy. The variation in how the sources deal with Spanish naming led to the confusion...I've now gone with just "Monzon" after first use.
  • "opposed to the reforms of the Guatemalan Revolution" what were these? The land reforms?
    Not just the land reforms...pretty much everything; literacy, broad voting rights, land reform, communist legalization, unionization, minimum wage...etc. These were essentially the social and economic elite, whose power and influence Arevalo threatened. I think it's too much detail here; Guatemalan Revolution covers some of it.
  • link Guatemalan Party of Labour, which appears to be the Communist Party of Guatemala
    That's the one. Linked.

That's all for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks as always. I think I've got everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Big improvement in the flow and background/context. Just one final thing, there are two citations to Gleijeses 1991, this should be 1992. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thanks, fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, supporting. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked & all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 23 requires pp.
  • It isn't necessary to add retrieval dates for book sources, e.g. Lenz, McAllister, McCleary. Nor for the Life magazine either, since it links to the original. (I found that 1954 magazine absolutely fascinating, by the way, especially the adverts)
  • Quality/reliability: no issues - sources appear to meet all the necessary FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ref 23 fixed; unnecessary accessdates removed. I've been using the google books reference generator, which has been sticking that in, and I didn't catch it...Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • over 70,000 people and added 10% of the population to a list of suspected communists Replace the symbol of per cent with "percent".
    Done
  • I see a lot of howevers maybe trim seven of them.
    Trimmed a few; I think the rest are necessary to the flow.
  • only candidate; he won the election with 99% of the vote --> "only candidate; he won the election with 99 percent of the vote"
    Done
  • ulminating in the Guatemalan Civil War of 1960 to 1996 --> "ulminating in the Guatemalan Civil War from 1960 to 1996."
    I think the current version flows better, and it isn't incorrect
  • with the aim of blowing up railways and cutting telegraph lines --> "to blow up railways and cut telegraph lines"
    I disagree with this; I think the current version conveys the meaning more clearly
  • Castillo Armas gave corn import licences to some British licences.
    Done
  • and soon afterwards declared a "state of siege" and seized British afterwards.
    Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks for your comments; I've responded to each. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks beter. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Roman temple of Bziza

Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Roman temple dedicated to the Semitic god Azizos. Sources pertaining to the article's subject were exhausted; the article covers all the available information about the temple, the deity, documented timeline, architecture and the function of the temple/later church. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple citations in the lead – almost every sentence, in fact. The lead is supposed to summarise what's in the main text of the article; everything mentioned in the lead should be in the main text, which is where the information should be referenced. Apart from that, there seems to be substantial over-citing of simple facts, e.g. do you need three refs to support the statement about stamps? Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I tend to overdo it. I'm a bit rusty from an extended WikiLeave. I forgot about lead requirements. Regarding the stamps, I couldn't find one page that hosts all three images. I could upload them onto an image hosting website if that's okay. Also about over-citing, I prefer to do it to keep track from which source page each statement comes from. Multiple sources provide, for example, small bits of information about architectural elements. I had to sequence them in a logical way, from the outside of the structure to the inside. This is what caused me to cite every statement so that they are traceable. If that is a huge no no please let me know.
Thank you for taking the time Brian, it's a real privilege to have you guide. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
On the issue of the stamps, or in any other case where you need multiple sources to support a single statement, you could follow WP:CITEBUNDLE, which tells you how to combine several citations into a single footnote (I often forget to do this myself, by the way). Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Nice to see this here, will review soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Single sentence paragraphs are advised against, perhaps the ones here could be placed together with other paragraphs. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • There are a good deal of unnecessary WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[7] BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • Images should generally be spread around in the article body rather than being "dumped" in galleries at the end (see WP:galleries). I think you could place some in the article where relevant, and some could probably go since they are somewhat repetitive.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
Beautiful tool, thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Greek god of war Ares" Some links could be given here? Byzantine could also be linked at first occurrence instead of where it is now (perhaps other words are also only linked at second mentions, could be checked).BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "the church of Our Lady of the Pillars" Shouldn't church be capitalised too if the word is part of this name?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • The image captions could have some links for names and places.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (as much as possible) -ez
  • "Nineteenth century paintings and photographs taken in the early twentieth century show the removed chapel remains" Are these shown in any of the images used here? If so, could they be pointed out in the captions? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • I wonder if the Azizos section should be incorporated into the history section? It stands a bit alone now with no context.Three dots.jpg (moved it under the said section, I prefer not to merge them) -ez
  • "uncovering the podium and an architectural sketch" What is meant by sketch here? Anything to link to?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (explained) -ez
  • "Lebanese Directorate General of Antiquities" Is this a person? Name?BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (linked, its a governmental entity) -ez
  • "was converted to a church" Into? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • In other articles about such monuments, like for example Smythe's Megalith, the location section is first, perhaps it should be the same here.Three dots.jpg (in that article it adds context, here it doesn't. I prefer to keep tucked down there) -ez
  • I wonder if any useful Arabic sources have been overlooked? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (added some, mostly etymologists. Lebanese archaeologists and historians mostly publish in French or English, depending on their academic affiliation) -ez
  • Where in the town is the temple located? Outskirts? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (Added, including Bziza's close proximity to Ain Akrine temple) -ez
  • "he interpreted the name of the town of Bziza as a corruption of Beit (or Beth) Azizo" So is this still considered a fact? It is written now as if it is only a theory. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (In page 134 Renan wrote it implying interpretation, turned assertion in a later chapter when the town names was compared with other town names with reference to Semitic gods. This attribution is widely accepted) -ez
  • So is the idea that the temple was built for Azizos only based on the name Bziza perhaps referring to Azizos, or is there other evidence? If not, I think it should be clearly stated that it is one interpretation, now it it is presented as fact. In extension of this, I think it would be best to present the theory first, and then explain who Azizos is afterwards (under history or function); now his section doesn't really establish any context, even though it is the first one, and is therefore somewhat confusing.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (agreed, Azizos section moved down- As for the toponym; Renan explained in length the origin of town name stemming from, as mentioned earlier, a combination of two words: Beth / Beit followed the divinity name. Beth or Beit means both house and temple in the ancient semitic languages thus the inference. Renan and later archaeologists did not find any epigraphic evidence on site. Renan notes in his report that the townspeople told him of an inscribed stone but they later negated this; Renan believes that the townspeople hid the stone thinking that he is a treasure hunter. Evidence of this stone is yet to be found. The orientation of the temple is west-east as the morning star rises in the east. This finds root in Vitruvius' writings and Taylor noting that Bziza's temple and the Beit Mery temple are the only ones facing west, an anomaly in Lebanon. Around the hermon mountain, the temples are arranged in a what seems like a circle with the front oriented to the mountain peek. in baalbeck, the temple of Jupiter heliopolitanus and the temple attributed to Bacchus point eastward. Renan's conclusion is widely accepted by later writers) -ez
  • "meaning the house or temple of Aziz" Aziz or Azizos, as you say elsewhere? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (fixed but it's the same difference, the phenicians rarely wrote vowels. In epigraphies found in palmyra the name is written, as would have been expected in ancient semitic writing systems as ('ziz). The greeks may have hellenized the name to Azizos which is the name we find in Julian's hymn. Also i have to note that in norhtern lebanon highlands , the letter A is written as A but pronounced as a soft O. In The north, Bziza is written بزيزا but is spelled Bzizo (بزيزو).-ez
  • What language is the towns name thought to be derived from? (northern Semitic - phoenician, REnan explains this when he explains about the town names starting with B /Beth.) -ez
  • "categorized the temples of Lebanon into three groups" Only based on location? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (removed, it's based solely on geographical location, i did not find an accessible source explaining this categorization or if features differ; there is one publication [published in an IFPO journal in 1971] that is not accessible online, nor did i find it the local library. The snippets I found online allude to Groups A, B and C but i need to the entirety of the text to tell if this is also based on attributes. I think that taylor did not come up with this categorization.) -ez
  • "showing, among the different temple types, a tetrastyle prostyle temple without an adyton." If that represents the type of the one in the article, it should be stated clearly in the caption. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (done but i don't think i can put it in less words) -ez
  • "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan noted that" He is already presented under history, so you only need to refer to him by last name after that point.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "The apses have a four-sided polygonal chevet, the apses are horseshoe-shaped" Repetitive, you could say "and they are horseshoe-shaped" at second mention.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif -ez
  • "comparable to that of the ancient blocks that they reuse" Reused? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif (rewritten; you're right it wasn't clear) -ez
  • "reuse and date, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, to the early Byzantine period." A bit confusingly written, I thought the "according to Krencker and Zchietschmann" referred to both "reuse and date". Perhaps divide reuse and date with a comma, like "reused, and, according to Krencker and Zchietschmann, date to the early Byzantine period", or similar. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "that were removed during the restoration of the temple" Which restoration, the recent one? I'd specify "1990s restoration" then.
  • "Subterranean rock-carved tomb" Tombs or a tomb? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
I see no difference? If it is singular, it should say "a subterranean rock carved tomb". FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the Philately single sentence paragraph could be moved into the end of the modern history section. Single sentence sections are discouraged.BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "contrasted to the private character of modern religious services" Contrasting? BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • You link Vitruvius twice. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "is a well-preserved" You only state this in the intro, which should not have unique info. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • Canaanite mythology could be linked in the article body as well. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • byzantine should be capitalised in the intro. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • "Christian devotion was still maintained in the nineteenth century" Period only stated in the intro. BlueCheckBoxCheckedRed.gif-ez
  • FunkMonkI addressed all the issues you pointed out; kudos for your good eye. I may have to do a cleanup pass but gotta run for now. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a bunch of points that don't seem to have been addressed, always a good idea to check each point with "done" or another response (that's what people generally do anyway), then oneself as a nominator will also have a better overview of what has been done or not. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Funkmonk, I marked the changes I made, and one of your recommendations that I did not apply. my replies for 24/09/2019 at 14:30 EET are followed by "-ez" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Much easier to navigate now, thanks. Though it is hard to see where my comment ends and yours begin, so in the future, it would be good to make the indentations in the same way as here, so it is clear your reply is separate from mine (if you understand from my weird explanation). I have added one comment above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You know when I write something, no matter how many times I proofread it I always miss something because i read what i intended to write not what is actually written :( , thus the grammatical errors and typos. Your last concern was addressed buddy. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - that's what I could find, looks good to me now. Any chance you'll get Jeita grotto here one day? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow you don't forget? do you :) Jeita is close but it's too many fronts at once. I need to prepare the ammo :) ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
And thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg should include a tag for the original work
  • File:The_temple_of_Bziza_by_Monfort,_1838.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Bziza_temple_by_Lemmens_1894.png needs a US PD tag and author date of death
  • File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg the work is by Franck devedjian as noted in the mediawiki file page. The image is part of the Roman Sites templates is not constituent of the article.
  • File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International by the owner. What other tags does it required? Other issues fixed. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that File:Reconstitution_of_Baalbek.jpg is by Franck devedjian, but my question is with regards to its accuracy - what source was used to ensure that, or what source supports that. If the template's in the article, so is the image.
  • The Creative Commons tag on File:Le_temple_sur_les_hauteurs_du_village.jpg is for the photo, whereas there should be an additional tag indicating that the copyright on the pictured structure has expired due to age.
  • It's a 2000 years old temple, can you help with that? I have checked images of old momuments and I did not find such tag. I'll ask someone from the help desk for instructions.
  • In the The Lebanese copyright law : Article 49 states that the term of protection expires 50 years after the author's death. Article 52 says that right of protection for anonymous or pseudonymous works, expires 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. Tag added accordingly; 'No FOP' applies to modern works whose authors are living or died less than 50 years ago. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also just a reminder that if you add pings in a separate edit from your signature it will not be sent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

There's quite a few issues that need addressing:

  • Page ranges: A number of these are very wide, e.g. ref 26, 527–568 (42 pages); ref 38, 5–76 (72 pages); ref 39, 769–820 (52 pages). These are the most egregious – there are other dodgy ones, too. Is it not possible to be more specific in the citations?
  • I had put the ranges of the articles not the actual pages of cited passages; fixed ^
  • Ref 2: you should give the publisher name (Livius) as well as/instead of the web address
  • Didn't know hot to go about this, Thank you, done ^
  • Refs 3, 12: Krencker: dated 1938 in citations, 1838 in the bibliography
  • Sorry, fixed ^
  • Ref 14: Kalayan 1965: why is the page ref given in the bibliography rather than in the citation, as with Kalayan 1971?
  • the 1971 article covers the same topic, replaced ^
  • Ref 15: Lacks publisher details
  • Done ^
  • Ref 18: The link goes to a book called The Tree of Life, by E.O. James. Perhaps "Bentley Layton" is the overall editor of a book series called "Studies in the history of religions"? It needs sorting out, so that what is being cited is clear: author, title, publisher, year of publication, etc. Also it needs a page ref – citation to a whole book is not helpful
  • Fixed ^
  • Ref 20: Lacks publisher details
  • Done ^
  • Ref 22: Same point as in 2 above. publisher here is Localiban
  • Done ^
  • Ref 23: Same point
  • Done ^
  • Ref 24: As with 2 above
  • Done^
  • Ref 28: De Blois et al: 2004 in citation, 2006 in source
  • 2004 conference, report published in 2006; fixed (*)
  • Ref 32: What is the nature of this source?
  • Merged with Kalayan 1971, automatically generated reference issue. (*)
  • Ref 37: "Pomey 200p" should be "Pomey 2009"
  • Sorry (*)
  • Ref 43: requires pp. not p.
  • Done (*)
  • Bibliography sequence: "Annales archéologiques..." is apparently out of alphabetical sequence
  • as above, replaced with Kalayan 1971 (*)
  • ISBNs: stick to one format (see Jordan)
  • Done (*)
  • Dates: stick to one format (also see Jordan)
  • Done (*)
  • Note 1: referenced by "(Cf. ʿAbboudi, Dibs, Forrest, Iskandar)". "Forrest" is "Garreau Forrest in refs and bibliography. Also, you need page references; three of these four sources are books. I'd replace "Cf" with proper citations.
  • Done (*)

Give me a ping when you've addressed these. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to you soon. Thanks buddy ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Second round soon, all entries made today are marked with "^" ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I think I have everything covered. Thank you for your feedback. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out mistakes I could never have seen Brian. Thanks to everyone here for your valuable input. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Reading now....

The History section seems pretty brief - is there anything that can be added about worship in the area?
The cella consists of two chambers, the first chamber is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building - this is not grammatical. You can either make it two short sentences joined by a semicolon, or a sentence with a subordinate clause, "The cella consists of two chambers, the first of which is roughly square followed by an adyton to the back of the building"
A 4.33 metres (14.2 ft) rectangular masonry pillar --> "A 4.33 metre (14.2 ft) long rectangular masonry pillar"
The aedes main function was to house --> "The aedes' main function was to house" (possessive here?)

Otherwise looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will do the necessary as soon as I have the time. History and background section is in the works. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cas Liber I'm drafting my historical background plan. There's too much clutter there so I need a bit of time to make it flow better. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine - take your time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mirokado

I have made a couple of copy-edits en passant. In addition:

  • History
    • "AD" is important for the first mention, but redundant thereafter.
  • Modern history
  • Architecture and description, para 1
    • wl ashlar
    • "All four of the temple's portico columns": there is nothing actually wrong with this, but it is not clear from the content that pronaos is a bit more than just a posh word for portico. Perhaps you could change the earlier sentence to "... it is fronted by unfluted columns, standing on bases carved in the Attic style, forming the portico."?
    • "supporting an elaborate frieze": in what way is it elaborate?
    • "The colonnade was added at a later stage of the temple's construction owing to the style of the ionic capitals that adheres to the model found in ...": This is an incorrect use of "owing to", I suggest instead: "... temple's construction as indicated by the style ...".
    • wl pilasters
    • "accessible from a staircase that was dismantled": I think of a staircase as a construction with normally air underneath it and rails or walls either side, rather than a set of steps leading up to a building as in "the steps of the MET". Please rephrase this so it is clear what is meant. As an example, the File:MaisonCarrée.jpeg has what I would describe as "entrance steps" rather than a "staircase", there may well be a suitable technical term.
  • Architecture and description, para 2
    • wl cella here, nobody will remember it also occurred in the lead.
  • Architecture and description, para 3
  • Architecture and description, para 5
    • "absidal": unless you mean something else, this a misspelling of "apsidal" (but correct in French etc) which you should wikilink (it redirects to apse but will not be familiar to many readers).
    • "superjacent": this is indeed a real word, but not one I have ever encountered before: either wl to wikt:superjacent or rephrase ("from the semi-dome above" for example).
  • Architecture and description, para 6
    • Please explain briefly who Nordiguian is, in the same style as "Lebanese-Armenian archaeologist Harutune Kalayan" above.
    • "posits" is not exactly wrong, but is unfamiliar and I think "suggests" would be better.
    • "reserved exclusively to women worshipers": I would say "reserved for", is this an difference between American and British English ("worshipers" indicates American English for the article)?
  • Architecture and description, para 7
    • "bifid cross": I can't find any other reference to this by googling the term, so I would not myself use it in an article. Do you mean a cross with two horizontal beams at the top (like the patriarchal cross), or one with the second beam lower down (like File:Russian cross.png))? See Christian cross variants (which is linked in the article and does not use the term "bifid") for illustrations and alternative names.
  • Notes
    • I suggest encapsulating the French quotations with {{lang|fr|...}}. You could use square brackets to indicate the translation, thus: ... [...]. If you retain the current phrasing, you need to tidy up the double quotes around both English versions, and capitalise "English".
  • References
    • I like the archive links for web page references. Please add one for the Localiban too (there is already a recent archive).

-- Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've learned a lot from your input; thank you. I'm not a native English speaker, I tread carefully when translating text, but there's still much to learn about word nuances. I applied most of your recommendations; I have some questions / reservations about the following:
  • Pronaos vs portico: I prefer Pronaos in the context of classical architecture. Readers who are unfamiliar with the word can navigate to the Portico page. Sorry :|
    Better now, I will read it all again later to check the changes for clarity etc. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bifid cross: none of the cross variants in the article you referred to accurately depicts the Bziza crosses. The variant that resembles it the most is the East SyriaC cross. However the Bziza cross' branches have equal lengths.
    Still some improvement needed here. Of course pictures of the actual cross styles would be ideal. Let us think for a day or so... --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The nuance between Staircase, Stairwell, Staiway, Stairs, Star, Steps, flight is new to me :S. thank you for pointing this out. I went with stairway after consulting google *facepalm*; please tell me if this is accurate.
    Much better now, thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I could not archive localiban. It's impossible
    I was able to access the archive from here in Germany, so I have updated the citation and made a few other related changes, see the recent edit to the article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the notes section okay now? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have tweaked it a bit further, using the 2= param instead of nowiki for equals signs in the text and putting some punctuation in the quote language. Not sure whether nested invocations of lang work (Hebrew inside French in this case), that will be fun to investigate. (Sometimes the highlighting I have defined for lang in my css file is not working, something else to investigate but nothing to do with this article itself.) (I discover the documentation for lang mentions the 1= param instead of 2=, I will correct that.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Please make the date formats in the article consistent. It looks as if you are writing in American English, so I would suggest mdf format (July 25, 2015). (If you want me to do that for you, just ask.) --Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all the above. I reviewed the dates I hope i didn't miss anything. PS: still working on expanding the historical background section. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 18:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I've nominated this article. The FAC immediately prior to this one failed mostly because of the need for a second copyedit, which the article has now gone through. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments
  • Is there any particular reason for the citations in the infobox? I would imagine that all of the information regarding these release dates for different geographical areas and game systems should be included in the prose in the body of the article and cited there accordingly. Is there a reason why the body of the article does not address the game's release at all? I would also image the genre would be mentioned and sourced in the body of the article.
    • Working on it- so far I've added the genre to body. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I have now added a section on the release of the game. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I would recommend looking at featured articles on video games to see how they handle putting information on the game's release in the body of the article. It really does not make any sense to have it be a subsection of the "Reception" section. See examples like Knuckles' Chaotix and Sabre Wulf to see how they do it. It would make more sense for this article to combine the release information into the "Development" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I would see if there is a way that you could more seamlessly incorporate that information into the section. The years in which the Wii and Switch versions were released should also be added, and I would clarify in the prose that the Switch version is a port. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    • I have added the year. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I have now also clarified that this is a port. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Go Vacation[b] is a party video game that was developed and released by Namco Bandai Games for the Wii games console.), I would drop "that was" and "games console".
  • I think it may be better to just revise the lead sentence to say "a 2011 party video game" and remove this part (It was first released in North America on 11 October 2011) entirely.
  • For this part (Vehicles such as trolleys and bicycles can be piloted to access resorts), I would put "the" in front of "resorts".
  • For this part (Players can also customize their avatars and their virtual villas.), I am uncertain if "virtual" is needed since I would assume that it is clear from the context. I would also change it to "customize their avatars and villas".
  • This sentence (The game's Marine Resort was partly inspired by Hawaii, but it was not directly based on any real-world location.) seems slightly contradictory. The same goes for the sentence (No areas in the game were based on any real-world locations but parts of Marine Resort were inspired by Hawaii.) in the body of the article. It seems odd that it says a part of the game was based on Hawaii only to later say that none of the areas were based on any real-life locations.
    • I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it's only partly inspired by Hawaii but I just worded that badly. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A part of this sentence (The player first visits the Marine Resort, which contains many coves and beaches.) seems to repeat information from this earlier sentence (Players start the game in the Marine Resort and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.). It was already established that player start in Marine Resort so I do not think it needs to be repeated.
    • I have removed that part. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This part (The City Resort, which centers around extreme and leisure sports, the City Resort is the second and smallest resort) does not make sense. Maybe something was removed?
    • Not sure how that happened, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (After playing twenty minigames, players gains access to their own virtual houses, called villas,), I would spell out "twenty" as "20" since the previous numbers are represented in numerals. The same comment applies for "ninety" in this part (Furniture is gained in sets, of which there are ninety.).
  • This image caption (A split screen view of four players having a water gun fight.) should not have a period because it is not a full sentence.
  • I do not understand why the "complete sense" quote is used twice.
    • I'm not sure why it wouldn't be? It lets the reader know those two sentences are connected. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no reason to repeat the quote as it does not help the reader's understanding and it is very repetitive, particularly since the phrase (a "complete sense" of winter) with the quote is used twice as well. There are ways to make a cohesive section without repeating quotes. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence ( To decide which activities to include in the game, the developers surveyed players in America, Europe, and Japan to ask them what they wanted in the game.) seems rather clunky. I would streamline it to (The developers conducted surveys in America, Europe, and Japan to determine what activities to include in the game.).
  • In the third paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with (In his review of the X version).
  • I would wikilink "villas" in the body of the article if it is going to be linked in the lead.
  • These two sentences (Sterling criticized the NPCs for their design, calling them "faux anime characters" and "completely charmless". Reece also criticized the NPCs, writing, "even if you hop onto an ATV and plough into someone at full speed, they'll have very little to say for themselves when they get back on their feet".) are rather repetitive as they use a similar structure by repeating "criticized the NPCs".

I have only done a quick read-through of the article, but I have noticed several areas that need improvement. The biggest issue is how the body of the article does not address the game's release at all (either the original Wii release or the Switch port). I am also uncertain about the quality of the prose, but I will provide more commentary on that once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break now, I will continue addressing these concerns either later tonight or tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm back- I will try to continue working on this now. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about my second absence. I will definitely try to finish this tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Eek! Apologies again, I did not mean to start this late. Nevertheless, I intend to finish this tonight. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
"I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello, goodbye! I'm late! I'm late! I'm late!" TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries, and apologies for all the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're fine- I think I've finished replying to all your comments now. The only thing left is I don't understand what you mean when you said you didn't understand that one sentence. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I have collapsed the comments that have been resolved and brought down the one remaining. I will look through the article again sometime in the near future. I have concerns about the quality of the prose, but hopefully, that can be ironed out during this FAC. 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not really sure I understand what this sentence (Producer Kenya Kobayashi opted for the name Go Vacation to convey activity.) means. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you don't understand about it. Could you please elaborate? TheAwesomeHwyh 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • After looking at the source, I have a better understanding of what is meant. However, I do not think it is clear at all when looking at the sentence (Producer Kenya Kobayashi opted for the name Go Vacation to convey activity.) in isolation. I do not understand what is meant by "activity". Maybe something like the following would be better, (After realizing the word "vacation" is frequently associated with relaxation, producer Kenya Kobayashi named the game Go Vacation to clarify that it was more active.), or something to that effect.
  • Done, with some minor modifications. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The part in the lead still needs to be revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also change these sentences, (The game's title was intended to convey that players would want to "stay [in] for a long time". According to producer Kenya Kobayashi, the production team believed the word "vacation" has no connotations of activity outside Japan, so the team added "Go" to the beginning of the name.), to something like, (The game was originally titled Vacation before being changed to Go Vacation since people outside Japan associated the word "vacation" with leisure and relaxation. Producer Kenya Kobayashi said "Go" was added to the title to clarify that the game was more active), or something along those lines. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was ever called Vacation, but rather that they decided on the name Go Vacation because of the connotations of activity. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I do not understand what is meant by the "contemporaries" part though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, that might have actually been a bit of unintentional WP:OR by me. Removed. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think these two sentences (Vehicles such as trolleys and bicycles can be piloted to access the resorts. Players can also customize their avatars and their villas.) can be combined to something like (Players can pilot vehicles, such as trolley and bicycles, to access different resorts, and customize their avatars and virtual houses known villas.).
  • For this sentence (The included minigames are based on surveys taken in America, Europe, and Japan; players voted on which sports or activities should be included.), I do not believe the first “included” is needed.
  • I looked at the reference for the Hawaii inspiration, and Masaya Kobayashi said the Marine Resort might be inspired by Hawaii. Here is the sentence from the source: (There’s no place in particular that we used as a reference, but for example the Marine Resort might be inspired by things you find in Hawaii). I do not believe this statement is strong enough to support the information in the article about the Hawaii/Marine Resort link. If it is kept, it should be qualified that Kobayashi said that player might associate the resort with Hawaii to avoid a misinterpretation that this was a conscious part of the game's development.
    • I think you're misinterpreting that. I don't think Kobayashi would just say something like that without it actually being inspired by it. It just sounds to me like they're using "might" as a substitute for "is". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I can only go by what the source says, and might is very different from is. I cannot assume that they would use might as a substitute because it is completely different from is. It is a very weird statement though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Not sure where you're from, but here in California I've heard people use "might" as a substitute for "is". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
          • I am from Florida and I have never heard of might and is being used as substitutes because they mean completely different things. Might is used to represent a hypothetical or indicate a possibility while is is just used to say a direct fact. I think this is important because I do not think saying (The game's Marine Resort was partly inspired by Hawaii) is completely accurate to the source. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
            • I have reworded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
              • I am still uncertain about it, but I will think about it further. I do not mean to sound harsh or overly critical with my comments. You have done a lot of great work with this article, and I am just trying to help as much as I can. Hopefully, more people will review this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Also, can you please stop pinging me in the edit summaries? Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Sorry about that. I wasn't sure if you had the page watchlisted. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Oh wait, I get what you mean. I wasn't aware that linking to your userpage would ping you. Sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think “Upon release” is necessary in the lead.
  • For this part (praised its multiplayer aspects and its creativity), I do not believe the second “its” is needed.
  • Can you point me to where this part (corrected problems with the original version of the game) is covered in the article? I cannot see where the Switch corrections is discussed, but I am probably just reading/looking over it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Weird. It looks like it was never mentioned in the article. I have added that now. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Players start the game in the Marine Resort and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.). I would replace “players” with they” to avoid repetition from the previous sentence. I would add a link to “minigames”, and a putt a comma after “Resort”. I would also remove “in the previous resorts” part as I do not believe it is necessary.
    • I've removed the bit about the previous resorts but have not linked to minigames- I am under the assumption that things in articles are only supposed to be linked to once. Not sure what you mean about the comma. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not see where minigames is linked in the body of the article, and this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I only recommended the comma because the sentence has two different ideas/thoughts so it would clearly separate them (Players start the game in the Marine Resort, and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.) Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The island can be navigated at leisure by walking or by riding on vehicles, the type of which depends on the resort.), I would say “at the player’s leisure”. Would it also be fair to replace “the type of which depends on the resort” with something like “which are unique to each resort”? I have not played the game so if the same vehicle type is used for multiple resorts, then my suggestion would not work. Saying “which varies depending on the resort” may be a good option as well.
    • I think that the vehicles are exclusive but I can't check right now- I had a problem with my Switch a few months back and had to erase all my save data. I haven't bothered to replay the game and I think I only have the Marine and maybe City resorts unlocked on this save. I have changed it to "at the players leisure". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think these two sentences (The Snow Resort is the third resort the player visits; it focuses on winter sports, hosting games such as ski jumping, snow tubing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snowball fighting.) can be combined into something like this: (The third resort, Snow Resort, focuses on winter sports like ski jumping, snow tubing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snowball fighting.)
  • I have two comments for this part (which may be decorated with furniture or photographs that were taken during the game). I think “can” is a better fit than “may” and I would remove “that were” to just say “photographs taken during the game”.
  • For this part (Furniture can be found in the game's world or may be unlocked using "silver keys”), I would remove “may be”.
  • I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with “Furniture” if possible. If there is not a way to avoid this, then it is not a major issue.
    • I'm not really sure how to avoid that. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move this sentence (Treasure chests containing outfits for the players' avatars are scattered around the resorts) to the preceding paragraph. The current one is all about the villas so the sentence does not really fit there, while the one directly before has information about the avatars so it seems like a more likely fit there. Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. I'm not sure why it was in that paragraph in the first place, though. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It's almost 11pm here and I really ought to get to bed. Hopefully tomorrow I won't spend my day watching old Star Trek reruns and actually get something productive done, heh. Night. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "Go Vacation was revealed at the 2011 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3)", I would use "announced" rather than "revealed".
  • I have a question about this part (Part of the game's development was outsourced to other companies). Doe we know what these other companies were or what parts of the game's development were outsourced?
    • Nope. And we might not ever- this game is so obscure that I'm pretty sure that the information on this page is literally all of the information known about the game, so I'm not hopeful in terms of finding a source that says what companies it is. I could check the game's credits, but I'm pretty sure that would run afoul of our WP:OR rule as a synthesis of sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would remove this sentence (The game's title was intended to convey that players would want to "stay [in] for a long time".) since the same information is already present in the following sentence. I would also avoid using quotes that are from translated articles. I do not know if there is a Wikipedia policy about it, but unless you are a language expert (in Japanese in this case), I am uncertain if a translated quote would be appropriate.
    • I have been using the officially translated version of the article so the quote is probably fine. The reason why I didn't cite that was because the Internet Archive has trouble archiving the translated version, and I want to avoid dead links if I can. I have removed the sentence. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (While not meant to be a direct copy of Hawaii, Kobayashi has stated that parts of the Marine Resort "might be" inspired by it.) to something like (The resorts were not directly based on any real-life locations, although Kobayashi said the Marine Resort "might be inspired by things you find in Hawaii".). I think putting the quote in full would be a better compromise between our interpretations of the text.
  • I would revise this sentence (Kobayashi has suggested that parts of the game "might be" inspired by Hawaii, but is not intended to be a direct copy of it.) to something like (Although the resorts were not directly based on real-life locations, Kobayashi said Hawaii was a possible influence for the Marine Resort.).
  • I would remove the "Hawaii" wikilink in the lead.
  • "Port" is wikilinked in the lead, but I would also do the same in the "Development" section.
  • I would put the paragraph on the game's release prior to the one on the soundtrack.
  • For these part (It released on 11 October) and (where it released on 27 December), it should be "it was released".

That should cover everything up to the "Reception" section. Let me know if you have any questions. Apologies again for all of the comments. Just trying to help as much as possible. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I completely forgot to log on yesterday! It's getting pretty late here so I'm not sure if I can finish all of this today, but I'll try. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
One moment- I'm having some issues with the visual editor. It wont let me replace text. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why this is happening. I'm probably not going to be able to work on this for now but I am going to troubleshoot this and will inform you once I figure this out. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, take as much time as you need. The visual editor was acting up for me a few days. I am not sure if there is an issue with the system, but it somehow got better for me after a day. Hopefully, it works out for you on your end. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, my visual editor is still acting very strangely too. I wonder what is causing it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm just going to use the source editor for now. Will continue in a bit. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm almost done, but do you think you could put all of your next comments in a separate heading? It's getting a bit hard to read and edit this page. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I do no think it is encouraged to have subsections/separate headings for an FAC, but I am not entirely sure tbh. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I would add a wikilink for “multiplayer”.
    • It's already linked to in the infobox. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Items are linked in both the infobox and the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would revise this part (There are over 50 activities available on the island,) to (50 activities are available on the island,)
    • I wrote that bit a while back, but I think it was worded that way since I couldn't find a source which gave the exact amount of minigames. I am almost positive that there is more than 50. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That was my mistake. I read over the more part. I would say than (Over 50 activities are available on the island,) or (More than 50 activities are available on the island,). Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would combine these two sentences (The Marine Resort contains many coves and beaches. It is largely themed around watersports such as beach volleyball, surfing, water gun battles, and Marine bike races.) to something like (The Marine Resort, which contains coves and beaches, is themed around watersports, including beach volleyball, surfing, water gun battles, and Marine bike races.).
  • The following parts "shortly after We Ski & Snowboard was released because the developers felt they had not given players a "complete sense" of winter in the previous game." and "When discussing ways to address this, the developers decided winter alone was not enough; they wanted to depict other seasons" to be somewhat awkwardly phrased. I would revisit the prose here, and try to think of different ways of phrasing these parts.
  • For this part (it was the first time for Namco Bandai Games, whose staff had worked on the Ridge Racer series.), I am confused on what "the first time" is referencing. Could you clarify this for me?
    • I don't know either. I have reworded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (The Switch version also included some new features; the ability to take photographs of animals, fish, and find boxes with rewards in them.). A part of this is already mentioned in the "Gameplay" section, so I would move any of the new information (i.e. "and find boxes with rewards in them") to there instead and remove the sentence from here.
  • The lead mentions that problems were fixed in the Switch port, but the body of the article only discusses the features that were added for the Switch port.

I have moved down the comments that have not been addressed yet, and put the ones that have been resolved in the collapsible box to hopefully make this easier to navigate. Apologies for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I am a little confused on why an IGN citation is added on to this sentence "Mark Reece of Nintendo Life said the minigames were not fun to play due to "a poorly conceived or unintuitive control scheme".".
  • I'm not sure either, removed. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Something about "the game's roller skates" sounds odd in this sentence "Reviewing the Switch version, Alessandra Borgonovo of IGN Italia praised the game's roller skates, saying that they were fun to use.". I would look it over again. Also, I would make it clearer how this fits in a paragraph about the controls.
  • Remember to italicize IGN for each instance.
    • I could only find one instance where it wasn't. Where there any others? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move this sentence "Daan Koopman of Nintendo World Report noted that the controls are one of the "biggest improvements over the original"." before the IGN one as it is a more natural transition into talking about the Switch port.
  • I have a few comments about this part "Others also criticized the minigames for an apparent lack of quality,". It should be a separate sentence so that comma at the end should be a period.←I am also a little uncertain if this sentence is needed at all as it does introduce several issues like who is being referenced with "Others" and there should be a citation with this part to avoid people thinking it is original research.
  • For this part "In reviewing the game's soundtrack album", I do not think "album" is needed.
  • For this part "Craddock, in his review of the Switch version, compared them to the house customization mechanics of the Animal Crossing series.", I am confused on why the IGN España is used.
  • I do not think the "According to Drake" sentence structure works for this: "According to Drake, the game's island is "where everyone but yourself is actually a robot", referring to a lack of interaction with NPCs.". Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry this took me so long, I will address these today. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Meinhard Michael Moser

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Meinhard Moser was an Austrian mycologist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms, especially the difficult web caps. However, he also did important work elsewhere in the world (including South America) and on the ecological role mushrooms play in forests. He seems to have been an interesting character who led an eventful life, and he was held in very high esteem in mycological communities. I hope that I've done him justice in this article. I should say that I was inspired to nominate this here by Usernameunique's fascinating articles on 20th-century academics, and I owe thanks to Sasata, who will be remembered by FAC regulars as the "mushroom man" who wrote scores of fungal FAs during his time on Wikipedia from 2008-16. Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Suppoert Comments from Usernameunique

Infobox

Early life, university, and military service

  • Moser became an authorised mushroom controller — What's an authorised mushroom controller?
    • This puzzled me when I first read it. I assume it's some kind of governmental role, but I simply don't know. I've changed it to Moser became an "authorised mushroom controller and instructor", and was in turn directed to attend mycological seminars around Germany and Austria. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • he was officially requested — By the government?
  • some of the issues surrounding the large genus Cortinarius — Is "issue" a technical term?
    • No. Clarified - "scientific challenges". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

England and the Federal Institute for Forestry Research

  • Two sentences beginning with "There, he" in the first paragraph
  • with the latter being sponsored by the naturalist Roger Phillips — What does it mean for the translation to be sponsored? Also, worth a red link?
    • I think it just means he paid for it. "Published", works, though - and is clearer! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "much used and appreciated field manual" ... "the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi". — Whose words? Also, I'm not sure you need to hyphenate "most-used", but, given that you do, is there a reason why you didn't hyphenate "most authoritative"?
    • I've attributed the quotes. The hyphenation follows the original quote: "One very important feature is that each plate is keyed to the appropriate page in Meinhard Maser's treatment in Kleinen Kryptogamenflora, the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi, and the taxonomy follows his treatment." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are any of Moser's illustrations in the public domain, or do you think it's worth making a fair use case for one (I would probably say that such a case could be made, but we have different perspectives on the matter)?
    • I can't see any being public domain. I think a fair use claim could be made if I had a bit more about the importance of his work as an illustrator, but I think I'd rather use the space for photos of fungi anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

University of Innsbruck

  • In 1970, Moser became the president of the Austrian Mycological Society — Seems a bit out of place here
    • Point taken; I've made it a little more chronological. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • serving to encourage others to engage with Cortinarius in a meaningful way. — This is pretty vague
    • Adjusted.
  • It was a study of Cortinarius, Dermocybe, and Stephanopus, the latter described for the first time, in South America. — This is confusing, particularly the final clause. Stephanopus had been described before, but never in South America? If so, it could be clarified by removing the final comma, or adding a semicolon somewhere, perhaps after Stephanopus.
    • A study of three genera in South America, one of which was described for the first time. I'm pretty sure it's grammatically sound, but if it confused you, it will confuse others, so I've rewritten the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983. — Better suited under "Recognition"?
    • I could move the special issues to the recognition section, but I quite like them where they are as (if you like) "career highlights". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Retirement and death

  • the earliest possible date — What exactly does this mean? Surely he could have retired earlier if he wanted, it just would have been disadvantageous to do so (pension, benefits, etc.)?
    • I agree, so I have removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • identifying 70 previously undocumented species, including some new to science. — So there were undocumented species that were not new to science? Does that mean that they were known, but no description had been published?
    • Undocumented from the region, basically. I've clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 7th International Congress — The 7th International Congress for underwater archaeology? On a more serious note (though the organization should still be clarified), it might be worth adding the dates—11–17 August 2002—to show how he remained engaged until weeks before his death.
    • Yes, good; I've expanded to give some flavour. It seems he was involved with four separate papers... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Research

  • Much of his research covered four key areas — And then only three, really, are listed.
  • "made the first successful steps" — Fairly generic language like could just be paraphrased instead of quoted, but if you prefer to quote, then whose words?

Personal life

  • was fluent in several languages — Such as?

Recognition

  • ((E. Horak) E. Horak) — Mistake?
    • No - it means Horak described it in one genus (in this case, in Phlegmacium) but subsequently moved it to a different genus (in this case, Cortinarius). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If interested, the Romanian article has a nice way of putting the 20-odd species/genera named after Moser into a chart.

Bibliography

  • The Italian article has what looks like a very comprehensive list of articles if you feel like some copy and paste is in order, but, especially with his significant output, I understand the desire to curate.
    • I don't really want to list every short comment he published - especially as he was so prolific! I have, however, added an external link to a relatively full list as an explanatory footnote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  • How do you feel about sfn footnotes?
    • I like them now, but I think I was a little intimidated when I first started writing the article (which, as you note, was - terrifyingly! - back in 2010). I'll think about switching them over. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cited texts

  • Any reason why sometimes just the first initial is given, and sometimes the full first name? I added the first name for Benkert, but note that there is still a source cited with Moser's full first name.
    • I suspect I was following how the author was named in the paper in question. I will, however, put some time into making it consistent. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Any reasons why some of these use citation templates and others do not?
    • Because the citation templates sometimes do things I don't want them to - some of these publications are in relatively unusual formats (e.g., a monograph published as a special issue of a journal(!)). I want them to be consistent/correct from the reader's point of view. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do Hausknecht 2003 & Horak et al. 2003 use hyphens instead of en dashes for a reason (such as the actual article titles use hyphens), or is this inadvertent?
    • Good question. Not worth quibbling about, I suspect, so I've made them MOS-compliant! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall

  • Looks good, J Milburn. Nice work on this—over the course of a decade! Comments above, and I'd recommend double checking my edits. On a funny note, I first read your description above as "Meinhard Moser was an Austrian misogynist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much for taking the time to review this, and sorry my responses have been a little bitty. Your comments are undoubtedly useful. I was happy with many of your changes, but have tweaked a few others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Adding my support, J Milburn, sorry for the delay. Again, nice job with this article! --Usernameunique (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

CommentsSupport from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

His contributions to the Kleine Kryptogamenflora Mitteleuropas series of mycological guidebooks - shouldn't the German bit be in italics? (foreign words as italics)
Same issue with same work in body of text
published the first volume of the book series Farbatlas der Basidiomyzeten - same

Otherwise not much to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look - these are titles of series, and thus are proper nouns. From MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). See § Words as words, above." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, am not seeing any outstanding prose issues and I think it is comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 25, Schinner et al: source gives a page range of 331–347. Can you be more specific?
  • No- I'm citing it to prove its own existence. The claim it's citing is: "In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why has ref 29, Wasser 1995, got a page no, but not ref 30 to the same source?
  • Again, it was citing the paper as a whole. I've made this a little worse, and cited the whole volume as a primary source for claims about what the volume contains! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Same issue with ref 35, Horak et al 2002. Other citations to this source carry page numbers.
  • This is just a reference confirming the existence of the paper mentioned in the prose. Again - primary source for the paper's own existence, if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Same issue with refs 36 and 37
  • In the list of cited texts, IMA (2002) appears to be out of alphabetical sequence
  • What is the language for the Benkert sources?
  • The third Horak source has Sydowia in the "journal=" field, but the link doesn't go there. Needs a pipe to Sydowia (journal)
  • Same issue in Schinner
  • Quality/reliability: All sources are high-quality and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Dealt with some, leave the others with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done, a long as you're happy with the slightly unusual citation of a whole volume of a journal (though it's a funny source - somewhere between an edited collection and a journal...). Thanks again! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Now that I'm finally done with Crusade, I have a bit more brain capacity to spare... Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments so far; appreciated. Sorry I missed this until now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • At first glance, there are a few duplinks which can be revealed with the usual script:[8]
    • Removed two; I'd rather keep the other if that's OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if footnote 1 should have a citation, such as the source it mentions?

Peter van Geersdaele

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; finally retiring after a last move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It has been expanded to include a more broader take on his life with the obituaries that followed his death last year, and is the most comprehensive take on his life available. Recently reviewed by The Rambling Man, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: a few nitpicks:
  • Gooderham: You've repeated a typo ("Counil") from the source – I don't think you have to do that.
  • Good catch; I probably just copied and pasted originally, and didn't notice. I've added a "[sic]" in the title.
  • I think the "Family Notices" source needs a publisher. This notice originally appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times which is evidently the publisher of this website.
  • Added East Anglian Daily Times as the publisher. I'd cite directly to the newspaper (and include the link as a courtesy link), but I haven't (yet) been able to find a copy as it appeared in print.
  • The Painter source seems to be out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography.
  • Fixed.
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, sources meet the necessary FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRM

As noted in the nomination comments, I reviewed it at GAN and applied my usual "slightly more like FAC criteria than GAN criteria" approach which I knew the nominator wouldn't object to. I can't see any good reason right now why this shouldn't be passed as FA, I've gone over it one more time for comprehensiveness, MOS compliance, etc, and can't see anything which stands out. Good work, I hope the dying FAC process will provide some other input from content reviewers to stop this failing through lack of interest. Good work and good luck. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

Minimal (if valuable) commentary after a month -- pls seek some more reviews or I'm afraid we'll have to close as no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles H. Stonestreet

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who led Georgetown University and the American Jesuit province at a critical time in their history. He had a rather interesting life. One tidbit is that he was called as a character witness for two of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This is a second nomination, as the first did not generate sufficient comments. Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRM

I've had the pleasure of reviewing Ergo Sum's work on a number of occasions and this is a good example of one such article which I reviewed for GA-class but which I felt fundamentally exceeded those requirements. I'm pleased to see it here at FAC and also pleased to offer my support to the nomination. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review

- spotchecks not done

  • FN13: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is the publisher, not the website or author
    • Fixed at {{Inflation/fn}}. Although there is an ongoing debate there, which really doesn't have anything to do with this article. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retrieval dates aren't useful for GBooks links
    • I think they serve a purpose, so long as they don't violate any policy. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Catholic Editing Company is not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil

Will look over next few days. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Leaning support, have read about half. Two things so far:
  • The article is very much a CV; especially in the very dense lead, where its all about the sequence of the progression of his career...and then..and then..and then.., and there is very little context. I don't really mind - notability is not in question, but is there a way to breath more life into it? Or shorthen so only the major progressions are mentioned, and not drowned by minor events. That would increase the chances of readers not getting exhausted and reading further. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Admittedly, given a broad, contextual flavor to articles is not my strong suit, since it generally involves to quite a bit more research into ancillary events, which I don't know if I have the time to do at the moment. Ergo Sum 17:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've realized what I was trying to say. The article is too verbose, perhaps because sources are hard to find, and there may have been padding in earlier drafts. Not that I would remove any claims, but certainly would state them in less words. This is an example of what I mean, and you could certainly cut the lead by 33%...its a dense and daunting read as it stands. Note I am still leading support. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've trimmed the lede so that it's less verbose. Ergo Sum 17:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you create a small article on the know nothings...they sound frustratingly fascinating, but are currently unexplained in the lead only.
    • I do believe the Know Nothing article captures that phenomenon. Ergo Sum 17:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For many years, discussions had occurred about establishing a dedicated scholasticate to educate new Jesuits, which would be separate from Georgetown, which educated lay students and where many of the Jesuit scholastics were teachers. this is hard to parse for several reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • You're right, that was a muddled sentence. I've made it much clearer. Ergo Sum 17:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments. I will go through them in the next couple days. Ergo Sum 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not withstanding, I am a Support here, working on the lead, and expectant that Ergo will work through issue highlighted. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: Thank you for your comments. I've left a note for each one. Ergo Sum 17:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad III of Granada

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the third Nasrid Sultan of Granada. Unlike his predecessors Muhammad I and Muhammad II (which I also improved to FA), his rule was rather short and he was deposed in a coup. Recently passed GA, and I subsequently expanded the article to be more comprehensive. I hope I have covered all major facts and details of his life and 7-year reign now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Of course I have to read the entire series, so will review soon. At first glance, there appears to be a lot of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[9]
    • Thank you, removed duplinks. HaEr48 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More names and terms could be linked in the image captions.
    • Linked some names in image captions. HaEr48 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He had a sister, Fatima, born c. 1260 from the same mother." I think here it would be best to name him than just saying "he", since so many people are mentioned up to that point.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe the paragraph in the Early life section could be split in two? Very long now.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Marinids are not linked at first mention, but several mentions down.
    • Done. Actually the redirect target (Marinid dynasty) is already linked even earlier. Removed the later link. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Link holy war?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There was some discussion about the cause of his bad eyesight below, and that the reading into the night part was inaccurate. But if this is mentioned by many source, I think it could at least be mentioned in footnote b that this was historically claim, without stating it as fact. If that was what they thought was the cause at the time, it's worthy of mention for context. Will ping Haukurth to see what they think about this too.
    • @Haukurth: What do you think? It is true that many sources (including modern historians) mention it. HaEr48 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Can we mention this as a historical claim without making it sound like we're endorsing it? Haukur (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Haukurth and FunkMonk: I mentioned it now in note [b]. Since it's rather buried (in notes), and framed as "Sources ... mentioned ...", I hope it will sound like we are endorsing it. Interestingly, one of the sources also mention his father's sight problems in addition to the night reading stuff, which I added to the note as well. HaEr48 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me with this context. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "instead of the Sultan" Not sure, but aren't such titles only suppsoed to be capirtalised when they are followed by a name? Like president and such.
    • MOS:JOBTITLES is relevant here. It is not the clearest guideline out there, but my understanding is that it should be capitalized when referring to a specific person, as is the case here. 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " and the two Christian kingdoms—without mentioning the Marinid collaboration—asked the Pope Clement V" You haven't mentioned the Marinids were also Muslim yet, though it may be obvious to many readers, the point of this sentence may be lost to some if you don't state it explicitly.
    • Stated explictly now in "background"
  • "a palace coup deposed Muhammad and executed his vizier" Organised by who?
    • I added several parties involved in the coup, but couldn't say who "organised" it. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was replaced by his 21-years old half-brother Nasr." Was he in on the coup.
    • None of the sources mention his involvement. It seemed as if he was just installed after the fact. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "a raven followed him there from the Alhambra" Alhambra has not been linked or presented until this point. You link it further down.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "There was an attempt to restore Muhammad III during Nasr's reign" By who?
    • Done (the royal council). HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and like many monarchs of Al-Andalus" Seems a bit odd that al ndalus is only mentioned way down here. I think it could even be mentioned and explained under background, all readers may not know what it is.
    • Good point. Done, and also added more background about the state of Muslim Iberia in #Background. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "the elegance of this mosque, which do not survive" Does not?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I" I doubt that's the Ismail I you mean, the one linked is a Safavid. Seems Ismail I of Granada is the one.
    • Done. You are correct. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(destroyed by Philip II in the sixteenth century)" Link Philip? And I wonder if the church built instead has an article?
    • Done. Unfortunately neither the church or the destroyed mosque has an article. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "epithet al-Makhlu'" You don't capitalise makhlu in the article body.
    • Capitalized body to make it consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "One of the poems that he composed is preserved in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." Since you even mention this in the intro, which is supposed to cover the most important parts of the article, I wonder if the poem could be shown here?
    • I wish... Unfortunately, I don't have access to it, and it is not easy to get hold of Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @FunkMonk: I found the poem in the original Arabic and a Spanish translation. Added the English translation to Muhammad III of Granada#Personality. I am surprised to find that it is about one's broken heart because of a lady. Please take a look and feel free to copyedit or improve the wording. HaEr48 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool! There is an incongruence here: "the wine of that lovely lips!" those lovely lips or that lovely lip? FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In the Arabic it is singular, but I guess in English it is more natural to talk about lips as plural, so I've updated it to "those lovely lips". HaEr48 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking nice, last points to added text: " and eventually becoming Emirate of Granada" Shouldn't this have "the" in front of Emirate of Granada? FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • You are right. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this UK or US English? I see both "criticised" (UK) and "favor" (US). FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Ran the ENGVAR script again and now they're all UK. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work on this series, I wonder if there will be more? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @FunkMonk: Thank you, appreciate the interest Face-smile.svg. Yes, I hope to do the other Nasrid monarchs chronologically, but now and then I might be distracted by other topics. HaEr48 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • File:Fernando IV el Emplazado, Rey de Castilla y León.jpg needs a source. The PD claims can't be verified without one. It also needs a US PD tag.
    • Replaced with another image with a better source and license.
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, captions should not end in a full stop unless they contain at least one full sentence.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Haukurth

The thing about reading well into the night is mentioned in two sections, which seems unnecessary. Also, does reading by poor light really cause vision problems? When I try to Google this, I only get pages rejecting this as a misconception. Haukur (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: Good find - I did not know that. Probably the historians just assumed causation between these two things. The sources that debunk this seem very reliable, so I removed any implication from the article, and also it is no longer repeated in two sections. HaEr48 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Haukur (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is this: "Historical sources, such as Harvey 1992, p. 166 and Real Academia de la Historia mentioned his night-time reading habit as a possible cause of his eyesight problem." I think the past tense here is odd, I would say 'mention'. But I also think it's odd to refer to Castro as "Real Academia de la Historia", is there a reason for that?

Updated to use present tense and to use "Vidal Castro". My original reason was because it doesn't have a year like other sources named by author name, but on second thought I see it doesn't help anything. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The bibliography of Castro's article lists 38 sources. Are there no more there that you feel would be worthwhile for us?

So, most of those are raw materials for historians (e.g. primary sources or old historians), probably only one-forth or less of the 38 are published in the last 50 years, and we have covered many of those. I will look at one or two new sources mentioned there, but in my experience at this point there is unlikely to be anything substantial to add. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The images feel a bit low-effort; "the map might not correspond to its territories during Muhammad III's rule" and "Borders might differ slightly from those during Muhammad III's reign" sounds like we could barely even be bothered to look closely at them. For a featured article, I think it's reasonable to expect more. It would also be nice to have images showing artifacts connected with Muhammad III. Coinage was presumably issued during his reign and would be interesting to see. A manuscript page with his poem would be another idea. Haukur (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated the map with one specific to Muhammad III's reign, thanks for the suggestion :) Also added a page of his poem quoted in his article, but it was from a 1928/1929 edition rather than an original manuscript. Do you think it's still worthwhile to add? I totally agree with you that it would be nice to have more artifacts, but I spent hours looking for coins and other such artifacts, but could not find anything. We have to remember that he was just a ruler of a small kingdom for 7 years, likely we do not have as much artifacts from that narrow period and place. Fortunately, the Partal Palace that he built still exists, and the article has a picture of that Face-smile.svg HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
We do have some coin experts around. Maybe User:T8612 would know where to look, even if this isn't his time period. Haukur (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope, couldn't find one, but even if I did, the problem is to have copyright free pictures. A large ancient coin dealer has accepted to release all their coin pics in the public domain, so we have plenty of them as a result. It would be great if we could have the same arrangement with a dealer of modern coins, but I don't know how to do that. T8612 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it! Haukur (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: Thanks for the additional comments. I replied above. Let me know if you have more. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated map. That's much better. And I do think the page with the poem adds a little something. Haukur (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I still think showing the page is helpful. It allows anyone who can read Arabic to quickly dig deeper into M's poetry. And I think it's a nice touch visually. Haukur (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDuke

Just a small comment. This biography has a picture of a palace ("Partal Palace") and claims that its construction is attributed to Muhammad III. Muhammad II's biography has a different picture of the same building, but calls it "Tower of the Ladies" and claims that Muhammad II built it. One of the articles has the wrong picture, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Great point. I recently noticed it too and was in the middle of researching when you added this comment. After looking up online, right now my theory is "Tower of the Ladies" is just the tower, and Muhammad III subsequently built a palace (including gardens, etc.) in its site. For now I changed the picture in Muhammad II to just zoom in on the tower. It's still bothering me though, so I am trying to find more sources that can tell me for sure, and for that I added a request in WP:RX. I will update again when I have more information. Thank you for your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@RetiredDuke: After some research, I've updated Muhammad II to no longer include the picture of the building - the current building was built by Muhammad III even though Muhammad II previously built a tower in that site. I've also clarified Muhammad II's contributions to the Alhambra in that article. The usage of the picture in Muhammad III is appropriate though. HaEr48 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@HaEr48: Thank you for clarifying the matter, even going out of your way to research some more. I know we're not reviewing Muhammad II here, but I wasn't sure if you had spotted this inconsistency between the two articles. (And I'm quite enjoying these articles so they better be consistent between them!) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Mimihitam

Outstanding work! I have a few comments:

  • "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry—and cruel." --> reputation among whom? You might have to specify it in the lede.
    • According to WP:WEASEL, it's okay to omit some attribution from lead if it's supported by the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " His blindness or poor vision forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials" --> if he was blind, how could he engage in poetry? Also was he born blind or did he become blind later in his life?

Mimihitam (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • He was not born blind—#Early life section mentioned that he initially had a habit of reading into the night. Added "Later in his life" to lead to make this clear without having to read the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • Maybe standardise the usage of DD/MM/YYYY and the MM/DD/YYYY.
    • @CPA-5: is there any MM/DD/YYYY in the article? I took a quick look and only found DD/MM/YYYY, let me know if I miss anything. HaEr48 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @HaEr48: Look at this sentence in the lead On April 8, 1302 he ascended the Granadan. I also replied to your response below. Cheers.
I see it now. Thanks. The inconsistency is removed now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • underway when Muhammad III was deposed in a palace coup d'état Do not italicise coup d'état because it's an official English word in the dictionaries.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • of his foreign policy and of his vizier Ibn al-Hakim --> "of his foreign policy and of his Vizier Ibn al-Hakim"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • on 15 August 1257 (Wednesday 3 Shaban 655 AH) in Granada.[3][1] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • according to later Granadan historian and vizier Ibn al-Khatib --> "according to later Granadan historian and Vizier Ibn al-Khatib"
    • Here it isn't used as part of his name or as a substitute for the person (it's similar to "the Aragonese king James II", that you asked to lowercase below), so I'll not capitalize it. MOS:JOBTITLES is really confusing. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • and was involved in the affairs of state.[7][1] Re-order the ref.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • to the Marinid Sultan led by his vizier Abu Sultan Aziz ibn al-Mun'im al-Dani --> "to the Marinid Sultan led by his Vizier Abu Sultan Aziz ibn al-Mun'im al-Dani"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Aragonese King James II sent an envoy, Bernat de Sarrià --> "The Aragonese king James II sent an envoy, Bernat de Sarrià"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • and was succeeded by his brother Abu al-Rabi Sulayman.[26][23] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • During Muhammad III's reign, his vizier Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim al-Rundi --> "During Muhammad III's reign, his Vizier Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim al-Rundi"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • that excluded him from many of his duties.[29][21][30] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • the Granadan fleet prepared for war.[37][20] Same as above.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The vizier was seen to hold the real power of the state --> "The Vizier was seen to hold the real power of the state"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • palaces of the Sultan and the vizier, and the vizier was personally killed Maybe remove the second "and".
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • by his political rival Atiq ibn al-Mawl.[41][35] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nasr is overlinked.
    • Removed duplink in a later section. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • during the solemn ceremony of his ascension.[48][1] Same as above.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • power later held by his vizier Ibn al-Hakim --> "power later held by his Vizier Ibn al-Hakim"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • cousin-uncle Abu Said Faraj served as the governor of Málaga --> "cousin-uncle Abu Said Faraj served as the Governor of Málaga"
    • This looks like "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States" that shouldn't be capitalized according to MOS:JOBTITLES. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I in 1314. The link of Ismail goes to the 16-century Persian King?
    • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A miniature drawing of an European man with a crown In the alt of the File:Ferdinand4.jpg image has a little typo.
    • What is the typo? My spellcheck doesn't show anything. HaEr48 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • the typo is "an European" it should be only "a European". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Aragon would gain one sixth of the kingdom and Castile --> "Aragon would gain one-sixth of the kingdom and Castile"
    • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9. That is a general principle of courtesy to the WP community, regardless of the rules. Here is a list of errors in the first few sentences of the lead:

"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him."
"which unconfirmed rumours" (Rumors, by definition, are unconfirmed)
"rumours said" (Rumours can't speak. They ascribe, attribute, implicate, etc., ...)
The full sentence: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." (It is best to break it up, as the reader is attempting to digest new information: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death of his father Muhammad II. Rumors at the time implicated him (or Muhammad III) in the death which was attributed to poisoning."
Removed "unconfirmed". I retained "said" per WP:SAY, and did not split because the resulting sentences would be too short on its own, but long in total. This is the lead section, conciseness is important too. I don't think a reader will have too much trouble processing two info in the same sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
With respect, I think that F&f's objection is not to the use of the word "said" per se, but to the fact that rumours, like theories, ideas, etc, can't say. Suggest you reword as: "According to rumours..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton User HaEr48 already put "According to rumours...", but this user is still unsatisfied. Mimihitam (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry and reading—and cruel." (A more extreme version of this would be, "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved reciting poetry and reading histories while riding bareback—and cruel. In other words, if you are going to exemplify one, viz "cultured," by giving an instance, then you must balance the sentence by exemplifying the other, "cruel.")
Removed the "—he particularly.." part to make it balanced. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"Later in his life, he became blind or suffered poor eyesight," (If you're not sure which, then you need to say something more general like, "he became visually handicapped.")
Good suggestion. Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"which forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials," (Blindness doesn't necessarily "force." The response to it is person-dependent. Absenting oneself doesn't automatically imply that high officials will step in. He is the Sultan, his duties are of the Sultan. So, it is much better to say, "which caused him to rely on high officials in the performance of his duties."
Reworded the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar"
"Inheriting a war against" (In figurative or literary language one could say that, (another example is: "Churchill inherited WWII from Chamberlain."} but generally not in encyclopedic language, which requires more precision.)
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he" (Usually, the first reference to the subject in a paragraph is not to a pronoun, unless the noun is close at hand, in the same sentence; so it's better to say, "Inheriting ... , Muhammad III ...")
" expanded his father's territorial gains" ("territorial gains" refer to an increase in the area of sovereign lands, in other words, to "territorial expansion." You can't really expand an expansion. Better to say, "continued the territorial expansion begun by his father." or "furthered the territorial gains of his father." Probably, it is most encyclopedic to say something like: "During his reign, Muhammad II had expanded the kingdom's territory by annexing blank, blank, ... and blank from Castile; Muhammad III continued the territorial expansion by annexing Bedmar. This sequence of presentation has the least number of chronological surprises for a reader. The participial clause, "Inheriting a war ...," however, transports the father, who very likely did most of the annexing, to much later in the sentence (to the predicate in the main clause}. Until then, we have no idea that the father had made any territorial gains.)
"Receive or be left with from a predecessor" is a dictionary definition of "inherit", so it is appropriate here. As for your suggestion, it will make the passage a lot longer, while we want the lead section to be a summary. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute."
"He then" ("then" is not needed. It is understood that it is what he did next.)
Removed. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"which confirmed" (a treaty doesn't really "confirm;" it recognizes. The Sultan's parliament, if he had had one, would have confirmed the treaty.
Changed to recognized. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
"Granada's new border" (you didn't tell us anything about a border until now; what you mean is something like, "negotiated a treaty with Castille which recognized Granada's sovereignty over the territories it had recently annexed."
Changed to "recognized Granada's conquests" which is more concise than your suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I am feeling overwhelmed by the lack of clarity. So, imagine the plight of a new reader. Your article needs more clarity in the presentation. We haven't got to the sources, to how comprehensively the article covers them, to how accurately it reflects the consensus, the controversies, and so forth. But a reviewer cannot delve into them when the presentation is opaque. The sentences above are examples. Fixing them alone will not fix the article. I will check again in a couple of weeks time, but not before. The presentation requires that much time to improve, and perhaps more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I won't comment on the issues brought up here, but the statement "An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9" is false, FAC nominations don't even have to be GAs first to begin with (and are routinely sent to FAC straight after passing GAN). The time it takes to go from GA to FAC is even more irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I said, "Regardless of the rules." It is a value judgment. You do not agree with it. That does not make it false. Furthermore, just because it is routinely done does not make it right, nor its submission any less of a discourtesy to reviewers. I'm sure the Greeks have a name for that fallacy. My oppose, I hasten to say, has to do with the errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for your comments. I've replied above and I've followed those that I feel useful. I'm afraid I have to push back on some of the others because they do not look like improvements. For example, I do not want to expand sentences that are meant as summaries in lead with longer sentences that explains too much detail. As for time between GA and FA, not only there is no rule about it, I am also not sure what it has to do with being "general principle of courtesy". Looking forward to improve the article if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Even if you are looking for compression, want to suggest that M-III personally delivered the poison to M-II, are hesitant to use pronouns, fearing ambiguity, nowhere does it say that,
"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." is to be preferred to:
"Muhammad III ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death his father Muhammad II. Rumours cast the death as poisoning by Muhammad III." Please take my comments in the spirit in which they are meant. It goes for all my comments. It goes for the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 copyedited this passage, hopefully this looks good for you now. HaEr48 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler I: The rephrased versions of some early senteces

───────────────────────── Unfortunately, in my experience, if the author is not making the edits himself or herself with care, eliciting instead edits from others, the text keeps stumbling from one error-ridden version to another.

It now reads: "He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II. Contemporaries rumoured that the younger Muhammad had poisoned him, and in later life he gained a reputation for both culture and cruelty."

I don't know who finally edited this version, but it is much worse than what you had before.

  • There are issues here with the pronoun "he" and its various forms. In the first sentence "he" and "his" refer to Muhammad III. In the second sentence "him" refers to Muhammad II but the "he" to Muhammad III.
  • In the second sentence, "and" implies that there is a connection between poisoning one's father and becoming cultured later in life. Surely, that is not what you intended.
  • "Contemporaries," has the additional implication of peer-group. We have no idea who the rumor mongers were. They could have been contemporaries of the deceased king for all we know.
  • And "the younger Muhammad?" The reader does not know at this stage whether Muhammad is a name or the Sultan's title. If it is a title, then it wasn't assumed at the time of the poisoning, so "that younger Muhammad had poisoned him," is confusing. Also "Younger Muhammad" is generally too colloquial for an encyclopedia, at least in the lead.
  • "Later life," is not the same thing as "later in life." ("Later life," generally, refers to the latter period of life, as in "diseases of later life, such as cancer." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

All you want to say is something simple. If you don't like my versions, you can write something along the lines of what Brianboulton has suggested: "According to rumors then current, the death was by poisoning and the perpetrator (was) Muhammad III." But there are bigger questions here, that only you can ask yourself, and answer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not be interacting here, but reading through this, it needs pushback.
1) Nobody is going to confuse the world's single most common name for a title. For the record, the title was introduced in the first sentence of the lede as "Sultan". Moreover, the "younger Muhammad" has already been introduced as the son of Muhammad II by this point, but it is a tad colloquial.
2) Contemporaries also means "those alive at the time", which they must have been, else they would not have been able to rumour it.
And 3) As to pronouns, short of concluding that "the younger Muhammad" is a separate, un-introduced son of Muhammad II there is little confusion to be had here. Or do you want to suggest that Muhammad III poisoned Muhammad III and "gained a reputation for ..." after that.
Here: He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II, whom, [it was/contemporaries] rumoured, he had poisoned. In all instances he/his refers to Muhammad III. Whether Muhammad III poisoned him directly or indirectly will impact the proposed rework from "he had poisoned" to "he had had poisoned". Although, I must caution the nominator, that F&F will find no less than six issues with it, say it is utterly illegible, and conclude that it must have been written by a particularly vicious group of monkeys bashing their heads against a type-writer. Let me get you all started: the comma placement is probably entirely fucked. Something something operative, subordinate, submissive clause something something. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I also don't understand the fuss. In my opinion, the sentences that were mentioned here are completely clear and understandable. Furthermore, the "problems" that were raised by this particular user seem to be excessively fabricated, like "reader confusing Muhammad as a title" - LOL?? In my opinion, the nominator should just dismiss nonconstructive rebuke like this. Mimihitam (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude and Mimihitam for chiming in. I thought it was just me who find this review a little... nonconstructive. Fowler&fowler we need a better way to make the review more effective. I'd suggests rather than focusing on rebukes we could try to make the review more specific and actionable, like the other reviews in this page. If what you propose is clearly an improvement, you don't even need to include argument; if it is less clear I can ask clarification. Ideally, most of the comments should be clear, so only a few clarification will be needed. If you look at the reviews from FunkMonk and CPA-5, most comments are sppecific action item without needing arguments. This way we're able to cover the entire article effectively, while in your review after so many words and back and forth we barely made any improvement to the lead section, and we end up with a lot of confused editors. HaEr48 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: By "title" I obviously mean a regnal name. George, Edward, John, Henry, Charles, William, are all among the world's common names. But we don't say, "At the time of George V's death, George VI was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Edward VIII." We say, "Prince Albert was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Prince Edward." Like I said, "contemporary," the noun, can mean what you state, but usually with "of" or a possessive; but, it can also mean, "A person of approximately the same age as another or others." (OED); "one of the same or nearly the same age as another" (Webster's Unabridged), especially when used after a reference to a person by name. In fact, it has an implication of peer-group (including, sometimes, social status). It would be unwise to use "contemporaries" if the rumor had been begun by poor teenagers in a slum. As for "... whom it was rumored he had poisoned," while it is grammatically correct, it elevates the rumored poisoning to the same semantic level, and thus implied significance, as the death of the father. If you are Lytton Strachey and writing provocative prose, this is acceptable; if you are writing for an encyclopedia, it is not. Without having looked, I am reasonably sure that the major English language sources have phrasing much closer to mine than what was in the article when I first encountered it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The version of the text critiqued by the reviewer above has been since rewritten, so let's move on to looking at the current text. HaEr48 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler II: Death, poisoning, regnal name
@HaEr48: I just looked at one of the sources, Hugh Kennedy's Muslim Spain and Portugal. Here is what Kennedy says:

"Muhammad II was succeeded by his son, Muhammad III (1302-9). He seems to have been a strange character, with a reputation for bizarre cruelty, and it was alleged that he had in fact poisoned his father. However, he played much the same diplomatic and military game as his father and grandfather had before him. For the first year he continued his father's policy of raiding Castile and maintaining an alliance with Aragon and the Merinids. In 1303, however, Fernando IV established effective control in Castile and forced a complete turnabout in policy. Muhammad was obliged to make peace and to pay the tribute his father had paid to Sancho IV."

Do you see the separation into two sentences of the information about M-II's death and the rumor of the poisoning? Do you see the relegation of the poisoning to the second part of the second sentence, prefaced by "in fact?" That is because Kennedy does not think it has the same significance as M-II's death. Do you see (1302-1307)? That means Muhammad III is a regnal name. Do you see, "continuing his father's policy," along the lines of what I had suggested earlier without being aware of Kennedy's existence? I am paying attention not only to grammar, to style, but also to what sounds historiographically plausible, i.e. to what is in consonance with the writing of history. You need to read the sources again and again. I mean this earnestly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Again an extremely fabricated concern. No reader is going to give a damn about whether the poisoning part is as important as M-II's death or not. What is important for the common reader like me is that M-II is M-III's father, that M-III succeeded his father, and that there were rumours that M-III poisoned his own father. This is consistent with the source that was cited, which is all that is important for a good Wikipedia article. I really suggest to @HaEr48 to stop responding to this user, his rebuke is completely nonconstructive (if not downright useless). I've had academic peer reviews before, and they won't fuss over such trivial matter. Mimihitam (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree that what we want is to present the death, the succession and the rumour of poisoning. I disagree that we have to split the sentences exactly as Kennedy has it, not only because Kennedy is just one source, but because a Wikipedia lead section serves a different purpose (mostly a summary) than certain paragraphs in a book (which often serve as transition between one section to the next). HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler III: The Lead Sentence
─────────────────────────@HaEr48: Please explain the lead sentence, "Muhammad III (16 August 1257 – 21 January 1314, ruled 8 April 1302 – 14 March 1309) the third Nasrid ruler of the Emirate of Granada in Al-Andalus on the Iberian Peninsula." Britannica, for example, defines Al Andalus as:

"Al-Andalus, also called Muslim Spain, Muslim kingdom that occupied much of the Iberian Peninsula from 711 CE until the collapse of the Spanish Umayyad dynasty in the early 11th century. The Arabic name Al-Andalus was originally applied by the Muslims (Moors) to the entire Iberian Peninsula; it likely refers to the Vandals who occupied the region in the 5th century. In the 11th century, when European Christians began to reconquer the peninsula, Al-Andalus, or Andalusia, came to mean only the area still under Muslim control and thus became permanently attached to the modern-day region."

  • But those regions of Spain under Muslim rule had reduced to nothing but Granada by 1302, when Muhammad III succeeded as ruler. So, what does that sentence really mean? ("Muhammad III was the ruler of Granada in Muslim Spain, which by 1302 was nothing but Granada") Why do we have such an opaque and tautological formulation in the lead sentence?
  • Why have you not explicitly mentioned in the lead sentence the most important fact about Granada in 1302, one supported by sources,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] that it was a small vassal state of Castile? You have only obliquely mentioned it later in the lead. In other words, most sources have a far less grandiloquent formulation, along the lines of: "Muhammad III was the Nasirid ruler of Granada, a (small) Muslim vassal state of Castile on the Iberian Peninsula in the early 14th century."
On the subject of classifying Granada as a "vassal state" of Castile, Harvey pp.26-28 provides an explanation why it is a simplification to call it that. As you see in the article, and other Nasrid biographies, while Nasrid kings from time to time pledge "fealty" and pay tribute to the Castilian king, that relationship is intermittent (in other times Granada is independent and/or fighting against Castile) and even when it is in place, it lacks many other features of a feudal vassal state. I'll let you read Harvey if you want to know more, but for this article I believe it is better to mention the specific acts of oath or tribute payments rather than classifying Granada as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Then why did you have, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." only five days ago?
As I said, I'm fine with describing specific acts of vassalage/fealty, as was done by Muhammad III in 1304 in the sentence you quoted. But as per Harvey, I don't want to simplify matters too much by classifying Granada, an entity lasting 250 years with a complicated relationship with Castile, as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
But you weren't talking about 250 years, only five. Harvey (1990) is only one source, but there are many sources. Harvey is a monograph. You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, to be mentioned in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day, we have medieval vassalage, for which we have the well-worn usage of feudalism. Why are you using (in the lead) terms such as "government," "coup d' etat," or "foreign policy," which don't belong to feudalism? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (2013), A History of Medieval Spain, Cornell University Press, pp. 625–, ISBN 978-0-8014-6871-1
  2. ^ Bradbury, Jim (2 August 2004), The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Routledge, pp. 223–, ISBN 978-1-134-59847-2
  3. ^ Kohn, George Childs (2013), Dictionary of Wars, Routledge, pp. 463–, ISBN 978-1-135-95494-9
  4. ^ Reilly, Bernard F. (1993), The Medieval Spains, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–, ISBN 978-0-521-39741-4
  5. ^ Bouza, Fernando; Cardim, Pedro; Feros, Antonio (9 September 2019), The Iberian World: 1450–1820, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1427–, ISBN 978-1-00-053705-5
  6. ^ Findlay, Ronald; Lundahl, Mats (16 November 2016), The Economics of the Frontier: Conquest and Settlement, Springer, pp. 52–, ISBN 978-1-137-60237-4
  7. ^ Hough, Jerry F.; Grier, Robin (30 April 2015), The Long Process of Development, Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–, ISBN 978-1-107-67041-9
I'm replying primarily to acknowledge that I've read F&F's reply to myself (via ping) and HaEr48. It was not obvious to me that you meant regnal name, as opposed to title. I don't know the value of playing with semantics, and I've not seen anyone else concern themselves with it (anywhere on Wikipedia except AN/ANI and ArbCom). If it matters, there are viable solutions. E.g. He ascended the throne after the death of his father, Muhammad II. He had a reputation [for culture and cruelty/of being cultured and cruel], and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. For the record, Harvery writes:

The agreement, ratified in January 1302, was never put to the test, for in April 1302 Muhammad II died. A story was put about that he had been poisoned by a sweetmeat administered by his heir. We have no means of telling what really happened. Reports of extreme cruelty inflicted on others by Muhammad III do indicate that his was an abnormal psychological make-up.

As far as I can tell, both Kennedy and Harvey reference the rumoured murder in relation to Muhammad III's cruelty and mental state. In which case, semantically, cultured does not belong in that sentence. E.g. He had a reputation for cruelty, and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. Although, refer to p. 166–167 of Harvey for both cruelty and culture. But, let me repeat myself, I don't know that this matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added two sentences about the Castile-Granada relationship and the vassalage (from the Castilian point of view) to the background. I disagree that we should delve into that much detail in the very first sentence of the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
As suggested, I've removed "coup d'état", but in my opinion "government" and "foreign policy" are generic and descriptive term and I disagree that we can't use them for medieval kingdoms. But I'm open to suggestion if you have other terminologies in mind. HaEr48 (talk)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler IV: The Poetry section
@HaEr48: I was looking at the poetry/personality section. It would be nice to have the poem written out in the original Arabic in the left column, the Romanized Arabic transliteration in the middle column and the English translation in the right column. Can you do that? It would be a nice touch giving readers, most of whom are unlikely to have even a smattering of a knowldge of the script, a feel for the sounds of the language and its poetry. Something along the lines of Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua or Sare_Jahan_se_Accha#Text_of_poem, which are, of course, Urdu poems composed by the Pakistani poet Muhammad Iqbal. As it stands, the Arabic script—an image, File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png, from one page from a book you added a few days ago—seems disconnected to the translation accompanying it, Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Personality. The script has 16 rhyming lines, split into groups of 7 and 9; the translation has only 14. Or is it a translation of the top half of the script page (with seven lines each separated into two halves)? Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات ? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean? Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning? I can see that it rhymes, of course. The script has a title and two lines below it, which the translation does not have. Some illumination for an ordinary reader will be most helpful. It doesn't have to be as detailed as I've asked for ... but still. It is not unreasonable to ask for this in an FA, given that the other pages above are just stubs, have been stubs for years, maintained by fans, with no higher ambition than preserving memories of long ago. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Updating after adding ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The quoted poem is the 7 lines separated into halves - now I clarified this in the caption. I've added answers to your question about the parts of the book page in the description of the File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png Commons page, let me know if you have more questions. It is not the right period or place for ghazal, so I don't think so. As for the Arabic transcription, per WP:NOFULLTEXT I think it will be better for wikisource, I'll work on that in the next few days hopefully. HaEr48 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You are unwilling to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration citing, WP:NOFULLTEXT, then why do you have the full printed Naskh (Arabic) versions of two poems in the image, taken from a screengrab after the FAC had begun? Why do you have the full English translation? I asked; "Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean?" You did not reply. I asked, "Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning?" You replied, "It is not the right period or place." But, Cynthia Robinson in her chapter in Leoni, Francesca; Natif, Mika (2013). Eros and Sexuality in Islamic Art. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-1-4094-6438-9. mentions ghazals in the anthologies of al-Khatib. Another scholar, Shamsie, says, "The ghazal, ... were written in al-Andalus until the ban on all Arabic literature and customs after the fall of Granada of 1492." (here (scroll down to the fifth paragraph)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOFULLTEXT does allow shorter texts like a short poem to be added. I think it is a subjective matter of judgement, personally I feel an English translation (that can be understood by most readers) and and a page scan as illustration is enough, but more details on this historical text belong to Wikisource in my opinion.
As for your questions, أملطولات is not the name of the author, it is just the end of the preceding paragraph introducing Muhammad III's poetry. I added some explanation in the Commons file description (where I think it belongs). ومنها ("and [also] among them:") is similarly just introducing the next poem. I might be wrong on the period of ghazal (I apologize), but still the sources I have at hand do not refer to this particular poem is a ghazal or mention anything about radif. 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You cite NOFULLTEXT as the WP page for disallowing a Romanized Arabic tranliteration. Yet you also cite it for allowing the English translation. You are right, NOFULLTEXT, allows short pieces to be displayed from sources out of copyright. It gives Lincoln's Gettysburg address as an example of such a source. But LGA has 271 words and 1450 characters; your poem has 110 words and 573 characters. NOFULLTEXT will clearly allow a transliteration to accompany it. Otherwise, I don't see the value of a screen grab from a book found on archie.org. My concern is that you have very little that is reliable about his poetry. No criticism, no secondary sources, only a text. Yes you seem reluctant not only to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration, but also a translation of the two lines of introduction in the poem's of the screen grab. Not in the image's file, but in the article. I'm afraid you'll have to do some work. Otherwise, it is best to remove both the screen grab and the translation, both added without ample justification long after the FAC had begun. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say WP:NOFULLTEXT disallows original text, I just think it discourages excessive inclusion of it. The inclusion of the English translation and page scan was added after suggestions by other reviewers (FunkMonk and Haukurth), and I think those are reasonable enough (and not excessive) so I added them. The first two lines that you want added are just Ibn al-Khatib's (relatively unremarkable) intro, it is not relevant enough to translate/quote in full in the article. It might be appropriate for Wikisource. HaEr48 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@HaEr48: The suggeston of FunkMonk and Haukurth was a fine suggestion, but you can't reproduce a poem written before 1309 in Andalusia without giving some details. Was the poem written in Andalusian Arabic (which is somewhat unlikely as it wasn't the language of high culture}, or Classical Arabic but with some stylistics of Andalusian Arabic? Is the 1927 edition of al-Khatib a rendering in Modern Standard Arabic? (Despite the Quran, there are literary distinctions in the two.) For the purposes of giving a reader a sampling of his poetry, the entire poem is not needed. You can give us only the last three of seven lines, beginning with: "I hid my ailment from the eyes of men ..." But it is important that you present the Arabic script along with the English translation in the text and not in a scan, so that interested readers can read the Arabic clearly and check the translation for its accuracy. (As done, for example in the left and right columns in Urdu in Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua.) The last three lines in Arabic, and their English translation will together be less than what you have currently in place. So, NOFULLTEXT will not be an issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. In my opinion, the purpose of the addition is to give flavour and illustration of Muhammad III's personality, not to engage in a critical analysis of the poem or the Arabic text. If someone wants to check the translation, that's absolutely fine, they can always go to the cited source (which is freely available online, btw) and verify it, this is the usual practice in Wikipedia. This is a biography of a king, who happens to write poetry. It is different than the Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua example you gave, which is indeed about a poem. I feel cutting the English text to just 3 lines in order to make space for the Arabic transcript (which most readers won't understand anyway) will not serve the illustration purpose. HaEr48 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the original Arabic to the ref tag as quotation, I hope it's a reasonable compromise? HaEr48 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I am sorry but it is not clear at this point which poem Rachel Arie is referring to, which edition of Al-Lamha, etc. I have requested of you (a) from Rachel Arie's work, a quotation of the the current sentence about the qasida, the sentence before the current sentence, and the full citation after the current sentence, mentioning the edition, date, location of publication of the Al-Lamha and (b) from the Spanish translation (2010) the introductory two lines above the poem, and the first two lines of the poem. The request is in accordance with MOS:QUOTE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I am requesting you (some of which I have requested before and am requesting again) for: (a) Where does Ibn al-Khatib say in the 1927/28 edition of Al Lamha that "both poems are works of Muhammad III? Please provide the page number and the Arabic script. (b) What is the full French citation of Rachel Arie, and the (French) sentence before the sentence that you have kindly provided? (c) Please provide the introduction in Spanish (two lines) and the first two lines (again in Spanish) of the poem from the Spanish translation of Ibn al-Khatib, 2010 and (d) Why does page 49 (the poems) of a 152 page (with possibly 119 pages of real text) correspond to page 157-158 in the Spanish edition of 285 pages? Does the Spanish edition have a long introduction? If so how long? On what page does the actual Al Lamha text begin? All this is in consonance with MOS:QUOTE. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added the two additional quotations from the sources as you requested. I have added six full quotations to the footnotes as per your request. To be honest this is quite time consuming, please consider just reading the online source (this is avalable for Rubiera Mata 1996, Rubiera Mata 1969, Vidal Castro, and Ibn al-Khatib Arabic which you requested), and getting the rest from WP:RX. They can give you full pages, which will give you more context and understanding than just piecemeal sentences.
  • to understand why both poems are works of Muhammad III, you need to read the page in context. The poems is in p.49 of the cited Arabic editor (you can read it here, it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III.
  • added full citation as given by Arié, it is practically the same as the full citation given at the end of the article. The preceding sentence pertains to Muhammad II (not III), so I don't feel it relevant to quote. If you'd like to read it though, you could request from WP:RX.
  • I added the first two lines of the poem. The introduction is quite long, please request WP:RX to give you a copy if you want to read it.

HaEr48 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • You are right that it is in page 157-158 of the Spanish edition because the Spanish edition begins with a long introduction chapter from the translator/editor. The actual translation starts from page 100 or so.
@HaEr48: It doesn't matter that the preceding sentence of Arie pertains to Muhammad II, I have still requested it to see what context the current sentence is written in. I am also requesting the sentence after the current sentence. Three sentences and a citation is not a violation of MOS:QUOTE. Understanding the context is important. You have to understand, you have chosen to write and article using non-English language sources. The burden is on you to help a reviewer in making sure that the information is cited to the correct page, to the correct text on that page, and that it has been correctly paraphrased. I'm sorry that you do not have an Arabic language keyboard, but you should have thought about that before using a blurry scan of a 1927 book. Also, the English translation that you have presented, is it a translation of the Arabic (1927) or the Spanish (2010). We need to be clear about that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@HaEr48: As for: " chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, and began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry," please tell me the exact page numbers and lines for these in the 1927 edition. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Chapter title for Muhammad III is in page 47. "His poetry" heading is in the first line of p. 49. Intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry is in the next three lines after the "his poetry" heading. HaEr48 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Syntax and sourcing:

  • Sentence 1: Historian Ibn al-Khatib, active in mid-fourteenth century Granada, wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness and cruelty" that at the start of his reign he imprisoned his father's household troops and then refused to feed them. (I will add my rewrite at the end.)
    • Harvey's book, to which this is cited, in fact, prefaces this with a summary preview of sorts: "Ibn al-Khatib depicts a personality schizophrenically dominated by conflicting traits." It is important to paraphrase this first so that the reader knows what the account that follows it is about.
  • "Historian Ibn al-Khatib."
    • You have already mentioned IaK in several places. He is a bit of a polymath. Now is not the time to tell the reader matter-of-factly add that he is a historian when earlier he was mentioned only by name. There shouldn't be surprises for a reader when he reads. New information needs to be added incrementally and explicitly, not implicitly and absuptly. It is better at this stage to write, "Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry, ...
  • active in mid-fourteenth century Granada
    • "active" is not a precise word when describing a creative polymath. We are not talking about being active (i.e. participating, Webster's Unabridged) in the beach volleyball league of Andalusia. It is someone who flourished (flourish: to be in a state of activity or production — used chiefly of creative workers such as painters or writers, Webster's Unabridged). So, formally, it would be better to have: ... and who [[floruit|flourished]] in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> described ... (but something simpler might suffice; see below)
    • We don't need "Granada." It is understood.
  • wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness ..."
    • al-Khati (b. 1313, d.1374) only heard about the personality disorders of M-III (d. 1309). Harvey's sentence is: He sets out in full "what is related concerning his brutishness and cruelty," i.e. what is told, what is heard, what is recounted, etc.
  • "brutishness and cruelty"
    • "brutishness and cruelty" is in quotes, implying this is taken from someone. The text cites Harvey, but Harvey who also has quotes, cites Ibn al-Khatib, Lisān al-Dīn; 1973, Kitāb al-Iḥāṭa, Volume I, Cairo, pages 547–48. So, in my view, you will need to cite both.
  • "... and cruelty" that ...
    • grammatically, you will need a comma after cruelty,
      • "That" has dozens of meanings. When you use "that" in such a grammatical form, what follows it in the sentence is usually understood to be a relatively self-contained addition. But in your case, that description continues long after the sentence has ended, several sentences after. In Harvey, there is no "that," only another, longer, direct quote, from the same 1973 volume.

Summing up, I would rewrite this as: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.<cited to Harvey's preview) al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty.<cited to Harvey, Ibn al-Khatib 1973> (I would forego the direct quote, "brutishness and cruelty," for in any case it is translated, forego even floruit, but would keep both citations, then paraphrase the quoted paragraph in Harvey) @HaEr48: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

        • Thanks for including specific recommendations. I've updated—mostly following your suggestions—and this passage now reads: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in mid-fourteenth century, considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.[1] Ibn al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty: at the start of his reign, [the cruelty story follows]. HaEr48 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)~
You are very welcome, but I hope you do understand that the above post is more than just a specific, actionable, recommendation; it is a specific example of how to cite, interpret, and paraphrase. I might be able to do this here and there, but I doubt I will be able to do this for every sentence. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Final note: I will shortly be taking a vacation from Wikipedia during which the article will come up for a decision. I'm not reassured that there is no original research in the article. As you will see in my poetry critique above, I've had to squeeze the nominator for every little bit of information. This reluctance is probably nothing deliberate on his part, just the style in which he has communicated with reviewers in the past. After much urging, the trail of evidence and logic that has emerged about the poem in the poetry section seems to be:
    • A blurry text, Al lamha, written by Ibn al-Khatib (died 1374 CE), available on archive.org, probably (but this too is by no means certain) in a translation into Modern Standard Arabic (ca 1927).
    • In it appears a poem claimed to have been written by the Sultan of Granada, Muhammad III, who died in 1309 CE, and who normally spoke Andalusian Arabic, but wrote in Classical Arabic.
    • The claim is based on a 1973 book in French by Rachel Arie, which states that one poem of Muhammad III appears on page 49 of the same blurry 1927 Arabic text.
    • However, there are two poems on page 49. This too is the result of my questioning; before it, only one had been acknowledged.
    • There is also a 2010 Spanish translation of the same Al lamha (1927) text, which is not available online even in snippet form.
    • The nominator then uses an argument to establish that both poems on page 49 are written by the Sultan. This is best expressed in his words, "it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III."
    • There is an English translation appearing in the poetry section. It is not at all clear to the reviewer if this is the nominator's translation of the 1927 Arabic or of the 2010 Spanish. Nothing is transparent, and this is just the poetry section. In light of this tangled tale, my considered decision is to continue to Oppose Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»
      • I disagree that "nothing is transparent". I'll not object to your rewording of the sentence as "One qasida composed by him is presented in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." even though I prefer the old version. This sentence is supported by Arié (and I have provided the quotation supporting this in the footnote as requested). The actual poem appears in two edition of the page referenced by Arié: one Spanish translation from 2010 and one Arabic edition from c. 1927 (no one is saying that it's "a translation into Modern Standard Arabic" as you claimed, it's just an edition published by a modern editor). The Arabic is available online, and linked in the Sources section. I understand you repeatedly said that it is "too blurry". I agree it is not the best resolution possible, but it is still very readable and verifiable by anyone who reads Arabic. Zooming in will help (if you haven't done it). And anyway I've transcribed all its 9 lines in the footnotes section, despite it being hard to do without an Arabic keyboard. There is also the Spanish translation, and I've given you quotations from that too. Indeed snippets are not available online, but I listed it in order to give people an additional way to verify the source (e.g. if they have offline access). HaEr48 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
        • (I am supposed to be on vacation) I am back not so much to argue with the nominator but simply to observe that Ibn al-Khatib's book was not added to the bibliography until two weeks after the FAC began, when it was added as a primary source. And what was added was not the more updated edition that most scholars use today, but an old 1927 one (most likely because it was available online). The standard edition that everyone uses today is: Ibn al-Khatib, Lisan al-Din, Al-Lamha al-badriyya, ed. Muhibb al Din al-Khatib (Beirut,1978) It is that which is used for example in:
          • Kennedy, Hugh (2014). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. Taylor & Francis. pp. 386–. ISBN 978-1-317-87040-1.
          • Szpiech, Ryan (2016). "Granada". In David Wallace (ed.). Europe: A Literary History, 1348-1418 (PDF). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958002-6.
          • S. M. M. Jarrar's University of London Ph.D. Thesis (SOAS) Literature And Literary Life In Nasrid Granada ( 1238–1492) And Their Relation To State Politics (1982), which the nominator does not use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Remember I am also using the more recent 2010 Spanish translation. The 1928 edition is added in bibliography because it's available online, so it can improve verifiability. It was also the version referenced by Arié. And for the record, I did not find any incompatibility between the two sources (at least not in this one page we're talking about). Indeed it was added after the FAC began, because it was a response to another reviewer's suggestion to include the poem. HaEr48 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Note to coordinators @WP:FAC coordinators: : Multiple editors have questioned the usefulness or constructiveness of this part of the review, and I agree. Many of the "concerns" are semantic quibbles with little value, and they are accompanied by long and argumentative rebukes that make it hard to see what specific actionable improvements the reviewer is proposing. I think (Mr rnddude and Mimihitam, who weren't involved in authoring this article) agree with this, if I understand their comments above correctly. When we tried in good faith to address this reviewer's concerns, the reviewer comes up with more argumentative quibbles. Since this reviewer commented, this discussion page has grown from 19,000 to 51,000 bytes and several days later we're still in the lead section. With respect to the reviewer, I don't think this is a productive way to spend everyone's time. If it's okay with coordinators, I'll still read the comments, but will only act on the more actionable and useful ones, if any. Mimihitam has even suggested to stop responding to this reviewer entirely, but I hope I don't have to do that. HaEr48 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The problems of grammar and style stem in great part from a lack of integrating the sources. For example, the nominator doesn't know how much significance to assign to the rumored death by poisoning of the subject's father. The nominator's reply to my point about Granada being a vassal state (supported with seven sources) speaks to something similar. A few days ago, he had the sentences, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." (See here) When I pointed out some syntactical and stylistic errors in the first sentence, he removed both sentences, which wasn't what I was suggesting. He changed the second to: "He negotiated a treaty with Castile the following year, in which Granada's conquests were recognized in return for Muhammad making an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute." When I asked him why vassal was not mentioned, he cited Harvey, a monograph on Muslim Spain, which states that Granada was not a vassal in the strict sense of the term. But intermittent vassalage or uneven tributary status were not uncommon in medieval or early modern times. (See the lead of Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) The nominator can use, "a nominal vassal state," "an intermittent vassal state," a "formal tributary state," ... there are all sorts of ways of succinctly expressing those nuances in the writing of history. An encyclopedic account does not shirk from using these terms and veer off instead to tell us about fealty and fidelity. The problem is that every sentence of the article has these errors. I suggest something. The nominator balks and replaces it with another error- or POV-ridden formulation. It took me a while to realize that it stems from the incomplete integration of the sources. This is not promising. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Harvey: The Castilian assertion of Granada's vassal status has been so successful, however, that the theory underlies most thinking on this aspect of peninsular history and, on p. 54, The year 1264 is also a vital date in the history of Granada. From this point onwards there may be truces and long periods of peace between Castile and Granada, rather empty mention may even be made at times of Granda's vassal status, but nobody is taken in. In other words, at most, Granada was a "vassal" but it was never really a vassal.
Kennedy maintains a similar view: The Christian sources say that he became [Fernano III's] vassal, but too much importance should not be attached to this. At various times Ibn al-Ahmar pedged his loyalty to Ibn Hud, the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and Hafsids of Tunis. All these moves were temporary and tactical. More striking was his policy of accepting the Castilian alliance, buying peace for himself with the catastrophe of other, expendable, Muslims. In other words, Granada was a "vassal" to whomever it suited them to be a "vassal" of at the time. That's two sources who treat the vassalization as near fictitious. So it would be blasé to write that "Granada was a vassal state of Castile".
I think tributary state works, because this would reflect the reality of Muhammad III's rule – After inheriting a state at war, and staying at war for a year, he negotiated a peace with Fernando IV which included an "acknowledgement of vassalage" (Harvey p. 167) and tributary payments (Kennedy p. 286). Keep in mind the spirit in which "acknowledgement" is meant, had Harvey wanted to say that Granada became a vassal of Castile, he would have done so. Semantics, you see. I think the suggestion that "there are errors in every sentence" is hyperbolic at best. There is not an error in stating that Muhammad III ma[de] an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute, as currently written in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Mr rnddude: Harvy is just one dated monograph. As I say above: You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

PS I suggest respectfully that you not nip at the heels of my every edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The above argument about vassalage/tribute is the same argument as already discussed above, so I'll reply above to consolidate the discussion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been pinged back here three or four times now. I wouldn't even know about these latest comments if I hadn't been pinged by HaEr48. You might notice that I've replied three hours after your comment, and four since the ping. I am not following your edits, I am following my pings. Laser brain – do take note of that fact as well, I've edited here only after being pinged (with the exception of my first edit, which came from things I saw on my watchlist and concluded needed intervening (and I was not alone in that conclusion)). Actually, amidst all the hattings and third-party comments, I was thinking of suggesting that some of it be moved to the article talk page, since reviews are not usually where content disputes are hashed out. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@HaEr48: If you don't want to act on a comment, as a coordinator I'd prefer that you state your reasons for disagreement and our job when we close the nomination is to determine if there's consensus to promote despite open opposition. There are collegial ways to disagree with someone's remarks and move on. I'm dismayed to see a good faith reviewer's remarks dismissed as "rebukes" or "quibbles" and I'd be inclined to archive the nomination if harangues of reviewers continue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Laser_brain Sorry, I don't mean to harangue reviewers or doubt their good faith. I apologise to everyone (especially Fowler&fowler) if that's how it comes across. I was just hoping to get some guidance from coordinators. You're absolutely right, I'll continue to engage respectfully and adopt the suggestions that are useful and constructive (and explain the reason if I think otherwise). HaEr48 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 51 requires pp. not p.
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vidal Castro needs language
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Template error (date=) in the primary sources.
  • Ibn al-Khaṭīb (2010): "Translated by Emilio Molina López" - translated into what from what?
  • Added languages (Arabic to Spanish) HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: I can't comment on the foreign-language sources although their provenance looks good. Otherwise, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Thank you for your review. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by T8612

  • Just to say that Islamic rulers should have their dates of reign in Hijri year mentioned somewhere. Here I think it should be HA 701–708. T8612 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @T8612: Good point, done. Actually I had the full Hijri dates of birth and abdication in the text. I added the date of accession to the relevant paragraph, and added the date range in Hijri to the infobox too. Does that work? HaEr48 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Just add the link to Hijri year somewhere. T8612 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Already linked in the first Hijri date of the text. Now also added to infobox. HaEr48 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins (talk)

This article is about the world snooker championship from earlier this year. The championship was the first time an amateur player qualified, and defeated the world number one in the first round! Judd Trump finally won his first world title, defeating Scot John Higgins in the final. It's a relatively long read, but covers the event's history, the individual matches, qualifying, century breaks and broadcasting. Please let me know if there is anything that needs working on.

Co-nominated with: Rodney Baggins who has done a tonne of work to make sure the prose is tight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRM

I reviewed this at WP:GAN and Lee did a lot of work for that to pass. Since then Rodney Baggins has really polished the article. I have nothing substantial to add other than my support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from nigej

Article is of high quality, I have made a few minor comments below. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the nomination. I've made some changes to the article and tried to answer your other queries, but some things Lee will need to help me with. Thanks for all your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • "... an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event. Debutant James Cahill ..." It was not immediately clear to me whether Cahill was that amateur or whether it someone else unnamed.
    • Would it work with a colon between the two sentences: "For the first time in the history of the world championship, an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event: debutant James Cahill defeated world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan in the first round, before being narrowly defeated by Stephen Maguire in a second round deciding frame." Or is that still ambiguous? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Format
  • "finishing three days before the start of the main draw." - would prefer "event" or similar, for "draw", which means something else to me.
  • "The remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on the latest world rankings, which were released after the China Open." I am left wondering whether there had been any great excitement during the China Open as to who would make it to the top 16. Not sure there was this year.
  • I believe "main draw" is the accepted term for this, as used earlier in that paragraph... "the 32-player main draw". Lee can probably answer the China Open question. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The event" covers qualifying. I mean there obviously was some press about who might make it, but I feel that's information for the China open. There was some press about it at the start of the season, same as every season. If someone missed out by a few points, or if a match at the China open in particular was the difference, I'd mention it, but not really worthwhile otherwise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
First round
  • "The draw for the first round of the championship was made on 18 April 2019" but the reference is dated 16 April. I think 18th is correct. Perhaps we need a different reference with the correct date on it.
→ I can look into this. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I've looked into this and indeed the official statement from the WPBSA is dated Tuesday 16 April, 6:17 pm. @Lee Vilenski: do we know for a fact that the draw actually took place on Thursday 18th? If the qualifying rounds finished on the 16th, is it not feasible that the draw took place that same day in the evening, as soon as the qualifiers were known? Was it televised? Is the WPBSA ref. likely to be dated wrong? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it was streamed on YouTube - [10] for the 18th. It's likely the WPBSA item was created for information about the draw, and then changed afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(the first being John Parrott's defeat of Eddie Charlton in the first round of the 1992 championship)" - do we need brackets or just a comma before it. (also for "(breaking the previous record set in 2016 by Mark Selby and Marco Fu by more than three minutes)")
→ I normally prefer to use parenthesis when the bracketed clause is not essential for the meaning of the sentence, which would stand on its own just as well without the additional info. The clause in parenthesis is just provided to add context, or answer a query that might come up in the reader's mind (almost like a stage whisper). And sometimes, as in both of the examples here, including the "aside" as part of the main sentence just makes the sentence clause-heavy. The brackets help to break it up a bit. That's how I see it anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "baulk pocket" perhaps "yellow pocket"/"green pocket" are better understood nowadays and more precise.
→ Yes, we could change this to "missed a risky pot into the yellow pocket" and then "went into the green pocket". Although 'baulk' is linked to the glossary definition so should be clear enough. What do you think Lee? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Too close to Jargon for me. I don't think yellow/green pockets are official names for this, and a little abstract. Seems like too much information to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Second round
  • "This match included nine century breaks altogether" not sure we need "altogether"
  • "four consecutive century breaks had been compiled" perhaps " four century breaks had been compiled in consecutive frames"
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Quarter-finals
  • "bringing the score to 9–7 ahead of the final session" comma before "ahead"
  • "Trump had won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; he won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match" reads oddly, perhaps "Trump, having won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match"
  • "Gilbert took the final two frames". Prefer "next two frames". Only "final" in hindsight. Similarly "with a century break of 101 in the final frame", prefer "next" to "final"
Disagree with 1st point (comma not needed) but otherwise  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Final
  • "He had previously won the world championship four times (in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011), one short of the record held by Stephen Hendry." has me mystified.
  • I agree - this is trivia and a bit pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, Nigej has identified a glaring error, which I have quickly corrected! It must have got mangled when I was moving stuff about. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "which prevented the match from concluding early with a session to spare" not sure we need "early"
 Done Thank you for noticing the Hendry blunder. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
General
  • The use of the term "amateur", meaning someone not on the main tour, still seems very odd to me. They are not really amateurs in that they take the prize money. Perhaps this strange use of the term should be explained for old-fashioned folk like me.
  • I think the whole "amateurs don't get paid" thing is pretty much a golf thing. I don't know of any other sports that operate in this way. Sadly, sources all call him an amateur, as did the media around the event. I don't know that there are many other ways to phrase this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from Betty Logan

Reviewing an article of this quality always feels a bit like nitpicking but here are my observations:

  • I think the lead should mention Murphy's whitewash of his opponent in the first round—only the second in Crucible history—and also the 11-century record in the final.
    • I agree. Made need better wording, but I've added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The term "In modern times" (Background, 1st para) is subjective and vague. Could this be changed to "In the 21st century" or "Since the game went open in 1991" or something to that effect, to qualify what we mean by modern times. The process of internationalisation began in the 1990s so it would help to be more specific.
    • We can't source that. Stritly speaking, it's been a gradual effort. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the sentence "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era" (Background, 3rd para) similarly uses WP:JARGON. The "modern era" is generally understood to mean since the annual KO format was adopted in 1969, so could we please define the modern era and add in a date. Absolutely no-one but a snooker anorak will understand the context of the term.
  • In the "Format" section could we have a basic description of the multi-session format please. This does come in later in the article but it would be helpful if this information were also included in the format section. I would recommend a paragraph that covers the number of frames played in each round, the number of sessions and the number of frames in those sessions. Basically so someone could just read the format section and get an understanding of the general outline of the competition.
  • "Gould then won frame 11, but Williams claimed the next two frames to open up a 5-frame lead" -> five-frame lead (First round, Top half, para #1)
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the reference styles are not consistent. For example, many World Snooker citations either credit the source as "World Snooker" or "worldsnooker.com". Compare #1 & #5.
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Same goes for Sporting Life too. Compare #24 and #29 to #66, #67 & #69. Either style is fine but they need to be consistent.
 Done Here the website is effectively the same as the publisher, so (IMO) there's no need to include a separate publisher as in the World Snooker example where WPBSA publish the website worldsnooker.com as well as wpbsa.com Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #61 (marked as a dead link) needs to be replaced.
 Done Found a Sporting Life ref. to replace this, need to go through the para next to check everything's sourced OK. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is of very high quality and there are no fundamental problems preventing its progress to FA status. We just need to address some of the jargon issues and sort out the referencing and it's good to go. Thanks a lot for your work on this Lee & Rodney. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments Betty, there's some interesting stuff in there. I was overtaken by events yesterday, hence the late acknowledgement. Will try to address some of the issues today. I think you're right about the additions to the lead, as they were notable features of the tournament. I admit I never did get round to going through the references in minute detail, and there are probably a few things that need sorting out there so I'll get onto it. Ref.61 definitely needs removing and I've a feeling the info is covered in one or more of the existing citations anyway so it should all iron out. I'll get onto that later today. Look forward to hearing Lee's feedback too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
One thing I need to ask you (this also applies to Nigej): has it occurred to you that the TOC limit is making it difficult to navigate round the article? I'm particularly concerned about lack of access to the individual subsections of the Tournament summary section, which is rather long, and I'd find it useful to be able to jump down quickly to the Quarter-finals (for example) from the TOC. I understand from Lee that the TOC was limited to level 2 after a previous discussion for the GA review but I wonder if we need to readdress it? I agree that a lengthy TOC is not great because it leaves lots of empty space top-right, but the whole point of the TOC is to help the reader quickly find what they're looking for in such a big article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say the TOC is too short. One extra level would be better in my view. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to be able to access each round from the contents. I am not aware of the previous GA that suggested this, but it's certainly not required by MOS:SNOOKER. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made this {{TOC|3}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Betty Logan - thanks for your comments. Did we get all of the issues with this, or is there more outstanding? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support FA, Lee. Great work again. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from KyleJoan

It is undisputed that this article is of superb quality. I'm only slightly familiar with snooker, so learning about this year's tournament from analyzing this article has been enlightening. I do have some comments, but at this stage, they're mere suggestions.

  • In modern times, however, it has become increasingly popular worldwide, especially in East and Southeast Asian nations such as China, Hong Kong and Thailand. "Modern times" in this context seems ambiguous. Would "recent times" better reflect the timeline of diversification? The term "recent" to me evokes a sense of decades, while "modern" is more extensive. I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the term to "modern era" and utilizing the modern era note from a few sentences below to better illustrate a timeframe.
I'll see what other people think, but I've made the change. This might be a solution to an issue I've been having for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. I understand this is specific to the 2019 tournament. Would it be superfluous to add some details regarding whether the same company sponsored previous tournaments?
I don't think it's superfluous at all. I think the issue is sourcing on this one. Without putting down the sourcing for each individual event, it might be difficult to show. I'd like to have The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the event since 2015. but I'd need a source stating this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, "I was the lucky one to not have to pay for a ticket, he was just awesome". Maybe add "stating" (i.e. "After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, stating: "I was . . .")?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wilson, ranked 30 in the world, said that "Judd deserved to win" . . . This sentence isolates the player's rank between commas, while these do not: Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships; Li Yuan ranked 97 did not compete in the championships. Maybe isolate the latter two sentences as well?
    • Hmm, I don't really know. I think these were originally in brackets, so we could put in some extra commas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships. I personally feel "thus" would be more appropriate in this context than "and" to annotate cause and effect.
I must say I'm not a fan of the word "thus", as it implies something that may not be strictly accurate. Yes, Jones did sit the event out because he was suspended. However, it's possible he could have reprevied, or gotten around this somehow. I prefer "so" to "and" as it leaves it a bit more ambigious. Maybe Rodney Baggins would be a bit better on the wording than me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that, it looks thorough and concise. Good luck! KyleJoantalk 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Kyle, very helpful. We've tried to address things as best we can, if you would like to check. I have found a couple of sources that we could use for the Betfred sponsorship issue, so I'll run that past Lee to see what he thinks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
→ How about this... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015.[11]" and possibly add an efn note... "Betfred previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012.[12]" ? First source is SportsBusiness Sponsorship, second is WPBSA. Unfortunately the WPBSA one doesn't fully cover the 2015 to 2019 period as it was published in 2015 and only looked forward to 2017 but not beyond, but it could be used for the note if we add one in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
→ Or alternatively... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015 (having previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012).[13][14]" ? Then we could just put both refs. together after the brackets. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I like the second one. Great job on finding the sources! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The second description sounds excellent. Thanks for taking my suggestions into consideration! Changing the title of the subsection to annotate support now. KyleJoantalk 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from MWright96

Background
  • I think United Kingdon should not be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK
I agree  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Format
  • "while the other participants were placed randomly into the draw. " - the word in bold should be replaced to competitors to avoid reptiton of the word that is mentioned earlier in the sentence it is part of
  • "as well as 22 wildcard places allotted to non-tour players." - A wikilink of wildcard to Wild card (sports) would be benefical IMO
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Participant summary
  • "This was O'Sullivan's 27th consecutive appearance in the final stages of the World Championship since his debut in 1993," - wikilink 1993 to 1993 World Snooker Championship
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
First round
  • " Williams opened up a lead in frame ten, before Gould made a clearance to force a respotted black, but it was Williams who potted the black to go ahead 7–3." - this is a run-on sentence that needs to be addressed
reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Williams clinched a "nervy" 17th frame" - is "nervy" actually needed here?
The word "nervy" was picked up from the BBC ref. but can easily be removed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "only the second ever to be witnessed at the Crucible" - better: second in history
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done Sorry I disagree with this. "second in history to be witnessed" doesn't sound right. Reverted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "but then missed a risky pot" - risky should be replaced with an alternative word that is more formal
How is tricky? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Not keen on tricky myself. I've changed it to "difficult" and I've changed "pot" to "shot". Alternatives might be awkward / uncertain / doubtful / delicate? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say Rodney's alternations to the wording here are adequate. MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cahill missed a simple red after compiling an early break in frame 17" - straightforward red ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "however, despite needing only the final pink and black to win," - final pink and black balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Second round
  • "with just two reds remaining, he asked for the screen between the tables to be lifted" - red balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "before Wilson won three consecutive frames to secure his place in the quarter-finals." - secure a place would be better suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Higgins won the next two frames after a missed plant to win 13–11." - The sentence should mention that Bingham missed the plant per the source citing the information?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded and reworded the Higgins/Bingham match now, if you'd like to go back and check? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Am happy with the newly-worded sentence. MWright96 (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Quarter finals
  • "when he was asked to sum up his performance in the match." - I believe summarise would be more formal in this instance
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-finals
  • "including a maximum attempt," - maximum break
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "a crowd member was ejected for shouting out immediately" - make it clear the crowd member was ejected from the arena
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Both players were "nervy" during the third session." - according to whom?
Just removed it. Seems pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Final
  • "The final was played over four sessions, as a best-of-35-frames match." - added which dates the final was held as you've done for the other stages of the tournament
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "This was Higgins' third consecutive world championship final (having been defeated by Mark Selby in 2017 and Mark Williams in 2018), and his eighth world final overall." - just having worded the text highlighted in bold as and eighth overall. would suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "he played an impressive full-table double to pot the red ball," - try to avoid terms such as "impressive" and replace it with a more formal word
Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "but then missed the following black." - black ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Qualifying
  • "Players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings were seeded 1–64 in qualifying." - should be 17 to 80 and 1 to 64 per MOS:ENFROM
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Numbers given in brackets after players' names (in left-hand columns below) show the seedings (1–64) for the players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings." - same issue as above
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Coverage
  • "The tournament was broadcast live in the UK by" - should UK be worded as United Kingdom for consistency?
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "In Scotland, the BBC was criticised for showing the world championships on BBC Scotland," - how about televised for variety?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think "televised" is a bit of an old-fashioned word. I've reworded the offending paragraph to make sure there's no repetition of "show" in it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
References
  • References 2 and 5 require the page numbers that state the information in the article
I'm guessing it's 2 and 4, no? I've done the first one (it's covered in the full chapter one, although it's pretty obvious information that could be sourced anywhere.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Working We've picked up the Clive Everton book (ref.4), but assuming the other source that needs looking at is the Yorkshire Post newspaper citation (ref.2) we need someone with a subscription who can trawl through and pick out a page number. I did a free subscription, which gives you 3 free pages, but as the newspaper has 20 pages and no search function, I soon got in a pickle and came out with nothing! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Might just be easier to replace the citations in general. Can't imagine there isn't other sources for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have a subscription to the Newspaper Archive do you Micheal? My thoughts on this one are that it's pretty much accepted that the World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker, and as such doesn't need to be ref'd, or at least if it does maybe this should be done inside the main World Snooker Championship article? But isn't it a bit like saying Paris is the capital of France? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive at the present time. MWright96 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced both citations - MWright96 - is there more needed for this one? (thanks for your time!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The Matchroom Sport reference is good but I'm dubious about the DMC Leisure Saffron Walden & District Snooker League. It's hosted by the WordPress platform and the information comes from the World Snooker website. MWright96 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── - I have simply changed the wording, and the cite to what the China source states from the World Snooker article. That should cover it. Thanks for your help MWright96! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • All of the Guardian references (Refs 32, 79 and 82) that stated their stories are from the Press Association need to be mentioned in their respective templates
I'm not sure how you do this, any ideas Rodney Baggins? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 47 should include the fact it is a video we are being directed to
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

On the whole, I have spotted some minor issues that are present in the article, none of which are severe enough to make me oppose its promotion to FAC. Nevertheless, nice work from Lee and Rodney on their work to the article. MWright96 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that – I'll have a good look through over the weekend and edit accordingly (unless Lee gets in there first!) Thanks for taking the time to go through this lengthy article in such a lot of detail, very much appreciated. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You should have known! Working on the ref errors. Mirroring Rodney's comments, thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we've covered most of these for you now, but I want to bring up a point for discussion that's been brought to light by some of your comments. The cue sport glossary entry for "red ball" states that red balls are also referred to as "red(s)" or "the red(s)", so after first using the full term "red ball" with glossary link, I think it's probably safe for us to drop the "ball" in later mentions of it, where appropriate. Sometimes using the full term "red ball" sounds slightly awkward and in some cases we might refer to "a red" when meaning a shot on the red (with the intention of potting it) rather than literally the red ball itself. A good example of this is "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" which is really the "shot on the red" that he missed (he did actually hit the ball, he just didn't pot it!) so using "red ball" in this sentence loses that subtlety. Same goes for the other colours of course. Another example would be "but then missed the following black ball", where it's actually the shot on the black ball that he missed (again, he did hit the black) and to say "the following black ball" might even imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You either missed this, haven't decided, or don't agree...? If you (and Lee) agree with the above, the specific bits I'd like to change are:
  • First round: "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" > "Cahill missed a straightforward red" (here it's literally the shot on the red ball that's straightforward not the red ball itself)
  • First round: "despite needing only the final pink and black balls to win" > "despite needing only the final pink and black to win" (here "balls" just sound odd!)
  • Second round: "with just two red balls remaining" > "with just two reds remaining" (not sure about this one because in fact there were physically two red balls remaining so it's literally correct, so maybe we should say "with just two reds remaining on the table" to be precise?)
  • Final: "but then missed the following black ball" > "but then missed the following black" (it's the shot on the black ball that he missed, not the ball itself, and to say the "following black ball" might imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table)
  • Final: "but he overcut a red ball into the middle pocket" > "but he overcut a red into the middle pocket" (he overcut the shot, not the ball itself)
Let me know, thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You are most likely right - I just haven't looked into it yet. I'll get on it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
After a period of mulling it over, I agree with the changes suggested above. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing else from me on the matter. Will now support the article's promotion to FA. MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Twofingered Typist

I have done an extensive review and copy edit of the article's text and am satisfied that it meets the FA requirements of being well written, comprehensive and follows the guidelines in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nominator comments

  • Looks like this one is up at 6 supports. I will look for some other eyes on this, but 6 should be fine. I posted about a source review two weeks ago, but didn't get much. Pinging FAC coordinators:Laser brain, Sarastro1, and Ian Rose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I can perform a source review later today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time! :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Also thanks from me (co-nominator). Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hellraiser: Judgment

Nominator(s): DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 horror film written and directed by Gary J. Tunnicliffe; the tenth film in the Hellraiser media franchise. This is my first FA nomination, so I apologise if I did something wrong during the nomination. I have checked the criteria, and going from that, I believe this meets FA standards. However, I do understand that those standards are quite high while nominating this. The article was previously FA mentored by Masem. DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments
  • The references in the infobox should not be necessary as all of that information should be cited in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please avoid using graphics as they are discouraged by the FAC instructions since they can "slow down the page load time". Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. I wish I noticed this comment a little sooner. DarkKnight2149 03:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason for the citation in the lead's first sentence? I have seen some editors to do it because film genre can be somewhat contentious and they use a citation to support that information, but I just wanted to make sure.
Done, Removed. It was leftover from the article's early days; originally intended to be a source for the exact ordering of the cast members in the lead before the official billing came out. DarkKnight2149 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would recommend adding some form of ALT text to the infobox image as you have done for the images in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker, written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe.), I would replace the "comma" after "Barker" with an "and" instead.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Newcomer Paul T. Taylor was cast after impressing Tunnicliffe in an audition for another character, and auditioned again for Pinhead.), I would avoid repeating "audition"/"auditioned" as it is a little repetitious.
Done. Reworded. DarkKnight2149 03:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain of the usefulness of the "Chatter" wikilink. It is a redirect that I do not find particularly helpful for someone unfamiliar with the character. I would remove it altogether because the character is already described in this article enough to help an unfamiliar reader.
Done. Used to be an article. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For the same reasons as above, I do not find the "Cenobites" wikilink to be particularly useful and I would remove it.
Done, ditto. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As someone who has never seen any of these films, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the plot section so I will just be pointing out prose suggestions.
  • I have a question for this part: "who went missing near the abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place.". The "the" in "the abandoned house" makes it sound like it is the only abandoned house in that area and is notable for that reason. If that is not true, then I would use "an abandoned house" instead.
Comment: 55 Ludovico Place refers to that house specifically. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I read over the house numbers so that was my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused on why "Christine Egerton" is referred to by her last name while "Sean and David Carter" are referred to by their first names. For the sake of consistency, I would refer to characters by their first names after their first mentions.
Done. Because they have the same surname. Edited for consistency, though. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and summons his wife, Alison (Rheagan Wallace), outraged that she had a secret affair). I think you can just say "an affair" as affairs are normally kept secret. I am also a little confused by the "summons" phrasing. This is a more supernatural film so when I first read this, I thought she was like a ghost or something that was being summoned. Again, I have never seen this film before, so I was wondering if you could clarify how Alison's character is brought into the plot a little more for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
Done. Perhaps "summons" was too formal. Changed to "Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and reveals that he is holding his wife Alison (Rheagan Wallace) hostage, outraged that she had an affair." DarkKnight2149 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (outraged that she had a secret affair. He forces the two of them to open the box at gunpoint). From my understanding, the people present in this scene are Sean, David, Alison, and Christine. Who are "the two of them" being referenced here? I am assuming it is some combination of David, Alison, and Christine, but it is not immediately clear to me.
Christine was unconscious as a result of being incapacitated. Changed to "David and Alison" instead of "Two of them". DarkKnight2149 03:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Pinhead tells him that they will be dealt with for opening the box). Alison and David were clearly forced to open the box by Sean and did not do it willingly. Does the film address this at all?
Comment: The Cenobites tend to kidnap anyone who opens the box. In some of the earlier films and comics, it's established that the box cannot be opened (because of its supernatural nature) unless some part of you truly desires it. However, the franchise is inconsistent on that.
After Hellraiser 1-4, continuity became iffy and the films are now mostly standalones that loosely connect to each other. Even the Cenobites have gone from being neutral sadomasochists from Hell, to evil Freddy Krueger-esque slasher villains, to demon overlords that judge sinners, and now back to being sadomasochists from Hell (with another faction of Hell introduced to retcon the "judging" stuff). DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted clarification. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk)
  • If "police detective" is going to be linked, then it should be moved up to the first instance in the article, which should be here: ". On Earth, three detectives – brothers Sean and David Carter (Randy Wayne) and Christine Egerton – investigate a serial killer known as the Preceptor, whose murders are based on the Ten Commandments."
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part, "The Auditor's typewriter paper is made of flesh and inked in blood; he often carries a music box, its song a comforting remnant of his human past", I would directly name the song rather than hiding it in the "song" wikilink. It seems too much like an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence "Gulager directed several horror films, including the Feast series and Piranha 3DD." needs a citation.
Reworded to sounded less WP:SYNy. I'll add a citation shortly. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no benefit to wikilinking "nineties" in this part: "Tunnicliffe conceived the Cleaners as in their nineties". The same comment applies to "twenties" in this part: "three nude women in their twenties".
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Jophiel is wikilinked more than once in the body of the article. Wikilinks should only be used once and on the first instance the word(s) appear in the body of the article. The same comment applies to "heaven".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence "Decades before the development of Hellraiser: Judgment, Dimension Films obtained the rights to the Hellraiser and Children of the Corn film series", *I would add the wikilink to the article on the Hellraiser series. I do not believe it was linked before this part unless I am mistaken.
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see the value of the wikilink for "the Female Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would add a citation to this "and scenes involving the Cleaners" to clarify what reference is being used to support this information.
Comment: To clarify, it's backed by the same Bloody-Disgusting citation as the following sentence. Hence why there's no intermediate citation. DarkKnight2149 13:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a few wikilinks that I feel are unnecessary because they are common knowledge. I do not see a reason why "dialogue", "bracelet", "suit", and "cast" are linked because I think a majority of readers would know these concepts. I am not saying that they need to be removed altogether, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.
Removed several of them. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this quote "I have a reliable source who just informed me that Hellraiser: Judgment has been on a shelf for a while, unfinished. But now that Harvey Weinstein is out of the picture, Hellraiser: Judgment has been taken off that shelf and is back in post-production.", remove the link to "out of the picture". You already have the sexual allegations linked in the next sentence, and linking that to "out of the picture" borders too much again on an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting called it "the most authentic Hellraiser since Bloodline (1996)", I would not include the year as part of the wikilink.
Done, linked in an earlier section. Removed from the Brad Miska sentence. DarkKnight2149 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Dread Central" is wikilinked multiple times in the article.
Done. Bloody-Disgusting and Dread Central should only be linked once now. Let me know if I missed any. DarkKnight2149 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see the need for the wikilink for "Butterball Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In May 2019 it was reported by Variety that a Hellraiser reboot is in the works at Spyglass Media Group with David S. Goyer serving as writer and producer.), there should be a comma after "In May 2019".
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have another comment about that sentence. It is typically discouraged to have a single sentence paragraph so I would see if there is a way to incorporate that information into the previous paragraph.
I expanded it a bit, if that's alright. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope this review helps somewhat. This is a rather long article so I will have to read through it a few times to do a thorough review and make sure that I catch everything. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to look through the article again to see if there is anything else. I am not familiar with this franchise at all so apologies if I am missing anything super obvious. Good luck with the FAC. I know it can be an intimidating process at first, but hopefully, you will get a lot of helpful feedback. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed/fixed the concerns raised. I appreciate you taking time for this review. Please let me know if some of the changes aren't satisfactory. DarkKnight2149 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would arrange the references in numeric order. I have always been told to do this in past FAC reviews, but it is not necessarily required for a FA. I just thought this point was worth raising.
What's numeric order, if you don't mind me asking? I'm only aware of citations being listed in the order they appear in the article. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been told in the past to put the references in a numeric order; for instance, in the sentence "Occasionally, its victims are deemed more suited to the Cenobites.", the references are currently in this order, "11, 13, 2, and 5". I have been told in the past to them in a numeric order, but it was brought to my attention recently that it is not a requirement. However, I just wanted to point that out to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The actress who plays Christine should be mentioned after the first time you mention her in the "Plot" section. Same goes for Pinhead and Jophiel.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Lament Configuration wikilink is a redirect. I would remove it as it is not particularly insightful/useful for an unfamiliar reader.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth is wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have a set structure for the "Critical response" section? It is generally encouraged that this type of section has some type of organization. I would recommend looking at this source to see what I am referring to.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cast" wikilink should be moved up to the first time "cast" is used in the body of the article.
In this section, casting refers to the manufacturing process rather than the hiring of actors. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be my final set of comments. Once everything is address, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC. It is a complete 180 from this in terms of topic, but any feedback would helpful. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I can take a look at it when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64

I come to this as a Hellraiser neophyte, so this article looks quite interesting. I'm going to post some comments in the coming days. JOEBRO64 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here comes my first round:

  • I'm not sure if I'm really a fan of how the lede is structured. It goes immediately into production information for a couple sentences before out of nowhere switching to plot information, which I find sort of jarring. The second paragraph has the same issue. I'd propose changing it to resemble the structure of the article more. Here's how the first paragraph would look.
Hellraiser: Judgment is a 2018 American horror film starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead. It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker and written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe. The plot centers on three police detectives who, investigating a series of murders, are confronted by the denizens of hell. The film expands the fictional universe by introducing a new faction of hell, the Stygian Inquisition, who are distinct from the recurring Cenobites. The Cenobites offer sadomasochistic pleasures to humans who enter their dominion, while the Inquisition processes the souls of sinners. Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role in the film.
Then you could solely dedicated the next two paragraphs to production, and the last to release and reception. I feel like this will flow more naturally, and is in line with other film-related FAs.
How's this? DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "... starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead." They all play Pinhead? Be careful of grammatical ambiguity like this.
That's how the official billing block reads. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand, but we don't necessarily need to follow the billing religiously. I still think it's distracting and could be changed in some way. JOEBRO64 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. DarkKnight2149 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd change "FX artist" to "special make-up effects artist", as "FX" strikes me as film jargon and could be confused with things like the FX channel.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Does "hell" need to be linked? IMO anyone with a brain can figure out that you're referring to the netherworld.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of your clauses can easily be excised without losing clarity or meaning. For instance: "... giving Tunnicliffe a chance to propose his vision to the studio." and "Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role in the film."
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More to come. JOEBRO64 20:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: please forgive me, I completely forgot about this... will get to more this week. Been a bit busy. JOEBRO64 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Understandable. DarkKnight2149 23:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I have to say about the plot:

  • There was a big RFC a few months ago (I'll try to find the link) about including actors in parentheses in the plot summary, and the consensus was that it's redundant if there's a "Cast" section below.
Done. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Some things need a bit of explaining. For instance, what's a Centobite?
Changed to In hell, Pinhead, of the Cenobite faction, and the Auditor of the Stygian Inquisition.... The Cast and characters section goes into further detail. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "... near the an abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place." Do we really need to know the address?
Done. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good. Will start cast by Saturday. JOEBRO64 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Hellraiser_Judgment_home_video_art.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Same with File:Hellraiser_Judgment_blue.jpg, File:Hellraiser_Judgment_yellow.jpg. Given the number of non-free images in the article these should be not only complete but also stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Addressed. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Would like to see stronger FURs for the second and third images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I'm afraid I'm not understanding the issue. Could you please explain what about the FUR doesn't hold up to standard? DarkKnight2149 02:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
At the moment both say that they demonstrate the film's use of colour. What is the significance of this? Why is it not sufficient to just say that? What additional benefit does a reader gain by having these images? These are the sorts of questions I'd like to see answered in a strong FUR in the case that an article contains several non-free works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The FUR has been elaborated upon, per request. DarkKnight2149 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "As stated by writer/director Gary J. Tunnicliffe" - where was this stated?
In the source for the budget in the article. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Er, which one? This is the only footnote for the budget number in the infobox, and several sources cited in the body text could potentially be construed as "the source for the budget in the article". This needs clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Re-added to the infobox. Hopefully that's okay with Aoba47, since they asked me to remove it. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't cited anywhere - eg the credit to Griffin
On the official billing for the film, per the note. Nothing in the infobox isn't cited in the article or in the film's billing. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Inline comments that aren't visible to users shouldn't be used to replace proper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I had requested that the references should be removed from the infobox so apologies for that. I think all of the information in the infobox should be present in the article's prose and sourced there. I just wanted to clarify that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest reducing reliance on Tunnicliffe as per WP:PSTS.
@Nikkimaria: The issue with this one is that, despite this being an installment in a major horror franchise covered by third party sources, the studio refused to market the film. The movie was greenlit as a rights retention project and was completely shelved at one point because of the infamous Weinstein situation. For the vast majority of the production, it was complete radio silence from the studio (much to the chagrin of entertainment sites and horror fans). It was put back into post-production after Dimension Films was running low on cash, and even then, it didn't get much press from the studio itself. This is why most of the scoops came from the cast and director.
I was very careful in wording the article. Any information that came from Tunnicliffe is often worded as "According to Tunnicliffe" or in a way that people know who this is coming from. Anything opinion-related or subjective is relegated to quotes. I was also very picky about not stating things as absolute fact wherever applicable. This film didn't receive the marketing that you would expect from a studio production. DarkKnight2149 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that there might not be the depth of sourcing available; however, I would still prefer to see less of Tunnicliffe. For example, "Disliking some of the script's fantastical elements, Carney approached the role from a grounded perspective" is Tunnicliffe's interpretation of Carney's viewpoint, and is not framed in the way you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed as much as I could without cutting out important information. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're currently not consistent in how you format references to Two Hours in the Dark
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Many of your refs have a date provided at the source but not included in the citation - eg. FN1, 3, 4...
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN6 should not include website in the title parameter
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is Bloody Disgusting linked in FN8 but not FN1? Should be consistent - either link first time only, every time, or never
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes 1428 Elm a high-quality reliable source? Halloweenlove? Morbidly Beautiful? Clive Barker Cast? Joblo? Open the Trunk? Birth.Movies.Death (which you've represented as Birth.Death.Movies)? Flickering Myth?
The Halloweenlove article was written by a professional reporter who frequently works for Bloody-Disgusting. Likewise, the editor of BD John Squires (who has done work for a number of reliable sources) is a contributor as well, and the source was used specifically for a direct quote from the filmmakers. FanSided (aka 1428 Elm) is a direct interview with the actor. So is Morbidly Beautiful and Open the Trunk. Clive Barker Podcast is definitely reliable for interviews, especially audio interviews. They have done a number of video, audio, and written interviews with Clive Barker and various filmmakers related to Barker. However, I don't think the podcast is reliable for scoops or general news. JoBlo.com is a reputable news site. A section at WP:RSN on Flickering Myth has been opened in the past with no objections, and it is used as a source on quite a few Wikipedia articles. The Birth.Movies.Death review is counted by Rotten Tomatoes (which only acknowledges professional reviewers). DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because something is an interview, doesn't make it a high-quality reliable source. Still also concerned about Flickering Myth and Birth.Movies.Death - need more information on why these should be considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The Birth.Movies.Death review should be reliable enough for the critical response section, as per Rotten Tomatoes [15] and Variety. I went ahead and removed the Flickering Myth source, since the 2017 release date is also stated in the following Dread Central source and it's easier than waiting on a second WP:RSN that nobody is going to respond to. There probably should be a deeper discussion as to the reliability of Flickering Myth, since quite a few Wikipedia articles are using it as a source. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What about the other interview sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ping. Again, I appreciate that there are relatively few reliable secondary sources, but unfortunately that's sometimes the way the cookie crumbles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Morbidly Beautiful is quite prolific when it comes to interviews, some of which have been cited on other Wikipedia articles, and some of the reporters there have done work for higher profile reliable third party sources such as Dread Central and Screen Rant. FanSided ought to be a reliable interview source, as I do recall them receiving a number of scoops, such as for the TV series Gotham (example). The OpenTheTrunk interview was also covered by reliable third party sources, [16] [17], [18]. DarkKnight2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Getting scoops isn't in itself a marker of reliability though. Take a look at this resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: FanSided is a professional news site that has partnered with other publications (such as Sports Illustrated) in the past. I'm open to an WP:RSN if you're not convinced that it's a credible interview source. DarkKnight2149 15:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • YouTube is a platform, not a work
YouTube is the site and platform it is posted on, hence why it is listed in the "Website" parameter. The content creator/uploader is listed in "Publisher". I don't see the problem. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That logic doesn't make sense in the context of YouTube videos. The uploader is the author - in the case that someone is being interviewed, it should be cited as an interview instead of shoehorning them into the author parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Should I list the uploader as "author" and "YouTube" as the website and publisher? Is this an improvement? I don't believe we can list the uploader under "Website" because they aren't a website. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
They are authors, but as they are usernames they shouldn't be inverted as with a typical author name. Regarding placement, see the documentation for {{cite web}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. The video interviews are replaced with "Cite interview" template. DarkKnight2149 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: website doesn't match source
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fn22 and 24 are to the same source but are not formatted the same
Reformatted. The title capitalisation is different because the source itself did it differently. I can update the capitalisation on one of them, if you want. DarkKnight2149 03:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN47 is badly formatted
Tweaked. DarkKnight2149 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Assuming this is now 46, still needs improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Got it. If this one doesn't work, I'm open to suggestions. DarkKnight2149 02:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Just take out |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. DarkKnight2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN48 author formatting doesn't match other refs
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN58: work link should be piped.
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose pending cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I've struck my oppose at this time, but would be interested in seeing opinions from other reviewers specifically on the PSTS issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough suggestions in helping to improve the article. DarkKnight2149 22:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank Borman

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Frank Borman. At age 91, he is the oldest living astronaut. He commanded Apollo 8, the first Moon mission, and he and his crewmates became the first people to watch the Earth rise over the horizon. The article has recently passed a A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "and moved to the better climate of Tucson, Arizona," surely an opinion? Ever been to Tucson in July?
    No, I've never been to Arizona. The source says that the dry climate was thought to be congenial, which is something I've encountered in other articles relating to the American West. Courtney Ryan told me the weather was nice there. (Has a look at the weather today) 33 °C (91 °F). Looks beautiful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    My sister lived there for a few years. I think I visited in June which was bad enough. Sorry about the tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    No apology required. It's below freezing here at the moment, and we have only two weeks to go before the office turns off the heat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He then went to Mansfield Junior High, where he tried out for the American football team." I would strike "American". The link is sufficient disambiguation.
    Redirected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite the fact that every one of the four forward passes he attempted was incomplete, the team went on to win the state championship." I would say "each" rather than "every one". He only threw four passes the whole season? or just in the game where he replaced the first string QB? What year in HS did this happen in?
    In his final year. I will double-check the source. I don't think the forward pass was as common back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    The forward pass is not common in high school football in general, relative to the professional level that we are conditioned for. Kees08 (Talk) 04:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Anything's possible in high school, basically. My high school's football team did not have a kicker one year until soccer season ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Borman says: "Probably because our cheerleaders could throw better than I, we were a strictly running team—I think I tried four passes all year and didn't complete one." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "His first ride in an airplane was when he was five years old.[2]" I might say "had been" rather than "was".
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A year when he joined the Army would be useful.
    He entered West Point on July 1, 1946, and joined the Army on June 6, 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "but his skills were insufficient to qualify even at that level." I would cut "to qualify". I might even cut "even at that level".
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "had equal seniority with those graduating the United States Naval Academy, " I would insert "from" after graduating as more common in AmEng.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and was planning to commence a liberal arts degree at the University of Arizona." the "commence a ..." doesn't sound right in AmEng. This was presumably graduate school, so I might frame it as "and was planning to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona" or some such.
    The text just says "planning to spend the summer in Tuscon before getting a liberal arts degree from the University of Arizona". I don't know if it was a graduate degree or a second undergraduate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit odd he was assigned to West Point when the USAFA was starting up.
    Borman entered West Point in 1946, and graduated in 1950. The first USAFA class did not enter until 1955, and did not graduate until 1959, nine years after Borman. From memory you could still opt for the USAF as late as 1968. In addition to the 3,200 cadets and midshipmen who opted for the Air Force between 1949 and 1959, another 1,000 joined between 1959 and 1968. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure (I know a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended West Point in the 1970s and was allowed to opt because his father was Air Force) but you'd think the Air Force would want to send its officers to teach at the budding USAFA rather than West Point.
      I don't know what was the rationale behind the appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and signed his first house-building contract," This doesn't sound AmEng. Home construction contract?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "on the Dilbert Dunker at the US Navy school at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and on Galveston Bay.[38] " I would cut "the US Navy school at". I'm not sure it adds anything.
    Dunked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Donald Slayton" Why call him Donald rather than Deke?
    Deked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Re his Apollo 1 testimony before Congress, I would use his quote to the effect that the question is whether you trust us or you don't. I can't find the exact wording offhand but I could probably search through my references if need be.
    Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll get back to you on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It's "We are trying to tell you that we are confident in our management, and in our engineering and in ourselves. I think the question is really: Are you confident in us?" See here.
        Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why single out Rumsfeld in particular? There were starting to be a number of space skeptics in Congress by then.
  • Because Borman did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    "He had some caustic remarks to make about the space program, and its apparent lack of concern for safety." REmoved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Borman was forced to confront one of the root causes of the disaster: the natural tension between getting the job done on time and building the spacecraft as well as possible. It involved arguments with test pilot Scott Crossfield and fellow astronauts like John Young." This seems rather vague.
    You want more details of the conflicts? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you should include enough detail to make it clear to the reader why you're mentioning it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      Added more detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " entering a lunar orbit before returning to Earth." I would cut the "a".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • I might say something about the risk of the Apollo 8 mission as no LM meant no lifeboat. Also about the intense training required given the mission flew only four months after Low's proposal was tentatively accepted, and was contingent on Apollo 7 being successful.
    Do you have a source? I would lift it from the Apollo 8 article, but it doesn't say it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For which part of that?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "capable of being quickly changed from passenger to cargo aircraft. " I might say "converted" rather than "changed"
    Changed, I mean converted. I think another editor asked for the opposite. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    In the A-class review, I said Maybe converted instead of changed? I see changed as going back and forth as many times as needed, while converted is more permanent. Maybe my grasp of words is flawed. of being quickly changed from passenger, to which you replied Often between each flight. I still hold that changed seems better if its a back-and-forth thing and converted seems more permanent, but don't really care either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm going with "changed". Mainly because Boeing says QC stands for Quick Change. According to the Wikipedia, the change could be made in 30 minutes. By a Formula One pit crew Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "In May 1975, Borman was elected President and chief operating officer. " Is this elective or in some way appointive? I might also lower case the "president".
    Elected. Added "by the board".
  • The crisis years at Eastern were extensively covered by The New York Times back in the day, as Eastern was for many purposes a local company because of its operations at Newark. For example this and this and this. I would suggest that these would be good sources for the Eastern years beyond bios and the Sun-Sentinel article (though, of course, the SS is in the Miami area, where Eastern was actually based). I'd like to see these taken into account.
    I'll have a look at them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, the Sun-Sentinel article says "Eastern's profits began to slide almost as soon as deregulation began; 1979 was the last profitable year for the airline until 1985." but you say that "Profits jumped to a record $67.3 million in 1978,[105] and Eastern went through the four most profitable years in its history." and also that there was a profit in 1984.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was a personal defeat, but hardly a financial disaster; he received a severance payment of $900,000, and drew a consultant's fee of $150,000 a year from Texas Air until 1991.[105]" I would suggest adding "for him" after "disaster". There were many people who did not come out so well. He also seems to have been vice chair of Texas Air, according to the NYT articles I cited.
    Added "for him". (The firm I used to work for had to retrench hundreds of employees to pay for the golden parachutes of all the senior executives when it went private. Fortunately my own severance agreement was very generous, possibly because I had written it myself several years before.) The initial intention was that Borman would run Eastern for Texas Air as vice chairman, but this did not occur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you ping me when it's ready?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Anything more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Support All looks OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • so he volunteered to join the Army, with the aim of qualifying for college Replace "with the aim of qualifying" with "intending to quality".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that every one of the four Replace "Despite the fact that" with "although".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it could be sent all the way to the Moon, entering lunar Remove "all the way".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He sold the corporate jet, and, as at North American You mean "a"?
    No. Changed to "Jetstar". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • with an eight percent raise in 1977, and then a five-year Variable Earnings Program (VEP) You mean "rise"?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Let's hope that this article get promoted before his death. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well you've my support already. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 102: The publisher is given as "West Point". This the "Report to the Secretary of the Army by the Special Commission on the United States Military Academy" – surely, the academy itself isn't the publisher of this report into itself?
    Looks that way. West Point published it on their web site, www.west-point.org. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 137: Time, unitalicised (see 89, 127, 136)
    It's part of an online series on "the most compelling — and sometimes controversial — choices for Person of the Year" rather than the magazine itself. So Time is listed as the publisher, and therefore is not italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 154, 155: is "This American Life" the actual publisher: or is WBEZ?
    "This American Life" is listed as the publisher on the web pages, which are on www.thisamericanlife.org Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability
  • Ref 124, Parabolic arc: what makes this a reliable source?
    It's a pretty good site for space news. Substituted NASA's Facebook page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, no issues – sources meet required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Maury

  • "In 1998, they bought a cattle ranch"... and? That was 20 years ago, is he still there?
    Yes, he is still living in Billings, and still owns the ranch, although he seldom visits it nowadays. A Wikipedian tracked him down. [19] Although we know that his wife is now in a nursing home, I haven't found a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Add that to the lede, that he's living in Billings. Currently, it reads like he's in Bighorn.
  • "he mentioned to his friend's father"- I am confused by this entire passage. This statement, in particular, seems like it should be in the paragraph below, it is very oddly placed as is. And I remain unclear on what the friend's father actually did in the end. What is this "third alternative appointment", I assume this is the direct placement program with WP? It seems Borman had already decided to go the Army route, yes? So am I correct that he abandoned using the GI Bill? If so, how? Wasn't he already ordered to go to the Army? And if he get the third placement, how was it that three people were ahead of him? And for most non-US readers, the relationship between the military and West Point may not be clear. I think this whole thing could use some clarification.
    Appointment to West Point is through political patronage. Each senator, congressman and the vice president gets to nominate candidates. (Nowadays five; back then it was just three.) In the late 19th century they started conducting examinations to rank candidates. For each vacancy they could name a principal candidate plus three alternatives in order of preference. Borman was incredibly lucky to get the nod from a third alternative (the Stephen Bradbury route). More typical is Buzz Aldrin, who was the principal nominee of his senator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, how about this:

His parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch aeronautical engineering courses at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, so he volunteered to join the Army, intending to qualify for college tuition under the G.I. Bill.[7] Borman took {passed?} the Army physical, and was told to report to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school.

Borman also built model airplanes out of balsa wood. He was helping a friend build model planes when he mentioned to his friend's father that he wanted to go to the United States Military Academy at West Point. His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. {Every year,} Harless was able to present one primary candidate and up to three alternatives for an appointment to West Point. Harless had not yet listed a third alternative and {what exactly happened so he ended up on it? the friend's dad arranged it?} The end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out, so Borman went to West Point.[7][4]

I am still unclear on the last point - if he had already been ordered to report to the Army, how did he get out of that? IIRC, being in West Point is not legally being in the military? Is the some sort of arrangement here, or did he have to do something to remove himself from service? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The Army will release you to go to West Point, even if you are already serving. (Since World War I there are also some appointments are reserved for serving members of the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard (85 regulars and 85 reservists today) but unlike some European countries prior service has never been a requirement.) Borman did pass the Army physical. No doubt he was in good shape. Had he not been, he would likely have still been accepted, as standards were low in 1946, with the Army releasing large numbers from active service while providing occupation forces in Europe and Asia. Arizona had a small population then and the whole state was just one congressional district. To get into West Point, you need a nomination from your congressman or senators, so personal contacts are essential. (In Australia we call such a process "stroking your member".) Appointment strictly on merit is not the American way, but competition is still fierce, and West Point is more popular in some districts than others. Each Congressman can have a total of five cadets at West Point at any one time. Usually, they allocate their quota by appointing one candidate per year. That way, there are four or five cadets from their district at West Point at any one time - usually one in each class. When those cadets appointed by the Congressman graduate or drop out, another slot becomes available. That's why in some cases a Congressman can send more than one person to an academy in a given year. I believe that in 1946 Harless could nominate one principal with three numbered alternatives. Today, he could provide up to ten alternatives; I'm not sure what the maximum number was back then. (No Congressman has been convicted for selling appointments since John H. Hoeppel in 1936.)
I like the way the narrative unfolds in the article. It talks about Borman's love of flying and building aircraft. It shows how this led to his wanting to attend an out-of-state school, which was beyond his parents' means, and therefore why he thought of the Army and West Point, and how it led to his receiving a Congressional appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The narrative is confusing. You mention his friend's dad and west point, then talk about his family and the army. How these two topics are related and thus in one para eludes me. Then in the next para we have his friend's dad again, then the army again, then west point again. I'm sorry, but this is not FA quality prose. It also lacks the details you note above, and while I'm sure you don't find this confusing, I certainly did and I suspect most readers will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to address your concerns by using the converssation with his friend's father as a frame, rewriting as follows:

Borman was helping a friend build model planes, when his friend's father asked him about his plans for the future. Borman told him that he wanted to study aeronautical engineering, but his parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch courses in aeronautical engineering at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, and he lacked the political connections to secure an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He therefore planned to join the Army, which would allow him to qualify him for free college tuition under the G.I. Bill.

His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. Harless already had a principal nominee for West Point, but Borman's friend's father convinced Harless to list Borman as a third alternative. Borman took the West Point entrance examination, but since his chances of a West Point appointment were slim, he also took the Army physical, and passed both. But the end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out. Instead of reporting to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school, he to went to West Point.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Crap, need to reboot... Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Satisfied that all your points have been addressed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Quick ping in case you did not notice this. Kees08 (Talk) 22:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

Copying comments from A-class review. Hope you don't mind I moved your comments too when relevant.

  • They landed Friday night, but only had to wait 45 minutes for daylight? Mission ground rules required a daylight recovery, so the crew had to wait 45 minutes for the frogmen to open the hatches.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well then, would it not be Saturday morning? Or did the sun rise on Friday night? Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    It was Friday. The article says "The Apollo 8 spacecraft splashed down in darkness at 10:51:42 UTC (05:51:42 EST) on Friday, December 27." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ok we are good on this point. Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the Apollo 8 section could include more detail on how Borman militantly fought scope creep, preventing additional experiments and television broadcasts.
    Did you look into this? Kees08 (Talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think his POW efforts deserves more than a sentence. Whose idea was it? Where did he go? Did it help?
    Expanded to a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think that is some brilliant work. Thanks for that. Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was reading into this the other day, and it was not immediately clear: was Frank Borman heading a special commission that was investigating if his sons acted inappropriately? If so, is there any coverage on his impartialness?
    Not his sons specifically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    I would specifically note it was a separate incident then, and perhaps make it in a separate paragraph. Easy to draw the conclusion they hired him to investigate a case involving his own sons, the way that it is worded now at least. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Made into a separate paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good citation for this? I recall an IP editor adding a citation to many pages for induction into the museum, but someone was able to get their hands on a copy and was having trouble validating the citation.
    Didn't think the Halls of Fame were worth chasing up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

and the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in 1990

  • Anything on this? Kees08 (Talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Nothing on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What year? and DeMolay International Hall of Fame.
    No idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Non-RS show it was November 13, 1986, the inaugural class, in case that helps you find an RS. Not sure we should include this at all, per my Hall of Fame comment below. Kees08 (Talk)
    Can you follow up on this? Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Didn't think the Halls of Fame were worth chasing up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was interviewed for at least this one, which would be different than just appearing in it (appearing it in would be an assumed default, if they were using footage of the mission) He appeared in the Discovery Channel documentary When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions,