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 Ealdgyth—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Albany Charter half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the commemoratives from 1936. No great scandal here, it doesn't look like anyone at the time made much money out of it; still, there's an interesting backstory. Enjoy.--15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wehwalt (talk)

Dryomyza anilis

Nominator(s): AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the fly Dryomyza anilis, with a significant portion of the page focusing on mating behavior. I underwent a rigorous round of edits to improve the page to GA status, and believe that it is a realistic candidate for FA status. I am absolutely open to hearing any and all feedback to improve the page. I also believe I have successfully incorporated edits from my first FA nomination for this page (I incorrectly nominated the page for FA before going through the GA process). AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi, just to be clear, there's no requirement to go through GAN before FAC, but getting as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, whether through GAN, Peer Review, or just asking people, is certainly useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

James A. Ryder

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who was president of three universities four times. He was a major figure in Jesuit academia in the United States, helping start up two of the universities. Another in my series of Jesuit academic leaders. Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Leptospirosis

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Leptospirosis disease. I see it reasonable for featured article nomination after substational expansion in 2019. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

  • This can't be right " If infected, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination shows lymphocytic predominance with a cell count of 500/mm3". How can you be so precise? I have counted my fair share of cells in CSF.
  •  Done added "about".Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but not done. What if I were to telephone you in the middle of the night and say "342 cells, 70% lymphocytes". We need more for an FA. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This needs clarifying, "During the first eight days of infection, the bacteria can be detected by quantitative PCR and can reach as high is 10^6 bacteria per ml of blood". PCR detects DNA not bacteria cells. I have read the citation (and the one cited in the citation) and it is not clear to me how the qPCR has been calibrated to correlate copies of DNA with numbers of bacteria.
  •  Done. Removed whole sentence. Unable to find additional sources to support this.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done. It is used in epidemiological studies only.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
No it's not. I have incubated and tested loads of routine blood cultures where the suspected (speculated) diagnosis was leptospirosis. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also seeing quite a bit of bad grammar. In my opinion, this article is not ready for FA (or FAC) and should be withdrawn. Graham Beards (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at FAC; done and not done check marks should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SG: suggest withdrawal

  • What I am seeing initially (just scanning the page) is a lot of copyediting needs, samples only:
  • The people at the highest risk for leptospirosis are young people whose age ranges from 5–16 years old, and can also range to young adults.
  • The duration of bacteria being consistently present in animal urine are long.
  • The lead is quite choppy. And repetitive (“most common”).
  • There are also WP:MOSNUM issues throughout. A thorough MOS review is needed for things like image captions, NBSPs, a lack of as of dates, wikilinking, etc.
  • A surprisingly large number of the sources are quite dated, which is always a concern in medical articles (WP:MEDDATE). As but a few examples only (there are more), why are these recent reviews not used?
  • PMID 25388134
  • PMID 30605077
  • PMID 31898795
  • PMID 31542372

I realize the Peer review got zero feedback after waiting a long time, but I suspect this article could benefit from more eyes before being submitted to FAC, and may not be quite ready.

While it is unfortunate that the peer review garnered zero feedback, I suggest this FAC be withdrawn and re-submitted after a copyedit, MOS review, and use of more recent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I use Google searches to find the latest review articles. Therefore, I missed the latest reviews. Thanks for your feedback.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This article might help you: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. You really have to go to Pubmed, and restrict your search to Reviews during the last five years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
With a little leeway for a "History" section. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Drake Would Love Me

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a song by American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014). Its lyrics are about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake. "Drake Would Love" was never released as a single and did not appear on any music charts, but its odd title and concept still attracted attention from media outlets. It received generally positive reviews from critics, although some criticized Michelle's decision to dedicate a song to Drake.

For this project, I was inspired by AJona1992's FAC for the Selena song "Missing My Baby" to work on an article about an album track. I do not have a lot of experience with bringing song articles to the FA level, so I would greatly appreciate any feedback as always for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for now, hope to change to support later.

Hi Aoba, I hope you’re well. I would say this article is not quite ready for FA yet, but I hope you may likely be able to fix the issues within the period of this FAC. Below I’m just highlighting quickly what for me would be some of the biggest issues. Once you resolve these I may have some other smaller points.

  • In the second paragraph of the Critical reception section, there are four criticisms, but there is only one of them (the “just plain weird” one) that is very clear to me what the context is. The other ones feel like they need more background. Also the last one wiki-links to “sucking-teeth” but it mentions the context as being for the West Indies, while the writer of the review seems to be New York-based. It’s not clear that the wiki-link is relevant.
  • I believe the "sucking-teeth" slang has expanded beyond the West Indies as it something that I have heard the expression in the US, but I understand your point. I have expanded on this paragraph to include further information from the sources, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of the section there are some worthwhile-sounding points made by various writers, but it’d be nice if they could be tied together to try to link some similarities or related points among the different comments.
  • I have revised the paragraph to link some of the similar points made by critics. The commonalities that I found are that critics were (in this case pleasantly) surprised by how the song sounded in comparison to the title and enjoyed Michelle's humor. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Not just in that paragraph, but also in the Composition and lyrics section—and I’ve mentioned this in a couple of previous reviews of articles you’ve nominated, and I hope I don’t sound like a broken record—I feel there are too many brief unrelated points reviewers say, listed one after another, without any overarching narrative to them. For me it’d be great if some of these could be fleshed out, to appear more substantial, and similar themes or trends among the things they say could be highlighted so there is a more solid story for the reader. Your first version of When You Get a Little Lonely suffered from that, but then you came back with more points of substance and a more solid narrative, and it was really a lot better.
  • That is a fair point so no worries. I went for the following approach with this section. The first paragraph would focus on the music itself (i.e. genre, instrumentation, etc.), the second on the lyrics, and the third on how the song fits with the rest of the album. I renamed the section to "Music and lyrics" to hopefully make the separation of the first two paragraphs clearer. I have revised all of the paragraphs so hopefully it does not sound like just a bunch of information randomly smashed together, but let me know if further work is necessary. I would argue that the overall narrative of this article (and the publications about this particular song) focuses on the bizarre nature of a singer writing fan fiction about Drake. It is certainly a strange moment in music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overall I feel there are too many quotations in the article. More paraphrasing would be better.
  • Understandable, any particular section or paragraph stand out with this? Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t understand what the comparison to Dr. Seuss is supposed to mean. It could use more context if it’s available in the source.
  • I have attempted to revise this part. I think the source is making this comparison based on how the song lists Drake's qualities through a similar rhyming style to a Seuss book (i.e. same/games). This is the full quote from the source about it for further clarification: (In “Drake Would Love Me,” which reads like a romantic R&B song written by Dr. Seuss, Michelle enumerates Drake’s finest qualities: he would show her off at the Grammys; he would treat her like “his grand prize”; he wouldn’t lie; he wouldn’t make her cry; he wouldn’t “play no games”; he would “always be the same.”) Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s all for now. While the article is not quite at there yet, with a little oiling here and there I think the gap is not so insurmountable and I wish you good luck improving it. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments! I will go through the article sometime tomorrow to try my best to address your points if that is okay with you. I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that I have seen the comments. Thank you for being upfront with your oppose. Apologies again for being quite bad at taking criticism in the past, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. I will let you know on here when I have revised the article, and I am looking forward to working with you further on this. This one is a little outside of my comfort zone so it will be nice to work through the article slowly tomorrow as I do agree with your points above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

INTERFET logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything to nag about except WP:NBSP work needed. Good luck here, Hawkeye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SMS Roon

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

  • in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
    • Done
  • were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
    • Fixed
  • full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
    • Good catch
  • Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
  • perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey

  • The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
    • Good catch
  • Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
    • It is, in the first para of the design section
  • In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
    • Good point
  • Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
    • Works for me
  • Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
    • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
  • "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
    • Fixed
  • "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
    • Fixed

That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the plan
    • Done
  • File:Roon_linedrawing.png is tagged as lacking author and description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Goldfinch (painting)

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Following my first book FAC, I now present my first foray into the world of art, a short piece about an iconic bird painting that inspired an award-winning book and a rather poor film. I am greatly indebted to Aa77zz for help with sourcing and detailed comments before I came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

  • Generally looks good. Some comments:
  • "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a 1654 painting by Dutch artist Carel Fabritius" - I don't like years as adjectives, or false titles, and the article doesn't I think mention the important fact that it is signed. Plus you miss the main link. Suggest: "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius, signed and dated 1654." Or something.
  • Done, mislead by the chapter in Lederer head Flemish Baroque in which this was placed, but you're obviously right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The painting is unusual for the Flemish Baroque period.." - but this isn't a Flemish Baroque work. It's Dutch Golden Age painting, though the same is more or less true for that. There's another of these later.
  • "the bird's nickname puttertje" - or "common name"?
  • "The goldfinch is a popular topic for painters" - painters don't really have "topics". "The goldfinch frequently appears in paintings" or something?
  • "Nearly 500 Renaissance religious paintings..." - again a link to plain Renaissance is unlikely to help readers.
  • "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" pretty ancient, so better give dates - 1876 - 1954.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, in Middenbeemster..." - odd. Fabritius is a normal surname, which happens to be the usual way he is referred to (just like Rembrandt). This implies it was a nickname, like El Greco say. "Initially he worked as a carpenter (Latin: fabritius)" may be true, though I think the word is rather more vague than that, but is essentially a coincidence afaik.
  • See also the quick bio by Walter Liedtke (link below) on page 247. It is a bit confusing though. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Fabritius died young," - well very young, just 2ish years into his independent career, at 32.
  • "According to his contemporary Arnold Houbraken..." - no, born 1660. "His first biographer" maybe.
  • I was assuming Houbraken was his first biographer (he usually is with DGA painters), but seeing how short Houbraken's life is, and hearing about the earlier coverage by Bleyswijck in the Binstock book (lk below), it might be best to soften this. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892" - better explain that Hôtel Drouot is and was exclusively an auction house (or wierd monopolistic consortium of them). We don't link Paris (nor New York later).
  • "The painting is currently in the permanent collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague" - it isn't going anywhere. WP:VAMOS deprecates currently, & "permanent" is also not needed, after 125 years. The lead gets it right.
  • "survives a terrorist bombing at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in which his mother dies. He takes the Fabritius painting with him as he escapes the building" - presumably in the novel it was on loan for an exhibition. Better say so.
  • I think you are right to have a gallery - personally I use "<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px"> , then the normal </gallery> to close. I'd add a nice pic of the real bird somewhere. On my set-up Elgort is all beside the notes. Personally I'd have him and Thore-Berger in a gallery at the bottom with some of the other pics. The Mignon might be better as a cropped detail - possibly others.

Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Johnbod Thanks for the great review. I'll add a real bird. The Mignon, unlike the Bosch isn't really hi-res enough. Can you leave the possibility of a second gallery with me for a while? I need to think about that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Theramin

Round 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nice article, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that should be mined. For example, this book from the Met and National Gallery's Vermeer exhibition in 2001 mentions some interesting points, including:

  • (as you have already mentioned Pliny) the neat reversal of the grapes of Zeuxis (so realistic, it deceived a bird) to this painting of a bird (so realistic, it could fool a person passing by)
  • the Dutch common name of distelvink or putter (or putterje using a Dutch diminutive suffix, so do we have a Dutch speaker to confirm the usage?
  • how the painting may have been displayed, supporting the thesis that it was nailed up by a window
  • that's already there reffed to Stone-Ferrier in "physical characteristics" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the bold strokes with bright colours above and the feathery strokes with dull colours below, adding to the impression of volume and texture
  • are those rings metal, or smooth wood?
  • where is the bucket?
  • the book was before the restoration, we know that not only is there obviously no bucket now, but there never was, seems a bit of a red (gold?) herring to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there other catalogues, journal articles, etc, that should be consulted?

I've found all I can, although I obv missed this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And can we pin down the provenance?

  • This is the print collector Chevalier Joseph Guillaume Jean Camberlyn (1783-1861).
  • And this is the art dealer Étienne-François Haro (1827-1897, who retired c.1885).

So who was "E. Martinet"?

  • this contemporaneous record, clearly says "M." (i.e. Monsieur) "E. Martinet", and it appears to be an estate sale.
Great find. This is the 1896 sale. The catalogue includes a picture so there is no doubt. The painting is Lot 16 on page 9 here. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly the notes to the side of the lot say it was sold to Kleinberger, the art dealer. I assume he sold it on to the Mauritshuis, but I doubt it was for the same price he paid for it at the auction (there's a 5% commission from the auction house to add to the 6200 francs to start with). Yomanganitalk 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Maritshuis page confirms the sale at the auction and the purchase by the Mauritshuis are separate transactions, so that bit of the "Ownership" section will need rewording. Yomanganitalk 10:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be separate transaction - Bredius became director of the Mauritshuis in 1889. Brown p.126 has "bought by Bredius for the Mauritshuis (for his account of the sale see Bredius 1939, pp.11-12)". - Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right, Kleinburger seems to have been a proxy or agent for Bredius. I've copied Bredius's account to the talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And here is the catalogue of the 1892 sale after the death of Thoré-Burger (la collection de feu Thoré-Burger) again with a picture. It is lot 10 on page 13 here (agrees with Brown 1981 p.126) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it was the printer Émile Martinet (1838-1895), of Rue Mignon. His daughter Maxime married Jules Haro, the son of Étienne-François Haro. See this and this.

That's almost certainly correct. The auction was an estate sale. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Theramin, thanks for comments, I'm out all day today, but I'll deal with these as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the provenance, I already had the chevalier ref, now I've also expanded on Haro and Kleinberger. Martinet is more of a problem. Neither of the links is RS, and although this is, it doesn't appear to confirm his family relationship with Haro or his job. I don't doubt the facts, but I can't find a proper source to enable it to be added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Round 2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, this is still a nice article, and getting better by the day. Thank you for giving me an excuse to dig into the sources. What a genius Fabritius was. Such a pity he was exploded. I guess my main point is that there is more out there. I see some of the points that have been mentioned in the last couple of days were already in Brown's catalogue raisonné. There are more sources in JSTOR, and I suspect there must be more in Dutch. Do we have anyone local who can help? And I've not read it, but is there anything of worth in Davis's Fabritius and the Goldfinch? More specifically, I had hoped that you might see "other sources … For example … including" and go a bit further than ticking off the list of bullets, but if you'd prefer to have a laundry list of further points to tick off (and apologies, but this is all rather undigested stream-of-consciousness):

  • I have the Davis book, and it's been really useful for background, and telling me what I need to verify, but it's written as a popular history with few footnotes and plenty of speculation, so I don't think it's suitable as direct source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You might want to say a bit more about Fabritius as a link between Rembrandt and Vermeer - for example the Rembrandt-y looseness of the brushwork, and sgraffito use of the end of his brush to create black line through the thickly painted yellow wing - but also the transition in tones away from Rembrandt-esque darkness (which you mention) to Vermeer-esque light (which could be said more explicitly: Vermeer was certainly influenced by Fabritius, and while it is not universally accepted, there is speculation that Vermeer could have been a student of Fabritius).
  • The pleasant online presentation at the Mauritshuis compares the blank walls behind the Fabritius's goldfinch and Vermeer's Milkmaid, which only became clear after discoloured varnish was cleaned off in 2003, and links back to what Bürger said in his 1859 catalogue of the Arenburg collection, about "mur blême", "fonds clairs et pâles" and "lumineuse couleur".[1]
  • Is there more to say about the restoration? Do the technical sources mention X-ray and infrared analysis?
  • You could draw on the suggestion that this painting might have been part of a multi-part trompe-l'oeil installation, perhaps with a separate painting of a ledge and bucket, or even a 3D ledge and bucket below. Fabritius is known to have made images for a perspective box. e.g. his View of Delft. The removal of the border suggests could have been placed on a wall without a frame. The Gerrit Dou painting of the lady shows how a goldfinch could be kept beside a window.
Added text and the Delft painting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On the provenance, and Martinet/Haro, perhaps someone in France can help to locate some hardcopy sources, although you don't get more hardcopy than the Haro monument in the Père Lachaise.
  • The provenance is pretty well established, I can't see why we need more on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is another more finished self-portrait at the National Gallery, which also has an article: Young Man in a Fur Cap (1654). That said, I quite like the loose, sketchy nature of the earlier one (1645) you have chosen.
  • Yes, I looked at other images, but I liked this one too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you can bear adding links to articles in other languages, you might want to use Uno sparviero [it]. (That was earlier, surely, not later? 1510s versus 1654. Perhaps better to say a Renaissance example.)
    I thought that too, but when I re-read it I saw it meant later than the grapes. Then again, if we both misunderstood it probably needs rewording. Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is fairly usual for the image captions of artworks to include artist, title, date, and where the work is held.
  • I've included all of that except the location which I don't think is relevant and just makes long captions even longer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, Fabritius was still alive when he was dug out from the ruins of his house some hours after the gunpowder explosion in Delft, he was taken to a hospital, but died a short time afterwards. All of the others in the house were dead when they were found. So "died with him" is not quite right.
  • After centuries in private collections ("lost" seems a bit strong, as no one as looking for it) the chardonneret was included in the 1866 Exposition retrospective: tableaux anciens empruntés aux galleries particulières (now there is a topic deserving of an article, as much as the First Impressionist Exhibition) at the Palais des Champ-Élysées which was organised by Édouard Odier [fr] and … Étienne-François Haro.[2] Well, blow me down.

That is probably more than enough from me. Please don't be discouraged - there is a great article there, I just think it needs a bit more. Theramin (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Theramin, I think I've responded to all your points so far, please let me know if I've missed something Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you've got most of it. There is probably more that could be added on how this panel might physically have worked as a tromp l'oeil, and also linking the Italian article on it:Uno sparviero (unless someone writes a short stub for you... and the Piero della Francesca deserves an article too: one magpie or two?) and in the main I like to add locations for artworks, but you apparently don't, so I'm not going to stand in your way.

Two further points, and then I think my nitpicking be exhausted. I think its first public exhibition in Paris in 1866 is quite important, and it is mentioned in the Mauritshuis presentation. And you might want to see the back and forth on my talk page about Émile Martinet, and some of his works (that were later sold in the same estate sale in 1896) being exhibited in 1874, which I think makes it clear this is the same "E. Martinet". Sadly not the chardonneret though, but nice to give the man his name after all these years. Theramin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • added the exhibition and a bit more about Martinet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • At first glance, I'm not too fond of all the white space in the last part of the article. Is Ansel Elgorth really that important to the story that he warrants creating that huge white space under the Théophile Thoré-Bürger image?
  • Funkmonk it was actually a {{-}} inserted by another editor causing the white space, the pic alone wouldn't do that. I've removed both though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks better, it was also an issue whether we even needed to see his photo here, seemed like undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph under In popular culture ends without citation. I assume it is is because it is just a summary of the book, but would still be god to cite that.
Hmm, yes, in articles about the books, films, etc. themselves, but this is rather tangential (this article is not about the book), so seems a bit out of place. Anyway, I won't press the issue, I'm not entirely up to snuff when it comes to media summaries here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If the sources state so, mention the colour of the wall under descrition? It is a pretty dominant aspect of the painting. Now you only mention it under Physical characteristics.
  • In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, such as in The Dawn of Love (painting) and The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí). Now, this article starts somewhat abruptly, if we ignore the intro, without presenting the artist. You mention aspects of his life earlier in the article, so I went to read his biography section before I read the rest of the article for context. Could be good to get that out of the way.
  • The captions of the paintings in the galleries could state dates for context. Perhaps also the portraits.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622" Why not full name at link here?
  • "Fabritius died very young" Why not just give his age?
  • "The bird itself was created with broad brush strokes, with only minor later corrections to its outline, while details, including the chain, are added with more precision." Why change in tense?
  • "painted by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1504" Since you present him in the earlier paragraph, perhaps only last name is needed here?
  • You use curly brackets instead of parenthesis by some dates, any reason for that?
  • Again, I won't press the issue, but I'm not sure what the following has to do with the subject of this article (the painting, not the movie): "The film was poorly received, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes giving an approval rating of 24%, and an average score of 4.5/10,[34] and Metacritic showing a weighted average score of 40 out of 100.[35]". Seems like undue weight.
  • "it was lost for more than two centuries" Only clearly stated in the intro.
  • Support - looks good to me now, in line with other painting articles I've reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Not sure the gallery in Subject makes a lot of sense - we've got a portrait of the artist, plus a modern-day photo of the bird, plus a set of other paintings that include the bird
  • I tend to agree, but all the images were requested by reviewers, are relevant and can't easily go elsewhere. I might play around with splitting into a couple of galleries
  • File:Abraham_Mignon_-_Fruit_Still-Life_with_Squirrel_and_Goldfinch_-_WGA15666.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolutioncrop.jpg, File:Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Madonna_del_Cardellino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, File:FabritiusViewOfDelft.jpg
  • File:Théophile_Thoré_by_Nadar.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wales national football team home stadium

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Quick comment – Move south and pre-war success: In "made it the last Wales International held at a rugby ground until 1989", why is "International" capitalized? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a typo, thanks for spotting that. Kosack (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible
  • alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating
  • one English newspaper —no harm to name it here
  • Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating
  • "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too?
  • dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"?

Mandate for Palestine

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I will comment here as I go along. Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told Georges Clemenceau" link and mention Paris Peace Conference as well as its date (in the narrative before and after we are still in 1915), introduce the British Prime Minister and his French counterpart as such, and link them. Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "and autonomous Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz" the links here are a bit WP:EASTEREGGy. Perhaps amend the first to include the entirety of "autonomous Transjordan", or better yet, "an autonomous Emirate of Transjordan", and somehow introduce the Sharifian Solution in the main text, since using it to pipe "Hashemite" doesn't make much sense.
Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • as a general note, given the unusually high reliance on quotes, which provide much of the article's content, I strongly recommend adding links to the footnotes. For example, the "Jerusalem Riot of April 1920" should be linked to 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Constantine 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
  • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
  • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
I have scaled up a number of the images
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
  • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
Removed as suggested.
  • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[3]
Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you – this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

  • Lead looks good. In the last paragrah, "Britain announced their intention" should be "Britain announced its intention." Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

  • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Assignment to Britain Palestine

  • "This proposed that three sons of Sharif Hussein – who had since become King of the Hejaz, and his sons emirs (princes)"-I'm having difficulty determinig what this means. Please rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • T.E. Lawrence's name is mentioned in the third paragraph here. Is this the first time that it appeared? If not, it should be linked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Palestine being within the area of Arab independence." I'm confused. In that case, there would be no Palestine, correct? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What kinds of advantages, economic or otherwise, did Britain receive by administering the mandate? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Transjordan

  • "indicating their political ideas about its future.." What does this mean? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would Transjordan be added to Palestine? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
  • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
  • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
  • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
  • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
  • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “Th delegation made…”
  • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
  • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
  • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
  • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
  • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
  • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.

Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:

  • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
  • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
  • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma) Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Defile

Nominator(s): Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

A great article. I have a few comments:

  • when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
    • Good point, done
  • suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
    • Good point, done
  • might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
    • That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
  • is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
    • Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
  • is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
    • No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
  • link counterattack
    • Done
  • did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
    • No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
  • suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
    • Good point, done
  • should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
    • Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
  • suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
    • Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
  • Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
    • I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Link terms and names in image captions.
  • Suluk is duplinked.
  • "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
  • I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
  • It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
  • You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
  • You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
  • "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
  • "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
  • "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
  • It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
  • It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.

Second Silesian War

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Emicho´s Avenger

I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talkcontribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the FA criteria don't carry weight when it comes to determining consensus for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

  • Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
  • Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

"New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

  • The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.
The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?
Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?
This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.
Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?
I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?
Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?
Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.
Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".
I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?
"...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?
When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that that would be helpful to a reader.
I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?
Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?
Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.
I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.
That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?
I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.
I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That works well.

What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Source Review--Support-- Auntieruth55

  • This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (U

Article Review --- Support---Auntieruth

A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. :)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.
Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way. :) auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

  • "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.
Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

John Leak

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

  • Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
  • I don't think so, while still explaining the basis of his notability. It is a standard formulation for FAs on Australian VC recipients which I've used half-a-dozen times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since it's consistent with other articles, I'm fine with the wording as is. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
  • No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
  • Not sure what else to do here, but added a short preamble and changed it up a bit and split the para, see what you think. The second period was 96 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
  • No, but given later events, perhaps the court martial realised he was struggling as a result of his experiences, or they didn't want to delay his return to the frontline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
  • Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
  • A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?
  • added "and legacy" to the section header. The last two are directly related, as they both refer to his memorial. All three relate to memorialisation of Leak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Victoria Cross image has two alts
  • File:John_Leak_P02939.jpg: suggest using PD-US instead of the URAA tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?
  • "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."
  • I think I've addressed this. Providing a brief description in the chronology then the full citation at the time the award was made is the approach I've used in all the other VCs I've done. I think this is the best way to approach it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?
  • "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?
  • "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?
  • added "that he was affected by "combat-related trauma" and linked to combat stress reaction. Added "relentless" to "shell-fire" to better explain what the issue was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...
  • Fair enough. Changed to "At some point he and his wife separated, it is unknown what happened to her." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."
  • "remembering lost mates": Again, I wonder if "mates" is too informal? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

James Humphreys (pornographer)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Per previous review. buidhe 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Buidhe, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tentative Oppose by Fowler&fowler; looking to support, given progress

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The first FAC was archived on 2 January 2020, and a discussion was continued on the Talk page. This article has seen just one edit since. The GAC was conducted long before the first FAC was archived. I have not had time to even get much beyond the lead. The nominator made no effort to ping me. Surely that is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where any action here "is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules". I am sure that the @WP:FAC coordinators: will explain the basics to you, and that your oppose is unactionable, given there is no "specific rationale that can be addressed". And in future, please WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has a major blind spot, a major gap: that of sexual exploitation and abuse of young women. He did that his entire life. There is no mention anywhere in the article. The article deadpans its way through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We are clear as to exactly what he did. If you wish to provide reliable sources that directly link Humphreys to any additional exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry), please provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler 's reply at 16:29, 12 January 2020‎ — continues after insertion below

(edit conflict) The point is is that for that information to be included, we would need a specific source that directly and explicitly links Humphrey's to the exploitation of, etc. No-one (I'm sure) disagrees with your point in principle, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to make the link independently to the sources. That would be both original research and synthetic. The most that we could have without such a source is a (probably single sentence) piece of context in which it is noted that the 60s was a decade in which female rights came to the for, but so did pornography (or something). But it would be part of the general background rather than accusing Humphrey's personally. ——SN54129 16:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Where is that background? There are books written on sexual exploitation in Soho in the 1960s and 70s, often not just of underage women, but foreign women, who were more vulnerable. Where is there any mention of that? There are apparently "normal levels" of sex abuse in the porn industry (according to the nominator); there are also "normal levels" of corruption in the police. The article is entirely about the breaches of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT STATE HUMPHREYS WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLOITATION OR ABUSE? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Who is "We?" And "additional?" Where is there any mention of sexual exploitation or abuse? Are you saying your article is comprehensive about sexual exploitation and abuse of young, and even underage, women for which James Humpherys was directly or indirectly responsible? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
"We" is Wikipedia, (i.e.: the article is clear). Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry)? If so, please could you provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
What are the "normal" levels in the sex industry? I have no idea. Your article makes no explication of these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have no idea, how are you basing an oppose on it? The article links to various other articles which deal with the wider social impacts of the sex industry. I think we'd be going well outside the limits of a biography if we start looking at the social impact of pornography in this article.
So we're back to the question again: do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (i.e. those that fall outside any general coverage that appears in the articles linked from this one)? - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I was alluding to the use of "normal" without telling us what constitutes that notion of normal under which James Humpherys was engaging in sexual exploitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

F&F, you should also oppose because the article makes no mention of the Sociology of punishment or imprisonment either. ——SN54129 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If a man was a warden at Auschwitz and there is no source for his directly killing the inmates. Can we nominate a biography of his to FAC that does not tell us about the context, about what went on in Auschwitz? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Wut. ——SN54129 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Take the suprious and straw men discussions elsewhere. Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? I am going to disengage from this line you are pushing now. I consider it increasingly disruptive as it is outside the scope of this biography. The socio-economic impact of pornography and the sex industry is dealt with in article linked directly from this one. Should you have any constructive comments to make about the article, I will deal with them, otherwise I have better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
How is the latter half of the second paragraph in the Later life section a comprehensive summary of this report in The Independent? The Independent article says, "His wife, June, 59, who often acted as a maid to the prostitutes, forced the women to pay such high rents that they frequently had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week to meet her demands, Southwark Crown Court in south London was told. ... The judge said he accepted they did not coerce or corrupt the women they used, but 'on any view the financial arrangements for them were extortionate'. Humphreys, of West Hampstead, north-west London, admitted living on immoral earnings; his wife, charged under her maiden name of Packard, admitted aiding and abetting him."? I have many more sources ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a good point to make, and I've added something about the amount of time the women worked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
As long as those sources aren't memoires of retired peelers, that's fine :) ——SN54129 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Serial Number, that's what comes of writing articles on what some people describe as "hobby topics". If you choose to do that, you'll end up being crucified here because you haven't written an article on a "vital" topic. It's that sort of mindset that makes for a less than smooth review process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with either hobby or vital, and everything to do with a slanted, sanitized, and incomplete account. Have you, for example, used the sources I pointed out to you on the article's talk page:
  • Tyler, Melissa (19 December 2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8
  • Mort, Frank (2010), Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 to give the reader a background or context to Humphreys's career? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do not lie: tThis article is not slanted, sanitised or incomplete. No, I have not used those sources. They are not about Humphreys, and the information they contain is too far away from this biography. We have articles about pornography and the sex industry that readers are able to read. They do not need to be given a lecture on the socio-economic impact of prostitution in this article: that is what other articles are for. If you wish to improve the other articles, or, indeed, create a new article the sex industry in 1970s London, please feel free, but it would fall outside the remit of this article, except for a link. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The description of the sting in Cyprus in your summary begins with, "In January 1972 Drury, Humphreys and their wives travelled to Cyprus and Beirut for a fortnight's holiday." and continues with "A journalist flew to Cyprus and was given a copy of the hotel register; the newspaper hired a private investigator who visited the branch of Thomas Cook on Regent Street, where he obtained a duplicate of the receipt, which showed Humphreys had paid for Drury's ticket." But that is not how the narrative unfolded. There was no public awareness of that trip. It was uncovered in an investigation directed by Laurie Manifold, the head of the investigative team at The Sunday People. The description in Roy Greenslade (27 May 2008), "Subterfuge, set-ups, stings and stunts: how red-tops go about their investigations", in Hugu de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Routledge, pp. 329–330, ISBN 978-1-134-06871-5 is fuller (I have italicized some important elements.)
Roy Greenslade's description

The starting point was a passing mention to Manifold by a freelance reporter with good underworld contacts ... That information was nowhere near sound enough to publish. Even though Humphreys confirmed it to Manifold, documentary proof was required. ... Manifold sent a reporter, Sid Foxcroft, to Cyprus to see if he could check the register, and he immediately had an amazing stroke of luck. On arrival at Nicosia airport, the Greek Cypriot taxi driver recognised Foxcroft as a former comrade in the 8th Army and offered him help. Within minutes of getting to the hotel the driver persuaded the manager to show his old friend the register, which recorded the fact that Drury and Humphreys, and their wives, had stayed at the hotel at the same time. But it did not show who paid the bill because it was a package tour pre-paid in Britain. Manifold guessed that the package tour operators were unlikely to provide a copy of a receipt if approached straightforwardly. He told me: ‘I thought there’s only way to get this, and we've got to break the law. You’ve got to take a chance sometimes’. So he hired a man he had used before, an ex-army officer with a shady past he knew as ‘Matt’, to bluff the clerk at Cook’s in Regent Street by pretending he was Drury’s accountant and that he’d lost his receipt. The clerk accepted the story and supplied him with a duplicate, which confirmed that Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday. The result was a sensational front page: ‘POLICE CHIEF AND THE PORN KING: Was it wise of Commander Drury of Scotland Yard to go on holiday with this old lag? ’ (The People, 6 February 1972).

Do you think your summary will be helped by accommodating the italicized sentences in Greenslade's account in some fashion? You may not have seen this source, but our imperative is to be comprehensive. Note: I will make my more detailed comments on the Talk page of the article and link them here, as this review might become too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 I am well aware of the Greenslade source (and, indeed, we use it in that section). The additional information is not core to Humphreys's biography and we cannot bloat this article out with extraneous detail of what the journalists did. What we have in the article is entirely correct. Where there is a question over how the information was passed to The People, we provide both alternatives. How they got confirmation from the London end, we clarify this. I don't see anything else useful for this article in what Greenslade has written. If you disagree, please bullet point exactly what facts you think are missing and why/how they are crucial to Humphreys's biography.
Please do NOT paste information both on the talk page and here: that way confusion lies. I am concerned that you think you will be making this article too long, but if we are going to discuss blocks of text that are extraneous to this article I can see how that would happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Greenslade's account says nothing about being given a copy of the hotel register—the register, in any case, is a bulky thing—only that he was shown the register. It says nothing about a private investigator (not even an undercover investigator, only man with a shady past, who broke the law ...). It says nothing about paying for Drury's "ticket." A ticket is ambiguous because you make no mention of a package tour. And, it wasn't just Drury's ticket. Greenslade says, "Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday." I asked because I'm perplexed at the paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Greenslade's isn't the only account, and the weight of all the other sources differ at a few points to his. The other sources include input from people involved, investigative journalists, and people who have looked into this matter in depth, not in the limited way that Greenslade does. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Greenslade is the only one who has been cited. Where are those other sources? Why have they not been cited? The ones that say, "He was given a copy of the hotel register," for example. You don't have to give me quotes, only the names of the references; I'll look them up to see if the description can be improved. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a series of sources used in the text when discussing the holiday. Start there. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've changed 'ticket' to 'holiday' and added a second source. Neither change is really needed, but given the needless pressure being applied when it doesn't need to be... - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am going to bed now. In the last FAC, I had barely covered the first paragraph of the lead and one paragraph of another section when the nominator withdrew his nomination. Because of my comments and queries, those paragraphs stand changed. I will be looking at the article more closely this coming week. My main concerns, which are the same as my concerns in the previous FAC, are:
    • (1) Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material. This is my major concern, not the prose. This was my major concern in the previous FAC as well.
    • (2) Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and especially of exploitation of women, including sexual abuse of them, in the industry. I am not convinced that the absence of source material (if that turns out to be the case) for James Humphreys's direct complicity in sexual crimes against women is an excuse to not discuss the indirect complicity of belonging to a milieu for which such crimes are documented.
    • (3) Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity. I will be examining all these issues more closely this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Updated with numbers for the issues listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, the paragraphs were changed, but for no reason other than me trying to get over an impasse. The article was not improved by the changes (and the clue was all the other reviewers who disagreed with you).
      • This article is NOT the venue for an examination of the abuse of women in the sex industry, unless you can find information that directly links Humphreys to specific acts.
      • "I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity". So you are speaking from a position of ignorance in your Oppose? (and I sincerely hope the FAC co-ords take note of that). I don't mind people opposing when they know what they are on about, but when they don't know the subject and haven't read the sources, but make up spurious claims that you think there is untapped source material, then it makes a review process something of a rather unfunny joke. I do hope this isn't going to be as disruptive a process as the last review, which I regret having withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that was a note to the coordinators about the issues that have caused me to oppose this submission, the issues that I will be looking at more closely this week. I'm a little stapped for time now, but, in addition, I will also be looking at:
  • (4) The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy; most have sections. There is nothing in the article about how history, his friends, his loved ones, and indeed he himself has judged James Humphreys. There is certainly no absence of data there. There is nothing about his character. There is again no absence of data there.
  • I have now numbered my FAC issues. As I go through them in more detail, I will be presenting my actionable suggestions here, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is little actionable in anything you have said do far (aside from one or two minor points, and certainly very, very little given in good faith) that needs to be actioned SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A legacy section? I’m afraid this shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. If you can get to grips with the subject matter before making any more similar comments, it would be best for all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Continued note to the coordinators about (4)) By "legacy," I mean the extended usage, "a long-lasting effect of an event or process (OED)," the "lasting influence of a person or thing." I mean the summing up of a life or career. I mean the contemplation or retrospection of the lived life, the tributes, the criticisms, the aftermath. There is no shortage of those in the sources for James Humphreys. I will be making a list of those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I look forward to seeing what unencyclopaedic dross you come up with in an attempt to justify this unjustifiable, oppose made in complete bad faith. This clutching at straws is all very second rate and disruptive.
And rather than sending notes to co-ordinators, perhaps you can drop the obstructive manner and address comments about the article to the nominator. Grandstanding has no place in any review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, Laser brain, I wanted to let you know that my detailed review has not begun yet. I will start it once I have the literature I have requested from Inter-Library loan. I will respond to the relevant critiques some time thereafter, and in this section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of Fowler&fowler:

Note1: I have possession of a couple of sources. While I wait for the rest to arrive through the inter-library loan, I thought it might be a good idea to begin the review. Could only the nominator reply here? All other editors, excepting the coordinators, please reply if you must, in your own subsections and either ping me or mention me in your edit summary. I will reply to you here. Note2: Can we collapse the discussion above? It is less relevant to my review which properly begins below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue 1 Summarizing the cited source material.
Section 1.1 Early life; beginnings of criminal career
  • Sentence1: James William Humphreys was born in Bermondsey, South London, on 7 January 1930.{{sfn|Cox|Shirley|Short|1977|p=145}}
    • Root, {{sfn|Root|2019}} which you are using significantly, says, "Born in Bermondsey in South London on 5 January 1930,
    • I can see that the date of birth of a James Humphreys (from his death record in the England and Wales data) was 7 January 1930, but why have you preferred Cox, Shirley and Short (1977) to Root (2019) absent the use of primary source data? If you are using the latter, then why has it not been cited?
      • Because we know the 7th is correct, so we're ignoring the incorrect. I could add another footnote to say that one source has the 5th, but as we know it's wrong, there seems little point in adding confusion to the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my error. I meant if you are using the primary source data to make the determination of accuracy, then it should be cited. (No footnote is needed, nor should Root be cited; but the birth or baptismal record you are using should be cited along with Cox et al) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • There's no need for that. We have a solid source that gives the date. Extra sources are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
            • You have two solid sources. One, Root, which you have cited 15 times in the article; the other, Cox et al, which you have cited 13 times in the article. They have conflicting dates of birth for Humphreys. I asked why you have preferred Cox et al in this instance. If it is because of some knowledge from primary source data, then that data needs to be cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • We have the correct date in the article and we have a solid source. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • On reflection I have added the information of yet another primary source. No doubt you will want to change the numbers in the section below attacking the preponderance of what you think are primary sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                • Thank you for considering my implicit suggestion above about using the England and Wales death index for the birth date. This is not the kind of straighforward primary source data that I have any issues with. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sentence 2) He left school at age 14 and began a career of petty criminality;
    • Root says, "Humphreys’ rap sheet in the Metropolitan Police files is interesting reading and shows how he developed from petty crime as a youngster, before graduating to more serious crime."
      • One could, for instance, say, "X passed his law school exams in 1945 and began a career in law." Or you could say, "Y joined the Syndicate at age 15 and began a career in crime." Or one can develop, in Root's words, and the evidence of the development can be seen in retrospect in a rap sheet, but how does one begin a career, i.e. take the first steps of a course of continued progress in a domain whose organization is not described? (Note this is not a stylistic issue) In the end, as you well know, from November 1945 to October 1962, which constituted some 17 years, he spent more than 11 years in various prisons or reform schools. What was the career then that he had begun in November 1945, that of a petty criminal or a long-serving convict?
        • One could not say that. There is nothing about a "syndicate", or anything close to that in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The sentences beginning with X and Y are examples of correct usage for "career," implying that "career" cannot be applied to what Humphreys. Again, how can someone who between November 1945 and October 1962, i.e. 17 years, spent 11 years in correctional institutions, be said to have embarked in 1945 on a career of petty criminality? Do you mean, "he fell to petty crime?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid you are again selecting a very narrow definition of a word that has much wider use. I suggest you check the OED, which supports the use of the term we have here. I am afraid that if I came across the phrase "he fell to petty crime" I'd be both confused by what it meant, and think that the writer is trying way to hard to write purple prose. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
              • OK, if you don't like that. How about, "He began to get involved in petty crime?" Or, if you like "criminality," "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." There was no prognostication of a career in 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                • The wording is absolutely fine as it is. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • This is not a question of prose style, but of accurately reflecting the sources. He spent two-thirds of the time between the ages of 15 and 32 in different forms and sites of incarceration. When he stepped out of Dartmoor in 1962, he had spent three-quarters of his adult years in incarceration. A "career" is determined by the record, not by intentions. In no meaning of the word "career" did he begin a career in petty criminality. Serving time in jail is neither a career nor a profession. I request sincerely that you change the sentence to, "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." If you want "career," you will need to situate it in some form of referring back. You could say, "He began what was to become a youthful career in crime most of which was spent in incarceration." The crime was not all petty either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • The sources are adequately reflected. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                      • I have just received Cox, Shirley, and Short, your second-most-used source. They say on page 145, "James William Humphreys had spent most of his life in the criminal world, though to judge from his record, he was not one of nature's successful villains. He was what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as "an old lag." (OED: "Lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude;" Webster's Unabridged: "lag (n): slang, chiefly British: a person transported for crime or sent to penal servitude: one who is serving or has served a term in prison: convict, jailbird.") You can use "career" when referring back to the record. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                        • This section is closed, and you are tilting at windmills. Please spend your time coming up with some new (and CONSTRUCTIVE points), not rehashing things that don't need to be rehashed. Respect the hatting of the section, move on and do the rest of the review: the co-ords will decide if this is actionable or not. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sentence 1, cont): while still a teenager he became friends with Frankie Fraser, the London gangland enforcer.
    • Root says, "Humphreys left school at the age of fourteen, and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser." For Root, this is a literary device to weave in a theme that he thinks is important--that Humphreys was a snitch, a cop informer, in the opinion of some, including Root himself. Root continues after that sentence,

      "But later events would change this feeling of friendship. ... (In 2012, Frankie's son) David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’. As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too."

      • Why are you mentioning the friendship with Fraser here, and doing so in fragmentary form, when you don't mention it again anywhere in the article? What information is the mention of friendship meant to convey to the reader? Why the "still?" What meaning does that impart? They grew up in the same neighborhood after all. (See sentence 8 below.)
        • We're mentioning it because it shows the milieu in which he was brought up without thrashing the point beyond any relevent meaning. We say they were friends when they were young: we put no spin onto the point, and your interpretation of Root is into OR territory or reading behind the author's intent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The current sentence does not say anything about the milieu, nothing about the circumstances of their friendship. They could have met at a reformatory school, for instance. As such the mere mention, without context, is ambiguous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • We reflect the source. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 3: When he was 15 Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking, and was fined £5.
    • Root has: "Just a year after leaving school, 15-year-old Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking and stealing fur coats and other articles, and fined £5 in April 1945."
      • The fine was not just for housebreaking.
        • It's fairly inplicit that when one breaks into a house, it's normally to remove some of the contents, but I have added "and theft" to remove any doubt. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 4: Seven months later he was sent to an approved school—a reformatory school in which children who had committed crimes were one of the classes of inmates[1]—for stealing a car.
    • (I can give you the grammatical reasons if you'd like, but) you can't put a long appositive, "a reformatory school ...classes of inmates," between two prepositional phrases without creating ambiguity and diminishing comprehension.
      • You could have: After stealing a car seven months later, he was sent to an approved school--a reformatory school in which ..." Or, as most people know what a reform school is, you could have: Seven months later he was sent to an approved school—a reformatory school—for stealing a car.
        • No, you couldn't have "After stealing a car seven months later": we don't know when he stole the car, but we do know that the sentencing after the case against him was seven months later. I have dropped the term and explanation into a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • That's an easy fix: "Seven months later, after stealing a car, he was sent ... " But I see you have dropped the m-dashes. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 5: He was released the following year, but was sent back in October 1947 for a series of offences.
    • Root has: "Humphreys was returned there in October 1947 for receiving a stolen motorcar, clothing, tools, housebreaking and stealing a sewing machine."
      • Your phrasing is too general. In other words, why is there reason to mention the offense(s) at all if the description is to be so general? He would not have been returned there without some good cause in the realm of offenses. Besides from Root, it is not clear if it was a series of offenses or just one offense involving disparate aspects.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Again, how does what Root describes constitute a series of offenses? (Note: (OED) Series (n): A number of discrete things of one kind (esp. events or actions) following one another in succession over time, or in order of appearance or presentation. OED attested examples: 1958 W. S. Churchill Hist. Eng.-speaking Peoples IV. v A more immediate cause of the rising was a series of defeats and reverses suffered by the British. 1987 M. Das Cyclones i. 2 They held another series of meetings. 2011 New Yorker 14 Feb. 95/3 He had a series of liaisons, each of which he confessed.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • FFS... We could change to "several", but to little end and no gain. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 6: In 1948 Humphreys was sentenced to three years in Rochester Borstal for theft; he was released in February 1950.
    • Root has, "In June 1948 he was given three years in Borstal for stealing a roll of cloth, and again for taking a motorcar without consent, being released early in February 1950."
      • The starting month presumably fell through the cracks of a previous revision.
        • No. The month isn't of great importance in the scheme of things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • If the particular month of the year is not important, then why have you mentioned the month of release? Why the month of the following incarceration? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • From a novice reader's perspective, such as mine, "theft" is too general when following specific mention of a wiki-linked-prison. There is nothing wrong with adding the roll of cloth, etc.. If anything, from a modern perspective, when the offenses are detailed, the sentence seems too harsh. It gives the reader a window into the making of a criminal in the 1950s' Britain.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. And we have a "wiki-linked-prison" for clarity: Rochester Borstal gave it's name to borstals for young offenders. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 7: Nine months later he was sent to prison for a year for aiding and abetting other criminals, and released in June 1951.[2][3]
    • Root has, "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d."
      • "Adult prison term" is an important detail.
        • That's lazy writing. Prison is an adult punishment. For minors it is/was approved school, Secure Children's Home, borstal or (for slightly older prisoners) Young Offenders Institute. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The Government of the UK uses the term "adult prison," here, "Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison." Root says this was his first "adult prison term." He was 20. The Wikipedia pages Young Offenders Institute and Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution describe themselves as prisons for those who have not attained the age of majority. If a "prison" unambiguously meant a place for incarceration of adults, those descriptions would be self-contradictory. Neither the OED nor Britannica makes such a delimitation in their definitions of the term "prison." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • We do not need to go into this in minute detail (aside from pointing out that 18 is an adult in UK law). We do not need to be so lazy or stupid as to use the awful phrase "adult prison". This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 8: In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple soon divorced.[4][5]
    • Root has an offhanded later mention ca 1962: "When Jimmy Humphreys was released on 26 October 1962, he was 32 years old. Handsome and desperate to ‘make it’, he had already been married once, to a woman called June Driscoll."
    • I can see the marriage record in the England and Wales data.
      • Where are you getting the divorce information? Why "soon," and not a firm date, if you actually have the information?
        • I can't find the record for the moment, so I've removed this temporarily. It will raise questions from readers asking why we don't mention the divorce before he remarries, but hopefully I can dig out the source before then. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Why is there even a need to mention June Driscoll so perfunctorily, i.e. by name and by month of her marriage (rummaged from primary sources)? It is beginning to border on original research. Why not simply say when mentioning his second marriage that he had been married once before and citing Root in a correct paraphrasing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Her marriage is in the chronologically correct position. It's perfunctory because the sources have no further information. Just because Root puts it in a different place, there is no need for us to follow suit. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • You mentioned the bit about milieu, which your sentence does not have anything about. Besides Root has much more, about how the relationship did not last. Fraser below has more: that Jimmy and June had a baby. Why the selective ambiguous mention? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • (An aside, whose theme I will pick up in a different section: Mad Frankie Fraser has a much more evocative description in his diary co-authored with James Morton, Random House, 2001, 2019):

        "Jimmy Humphreys, Eva’s husband Jimmy and me had nicked a lorry load of tea from outside what was the Ministry of Health building by the Elephant. I knew Jimmy Humphreys because he was a local boy; came from Southwark and he’s a few years younger than me. He’ll be about 70 now; very presentable, smart dresser, a very good appearance. Did all the usual things, a bit of approved school, a bit of burglary. ... When my sister Eva got married and was living in Great Dover Street, Jimmy Humphreys and his first wife June were down on their luck and Eva, through the kindness of her heart, had them and the baby to stay for about four months until they got on their feet. He wasn't a bad fellow then. A good thief until he broke up with June and after that, he went bad."

        More later, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Very colourful, not encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, there is little point in going round in circles with you demanding changes are made your way when there is no benefit to the article. If you have new points to raise, please do so below, but there is no merit in relitigating the same points over and over. I have given my reasons why things have not been changed, and I see no reason to alter that position solely to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my whim. You are violating WP guidelines. It is my duty to point them out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What sanctimonious rubbish. You've been pushing your preference (your whim) since day 1, and been aggressively playing "GOTCHA!" with your battlefield approach since I turned down your early suggestions. You have no duty to act like a disruptive troll, but that is exactly how you are coming across with this nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (sentence) His crimes became more serious and the sentences increased as he got older.
    • Root has, "Then in October 1952, it got more serious, and Humphreys got twenty-one months at the Central Criminal Court for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest."
      • That his crimes (i.e. in the plural) became more serious is your interpretation. Root is talking only about the instance of October 1952. Had there been a period (full stop) after "more serious" in Root, your interpretation might have been valid, but not in this instance.
        • No, his crimes became more serious. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • That his "sentences increased as he got older" is again your interpretation. The sentences were: 21 months, conditional discharge of 1 year (which is also a sentence), two years and three months, and six years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • So the terms increased from start to finish, even if there is a dip after the first one. This is a non-discussion (and disruptive) point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (sentence) After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars in November 1954, he was given a conditional discharge of a year.
    • Root has, "Coming out in December 1953, he was given a conditional discharge of twelve months in November 1954 for ‘loitering with intent to steal from unattended motorcars’.
      • The discharge was given in November 1953. We don't know when the arrest for loitering took place. Please correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I have moved a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
          • You now have: "... he was released in December 1953. After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, in November 1954 he was given a conditional discharge of a year." Typically, the most natural position for an adjunct (in this case a prepositional phrase of time) is the end position, i.e., after the verb. But it doesn't have to be as long it doesn't wedge itself between the subordinate clause and the main. You want: "After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954," "In November 1954, after being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year," "He was arrested again, and in November 1954 was given a conditional discharge of a year," or "He was arrested again, and given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954." The choice may depend on what has gone before. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Section 1.2 Strip club and sex shop owner
  • (sentence) On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the direction of his profession and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals.{{sfn|Morton|2008|p=212}}
    • The cited source says, "By the 1960s Humphreys had nine convictions, including house and office breaking in 1958, when he received six years. Released in the Autumn of 1962, he took the least of a property." The second-most cited source in the article, Cox, Shirley and Short, say, "He was not one of nature's successful villains. He was rather what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as 'an old lag.'" (OED lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude.") and later, "Now 32, with some of his best years wasted in prison, he turned his attention to building a career in the seedy, though legal, business of striptease." Of such an individual, we cannot claim that he was changing "the direction of his profession" at age 32. What profession is it whose directions include both penal servitude and striptease club ownership? This is not an issue of prose. It is one of accurately summarizing the sources. Please remove "profession." Please add some paraphrase of "he turned his attention to building a career in the business of striptease." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Issue 2 Preponderance of Primary Sources (FA Criteria: 1 c and d)
  • 82 of the 162 citations in the article are to contemporaneous primary sources, dating to between 1972 and 1994, most of which are topical newspaper stories, but one is a video of a Channel 4 "documentary" which has been cited half a dozen times with timestamp data. In the video, the various leading actors of the James Humphreys saga, he himself, his wife Rusty, another strip/sex club owner, a freelance investigator, the journalist Laurie Manifold, are all reminiscing. In particular, in the Attack on Peter Garfath section, more than half a dozen paragraphs are reliant on them. My hypothesis, which will require to be negated, is that such preponderance has slanted the article into overly focusing on police corruption, which was the particular preoccupation of the topical popular press during that time, rather than James Humphreys other biographical assets and liabilities, which as a consequence have not been given due weight Let me start with a general question and a more focused one:
    • (General question) WP:Primary sources says, " Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Can half the citations in a prospective FA be to primary sources? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • As is rather obvious, we are not basing an entire article on primary sources. There is a mix of primary, secondary and tertiary sources here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence: (Attack on Peter Garfath): "The relationship between Humphreys and his wife, Rusty, was sometimes turbulent.{{sfn|Campbell|1994b|p=T2}}
    • is based on a sentence, "Then in the 70s, there was an interlude caused by the sometimes stormy relationship between Rusty and Jimmy," in an interview with Rusty Humpherys by Duncan Cambpell in the Guardian (6 July 1994), conducted two days after her conviction, and whose main picture, that of Rusty Humpherys lounging on a couch has the caption: "Fallen empress of sleaze ... Rusty Humpherys, once free to do as she liked in Soho, savours her last moments before being jailed last week."
      • Does this constitute the kind of factual, non-value-judgment, statement in a primary source that can be paraphrased into content (reported speech) on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, mainstream newspapers are (with some exceptions, of course) reliable sources, this section can be hatted with no response required from the nom. Cheers, ——SN54129 15:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Please move your comment to your section per my request above. I will reply here if I think it requires a response. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
SN (or anyone else) is allowed to post where he wants on the page. Please don't try to tell people where to post things. Not everything on WP has to be done exactly to your demands. The rest of us work to normal accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Put it another way, this isn't Arbcom. ——SN54129 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sentence) Often Humphreys would entertain and bribe different policemen three times a day: lunch, dinner and nightclubs, and often the bribes were not money, but cars or jewellery for police officers' wives." cited to Rusty Humphreys's reminiscence in the video {{sfn|''Secret History'', 18 May 1998|loc=Event occurs at 31:50–32:10}}
    • This is rendered in reported speech, not a direct quote. Do we have any secondary source that supports this, especially the bit about buying "cars" (in the plural)? If so, why has it not been added? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It's a documentary, so it is a secondary source, not a primary one.
Do you have anything that casts doubt on the claim about bribing policemen with either a singular car or no cars at all? If not, this is a moot point. And why are you pushing the Fraser primary source so hard in other parts of the review, but you're dead set against this secondary one? - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Inadequate and selective presentation of context (FA Criteria: 1 b and c)

I now have some more sources from inter-library loan: These are: 1) Paul Bleakley, "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad: Using the Obscene Publications Act as a Weapon of Social Control, State Crime Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2019), pp. 19-38 2) Melissa Tyler, Soho at Work, Cambridge, 2020; 3) Colin Manchester, Sex shops and the law, Gower, 1986; 4) Nigel Yates, Love Now, Pay Later?: Sex And Religion In The Fifties And Sixties, SPCN, 2011; and Judith Walkowitz, Nights Out: Life in Cosmopolitan London, Yale, 2012. I have a number of queries, but let me start with a general question, and I will follow up with more focused ones later:

    • Why is there so little by way of context (a requirement in FA criteria 1 b) in the article; in particular, why is there very little in the article about James Humpherys being considered a police informer, not only by the underworld and the police, but by the very authors which are being used substantially in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WP:FAC coordinators: I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do with crap like this (particularly the previous two new sub-sections). There is too much bad faith in this review for me to go through every point in detail. The best sources are available and they deal with the subject within the bounds exected both on WP generally and FAC in particular. This particular reviewer has not shown any evidence that they can act in a positive manner towards this article. It may be a "hobby topic" (as they have dismissed many articles that don't fall under the extremely dubious "vital" citeria on WP), but that does not mean that any editor should start making up standards and criteria. I refute most of what this editor has posted on this page and the previous review, and I am still waiting for anything resembling an honest basis for an oppose. So far it's all second rate rubbish with absolutely no benefit at all. We're deep in grounds of disruptive behaviour now. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

    • The source Root, Neil (2019), Crossing the Line of Duty: How Corruption, Greed and Sleaze Brought Down the Flying Squad, History Press, ISBN 978-0-7509-9098-1, which you have cited 15 times in this article, more than any other source, says at 8 locations (using your ebook locations), not counting 6 more which involve Drury's allegations, and which can be discounted:
      • "Most interestingly, the Metropolitan Police files show that while DC Drury was based at ‘L’ Division in south London, on 19 September 1951, he pulled Humphreys’ criminal record file out of the Met’s file system, ‘to assist him in a case of robbery’. The robbery had taken place in Clapham on 6 September that year, and Humphreys was not arrested after Drury read his file. Twenty years later, Drury and Humphreys would enjoy a lucrative and mutually corrupt friendship, before it turned sour" (location 287)
      • "As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too." (location 398)
      • "As well as developing corrupt ties with powerful police officers, it can be said with certainty that Humphreys was a police informer, as has been the underworld view since the 1970s." (location 1316)
      • "Humphreys was also acting as a police informer for Drury specifically on occasion." (location 1407)
      • "But most interesting were Manifold’s comments about Humphreys admitting to him that he had been a police informant. Humphreys had told him that he ‘had given considerable help to the police" (location 1500)
      • "This reference to a murder in Reading, Berkshire, and Humphreys acting as a police informant in relation to it was also mentioned by both Humphreys and Drury in their police statements." (location 1510)
      • "So, as has long been thought in the underworld, the criminally very well-connected Humphreys acted as a serial police informant. This was something which Humphreys would of course have wanted to keep very quiet. Therefore, not only was Humphreys paying enormous sums to police officers, he was aiding the apprehension of fellow criminals to lubricate the free running of his own vice activities." (location 1766)
      • "Humphreys had been in solitary confinement towards the end of his sentence, after being attacked by a fellow prisoner who accused him of being a ‘grass’. So whilst Drury had gone to prison largely through Humphreys’ allegations, Drury’s 21 May 1972 Sunday People insinuations that Humphreys was a police informer had severely compromised Jimmy's status in the underworld." (location 2852)
        • How is the reader of this article unaware of overarching conclusion of your major source? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold the phone! Hurrah and huzzah with dig shiny brass knobs on! Ten thousand words of nonsense and finally, finally we get round to a proper point that needs to be addressed properly! It's a shame we had to go through all the rest of the nonsense to get here, particularly as you've had Root for so long. I'll add a line about this in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Fowler this ego trip is tedious and disruptive. You have pasted around 400 words just to make the simple point that you think a sentence or two is needed to say that Humphreys was a police informant. I have a long memory and I have not forgotten your similar disruptive comments here [4]. Graham Beards (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: That Humphreys was a police informant is not a matter of just one line, two or three. It the major argument of the major secondary source employed in an article that otherwise relies very largely on primary sources whose improper use I will be detailing in the section above. Its author Neil Root is quoted by name in the article. It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article. The fact has gone selectively unmentioned in sections which have otherwise been paraphrased from Root so faithfully, sentence for sentence, as to border on close paraphrasing:
      • "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d. He was released in June 1951. This is the period in which then DC Kenneth Drury of ‘L’ Division pulled out his file." (location 405)
      • "... and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser. But later events would change this feeling of friendship. In a telephone conversation with David Fraser, Frankie’s son, in late 2012, this author asked to interview Frankie about his old friend Jimmy Humphreys. David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’." (location 398) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) No, it's a matter of a sentence or so, nothing more. I'm bored of your silly games, so unless you have something positive or constructive to say, just pipe down - or at least wait until I've added something before you criticise (again, it's indicative that you're in attack mode, rather than any constructive approach to article development). "It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article"? Only from the mindset of a disruptive troll who is determined to sink a review at any cost. The two excepts quoted directly above: the first says Drury "pulled out his file": that's it. There is no reference to Humphreys being a grass, or even that there was any contact between the two, just that Drury "pulled out his file". The second is a 'well, duh' comment. It says Fraser's son called Humphreys a grass. Apart from the third hand nature of the information, of course Humphreys was a grass: he gave his fucking diaries to the police and appeared against them in court. With no dates as to when Fraser's son was referring to, it's a useless piece of nonsense, much like most of this review. A line or two is all that is needed, and I will add this in the morning, as I have already said. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC) (edited to correct auto-correct) - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
          • It is a reference to the previous mention, ""Most interestingly, the Metropolitan Police files show that while DC Drury was based at ‘L’ Division in south London, on 19 September 1951, he pulled Humphreys’ criminal record file out of the Met’s file system, ‘to assist him in a case of robbery’. The robbery had taken place in Clapham on 6 September that year, and Humphreys was not arrested after Drury read his file. Twenty years later, Drury and Humphreys would enjoy a lucrative and mutually corrupt friendship, before it turned sour" (location 287)" May I request also that you not use intemperate language, and not attribute motives to my undertaking this review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
            • FFS... I said I would deal with it in the morning, and you've still kept banging on about it (and missing the point yet again). Yet again it makes no reference to Humphreys being a grass or even any suggestion that the two even spoke. It still just refers to Drury pulling the file.
            • Everyone else was patient enough to wait for you to start your proper review (after 12 days of barking up the wrong tree and walls of text complaining about the exploitation of women), so don't expect me to go without sleep to start editing at the drop of a hat just because you want something adding; you can show just a fraction of the patience that everone else has done. And you may request as much as you like about my language, I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Now, we already mention the fact that Humphreys was accused of being a paid informer, but as it's lost where it is (and it could be read as being an accusation made in sour grapes), I'll add a couple of sentences further up the page. The point about him being an informant is a good one, but it is a shame you have had to drive people to such a point of frustration and anger with your approach and behaviour. You may not mean it to, but it comes across in a sub-standard way (battlefield, "GOTCHA!" and the arrogance that it has to be your way or no other – and you'll throw in a spiteful Oppose on the basis that two points you raised weren't adopted). If you could be a less confrontational in your approach (and take on board that you don't necessarily know best) you will find that people respond to you in kind. – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: You requested me to not post in your section. I have respected that request. Please show the same courtesy to my several requests asking the same above. Please post in your section. If I feel your post warrants a reply, I will post here, as I have already explained in my post above to two of the FAC coordinators. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
No. I said "please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator." I'll post where I see fit. As for your comment "If I feel your post warrants a reply", this speaks volumes regarding your arrogant and disruptive behaviour. Graham Beards (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is Francis Fraser's Diary (Fraser, Frankie; Morton, James (2019), Mad Frank's Diary: The Confessions of Britain’s Most Notorious Villain, Random House, ISBN 978-0-7535-5404-3) not mentioned at all, when Rusty Humphreys's reminiscences on video are summarized at extraordinary length on six occasions? (See section above) Fraser says, "Humphreys wasn’t only paying money to Challenor he was also his grass. Humphreys had been paying protection money to Challenor as well as providing him with tidbits of information on Soho life. Humphreys was a double dealer as well, because once he was in Macclesfield Street and Challenor asked for more money Humphreys paid him over two lots of £25 – and then made a complaint to the Commissioner." The book is published by Penguin and Random House and its co-author James Morton, Guardian journalist and author of many books is cited quite a few times in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We already cover the Challenor payment and Humphreys subsequently reporting him to Commissioner. It carries two citations, one of which is Morton. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Question for Fowler&fowler:
Just for information's sake (and this is honestly with no pressure to speed you up), how long do you thing you will take to finish your review? - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear SchroCat I have nothing against you or the topic of this article. I might not be excessively collegial or mentoring in my style, but I am genuinely trying to improve the article. You have done splendid work in collecting the disparate sources. The newspaper stories alone number in the dozens and I can only imagine the hard work you would have done in ferreting them out. For many are no longer available even in digital archives. I know because I tried, and it took a lot more effort than I had anticipated. However, your very success in finding those sources has created an issue of undue weight. Wikipedia articles are ultimately beholden to the reporting and interpretation of events and ideas in secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources here and there in matters of straightforward reporting of fact or of direct quotations. I have most of the sources now, at least all the secondary sources being employed in this article, a few that are not. (i) the article does not accurately summarize the secondary sources (it is moreover not an issue of prose style; I don't have any issues with your prose style, by the way.) (ii) it relies too much on primary sources, (more than half the citations are to them) and (iii) it does not adequately cover the context. Maybe, we somehow got off the wrong foot, but I'm sure both you and I can see that this back and forth is not improving the article. I have a proposal. I have stayed away from editing the article myself in part because I do not like edit wars. Why don't you let me edit the article for two weeks, and give me feedback but not edit war with me? I'm not looking to claim any credit for myself. I'm not looking to mangle the article. I don't have a lot of time, but howsoever far I get at the end of the two weeks, incorporating your feedback, I will be delighted to support the article. Pinging @Ealdgyth, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
PS I would have said a week, but I have to travel during this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
While I cannot stop anyone editing any article, I would prefer it ifyou did not. Your comments in this and the previous FAC have not given me any confidence that you have the necessary skill, neutrality, knowledge or ability to approach this in the right way. Most of your suggestions so far would not have improved the article – indeed they would have worsened both prose and misrepresented the source material, let alone gone into who knows what areas of tangential information on, for example, the fact that 'pornography is a bad thing' or that 'women in the sex industry are exploited'. I am afraid that your approach has destroyed any basis or good faith or trust. I'll give you two small examples: above, you spent 400 words playing a "Gotcha!" game about Humphreys being a paid source, but it was something already covered in the article, so a smimple request to make it more prominent would have sufficed. You've played silly games over the (primary) Fraser source - while also bemoaning the use of primary sources elsewhere. If you want to know how to treat people properly, have a look at the PR on Randall Davidson. You took part in that review, and three people suggested new sources to Tim riley. Not in the aggressive way you did to try and force a point, but in a collegiate way to help develop the article. You trumpeted your primary source to claim the article was incomplete and should therefore fail. You can claim you're trying to help this article, but I see no real evidence of this from your behaviour, which has been deplorable from the first FAC onwards.
Carry on with your review here. To let you get through the material in a timely fashion, I will hold off any further comments until the weekend, unless I see anything particularly ridiculous or false that needs dealing with straightaway. - SchroCat (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, the newspaper articles are all in digital archives. I know, because I found them all. - SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As this review is supposed to be about this article, I will refrain from responding to your off-topic comments. OK, I will continue my review here. I can't put a time limit on it though. There is none in FAC reviews. Please do not hat off or collapse my comments. I am not done with them. Your saying, "This is a non-discussion point. Move on." is not a resolution. I request also that you not engage in ascribing motives to me, nor breaking out into intemperate language. Whatever you need to say, please say it politely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want to learn the difference between positive collegiate reviewing and being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the arse, then fine, don't look at the other review, but it'll just mean we carry on with your stupid games and me reacting to them. Me saying to move on is a resolution: I will not deal with those points because they are either ridiculous, pointless, not an improvement or outside the scope of an FAC – about which you seem to be making up your own rules. You can request all you like, but as I've said above I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. I'll be back at the weekend to deal with anything useful you've put down (unless I see anything particularly stupid I have to deal with). - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Cox 2016, pp. 80–81.
  2. ^ Root 2019, 398.
  3. ^ Weir 1994, p. 2.
  4. ^ Root 2019, 420.
  5. ^ "James W Humphreys". Ancestry.

Graham Beards

Support unreservedly. This article was ready for promotion at the last FAC nomination, which was withdrawn because of a confrontational review based on the usage of a couple of adverbs.Graham Beards (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Graham, your kind words during the last review, and subsequently, have been very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: Are you suggesting that the article is comprehensive with respect to the topic of sexual exploitation of young and underage women? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The topic is not "The sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is James Humphreys (pornographer). Also, please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator.Graham Beards (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

Without a doubt, as per Graham. This article meets all the criteria. It's a pity to see Fowler&fowler, engaging in this rather immature and stupid line of rhetoric. I would encourage the coords to examine this oppose against the FA criteria and subsequently kick it into a ditch where it belongs. CassiantoTalk 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cass, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I note Fowler&fowler's 8,511 bytes of utter feet stomping that the article has not gone their way, above. I maintain my support, unreservedly. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

coord note

Did I miss the request to run this early? The previous candidate received was archived on 2 January, and its only 12 January. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, the bot was late to run. Ian closed the last FAC on the 30th. So it is a little early, but only a few hours. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, In addition to the slow bot, I emailed Ian, who gave me the green light. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This is my fault. A markup error on the nomination page meant that the Bot could not see Ian's close. Because of the time of year, I did not correct the problem until 2 January. My apologies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a problem Hawkeye, (and thanks for the explanation). It would explain why edits made 'post close' have largely been ignored by the sole opposer to this article, with the unfortunate and entirely erroneous claim of "only one" edit having been made. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed all that in the articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

′’’Everyone’’’ if you don’t want me refactoring your comments, please do so by striking thru all commentary on other editors. There is no need for editors to discuss other editors motives. If it doesn’t stop, it’s going to require outside intervention. And Mama Ealdgyth really does mean everybody here. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Moder Ealdgyth...unless you're feeling particularly God-like (quite apt, I think this FAC might need some divine intervention), in which case ALL HAIL Modoreynd Ealdgyth to whom we lowly FACers are mere Módoru... :) ——SN54129 19:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth is out on the road with hubby in semi truck. First day, hasn’t even had a chance to find the laptop in the pile of stuff on the bunk...so yes, Ealdgyth is CRANKY. Let’s not make her have to dig for the laptop while barreling down the highway at 63 miles per hour (101 km/h). She should have the truck cleaned and arranged by tomorrow and won’t have to edit from the iPad then...and if you think hubby invites Ealdgyth along just to organize the truck, you may be on to something....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, Ealdgyth, you can give your opinion on the editor whose oppose has nothing to do with WP:FACR and everything to do with his own personal preference. I think if you fix that, they'll be no need for editors to discuss other editors. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Cass, it isn’t necessary to comment on other editors. This comment here isn’t helpful. Or do you think the FAC coords are incapable of actually reading the nomination and seeing which reviews are based on the criteria? That is, after all, our job. We don’t need nominators and reviewers muddying up the nomination commenting on other editors. If other editors are not engaging with the criteria, we’ll know and judge accordingly. So please strike any comments on other editors. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And it's unnecessary to oppose an article that does not fail the FACR. The oppose here isn't helpful, either. Of course I think the coords are capable of reading a nomination and judging it against the criteria, which is why I find it puzzling that there has been a tumbleweed moment with regards to Fowler&fowler's oppose, and a very vocal challenge over people daring to talk about it in this candidacy. CassiantoTalk 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
at this point, an oppose isn’t a nomination closer, so for now, let’s let the discussion develop, without unnecessary commentary on other editors. If folks don’t refactor their comments by mid a day tomorrow, I’ll take my red pen to anything that isn’t helpful. I’d prefer that folks do it themselves, and I’m trusting that we all are adults and can discuss content without attacking or feeling attacked, as long as the comments stay on the content. It is possible to disagree with other editors without it being a battleground. Prose is the most subjective of the criteria and as a coord, I’m much less worried about differences over prose than I am about the other aspects of the criteria, especially when other reviewers do not agree on the nature of prose concerns...I.e, if a reviewer opposes on prose and word choices but many other reviewers do not agree that the prose concerns are a concern, it not something that should hold up a nom. Note, that is all hypothetical..and I have no idea if that situation applies here or not. The nom is only 12 hours or so old. At this point, my main concern is productive discussion that doesn’t focus on editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Just backing up a point that Ealdgyth has made here... folks can and do disagree on subjective prose matters all the time. As a coord, I'm going to consider opposition over subjective prose matters to be a matter of consensus. I'm hoping the discourse can stay civil and comments can remain about the subject and not about other editors. A nomination that turns into a bloodbath is more likely to be archived than one where there is civil disagreement over the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic commentary
It would have been a lot better if the first comment in this review was not a spurious oppose made - and I am sorry to say it - in bad faith. No good reasons have been given for the oppose and there has been such an unconstructive attitude from the very start that it is unsurprising that some heat has been generated by it. You'll note, I hope, that every single other reviewer in both this FAC and the previous one has approached the review in a constructive and collegiate manner, making suggestions and comments, all of which have had the best intentions of the article in mind. Those comments have been dealt with in the manner in which they were made. There is only one area which has not been a smooth ride, and it is when a reviewer has started with bad faith, a BATTLEFIELD approach and playing "Gotcha!". To oppose because we haven't added a lecture on 'pornography is bad' and then to say there must be sources to say Humphreys was an abuser - when there is complete ignorance on the subject - makes it extremely difficult to any normal, rational editor to deal with it in any other way than to consider that part of the review as something of a farce. While reviewers need to be protected in order to undertake a thorough review, there needs to be protection for nominators from spurious reviews in which a reviewer is more keen on grandstanding to the co-ords, rather than providing a good faith review. LB, Ealdgyth, Sorry for the rant, and feel free to collapse it or delete it in toto, but there are times when dealing with such bollocks just isn't worth it. I'm sure the reviewer would be delighted if this review is archived for any excuse - it would stop them having to admit there are, for example, no sources that say Humphreys was an abuser. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with SC here. I struck my comments not because I was ordered to do so, but because I want this article to pass, relatively drama free, and in the hope that (the person who shall not be named) would have their oppose omitted from the final tally based on it not falling within the scope of the criteria. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Coordinators: My oppose has little to do with the prose, although there are issues with the prose which I have not addressed. My oppose, as I've indicated above, has to do with (i) vague and inaccurate paraphrasing, (ii) inadequate background to the strip club business in SOHO in the 1960s and 70s, porn-shops, and prostitution. That business was specific enough to 1960s SOHO, that it is not explained away by making a reader click out to a generic striptease or other link. My contention, moreover, is that the nominator by so doing in several sections has inadvertently sanitized instances of Humphreys's corruptness or venality, which is the counterpose to police corruption, (iii), etc. ... there are other issues, which the coordinators will be able to read about in my oppose section. The nominator cannot first withdraw his nomination on a whim in the middle of my last review, then abruptly renominate again 10 days later with one change, and expect me to be responsive in real-time. It is only today that the nominator in a series of edits has implemented my critique in the days following his withdrawal. He has, moreover, made no acknowledgment of it on this page for a coordinator to read, or for that matter anywhere else. So, as I've said above, this is a busy time for me. I will round up the sources, not all of which are easy to find, a large number of which are primary sources—including videos of the pornographer, his wife, his cohorts, and journalists, reminiscing—and in the next week or ten days complete my review. Given the circumstances, my request if very fair. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you stop being so rude and ignoring me, the nominator, simply to grandstand to the co-ords? You have shown an extremely poor attitude in both FACs and have not approached either of them in any form of good attitude. Instead you have been intransigent, obstructive and shown a BATTLEFIELD approach that does absolutely no-one any favours. Your post above contains so many inaccuracies that my AGF is stretched too far to think that they are not deliberate mischaracterisations of the situation. I have not, for example, in any way or in any location said, hinted or given any indication that you need to be "responsive in real time". It is a falsehood to claim that I have done so. I have not added the information you have requested at all: you have asked for entirely different information to be added - things way outside what anyone would expect in a standard biography. Now drop the obnoxious attitude, try not to continue playing "Gotcha!", learn that the name is Soho, not SOHO, and spend less time writing 'notes' to the co-ords and more time treating other editors like they are not something you have had to scrape off your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 :) Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. Or rather your article. As long as you understand that my review won't be done in a day or two, I will be happy. In fact, my review may not even begin for a day or two, until some books I have requested from Inter-Library loan arrive. But my sole goal remains making the article for which you have done much work even better. I apologize for capitalizing Soho, but I have been reading Melissa Tyler's new book, SOHO at WORK, Cambridge, 2020. It is the content that is important. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Given your attitude and approach so far, I struggle to believe that you are trying to help in any way. (As an aside, that is not the first time you have called this "your article". As I had to point out last time, this is not my article. It is an article on which I have worked. Nothing more. To keep calling it "your article" does suggest a degree of ownership that does not exist.)
There is no rush on any review (and I have not given any indication at any point that there is), as articles are not promoted until a very minimum of two weeks have passed, and normally much longer. If your obstructive approach and inflexibility is lessened then this will become much less of a trial for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I am puzzled and distressed at the clash, above, between two editors I much admire. I have looked closely at all the points made, and I can in conscience only repeat that to my mind, and after a further careful reading, the article meets the FA criteria, and with the exception of Fowler&fowler the other contributions so far (both from editors I respect greatly) express the same opinion – quite emphatically. I didn't think the first nomination should have been withdrawn, and I support this second one. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tim, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Still supporting. The additional load of comments from Fowler&fowler seem to me to amount to "I'd do it this way". As I am entirely happy with the way SchroCat has done it, meeting, imo, all the FA criteria, I continue to support. Tim riley talk 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, and an inset might be helpful to give a wider perspective on where in London this neighbourhood is situated
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:James_Humphries,_1972.jpg: the source link has some more information on provenance that would be worth copying into the image description
  • File:The_Sunday_People,_27_February_1972.png: suggest expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. These all now duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support per my support of last time. I also think that the first nom should not have been archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks Wehwalt. Yes, in hindsight, I should have let things run, but I was trying to avoid disruption. It seems it has just been delayed, rather than dissipated, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support. I also supported the last nomination and my opinion has not changed. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, Moisejp, for your comments and tweaks on this article on two occasions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I've read over this, and I can find no major issues. There are a few tweaks I would perhaps make, listed below, but none of them affect my support and I think they can all be safely ignored if required. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • ”The severity of his crimes increased”: I wonder would tweaking to “increased over time” or similar be a little better here?
  • ”Humphreys had to bribe the police to ensure they did not close the business down. When he expanded into other areas of the sex industry—sex shops and book shops selling obscene material—he had to pay an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.” I also wonder, as we are twice talking about the bribery, could this perhaps be combined into one sentence? Something like (but not necessarily exactly) “As Humphreys expanded his business and moved into other areas of the sex industry, he had to bribe an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.”
    • OK, something along those lines added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Seven months later he was sent to an approved school “: Perhaps we could add a word or two on what an approved school was for the benefit of the lazy reader like me who doesn’t want to click?
    • Yes, let me dig out a word or two to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple were soon divorced.”: Do we need “were”?
  • ”assaulting the police in the process”: One policeman? Or several, as it looks like here?
    • Unfortunately the source does not clarify. It reads "for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest". - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”changed the direction of his profession”: Doesn’t sound quite right to me. “Changed direction” by itself, or “changed the focus of his profession” would sound more natural. But perhaps it’s just me.
    • The original version - that "Humphreys changed direction professionally" was probably the best way to phrase it, but someone had conniptions about the use of the word "profesionally" (that's 1,800 words of my life I'll never get back), so we had to take a backward step to the current version. I'll ponder on a more suitable rewording. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Without wishing to reignite any wars or create another 1,800 words, I think the original version was better but understand that compromise is often necessary but rarely satisfactory! Whatever you decide won't affect my support in any way. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Rusty performed in three acts a day”: I always think “per day” looks more elegant.
  • ”Within the next three years Humphreys owned between six and ten other sex shops.”: This doesn’t sound quite right to me. It feels like it should be more along the lines of “Over the next three years Humphreys acquired/opened…”
    • OK, now adopted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The head of the Flying Squad, Ken Drury, dined with Humphreys so often, the officers under his command noticed how much weight he was putting on; Humphreys bought him an exercise bicycle and a rowing machine to help him keep the weight down”: No issues, I just feel that I should feel more appalled than I do… this made me laugh out loud.
  • ”the owners would receive a coded telephone message”: Could this not just be “owners received”?
  • ”The squad which gave obsceity a meaning of own”: I’m assuming that’s a typo in the newspaper sources list… although it is the Guardian, so maybe not. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ha - no, just proof I could have copyedited the Grauniad at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

On the issues above: I notice that no-one is really addressing the oppose other than the nominator. As I read it, F&F objects on four areas. This is my take on his objections, in case the coordinators or anyone else is looking for other opinions on the matter.

  • Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material: I'm afraid I don't see this. The examples which F&F says are vague and inaccurate do not appear to be either to me. Yes, the source contains more than the article, but this is a summary. We can't have every detail from every source about every person in the story.
  • Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: As others have said, I don't believe that this or any biography should be giving detailed background on the times/places in which the person operated. We have a summary in this article, which is adequate for the purpose unless/until someone writes something which comments on Humphreys' role in exploiting women or in the sex industry. As far as I can tell, most sources seem to look at him from the viewpoint of police corruption rather than a giant of the sex industry, but I may be wrong as that was from a cursory look. I had a look myself to see if there was anything which linked Humphreys and the sex industry, but nothing jumped out, including a look at JSTOR. The only thing I found was "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad", an article that I can't access without coughing up money, but which is not directly about Humphreys and once again is looking at it from the police corruption POV. And to reiterate, this is not an article about the Soho sex industry. Too much about that, which isn't directly concerned with Humphreys, would be undue in my opinion.
  • Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity: Umm... That is an interesting reason to oppose, which I would argue is not related to WP:WIAFA. I am not convinced that Joe Root should be England captain as it is destroying his batting. Unlike this grounds for opposition though, I could immediately find many good sources that expressed that opinion were I ever to take his article to FAC. A gut feeling is not a grounds for oppose, and I see that examples of these sources have not been produced by F&F. Nor could I find any.
  • The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy: Well, putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would strongly disagree that a biography MUST have a legacy. If the person HAS a legacy, fantastic. But if there is no legacy... you can't have a legacy section. Opposing on these grounds is pure personal preference and I don't think helps to take this forward.

Overall, I do not really see what F&F sees, and would not personally consider them valid grounds for oppose. Fortunately, I'm no longer a coordinator. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro, thank you very much for these comments. I will work through the top layers containing the suggestions, most of which look advantageous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all your comments regarding the lone "oppose". As I said above that the topic is not about "the sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is "James Humphreys (pornographer)." But the opposer seems to disagree with me. I have been reluctant to engage with them any further because after the article's first FAC, a singularly nasty personal attack was made against me on their TalkPage [5]. Also note that they describe their review as giving the nominator "a hard time". Graham Beards (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree too, although as someone who lives in a city where most forms of pornography and prostitution are legal, I founds some parts of the text puzzling. The article provides an explanation of the situation with reference to pornography; but it is far from clear what the legal status of his brothels was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Hawkeye. I thought the details of arrest/court case would have given enough detail, but I'll look at a sentence or footnote to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Article seems fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

It looked pretty sound to me on a first read through and a bit of background study. A couple of suggestions to book my place are below. None of them are points which I would wish to go to the barricades over.

  • "Humphreys was arrested for assault on his wife's former lover" Reads a little oddly. Maybe 'assaulting'?
  • "but the couple soon divorced" Is any more precision available?
  • Sadly not. The sources are a bit thin on detail baout his early life. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Colin Manchester, the professor of law" It may just be me, but that reads a little oddly. Maybe 'Colin Manchester, a professor of law', or 'the professor of law, Colin Manchester'?
  • Went with the latter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was suspected that the Richardson Gang—the South London criminal organisation" A picky point, but perhaps 'a South London ... '?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Gog, I'm much obliged to you for those. All tweaked in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the fragmentary nature of my comments. I keep getting distracted with background reading. Next up:

  • "Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops" Is that what Humphreys "made" before or after deducting the bribes?
  • It's not clear from the source, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "gave him the advice "Get them when they're young", as they would still be amenable to bribes when older" I feel that this needs a little more detail. Perhaps 'as they would then remain amenable ... '?
  • "help him keep the weight down" 'his weight'?
  • Bottom two done. No problem with the fragmentary nature: I'm always delighted to get comments in any way! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "The report continued on the inside pages with the statement" Perhaps 'The report continued on the inside pages, including the statement'
  • "Eric Mason–an owner of ten sex shops" Perhaps "an" → 'the'?
  • "In September 1972 she received a three-month gaol sentence for possession of a firearm; there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time" In the context of the sentence, could "at the time" be rephrased or recast?
  • "Humphreys said he would drop pornography over central London" Do we know if this was as in dropping from his pocket or as in an air drop?
  • "Frank Mifsud—a Maltese criminal who ran a string of brothels—travelled to Ireland and then Brazil" Is there any point in giving Mifsud this walk-on part?
  • I think so. He is a notable enough individual to have his own article as he appears in several of the sources. I've red linked him and will put something together to cover the basics (as well as those of the red linked policemen too) - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Grumble, mutter.
  • "11 people were arrested, one of them Rusty Humphreys, at the couple's Brook Street residence" Were all 11 arrested at Brook Street? If not, perhaps a semi colon. If so, perhaps swap the order of the last two clauses.
  • "When Rusty was arrested, police searched the premises" I assume the premises refers to Brook St, but with Greek St having intervened, 'police searched the Brook Street premises' may help keep things straight for a reader.
  • "All but one were found guilty" Which one, which one - I can't stand the tension. Was it "one other". (Why is he (or she) nameless anyway?)
  • Someone called Clive Miles. He doesn't appear elsewhere in Humphreys's story and was found not guilty, so I haven't named him. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough.
  • "the couple were arrested in November 1993.[14] The couple, who were living in West Hampstead" Possibly change one "the couple" to 'both'?
  • Note I: "£216,000 in 1972 equates to approximately £2,799,000 in 2020" If we are being approximate then '£2,800,000' perhaps.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Having finished my comments I read through Fowler&fowler's grounds for their object. I struggle a little to relate these clearly to any of the FA criteria, so it is probably best if I leave their consideration to better brains than mine.

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • Claim away - you've certainly earned them here! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Gog, thanks again for these: all very useful. I've adopted all your suggestions, bar two, which I've explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Your usual tight, well written, informative offering. Captures the spirit of the times well and doesn't contradict any of the sources I have consulted. Nicely balanced in my opinion, although you must have been spoilt for choice for quotes from Mars-Jones's summing up. Happy to support.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog; I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from SN54129

Piling on, I know, but I supported the first time around, and nothing has changed for me to otherwise affirm and attest to that view. I seem to have missed the oppose in the previous FAC, but, reading that then and this now, I see they are effectively the same arguments which have been resoundingly refuted by Sarastro1 above. While I respect the emphasis the opposer paces on social and equality issues—a stance which certainly does them credit—I note my own suggestion, tongue-in-cheek but otherwise deliberate, that the level of extraneous context that the opposer appears to require would be UNDUE at best, and at worse necessitate a completely different article. It would be the equivalent of demanding that a brief history of greengrocery is inserted somewhere into this. ——SN54129 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks SN - much appreciated for the second time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I don't have any major issues. It looks good from my American standpoint, and reading the above comments, I don't think a Legacy section is needed - it would be tangential to the actual subject. Mostly, I agree with the supporters who have already commented.

I did have a few queries:

  • There are a couple of places where links are right next to each other, e.g. gangland enforcer Frankie Fraser, giving the impression that there might be just one link.
  • Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason–the owner of ten sex shops— - inconsistent dash usage, the first is an en-dash.
  • I tried to swap this out, but it seems they are both em-dashes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant to just copy and paste the second dash. Currently, this is the first dash: and this is the second dash: It's more pronounced when it's in plain text. Anyway, this is a minor nitpick, not anything to delay a support for.
  • She was released in late October.[72] - if I'm counting correctly, this was two months out of the three-month sentence. Was the sentence shortened?
  • I presume it was time off for good behaviour, but the source doesn't clarify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the 1996 BBC television series Our Friends in the North the character Benny Barrett, played by Malcolm McDowell, was based on Humphreys.[121] In 1999 Humphreys discussed the possibility of their life story being made into a film with Film4 Productions, who gave the film the provisional title Rusty; as at 2019 the film remains unmade - the two sentences have an abrupt transition. I suppose this was intended to be a paragraph for media mentions, but then Humphrey's death is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • I'll have a think on this one. I was sticking to a chronological run, and ideally it would be a separate paragraph, but it obviously needs to be looked at again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks Epicgenius. I'll have a think on the last point and see if I can come up with a better solution. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Let me know when you resolve the last point. I don't see any other issues at this time, and am leaning toward supporting this article. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • How does this look? I've moved the death upwards and left the screen stuff in its own para. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @SchroCat: Looks good. I'll support this article now. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Many thanks for your thoughts and comments here - they are all most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I've read this through three times, once at its earlier appearance, and have gone through it side-by-side with the FAC criteria. I'm clear it meets these, hence the Support. I don't want to add fuel to the debate above, and fully acknowledge the differing view expressed. If I'm reading it correctly, and my apologies if I'm not, the concerns relate to 1b, Comprehensiveness, and that the article fails to fully represent James Humphrey's villainy. On the first point, I think the article does cover all of the major incidents of Humphreys' life and sets these in the context of the criminal, and certainly exploitative, environment of 60s/70s Soho. More could certainly be written on this point but, in my view, it doesn't need to be, for 1b to be met. On the second point, I do have a concern of my own re. wording. The opening sentence of the lead describes Humphreys as "an English businessman". The opening line of the "Strip club and sex shop owner" section speaks of Humphreys "chang[ing] the direction of his profession". I'm not sure I'd use either term. The article title is "James Humphreys (pornographer)", and I don't think Profession is the right term to describe how Humphreys made his living. Wikipedia, and the dictionaries I've checked, define a profession as "an occupation involving training and a formal qualification". The Cambridge Online dictionary goes as far as to define it as work "that is respected because it involves a high level of education". The article makes clear that Humphreys' formal education ended at age 14, and his subsequent life was certainly not respectable. If I look for a comparison, Paul Raymond, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, is described in the article lead as "an English strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer", and I think he could more fittingly be described as a businessman than Humphreys. All in all, I'd call a spade a spade, Humphreys a pornographer and his business the sex trade; thus "James William Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003) was an English pornographer...On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the focus of his activities and..." My support isn't conditional on these changes being made, but I do think they'd improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As always KJP1, many thanks for your thoughts on this. There was some extensive discussion on the point of "profession", but the OED is quite clear with one of their several definitions: "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur.", so I am not sure we have a problem with the use of that word.
The opening is something that could be considered a little more. Raymond, as far as I am aware (although I am not an expert on the point!), was only ever a strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer and had no other business interests; Humphreys had a much more diverse career: safebreaker, strip-club owner, publisher of pornography, restaurateur, drug dealer and owner of a number of brothels. It was this diverse range of interests that led me to use "businessman". We could tweak it to say he "was an English businessman and criminal who owned... etc". Would the addition of those two words overcome your concerns? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat - It's your call, as I say we're discussing preferences not deal breakers. But for me, safebreaker + strip-club owner + pornographer + drug dealer + pimp + repeatedly-convicted felon = criminal, not businessman, even allowing for his restaurant. And in normal usage I would describe none of those activities as a profession. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Without expressing a preference one way or the other on this - for I have no strong views on the point - I merely observe that prostitution has long been called "the oldest profession". Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite so, and due to Kipling, according to our article. But surely in a literary/ironical/euphemistic, rather than an encyclopaedic, sense? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, how about "...the direction of his nefarious activities" ? Graham Beards (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Nefarious soundtrack cued... ——SN54129 19:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Cwmhiraeth

I would like to suggest that "James Humphreys (criminal)" would be a better title for this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, let me have a think on that and (much more importantly) read the policy on titles. I thought they were supposed to reflect their main reason for being in the encyclopaedia (in which case pornographer just about shades criminal), but I may be completely wrong on that. Much of his activity was legal, although rather seedy (the strip clubs were all legitimate lines of business, as were a few other of his lines of business - the sex shops were a mix of legal (softcore pornography) and illegal (the more explicit work)). I'll look into it and get back.
@WP:FAC coordinators: if we decide a change of title is needed (although that's only at the discussion stage here), is it better done during a review, after it, or does it not matter? I'm not sure it's in the FAC criteria, but I'm thinking more from a technical point of view in having the review and the article under different names.
Cheers to you all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was wondering what exactly a pornographer was, and the definition seems to be "a person who makes or sells pornography". Humphreys did that, but did a lot of other seedy / illegal things too. He was certainly a criminal, having served several terms in prison. If you thought there was merit in my suggestion, you could start a move discussion on the talk page, but I would have thought that could wait until after the conclusion of this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
OK - we can wait until later, that's absolutely fine with me, and would probably suit the co-ords too. My gut reaction is that "criminal" may not be the best way, but I think I' could be easily swayed on that; it is certainly a good topic for further discussion (I'm not married to the term "pornographer", and if it goes it wouldn't be any great loss to me - we just have to make sure we get the right name to change into). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there's certainly precedents for changing an article title after the FAC, and it's a lot easier in terms of closure, FACbot and so on. If it was something people felt strongly enough to oppose over I'd probably say let's bite the bullet now -- or at least let's have it out and get consensus now, even if we change it afterwards -- but I don't think that's the case here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian - I'll hold off opening the discussion etc until after the FAC. There is enough of a rough consensus to keep it as it is until later, but we can always revisit the point afterwards. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest waiting until the FAC is closed and then having a discussion. For what it is worth, I prefer the current title. Graham Beards (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)~
The current title is fine. “Pornographer” is by an overwhelming majority his label in the sources. I am traveling and without my sources, but will elaborate on all this and more in my oppose above when I return on Thursday. The article title, in my view, is not even remotely an issue. It was not for nothing that he was called the Emperor of Porn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I too prefer "pornographer". If the sources call him a "pornographer" and we call him a "criminal" that would suggest to those not familiar with his story that pornography was/is illegal in the UK, which of course it wasn't/isn't. CassiantoTalk 18:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with Graham Beards, Fowler&fowler and Cassianto. The OED defines "pornographer" as "A person who produces or provides pornography; a pornographic writer, publisher, or artist". This seems to me more precise, and more helpful to the reader, than "criminal", which by comparison is a bit vague. But I also agree that this is perhaps not the forum in which to debate the title. Tim riley talk 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GB to co-ords

@WP:FAC coordinators: Having gained 11 supports from respected FAC participants, IMHO this article has gained consensus for promotion. The points repeatedly raised in the single "oppose" are not a barrier to promotion and can be dealt with post-promotion. There are precedents for this. The debate is getting unnecessarily heated and further coordinator input is justified in any case. Graham Beards (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My review began on the 24th. I informed the coordinators about it. The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began.
The debate is not "getting heated," rather the nominator is becoming increasingly impatient and abusive. On any other page, he would have been blocked for repeatedly using four-letter and other epithets. I'm sure the coordinators can see that and there is no need for me to provide diffs. The points have not been "repeatedly raised." My first review was entirely a review of prose and that only of the lead. I had not had a chance to examine the sources then, as I have now.
Major issues remain. A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources. We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp, not once but six times. Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer, a serial one? There is inadequate or inaccurate context: of the legal jumble that the pornographers were able to employ to their benefit; of the sudden explosion of pornography in the late 1960s; of the concurrent suppression of the politically radical publications for whose protection the laws had been designed. I have not got to any of that yet. Those are not things that can be covered after promotion. Those are not things that can be accommodated in footnotes. I'm happy to have an independent academic evaluation of my review once it is complete. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your review began on the 12th. The "supports" were added on the same day or later. Why should you have "an independent academic evaluation" of your review. No one else does. The valid points in your paragraph above have all been dealt with. Your are behaving like a troll (again Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samuel_Johnson's_early_life). Stop it. Graham Beards (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I said I'd stay away until there was something silly for me to reply to; sadly this is it (already!). Again there are too many untruths in what you say. "The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began". You were the SECOND person to comment and your second edit was your oppose. That means that every single support came after you begin you "review" That would make most people pause for thought, at least.

"We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp": yes we can. "A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources": yes it can (and this article doesn't: it depends which sources you are classing as primary; funnily enough the other reviewers, which include two former FA co-ords and several holders of multiple FAs have not said there is a problem with the quantity or quality of the sources, which should tell you something). "Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer": it didn't. The information was already in the article. "inadequate or inaccurate context": Bullshit. This is a biography of an individual, not a history of pornography or the law in 1960s/70 Britain. Everyone else has managed to grasp that simple point except you.

Now pipe down with complaining about what other people are doing and get on with the bloody review. I will wait until the weekend before I address any comments you care to make about the article by that time. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't reply to the off-topic comments above, to the abusive comments above, especially not to diffs of 11 years ago, which I have not examined. Anyone who doubts my motives can examine my recent FAC reviews in Cactus Wren, Horologium (constellation), Randall Davidson (you may examine my detailed PR there), or Coropuna? The first comments were place holders, as the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change. I posted a note to the coordinators on the 16th. My review began on the 24th. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
There was nothing off topic there, (except your list of reviews where you weren't disruptive). But to pick up on yet another untruth that I've had to correct before: "the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change."
The first FAC was closed at 13:10, 30 December 2019; this one was opened at 09:17, 12 January 2020. In that two week period the edit history shows the following:
  • 09:16, 12 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,142 bytes +71‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 15:33, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,071 bytes +10‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 14:11, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,061 bytes +7‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Ditto. Enough twatting about with minutae that 99.9999% of the world will understand as being entirely good use of language. Only one foul reader will ever have problems with this phrasing, so hopefully they will be less obnoxious about how they deal with people from now on (fat chance) undo
  • 14:09, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,054 bytes -64‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Trying to stop the BATTLEFIELD troll with the inflexible approach who NEEDS to win everything undo
  • 19:46, 30 December 2019‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,118 bytes -3‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: may as well put this in line with the lead undo
  • 19:38, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,121 bytes -6‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: copy edit undothank
  • 19:35, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,127 bytes -5‎ copy edit for readability undothank
That all adds up to these changes. "resubmitted without any change" contains as much veracity as claiming you didn't begin reviewing until two weeks after you actually did. Your second edit was to oppose: if putting in an oppose isn't classed as part of review, was it just being disruptive, or is there another reason? But, I tell you what: don't bother answering or wasting your time in reworking reality to fix what you think you wnat to say: get on with the bloody review so we can bring this to a close before next Christmas or I entirely lose the will to live, whichever comes first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough. This entire thread and the topic needs to STOP BEING DISCUSSED. I just got up ... i'm trying to work from the cab of a semi truck traveling in winter through the midwest. I.e. my ability to type is compromised and its going to be a bit before I get to settling this whole cluster-fuck. But its on my plate so the pings can STOP, as can the emails. So can everyone just shut up so I can actually try to figure out what is worth looking at and what's just plain noise and what should really not be happening at all (hint for those dense - there should be no discussion of other editors taking place.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Forrester Brown

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest linking draper
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • is there potentially a link for Totara?
  • Done, as a red link. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link trench warfare?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link company, battalion and division?
  • Done - I linked the second mention of battalion, not the first which was part of a unit name. I thought it could be potentially confusing otherwise. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link commission
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link second lieutenant
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
  • Have added a bit and expanded from another source, the one I relied on initially didn't shed much light on this. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • external links work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs and source review

  • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
  • Have recited his name in full in the early life section, which is supported by the cite at end of that sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • At least 1 link to First World War, in either the body or lead, would be nice
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
  • Have added. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
  • I've tried a variation so I didn't have to move cites around. How does it work for you? Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
  • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
  • No, not the intention. The issue here is that officialdom wasn't moving very fast to recognise his gallantry and it may have been different if he was still alive. I suspect that it was easier to take a go slow approach for a dead hero than a living one. I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Zawed: "... recognise Brown's gallantry wand it was not until the officers ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs thanks. I have fixed and dished out a self-administered face slap. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have checked every online source cited and AGF on offline sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have responded to your points above and with changes to the article. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and source review completed – A short but heroic life is well documented in this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Segnosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation
Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.
Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.
  • There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?
  • Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.
Yes, forgot this one; yes, since the skull, beak, and neck are unknown, it is a bit misleading to say that they were. Much of it is inference from logic or related animals. But I have now reduced it in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

History of discovery

  • Soviet-Mongolian — en dash?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?
Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Two additional specimens — Are they also held by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences?
Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?
Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers. — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.
They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it, that makes sense now.
  • Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?
None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation
Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandible and lower dentition

  • at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?
Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

  • Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.
Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?
It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.
Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Classification

  • First sentence should be split up.
Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.
Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • be most basal clade — What does this mean?
Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.
Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

  • Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.
Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • precocial, capabale of locomotion from birth — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?
Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[6][7], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[8] and one Polish[9] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.
I wonder whether they would even know, if the eggs are from Mongolia, they were possibly illegally exported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet and feeding

  • they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?
In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • facultative herbivory — facultatively?
If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • symphyseal — Link to Symphysis?
Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  • See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.
I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)
Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?
Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?
Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.
Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.
I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 38 — Identifier?
None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.
I went with that, thanks.FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?
Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.
  • 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".
Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 52 — Pages 1–16, no?
Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, I tried to fix the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?
Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."
Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not very fond of double image clutter. I think the current distribution works fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "that lived during the Late Cretaceous in the region of Asia that is now known as Mongolia" Why didn't you just say "from Mongolia" or "discovered in Mongolia"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "whereas most theropod groups were carnivorous" you should probably say "most other theropod groups"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus was a large-bodied therizinosaur" Just to verify, Segnosaurus was big compared to other therizinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
At up to 7 metres long, it was pretty big, though larger ones of course existed (up to 10 metres long). But then again, some taxa were only two metres long, so it would be in the larger category. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm pretty sure I linked that article at some point, perhaps removed during copy-edit. Now at replaced its teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It also says "teeth with a low replacement rate" in Paleobiology which seems notable in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the rate has anything to do with physical description, has more to do with physiology/biology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Such split carinae are known from..." this should be split into 2 sentences or you can use a semicolon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Because it would lead readers to think it is just structurally the same as our shoulder girdles; dinosaurs had their scapulae and coracoids fused together. So though it is technically a shoulder girdle, precision is needed to note the important difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a link and explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs he tentatively classified as theropods" makes it sound like theropods was the new family of dinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Reorganised as:" In 1979, Perle noted the Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs, which he named Segnosauridae, with Segnosaurus as type genus and sole member. He tentatively classified Segnosauridae as theropods, traditionally thought of as the "meat-eating" dinosaurs, pointing to similarities in the mandible and its front teeth." FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems important to note in the lead that Segnosaurus is the most complete therizinosaur known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was when it was found (but that doesn't say much, as it was the only one recognised at the time), but it was surpassed by Alxasaurus in 1993 (as mentioned in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...via a late-Early Cretaceous landbridge" is there a time interval attached to that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Now added some info for both mentioned land-bridges. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...were adapted for relatively slow progression. Segnosaurus and its relatives were not adapted for rapid locomotion" these are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a composite prosauropod-like segnosaur skeleton" any reason it's in lower case and not italicized?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is a composite of various segnosaurs/therizinosaurs, not Segnosaurus itself. Now added "(a composite of various genera)" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought Segnosauria is obsolete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Not in 1984, it is a compsite of what a "segnosaur" was thought to be at the time. I thought it would be misleading to say therizinosaur retroactively, but since it is outside the classification section, I have added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The endocranium is the inner surface of the brain cavity. The braincase is the bony encasement of the brain cavity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Subterraneously constructed nests are also indicative of a lack of parental care during the incubation period" but how? Animals can bury their eggs and guard over them (like crocodiles)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Removed, the paper doens't really even make it clear that the nest in question was subterraneous, so I was always a bit unsure about the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...but found it mysterious it should then have a horny beak" but why? Turtles have a horny beak   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Turtles don't have teeth, though, I guess it is the combination that seems odd, but the source doesn't specify. The combination of beaks and teeth are otherwise only known in dinosaurs thought to be herbivorous (or omnivorous), which is mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Good you asked, I overlooked a bit of his argument, which doesn't seem particularly sensible either, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'm understand still, "suggested that therizinosaurs could have been tied to nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems, though perhaps indirectly, by feeding on wasps which had themselves fed on carrion of aquatic vertebrates" seems like a big stretch. Why did he suggest it was tied to aquatic ecosystems in the first place? Why wasps? I'm sure there's lot of things that eat dead aquatic animals. It just seems so random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit baffling; review articles just state he suggested they fed on wasps, but it is actually a much more specific argument, and I actually explain it more in detail than other review articles. I'll quote him in full, then you can say whether you think I should go into more detail: "Considering the frequently occurring carnivory of wasps, their ability (at least in some forms) to process even relatively large carrion of vertebrates (particularly fishes) by means of their large mandibles and also feed their larvae on carrion, and considering the frequent mass deaths of fishes, amphibians, and other aquatic vertebrates in the zone of interbasin channels (regarding the mechanism responsible for their death see Ro_ek and Nessov [1993] and Part 3 of this volume), one could assume that the segnosaurs from the Coniacian of Dzharakuduk, like many other terrestrial vertebrates at that time, could have become part of food chains tied to the nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems. Segnosaurs, however, could have done this indirectly, obtaining part of the energyflow through wasps and wasp-like Hymenoptera, whereas large pterosaurs (Pl. I, fig. 18) collected food from the surface of open areas of basins. Therefore, Rozhdestvensky (1970, 1976) may at least be partially correct in his assumptionthat segnosaurs possessing huge claws fed on social insects." FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • during the Late Cretaceous in what is now known as Mongolia.—that's unneeded, I doubt that the dinos had a name for it.
Not sure how that popped back in actually, thought I had removed it (added by copy-editor). I've changed it to "in what is now southeastern Mongolia". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would have been bipedal and the trunk of its body would have been tilted upwards. The head would have been (also in Description) —repetitive and could be replaced by plain "was"
You mean the "would have"? it is to be careful as all of that is just inference; how it carried itself, as well as some of the features that are unknown for this prticular genus, such as the skull and neck. I'm wary of saying "it had a small skull and a long neck", when we really can only say this because we know its relatives did. Likewise, can't say outright it had feathers, because such are only known definitely from its relatives. So I tried to restrict "was" to known parts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • bore large claws—(in lead) how many?
Changed to: " The forelimbs were robust and had three fingers which bore large claws". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • paleontologist Altangerel Perle, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno—I get told off for using false titles when I do this, apparently should be "the… etc
Heh, I get told something new at every other nomination. I don't personally care, I just let the copy-editor decide, which was the case here. Added "the" because it's easy enough to do those few places. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • but not appressed—I've never seen that word so link, explain or replace I think
Changed to "but not pressed closely together". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

the genus Therizinosaurus itself was originally identified as a turtle—"turtles"?

Changed to "(the forelimb elements of Therizinosaurus itself were originally identified as belonging to a giant turtle when described in 1954)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Gregory S. Paul —probably repetitive to give the job where it's palaeontologist, but perhaps for someone like him precede hname with what he does
I had "paleontologist" in front of every new name, but they were removed by the copy-editor except for in the discovery section. I can see how it is a bit redundant after the first dozen mentions (and it'll be quote some work to add it back), so I'm not sure what to do... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues—if there is no link, perhaps state what they do
Like above, I'd like the consistency, but it was removed by the copy-editor, so I assume they thought it says without going after the first few times (every person mentioned in this article is a paleontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It appears that if you put multiple links to your source in a ref, eg url and doi, the url will be removed at some stage as superfluous, although personally I can't see the harm
I think it's only when they link to the same destination they are removed automatically by bots. If I have a DOI for an old Ibis article, I can still use a different link to its Archive.org version, for example, and it won't be removed. But if the DOI is for, say, an open access PLOSONE article, the DOI leads to the exact same place as the URL, making either redundant. But that also goes for paywalled articles. So I personally find it more clear/helpful knowing that when a title has a link, it's because it will go to a place different than the DOI, where I might get to read the otherwise paywalled article. If every title is a link, I can't tell a redundant link from a helpful one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My point with the first comment is that just "in Mongolia" would do; since there were no humans then to name the region, it's not as if it had a different name in the age of the dinosaurs. Anyway, no big deal so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I usually write "what is now" because often an area covered by a modern country may have been divided or submerged at the time... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.
  • Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • Added. It's now The University of Reading War Memorial, designed by Maryon and dedicated in 1924
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[10][11]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • Added: These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson in 1929, and Sir Charles Parsons in 1932
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
  • FunkMonk, it's in Herbert Maryon#Later years: Before his departure Maryon had been planning a trip around the world, and at the end of 1961 he left for Fremantle ... From Australia Maryon departed for San Francisco ... Maryon devoted much of his time during the American stage of his trip to visiting museums and the study of Chinese magic mirrors ... His trip also included guest lectures, such as his talk "Metal Working in the Ancient World" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 2 May 1962 ... Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I assume this would be a difficult subject to get a coherent story from if an actual biography hasn't been published, but I think it succeeds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

Comments by Tim riley

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


Older nominations

Fir Clump Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable
  • Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Image review
  • All images are free and appropriately licensed.
  • Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
    • This still hasn't been done. I had to stare at the map for some time to figure out what it was showing. buidhe 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean; would you like to see the caption on the map made clearer? Or rather alter the pinpoint on the map in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. Done buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Other comments
  • It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

  • ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"
  • A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....
  • Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.
  • A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.
  • More than happy with the diagram in the infobox, although I shifted the picture of the M4 from a left alignment to a right alignment as I think it looks a bit neater, if that's okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?
  • Good idea. I've listed them in the "Context" section; we do not yet have articles for a couple of them but I should be able to create these without too much trouble. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.
  • A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?
  • I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?
  • There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.
  • The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

Context

  • "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?
  • The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?
  • His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?
  • In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

  • a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?
  • It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discovery and destruction

  • the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?
  • Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • after they had been purchased by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — How did the society come to purchase the notebooks?
  • Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.
  • He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?
  • Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?
  • Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)
  • Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"
  • Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?
  • I can see your point. I've replaced "produced" with "wrote" here, which I think is an improvement, but I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Good idea; this could be achieved in the form of a note. I won't do this just yet, as I'll need to look up the right sources in the literature, but is something that I shall try to do soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SG

  • I have now added   to all of the dates specified in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Convert templates are missing.
  • I've added the templates to the lede, so that we now have imperial measurements there as well as in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
    • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
      • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I see your point. The numbers provided in the lead were those of the outer ring. To make this clear I've changed "in diameter" to "in total diameter". I've also added mention of the inner ring diameter. (Does this work? I can always make it more explicit). The differing diameters (107 m by 86.5 m) stem from the fact that the "stone circle" is not (despite its name) a perfect circle, but an oval, and hence its diameter differs at different points. I've added mention of the oval-shape to the lead so that this becomes clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, SchroCat, both for your time and your support. As you suggest, I've brought the Field and McOmish quote forward, so that it appears before we mention the measurements. I've also clarified that the dimensions given are those of the outer ring. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Slovakia

Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
    • Fixed those, although I'm not too concerned about it either.
  • "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.
    • Reworded to get rid of them. (The sound actually from wikt:strana and very similar to English /s/).

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! buidhe 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1938 deportations
  • No need to link "the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" (and as you've introduced the United Kingdom at the end of the previous para, you can shorten to UK). I tend only to link to non-existent states, so the links to Nazi Germany are good.
    • Fixed
  • "voluntary Aryanization" is a circular link and advised against at WP:SELFRED. If it only occurred in Slovakia then best not to link; if it was a policy in several states, then maybe a quick stub by way of explanation?
    • I redirected voluntary Aryanization to Aryanization, where it is discussed a little, and took out the link to the later section (see below)
Aryanization
  • In my notes for the 1938 deportations I initially wrote that "voluntary Aryanization" needs an explanation "to explain what sounds like, but probably wasn't, a benign process". The explanation in this makes it a lot more clear that the name was a euphemism and that the process wasn't benign. It does, however, read a little awkwardly to have the full explanation on the second mention, which is in a different section. Can we clarify at the first mention (in the 1938 deportations section) what "voluntary Aryanization" was, and then we can deal with its effects in this section?
    • Changed to "a precursor to the state-sponsored transfer of Jewish property (Aryanization)." I don't think we need to be explicit about the type of Aryanization.
  • Is there a reason you've capitalised "Slovak State", when that's not a proper name? Shouldn't it be "Slovak state" in the same way you refer to the "Czechoslovak state" or "Slovak government"?
    • It was (temporarily) the official name of the state; see First Slovak Republic#Name. All of (First) Slovak Republic/Slovak state/Slovak State are used in reliable sources, but I stuck with the last one because it is the most common in the sources that I was using.

Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  • Spot checks not done.
  • Impressive amount of research and source gathering here. All sources and citations are correctly formatted and in line with the MoS requirements and FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Ealdgyth: because I think she is up on sources about the Holocaust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I meant to try to get to this sometime this week... being on the road is a bit difficult on reviewing Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both: given the subject matter and possible foreign language sources, all I can realistically do is check the formatting and style, so if anyone else wants to look at any other aspect, please feel free: I'll consider it a great help - I certainly won't think my toes are being stepped on or anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, though I must admit I waited until someone else had commented because it is a bit of a daunting subject that I don't feel qualified to be the first reviewer of. But it certainly shouldn't be archived due to inactivity. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a good deal of WP:duplicate links htorughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[12]
    • Fixed all except First Vienna Award, which is piped on the first mention and may be confusing otherwise.
  • A bit unfortunate one photo is only an external link. Perhaps we could find out when the photographer, Bedrich Fred Vohryzek, died, to see if it might be public domain?
  • "Holokaust na Slovensku" I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't this refer to Slovenia?
    • It's the dative case of sk:Slovensko, "Slovakia". The names are very similar.
Oh, forgot to remove this point after I had looked it up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "had adopted Hungarian language" Link this and other languages?
    • I don't have a preference, but as I recall the languages were unlinked by previous reviewers who felt they were common
  • "Territorial losses to Hungary in 1938 and 1939" Probably good to state who suffered the losses in the caption.
    • Done
  • "The dispute was submitted to arbitration in Vienna by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hungary was awarded much of southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938" Makes me wonder why Germany gave parts of Slovakia to Hungary, but later supported the Slovaks?
    • It's complicated and not a subject for this article; see First Vienna Award for more information.
  • "Between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated before 1940" But after when? "Before" seems pretty vague when no interval is mentioned. Also, did they move because of persecution?
    • Reason for the emigration is explained later on. I left the numbers in the background section for numbers purposes, and corrected the interval to 1938–1940 after checking the sources.
  • "Administrative regions of the Slovak State" You could state the interval in the caption, as is mention on the image itself.
    • Done
  • "Solution of the Jewish Question" Link something?
    • Redlinked since there's no article in any language.
  • "using antisemitic stereotypes" Link?
  • "to blame them for the Hungarian domination of Slovakia" What was the rationale behind this?
  • "because of Jews' alleged support for Hungary during the partition negotiations" I guess the above is related to this? Or was it more general than that?
    • As explained in the background section, many Slovak Jews spoke Hungarian and the national-conservatives suspected them of being pro-Hungarian as a result.
  • "were still permitted, and the Nazi German Party formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia" It is unclear from reading this article that those groups were formed by the local German minority, so you could state it here in parenthesis or similar for clarity?
    • Clarified—I hope
  • You are inconsistent in whether you link countries (I think all former countries should be linked in any case), and sometimes you link them at second rather than first mention.
    • I think I've now linked all the former countries on first mention.
  • "to "voluntary Aryanization"." Anything to link? I now see you link it further down, but links should be placed at first mention. Perhaps you could add a "main article" link under the section header there?
    • I linked the relevant section.
  • "through the Reich" Could be linked.
    • Reworded "through Nazi Germany"
  • "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." What time interval?
    • I think it's clear from the context that this refers to the time between the 1938 deportations and when it became impossible to leave. I considered making it explicit, but that seemed redundant. Also, the sources are a bit vague about exactly what interval they refer to.
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "enriched by property stolen from Jews" Did they call it "stolen", though, and not "confiscate" or such? I realise it is effectively stealing, but the sentence is written as if reporting what they said themselves.
    • Changed to "confiscated", which better reflects the sources.
  • "acquired by Aryan-owned competitors" Were Slovaks considered "Aryan"? I thought it specifically excluded Slavs?
    • I removed "Aryan-owned" because it's not necessary in the sentence. (Nazi racial theories make no sense, but the Slovaks were German allies and therefore considered Aryan, more or less).
  • "Adolf Hitler (left) at a Wolf's Lair meeting" Links and date?
    • Done. Sadly there are no free images of the meeting discussed in text.
  • "Although the Ministry of Defense was pressured by the Ministry of the Interior to release the Jews for deportation in 1942, it refused" Why?
    • Added "possibly because the leadership wanted to avoid complicity in war crimes".
  • "The party's radical wing controlled the Hlinka Guard, whose leader, Alexander Mach, who was appointed interior minister in 1940 at German request" Is the "who" needed?
    • Removed
  • It seems a bit odd that the Holocaust memorial and Tiso's grave are presented side by side. But I guess it is necessary due to lack of space? Is the grave necessary?
    • The intention is to juxtapose different responses to the event within Slovak society.
  • "sealed within the framework of Operation Reinhard" Shouldn't such direct quotes be attributed in-text?
    • Done

Wolf

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Comment from Tim riley

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dank

  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [13])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Put it as the last sentence of the first paragraph of description. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bank War

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination and has not been promoted. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose. I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:

  • The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.
I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?
I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
    • "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.
Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "was exacerbated" - was worsened
I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "rapid emission" - printing?
I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies
Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?
I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?
Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Overall," - unnecessary?
Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?
Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.
State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "laid taxes" - did what?
Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?
Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?
Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "rendering Biddle" - giving?
I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "practically immediately" - almost immediately?
Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?
Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

    • "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras
If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?
I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy
Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized
No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.
I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?
Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.
I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?
Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.
I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago
I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.
More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."
Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs
I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.
I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
"The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review (content)

I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?
Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).
Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
  • Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.
Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.
I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt — when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)
Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).

Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.
To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Also [14], you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Outriggr, do you have any more comments to make for this review, or is this all? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Gaulois

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnought battleships in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean. The article had a MilHist A-class review about six months ago and I've made some minor tweaks since then so I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual I'd like reviewers to focus on any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publisher for Caresse should be Conway Publishing, and both WorldCat and GBooks list a second editor
  • Taillemite: suggest translating edition statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Who made her a company or the Army itself? The lead doesn't say that.
  • She was commissioned (armement définitif) on 15 January 1899 I don't think the French term is necessary it's the first time I see this in a French battleship.
  • Comte de Rochambeau in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. On 23 May D.C. is too common, we need to unlink it.
  • She made another port visit to Lisbon, Portugal, before arriving Modern-day Portugal didn't exist the link need to be replaced with the Kingdom of Portugal.
  • ship made port visits in Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece I believe Athens needs to be unlinked.
  • survivors of the April 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Naples Link Naples and explain that it lays in South Italy.
  • Is it possible we can divide the refs in "References" into two lines? Because it doesn't look nice.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR in July, so I don't have much to add here.

  • the aft draught conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • other than Bris, is there any other information available on her captains?
  • there is a big gap between September 1906 and January 1909. Is there anything that can be added during that period? No reviews or notable port visits?
  • "The squadron was transferred to the 2nd Squadron" do you mean the division was transferred? It seems weird that a squadron would be transferred to another squadron
  • suggest "On 19 February, Gaulois supported Suffren as the latter ship bombarded..."
  • is there anything known about her wreck, is it diveable etc?
  • le.fantasque.free.fr doesn't look reliable to me to be an EL

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey

  • In the lead, the French for French Navy should be Marine Nationale, not Maritime Nationale
  • The ship accidentally rammed two other French warships early in her career, although neither was seriously damaged, nor was the ship herself - too many "ships" - change one of them to Gaulois.
  • Link Toulon in Construction and career
  • Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they again bombarded Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March.

Would rewrite as

"Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they resumed the bombardment of Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned again to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March."

That is all I could find that has not been mentioned by others. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Link knots in the body.
    • Done
  • Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
    • Works for me
  • They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
    • Done
  • Metric tons vs tonnes.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
    • Fixed
  • Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
    • I'm not seeing the difference
  • For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
    • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
  • Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
    • Added
  • Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

  • "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
    • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
      • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
  • ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
    • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
    • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
      • Works for me.
  • (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
    • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
      • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

PS, on second thoughts:

    • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
      • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
    • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
      • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
    • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Cannone da is duplinked.
    • Fixed
  • You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
    • Done
  • "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
    • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel
Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
    • It's already converted earlier
  • "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
    • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
  • The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
    • I found a better version of the image
  • "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
    • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
  • "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
    • Added
  • "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
    • Softened the lead a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
  • How many Proctors were involved?
  • For how long did she attend school?
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
  • How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
I'm looking into that now.
  • How many Proctors were involved?
Three - I've named them in the article now.
  • For how long did she attend school?
The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
Good call, I've reworded that sentence.
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
1780 - I've added that.
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.
As discussed above.
  • How are you ordering sources without authors?
I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?
I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
  • "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".
SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.
So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.
Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.
  • We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.
Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Reworded - is that better?
Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

  • Marker down for me to comment - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

E; Early life

  • "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
  • Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?
So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?
The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.
Inheritance
  • "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?
Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.
With Charlotte Temple
  • "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")
I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.
  • "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?
I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Cheers.
  • Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not Gog, Face-smile.svg but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[15] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit (blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto

  • Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?
Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?
No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?
That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.
I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.
It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?
Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". CassiantoTalk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.
I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.
Reworded.GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? CassiantoTalk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £28,000,000 in 2020 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.
    Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.
  • "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.
    I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.
  • "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.
    Agreed, removed.
  • "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.
    Agreed, reworded.
  • Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.
    Gone.
  • "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.
    Reworded.
  • "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW
    Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?
    You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.
    Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

  • Reworded.
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.
    It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.
  • "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.
    Reworded.

Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

  • William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.
  • Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)
  • Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
  • Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing
  • I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.
  • The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.
  • I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.
  • MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.
  • The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.
  • "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.
  • Fixed.
  • A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)
  • Fixed
Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".
  • fixed
  • "ball room" – one word, according to the OED
  • fixed
  • "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)
  • Another one I didn't know - fixed.
  • Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.
  • Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit (blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.
  • I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".
  • I've reworded this sentence.
  • "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?
  • Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.
  • "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?
  • Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
    • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit (blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.
  • done
  • "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.
  • I wouldn't want to get involved in any arguments about capitalising job titles! Happy to change.
  • "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.
  • Clarified
  • "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".
  • I've reworded this.
  • "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.
  • I'd prefer to keep this in - I appreciate that it's not directly related to MMG herself, but another reviewer expressed an interest in what happened to Temple/Yeatman after MMG's death - I wasn't able to find much other than this, and it seemed interesting enough to include it. I'll take it out if you feel strongly about it.
  • Not a bit! I don't seek to twist any arms, and it's your drafting, not mine. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
    • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've cut it.

I hope these comments are of help. Tim riley talk 09:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley - I really appreciate your detailed review, very helpful indeed. I've addressed most of your points, and made a few comments above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll be back after a further read-through, to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Marker from KJP1

Comments from me to follow, but it'll be over the next few days, I'm afraid. One immediate query:

  • "entering into what was described as a form of marriage" (lead) and "Her relationship with Temple was described as being much like a marriage" (With Charlotte Temple). - It would have been pretty surprising for the time if the relationship was publicly described as akin to a marriage and I'm not seeing the contemporary sources that do so describe it, beyond the "remarkable tomfoolery" comment, which isn't quite the same thing. Do we have contemporary sources that do describe the relationship as "like a marriage" and, if we do, can we cite them? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hi KJP1 - the phrase comes from Shaw and Gordon source (1882) - page 181 (near the top): "...something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant 'married' Miss Temple, placing on the latter's marriage-finger a suitable ring... ...Miss Temple not only reciprocated the remarkable affection, but likewise manifested similar extraordinary proofs of it - she termed herself 'wifie' in her letters to Miss Grant...". Does that address your concern? GirthSummit (blether) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It very well might, if it could be included. But I’m not seeing it in the article, unless I’m overlooking it. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It was cited after the sentence about the tomfoolery - since it supported both sentences, I thought it would be OK to cite it once, but I've added another reference to it now. GirthSummit (blether) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, not making myself clear. I wasn’t looking for a cite but rather for an explanation, within the body of the article, as to who was describing their relationship as akin to a marriage. Were the sources that did so newspapers or what? Were they contemporaneous? Something like: Gordon and Shaw/Moray County history/whoever, in their subsequent reporting of the affair, described the relationship as “something like a marriage”. Hope this is clearer. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, OK, gotcha. I'll add some attribution into the text just now, thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Babylon Hill

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review; I've gone through this, the only detail that I can see lacking a citation is the Parliamentarian numbers, which I will add in later, was there anything else? Harrias talk 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Casualty counts. Infobox says 3–16 Parliamentarians - I see the 3, where's the 16 from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Of course: both now included in the main text with appropriate citations. Harrias talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only
    • Good point, done. Harrias talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Batten work title is incomplete
  • Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a comma before "Yeovil". Harrias talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

  • Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
    • I disagree, that would change the meaning of the sentence completely. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
    • It is unclear from the sources whether all 200 were musketeers. I strongly suspect they were, but it is possible that some were pike men. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
    • Clarified to "Hopton consulted with his commanders". Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
  • Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
    • Yeah, I was avoiding close para-phrasing. I'll need to check the source text before I make a change. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Changed to your second suggestion. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one too. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Clarified this. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".
    • Yes, I'm pretty haphazard with this, but they should all be fixed now. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
    • Simplified to "wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....
    • Changed to "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately this has moved well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion or much activity at all. I've placed it on the Urgents list but it will be archived in the coming days if it does not receive significant attention soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Will the completion of the standing reviews do? Otherwise I can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check. Revert at will.

  • "but they were forced to leave the town on 6 August" Worth, IMO, clarifying that "the town" is Wells, lest readers, not unreasonably, take it to be Marshall's Elm.
  • "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town" Do you mean that 'Hopton established that Babylon Hill was a suitable location from which to watch the town', or that 'Hopton established himself on Babylon Hill, a suitable location to watch the town'?
    • Well, both. Tweaked to hopefully capture both meanings without getting too clunky. Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave this a pretty thorough going over at ACR, but even so, I am surprised that this is all that I can find to pick at. I must be losing my touch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, oh! I am so wanting to give a "humorous" response, but all of those I can think of are too open to misinterpretation. Seriously, your articles are always well written, and this one especially so. Yeah, IMO that meets all of the FA criteria 1, 2 and 4 bar 1c (sources - signed off above). Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • Inconsistent use of alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
    • Trimmed down to "they spotted Parliamentarian soldiers approaching"
  • "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
    • Changed to "though sections of both forces were routed"
  • "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
    • And yet, that is what the sources tell us happened. "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe ; and Capt. Moreton, being a litle too neere him, was likewise broaken with the same shocke". Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
    • Added into the lead. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
    • No; have rephrased this to "In a letter written by.."
  • "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
    • Good spot; have expanded to "In his account of the battle, the historian Robert Morris.."
  • Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
    • Another good point. I have swapped them as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your review; "the language is sometimes clumsy" is essentially my style, much as I strive to improve! I have responded to each point above, mostly adopting your advice directly, but sometimes with variation as noted. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Asperger syndrome

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

  • I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
  • Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
  • The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
  • The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.
Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.
The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:
  • What citations do you think are missing?
  • Which do you think are unreliable?
  • What are the weasel words?
  • Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?
Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [16]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.
Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Big Bang

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because this was last reviewed for FA status in 2007 and our FA standards have acceleratedly expanded since then. The "Misconceptions" section is a mess and can stand to be better formatted. The "Overview" section, which might not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag on it; there are also many uncited paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. I raised these concerns on the talk page two weeks ago but little work has been done on the article since then and there was no response on the talk page. This is also a Level 3 Vital Article, making this even more important. Overall, I don't think that this represents Wikipedia's best work, although there isn't anything that can't be reasonably fixed in the course of an FAR. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Please go ahead and improve the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Something that needs fixing is the lack of alt= on the images. This is needed for accessibility. I think that the overall size, number of sections and pictures is fine. But perhaps there could be some more tables, perhaps a Penrose diagram. Perhaps there is a suitable infobox exists for astronomical event, as it is not quite an object. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The image which appears in the lead,
    Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
    , is seriously misleading and deficient. No scale is given. The image makes it appear that the expansion suddenly slowed at the end of the inflationary period (which is false) and that the universe is only slightly larger now than it was then (also false). No doubt there are other errors in the details of the image. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed the "Overview" section and rearranged the content somewhat. However, I noticed that there's a large "Further Reading" list. Such lists are absent in the majority of Featured Articles, as generally speaking a source that belongs in a Further Reading list for most articles should be incorporated into a Featured Article to make the article as comprehensive as possible. There are of course exceptions, and this topic is certainly niche enough to have readings that would make good further reading while being too specialized for a general encyclopedia, but I wonder if someone who knows more about cosmology would be willing to check out these sources and see whether they can be incorporated into the article's prose. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the Beyond the Big Bang section supposed to talk about? It's title it extremely vague, and its prose is highly convoluted (at least for me, a layman). Is it trying to say hypotheses for the origin of the initial singularity? I'm sure the Misconceptions section could be merged into this one if that's the case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe that it's about the limitations of the model and potential expansions on it (such as eternal inflation, brane cosmology, etc.), but the first paragraph doesn't seem to jibe well with it. I think that the first paragraph can be removed and each of the competing theories can be expanded to each have their own paragraph rather than a bullet point (subject to FRINGE, of course). I disagree that the Misconceptions should be merged into it, but I agree that both sections could stand to be greatly expanded. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I usually see this subject referred to as "Pre-big-bang cosmology", since it appears to be exploring the extended origins of the big bang event. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have e-mailed Sean M. Carroll about this article and asked him to review it for its physics. I doubt that there's much wrong with the article in that respect (my major qualms are rather with presentation and prose), but I think it'd be nice to have a pair of expert eyes on it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking through the article I noticed that the value of Hubble's constant was given as measured by the WMAP but that no mention was made of the discrepancy between that value and the one provided by the cosmic microwave background as detailed here (admittedly not the best source, but hopefully it's adequate for what I'm saying). I don't think it's that terribly important for the article, but I think some mention of it could be made. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, and Double sharp: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may only be of much help for the little bit about Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but I'll give it a look. ^_^ Something that comes to mind immediately is that the section on BBN as evidence comes a bit out of the blue: we have only so far had a brief mention that that happened during the first few minutes, and then we hear about abundances of nuclides all the way up to those minuscule little traces of lithium-7. So I would guess that the organisation needs quite some improvement, if I can spot this on a quick reading of the part I understand the best. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
R8R review

Not the topic I am most competent in, but I think I've got a good mix of more or less generally understanding what's going on and not being an expert in details (I've read a few pop-sci books from authors like Michio Kaku, and I've just recently started to watch videos from Fermilab to refresh my knowledge). I usually strive to make my articles readable for as many people as possible, so I hope I'll be able to provide you a review you'll find useful. But I'm afraid I'll only have enough spare time in a week or so. I hope that is okay.--R8R (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ComplexRational

I'll drop a few comments, but I may be busy and only focus on areas where I generally have a better understanding of the specific content and jump around between sections (though I will try to keep order within). At first glance, I'm seeing lots of uncited statements and areas where the prose needs work.

Here are a few examples from some sections:

Horizons
  • Here, and throughout the article, all first- and second-person language (we, our) needs to be eliminated, as do phrases such as "catch up" (note the quotes in the article text). This is not formal or encyclopedic prose.
  • This defines a future horizon, which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. – I get a general idea of what this means, but I feel it could be better explained to the layperson and am inclined to ask "why?"
  • though the horizon recedes in space – not entirely clear what this means
  • Even with the hatnote, this could be elaborated upon. Why are horizons so important as suggested in the opening sentence?
Cosmic acceleration
  • a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. – this is uncited and uses language that suggests too much speculation; even though the science is not confirmed, this could be worded in a more encyclopedic way.
  • after numerous billion years of expansion – I'm pretty sure we can replace this with a number, and one that does not connote "numerous"
  • prior to 10−15 seconds or so – minor and easily fixable by itself, but I hope this isn't reflective of informality or prose issues throughout the article
  • Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. – citation needed
Miscellany
  • I would recommend introducing all individuals and their credentials, so the reader has more context and does not believe arbitrary people are being introduced. English astronomer Fred Hoyle is a good example of this. I could go ahead and make the changes myself, but the prose might still need some adjustment.

I'll post some more comments and look at other sections later on. From this, I see several recurring issues that are workable; I'm not convinced criteria 1a, 1c, and 1d are entirely met. ComplexRational (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This may or may not apply to your work, but I thought it was appropriate to let you know of this. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am actually a condensed matter physicist, but I will try to have a look (can not guuarantee I will understand the details, and in any case I am mostly travelling for the next two days).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, Double sharp, and Ymblanter: FAR and FARC work at a much slower pace than FAC. The original nominator/writer of this article is gone, so the question now is if someone wants to take this article on and bring it back to standard. If someone is willing to work on it, the article can hold in the FAR phase as long as work is progressing. If the problems are too great, or if no one is willing to take on the repairs, then our next step is to give the Coordinators an indication to move this to the FARC (removal) phase, by entering a Move to FARC declaration. Then, in the FARC phase, it still has a couple of more weeks, where if repairs don't happen, we !vote to Delist (or Keep if they do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for clarification. I'm in no hurry; if RL allows, I may even try to patch a few things up myself. My above comments were just short samples of the main issues I believe are present throughout the article, and hopefully a guide for others to chime in. ComplexRational (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to assist bringing the prose up to standard but I'm interested in further commentary on how the article meets 1c and 1d. There, I'm at a complete loss. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My personal thoughts on that matter are that the sources are currently too primary for my liking; there are probably quite a few secondary sources given that this is the Big Bang we're talking about, so this seems to not live up to 1c as well as it could. This does seem neutral, IMO, although perhaps the "Beyond the Big Bang" section could be looked at by someone with more expertise in cosmology (Dr. Carroll unfortunately never got back to me) to weed out the fringier, although eternal inflation and its competitors are legitimate enough for some discussion there IMO. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • An enumeration of secondary sources that should be consulted is probably the most helpful next step here, if work is in fact to proceed. It would also give us an idea of just how much work is needed, so we could better gauge if it is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not an expert in cosmology, but the Further Reading looks like a good place to start. I'll look through that list and narrow it down (or expand it) from there. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The primary citations to Milne, Tolman, and Zwicky caught my eye but maybe those are appropriate. It seems odd to my untrained eye to speak of three formative works and cite the works themselves rather than a secondary source explaining their relevance. I live in fear of Further Reading sections because sometimes they are lazy receptacles for stuff the author didn't have time to review. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I initially thought that those citations were appropriate as well, but then I thought and became sure that there had to be some secondary sources that mentioned the discredited rivals. I agree that Further Reading sections tend to be anathema to FA status as I've said above, though perhaps it might be appropriate in this complex area. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. I think it's important to note here that the expansion of space alone is insufficient for this to be true; if space were expanding at a constant (even superluminal) rate light would still theoretically eventually reach us due to something similar to the ant on a rubber rope. The expansion is accelerating, hence why this is true. I don't have an authoritative source on that, but I think it should be added when one is found. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 08:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps it is better to keep specific text suggestions at the talk page of the article, and focus here on giving the Coords information about whether to move to FARC, work is ongoing, what work is still needed, etc. Otherwise, this review is going to grow extremely large. We have enough indications now that there are problems; resolving those problems can move to article talk, with periodic updates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I just didn't want to add unsourced material, and I didn't think enough people were looking at the talk page, although they probably are now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

List of possible secondary sources

  • Barrow, John D. (1994). The Origin of the Universe. Science Masters. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-81497-9. LCCN 94006343. OCLC 490957073. – This looks like a decent work, but it predates the 1998 discovery of dark energy that is present in our Universe so should be treated with caution in that respect.
  • Weinberg, Steven (2008). Cosmology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852682-7. – A more modern textbook from a Nobel laureate.
  • Greene, Brian (2011). The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. ISBN 978-0307278128. – A speculative work from a string theorist, but I think it is authoritative enough for the "Beyond the Big Bang" section on eternal inflation, etc..
  • This is not at all exhaustive, there's also Physical cosmology#Textbooks.

John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

    • All of these are quite old. I limited my search at Google Scholar to 2016 oldest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I tended to look for more general books rather than sources like journals; the book sources I think are more appropriate for the basics (expanding space, the history of the theory, etc.), while journal articles should be used for cutting edge things like eternal inflation and string theory. This is of course not a strict dichotomy, but I think the sources given are still adequate and authoritative. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is well-cited by other works according to Google Scholar: Calcagni
  • Cited by 500 according to Google Scholar: Cyburt
  • Another highly-cited article according to Google Scholar: Freedman

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can get Calcagni from the local university library. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Original: Original:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates