Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, 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. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore 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 want to 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 emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Michelle Williams (actress)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Michelle Williams. Among her many roles, she has played a young girl whose family murders their matriarch; a meek woman tragically married to a gay man; a woman whose husband and son are killed in a terrorist attack; a vagrant whose only attachment is to her missing dog; a housewife who drowns her own children; a depressed wife whose marriage is ending; a suicidal and insecure actress with a drug problem; a woman who had sexual relations with a grown man at the age of 12; a mother who loses all her children in a house fire; and another mother who receives her son's mutilated ear in her morning mail. Hmm... so if you're still upbeat about this, please share your thoughts. "Happy" reading. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

First read-though:
1980–1995: Early life:

  • "Although she described her family as": Would "although she has described..." be better here?
  • "Williams has recounted fond memories of her growing up": Consider removing "her"?
  • "She said of the experience": I'm just making these comments on the fly and haven't had a chance to read through everything, so not sure if my suggesting this throughout might make the overall tone "heavier" but consider "she has said"? If you want to wait until I get through the article to see how many more instances of this there would be, that's okay.
  • "about a young boy's (played by Tom Guiry)": Slightly awkward since "boy's" is a possessive, but if you can't find a better way to reword this, I can live with it. Moisejp (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles:

  • "which despite selling to a production company was never made": Clause's subject seems to change midway here. "...despite being sold to a production company was never made" would be one way to resolve the issue but there may be other ways that flow better. Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "co-starring James Van Der Beek, Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson": So far elsewhere you seem to be using serial commas, but there is none here.
  • "she preferred living there over Los Angeles": Consider cutting or expanding. Feels tagged on and incomplete as is.
  • "In a review of the first season for The New York Times, Caryn James called it a soap opera that was "redeemed by intelligence and sharp writing" and found Williams "too earnest to suit this otherwise shrewdly tongue-in-cheek cast" ": For me, "and found" doesn't flow perfectly, maybe because there is "redeemed", which breaks up the flow, and makes it harder for the reader to instantly tie "found" to subject "Caryn James". Also, should it be "but found" instead of "and found", since what comes before is positive and what comes after is negative?
  • "Ray Richmond of Variety labeled it "an addictive drama with considerable heart" and found...": Two sentences in a row with "found"—better to avoid this if possible.
  • "a rating's success": Should it be "ratings success"?
  • "but she found it difficult to come to terms with her sudden fame": Like "she preferred living there over Los Angeles" above, I feel this idea would be better either expanded or removed. Moisejp (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "admitted that she had not been fully invested in it": Perhaps "she had not fully invested herself in it" would be clearer to make clear that it was her and not external forces doing the investing.
  • "She said that the financial stability of a steady job...": Another candidate to consider making present perfect ("has said"), as—based on the year of the article—this seems to have been said after the fact.
  • "in which she and Kirsten Dunst played young girls obsessed with Richard Nixon.[30][7]": Minor comment (no strong opinion about this) but I wonder whether if they were teenagers, "young girls" could be ambiguous—it could suggest younger than they were. Also, I suggest switching the order of the refs so the smaller number comes first (which you do elsewhere, but I know it can be easy for orders to change during editing when juggling lots of refs).Moisejp (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Halmyros[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Halmyros was a pivotal event in medieval Greek history, ending the first century of the Frankokratia with the rout of the Duchy of Athens and the installation of the Catalan Company as masters over much of central Greece, much to the consternation of pretty much every other power in the region. The article has been worked on-and-of since 2014, and has passed GAC and more recently, MILHIST's ACR, much to its benefit on both cases. I feel it is complete both content- and context-wise, and includes the best relevant scholarship. Any further suggestions to improve it will, of course, be most welcome. Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Gran-Companyia-Catalana-segell-1305.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

British logistics in the Falklands War[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aspect of the Falklands War. If you've heard of this war, you're probably Gen X or older. It has long since become an historical footnote, but is of great interest to logisticians as a high-intensity conflict fought with modern weapons in a remote location lacking roads, thousands of miles from the nearest bases. The article has an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kate Sheppard[edit]

Nominator(s): gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the leader of the New Zealand suffrage movement, which gained votes for women 125 years ago on 19 September 1893.-gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the comic and petition
  • File:Julius_Vogel,_ca_1870s.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Women's_Suffrage_Petition_1893_(9365778997).jpg, File:National_Council_of_Women,_Christchurch,_1896.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've scaled up the images suggested. I think perhaps the petition is now too large but I'll leave it for further comment.
    • Each of the three images you identify have rationales as to why they are in the public domain in New Zealand. I'm not a copyright expert, and if these rationals are not sufficient, I'm happy to remove the images from the article. The photographer of the Vogel portrait died in 1919 and the photo was taken in the 1870s, so it is clearly public domain as New Zealand uses life of author plus 50 years.[1] For the petition, if you accept the copyright belongs to the original petition and not the much later digitisation of it, Sheppard was the author and she died in 1934. The photo of the National Council of Women has an unknown photographer, so its copyright status depends on when it was published. I am not clear on whether this photo was published in the NZ Graphic in 1896, or a similar photo was published there. @Schwede66: might have more information.-gadfium 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The primary issue in these cases is the US status - they currently use tags indicating a pre-1923 publication, not simply creation. If a pre-1923 publication can't be demonstrated, a different tag would need to be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I would happily change the tags of the first two to PD-old-70, but that tag says it also needs a US-specific tag. This needs someone well-versed in copyright law to sort out.-gadfium 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I have changed the tags of these three images to PD-US-unpublished. If there is evidence found that any have been published, then the original tags were correct. If this is not an acceptable solution, I will request assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.-gadfium 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I've looked into the issue whether the third photo (New Zealand Council of Women) was published in the 16 May 1896 edition of The New Zealand Graphic as implied by the National Library entry. I'd say this is highly likely (what else would they mean by giving this reference?). But one way to know for sure is to go to a library and have a look. Nine libraries hold copies of this journal and the closest one to me is the Canterbury Museum Documentary Research Centre. If needed, I'd be happy to enquire with them (a) whether they hold this edition and (b) whether they give me access. Let me know if it's needed. Schwede66 05:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedits, and your support. You have a great ability to turn convoluted prose into plain English!-gadfium 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Your writing is in very good shape, and easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments

Looks good.

  • fn 100, 101, 106, 108, 116 and 117 differ from the rest. Suggest moving them down into the sources to match.
  • On the other hand, "Women and the vote: Introduction" and "1893 women's suffrage petition" from New Zealand History are not used in the article. Suggest moving them to the Further Reading section.
  • I had to click on the link to find out what they call "football" in New Zealand
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll tackle these in the morning, about 12 hours from now.-gadfium 06:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Done.-gadfium 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Army of Sambre and Meuse[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the French army engaged in the Campaigns of 1795-96. It was part of a major campaign in 1796 which resulted, initially, in French incursians well into the Holy Roman Empire. With supply lines stretched, and infighting among generals, this army and the Army of the Rhine and Moselle were forced back to France. As usual, I have used a citation system common among US academics, and generally used in dissertations. It's what I know. This article has undergone extensive editing and perusal at the MilHist A-class review (and earlier). I look forward to your comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png, File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what do the different colours represent?
  • File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png: not clear to me from looking at this which colour would be considered "light cream"
  • Suggest rephrasing caption of the location map to make clear that the "triangle" refers to the position of the three cities, rather than an actual visible triangle
  • File:Fusilier_Révolution_française.jpg: on what source is this image based?
  • File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png: what is the source for this graph?
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data for this map?
  • File:L'armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse,_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Jean-Victor_Moreau.jpg, File:Marechal_François-Joseph_Lefebvre.jpg
  • File:Général_Jean_Étienne_Vachier_detto_Championnet_(3).jpg needs a US PD tag and a better source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Northern gannet[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We have buffed this article, which was built up by a former editor. It got a good going-over at GAN and I feel it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This article has a complex history. Before the recent edits this article was based on a translation of the article on Spanish wikipedia (see talk page template and edit here in Oct 2013 which was in turn a translation of the article on Galician (!) wikipedia see edits beginning in Sep 2008. The Galician article was clearly translated from the German version of April 2007 see this edit. The various translations retained the German references with S.=Seite=page and Band=volume.

As a result the current English article cites the German book Der Basstölpel Reinsch 1969 on 24 occasions. Clearly at the very least these need to be checked for accuracy, but I believe they should be replaced by cites to English language sources. Citing a German book for this article impedes the verification process; there are plenty of English language sources available and Reinsch doesn't appear to be an authority on this species - he isn't mentioned in the primary literature. Citations to Nelson 2010 also need to be checked.

I added all the Nelson 2010 ones, replacing the older ones based on the Gannet book. Will look to replacing Reinsch. I realised as I read source material that some segments had been mistranslated and removed/readjusted them to the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed any remaining Reinsch refs, modifying and updating the text as required and with newer English refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

  • I'm not sure on this but I wonder whether a year should be included with the number of pairs in each colony. The numbers can easily become out of date (see Bonaventure below)
I have been debating this. On thinking about it, strikes me as a bit clunky prose-wise but given the variability of the colony sizes not a bad thing...added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

  • "The specific name bassanus is from the Bass Rock in the Firth of Forth, which holds the world's largest colony of northern gannets.[8]" Jobling doesn't mention largest colony.
  • "The ornithologist Bryan Nelson supported the species' inclusion in Sula..." This sentence needs slightly more context. (I notice that Peters and HBW also placed the gannets in Sula.)
Expanded Nelson's reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Breeding colonies

  • "Bonaventure Island off the south coast of Quebec is the largest colony with 32,000 nests."[44] - but the more recent Ref 63 Chardine et al 2013 p.190 has 59,586 breeding pairs (say 60,000) - 2009 data. The number is also out-of-date in the lead.

Breeding

  • "The typical lifespan is 17 years." The article needs to explain that this is the life expectancy once they reach breeding age (5 years) see here. (calculated using lifespan=5 + (-1/ln(0.919))=16.8 )

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More comments

Breeding

  • "...so they stay at sea learning to fish and fly." Perhaps worth mentioning that when juveniles fledge they can barely fly. Cramp p. 190 has "Young leave nest sites before able to fly and begin dispersal by swimming". Nelson 1964 (Scottish Birds) has p.134 "Usually it jumps off the cliff edge and flies straight out to sea. Once having alighted it is unable to rise again for some time (possibly two weeks or more) and does not return to the nest to be fed." I haven't Nelson 1978/2010 or Nelson 2005.

In culture

  • "The Bird Rock colony in the Gulf of St Lawrence..." Bird Rocks
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nelson 1966 "The breeding biology of the gannet Sula Bassana on the Bass Rock, Scotland" Ibis 108 (4) 584-626 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1966.tb07210.x I cannot access this article but the abstract gives the average weight of an egg as 104.5g - This can be used as a source - exactly the same number is currently cited to Reinsch 1969, p. 59.
I replaced the ref. I suspect Reinsch obtained the value from Nelson anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Supported above - great work -Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will review as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "as Anser bassanus or scoticus" Under which circumstances did the describer use two different names?
  • Gesner simply presents them as alternatives with no explanation at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
NB: This is not surprising given it is four centuries ago.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "noting that the locals called it solendguse" The locals where?
  • "is compatriot the Louis Vieillot" Seems something is missing?
  • The various genus names listed under taxonomy are not linked.
  • "The ornithologist Bryan Nelson supported the species' inclusion" When? You give dates for other revisions.
  • 2010? I had assumed that this is the date of the reprint - the text was originally published in 1978. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention a lot of synonyms combinations under taxonomy, so these and their authorities should also be listed in the taxobox, no?
  • Seems to have been done, we wouldn't normally include pre-Linneaen names such as Gessner's Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "or "parliament goose, missing last quotation mark.
  • So which of the other gannets is its closest relation?
  • The other two are very closely related to each other, so it might be tricky to find something that answers your question, I'll poke around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My reading was that the next closest lineage was the common ancestor that then diverged to the Cape and Australasian gannets. Hence the answer is "both" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems the two maps could be combined into one? They contain essentially the same information. But no big deal, the map in the taxobox just seems to make the breeding map redundant, though the latter is of course in higher res.
  • "Anatomical adaptations" Since everything listed earlier in description are also "anatomical adaptations", I think you need to be more specific here. Perhaps "Anatomical adaptations for diving" or such.
  • "The four toes feet" Toed?
  • The images seem a bit cluttered on the right side, perhaps stagger some of them?
  • I'm not keen, I'd rather lose an image or two, let's see what Cas thinks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you cna use the space more eficiently if you shift the images up so that the diving bird is shown directly under behaviour (where flying is also discussed)? FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "The northern species has more white" Which is the Northern species? Perhaps clearer to just use the name.
  • I thought "northern" was nominally and geographically pretty clear, but changed as requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had deleted this point after I realised the same, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "According to the ornithologist Bryan Nelson" Not sure why you need a link all the way down here, the word is already mentioned under taxonomy.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "hey lack external nostrils and their secondary nostrils can be closed when they are under water." So where are the nostrils located?
  • "The lungs are highly developed" What does this mean? Developed for what?
  • "dense down feather" Feathers?
  • I think the intro needs more description of its colouration than just "mainly white".
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • " the largest member of the gannet family, Sulidae." The article body says "making it the largest seabird native to the western Palearctic", which is somewhat different, perhaps consolidate the two.
  • "This translation by James Fisher" Cite?
  • "68% of the world population breeds around the coasts of the British Isles." No source.
  • "appear white when seen from a distance, due to the number of nests present on them" And surely because of the excrements, no?
  • The brilliant white gannets are far more obvious and whiter than the excrement, which is largely hidden by the sitting birds anyway. If you look at File:Fous de bassan Bonnaventure.JPG I think it's pretty clear that the birds are what you see. I'll add the excrement if you think it's worth it, but that seems close to OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah, it was more of a question, I see the excrements aren't that apparent... FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Alderney be grouped with the UK rather than separately?
  • No, it's a crown dependency with its own legislature, taxes etc, not part of the UK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "in 2000'" what's that last apostrophe for? Instead of a comma?
  • "around 40 km north" Needs conversion.
  • "The species has been recorded as a vagrant in ... Svalbard" But it breeds there? So I guess that was before?
  • Are all those external links needed? Some seem redundant in relation to what's already in the article.
  • Cut to two, feel free to remove those if you think they are unneed, I'm no fan of ELs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There does not seem to be any physical description of the egg? At least the colour should be stated.
I added egg details Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Basstölpel_(Sula_bassana)_world.png: suggest including a legend clarifying the meaning of the dots, and also adding a source to the description page
  • File:Leucothea_Allasseur_cour_Carree_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added PD-old, PD-US

Abby (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American television sitcom created by Nat Bernstein and Michael Katlin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from January 6, 2003, to March 4, 2003. The show revolves around television producer Abigail "Abby" Walker (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) and her relationship with her ex-boyfriend Will Jeffries (Kadeem Hardison). After they break-up in the pilot episode, they agree to live together as friends in their rent controlled San Francisco apartment. The supporting cast includes Randy J. Goodwin, Tangie Ambrose, and Sean O'Bryan. Critics classified Abby as a sex comedy and a romantic comedy. Commentators often criticized its reliance on sexual humor, though Poitier's acting was praised by critics.

This is my sixth FAC nomination for a UPN television show, with the other five being Love, Inc., Eve, Mercy Point, Chains of Love, and All Souls. It is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Weathers[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Weathers was an Australian soldier who was awarded the Victoria Cross during World War I, although he was killed near the end of the war and before learning he was to receive it. When he returned to his mates after the actions that earned him the VC, his uniform was covered in mud, he had blood running down his face, and had five days' stubble on his chin. He was also festooned "like a Christmas tree" with souvenired German binoculars and pistols. He, assisted by a few others had captured 180 Germans and three machine guns. It is a fairly brief article, but his life was short, and I believe I've captured everything about him available from reliable sources. This is the latest from a long-term project I'm working on to get all South Australian VC recipients to FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria!
  • Support on prose. Seems small but perfectly formed to me; nice article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

AirTrain JFK[edit]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free). The article was passed as a Good Article in October. I think I have found all the high-quality and relevant sources about this topic that I can find, so I have nominated this page for Featured Article status. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan[edit]

Nominator(s): Harut111 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a German-Armenian singer-songwriter and actress Iveta Mukuchyan. Harut111 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia[edit]

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a spinosaurid dinosaur discovered in Brazil, it has undergone a successful GA-review by Funkmonk, a peer review, a copy edit at the guild, and the restoration has been thoroughly checked at WP:DINOART. The contributions/expansions I've made to Oxalaia are part of a project of mine to bring all spinosaurid articles to at least GA status and half to FA, in hopes of it being a good/featured topic in the future. This is the second spinosaurid article to be nominated for FA after Baryonyx. I'm happy with how much it has grown over the past few months and I believe the article fits the criteria, I am the major contributor for Oxalaia though, so it could benefit from a pair or more of extra eyes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • I have already mentioned this problem during the image review, and elaborating on it now: The legs in both the hypothetical life reconstruction and the scale chart are too short. I know they are based on the Ibrahim et al. (2014) reconstruction of the related Spinosaurus. However, I don't know of a source stating that Oxalaia might have had similar body proportions than Spinosaurus; on the contrary, the recent reconstruction of a Brazilian spinosaurine by Aureliano et al. 2018 shows proportions typical for all other spinosaurids. Importantly, Ibrahim et al. specifically state that with legs this short it "must have been an obligate quadruped on land". Bipedality with proportions like these is, plainly speaking, impossible, simply due to the anterior position of the center of mass. Yet, you reconstruct it as a biped, thus mixing separate hypothesis that cannot be mixed and violating Wikipedia:No original research. The only serious way to reconstruct the species is to stick to the sources (the Aureliano reconstruction).
We already discussed this in the image review, the Ibrahim et al. hypothesis on quadrupedalism has largely fallen out of favor, most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs. If we're going by Ibrahim et al. alone then these[2][3][4] restorations on the Spinosaurus article should be removed. One of the most well-known characteristics of theropod arms is that they were simply not built to bear weight, the animal's shoulders would be driven back into its neck if it tried this; resulting in internal decapitation. As for the Auerliano et al. specimen, it originates from the Ariape Basin and likely belongs to Irritator or Angaturama, both of which have of course been restored with longer legs. However, due to Oxalaia being most closely related to Spinosaurus, it follows logic that Spinosaurus should be used as a basis for the restoration. The chimera hypothesis has also been refuted, such as in this 2017 abstract.[5] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to butt in, but I don't see how the latter issue about showing it as a biped with a short legs is an issue when every single Spinosaurus reconstruction (rightfully) shows a bipedal posture as well. If you think that's an issue as well, surely a statement from a reputable palaeontologist could be found arguing against quadrupedality. I would also refute the idea that giving it short legs is excessively WP:OR; we reconstruct prehistoric animals using phylogenetic bracketing, inferring from their closest relatives, and in this case the closest relative with known limb proportions is Spinosaurus, not Baryonyx. I could claim WP:OR on Paranthodon having a reconstruction showing shoulder spines, but that would be dumb. Regarding Aureliano's study, they made no specific mention of Oxalaia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not question that there are arguments against quadrupedality, and I'm certainly not asking for reconstructing it like this. But if you want to keep the proportions proposed by this single and still controversial paper, then you should reconstruct it the same way they did: swimming. Yes, I do feel that any image showing the Ibrahim Spinosaurus engaging in bipedal locomotion should be removed. Ibrahim himself stated that this is not possible, and as long as this hasn't been questioned, it is OR to reconstruct it this way. You are arguing that most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs – not sure how you come to this conclusion; if there really is a published paper to source this, please tell me which, I would be very interested in it. And no, Phylogenetic bracketing does only work when you have at least two species to span the bracket, here you only have Spinosaurus, thus no bracket. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's appeared in the literature, but nearly every reputable palaeontologist who's touched on the issue online has thought of the idea of at best unsupported and at worst utterly ridiculous. Anyway, I suppose you're correct it's not "bracketing", in the true sense, but we're still inferring from the closest relative, which is A-okay within the guidelines of WP:DINO. Any suggestion of longer legs would also fail to make a bracket, and it would be inferring based off of more distant relatives. If short legs aren't acceptable, then long legs are even worse. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It hasn't appeared so much in official publications from what I can tell. The controversy behind the hind limb size has been largely sorted out, such as in the abstract previously mentioned, and these discussions between Ibrahim et al. with Scott Hartman and Mark Witton.[6][7] However, the quadrupedalism continues to be met with heavy skepticism, a single scientific publication (Ibrahim et al. (2014)) cannot simply contradict one of the most basic principles of dinosaur anatomy that even most amateurs are aware of. Read how Jaime Headden touches on the subject,[8] Although a blog might not exactly be a "serious" source, these are still statements by a reputable person that is well-versed in paleobiology and biomechanics. As it is, I would like to get back to working on fixes to the article for FA. This is turning into a discussion on dinosaur anatomy more one for how to improve content on Wikipedia. As I said in the image review, if further scientific scrutiny confirms the ability of theropod hands and shoulders to somehow withstand the full weight of a 15 meter long creature without shattering, then I shall change my drawing. This is too much thought to put into speculative paleoart that will likely be fully replaced if more complete skeletal material is ever found. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Phylogenetic inferring from a sister-group relationship alone has no justification, as the feature in question might well be an autapomorphy. You would do better reconstructing it based on the synapomorphies of a clade that is a little bit more inclusive. Alternatively, considering that this genus is only known from two jaw fragments, simply removing the two hypothetical reconstructions might even be the most honest solution. The issue with the Spinosaurus legs is independent from this. No, I don't think anything has been sorted out regarding the chimera hypothesis, the abstract you are citing is not a refutation; these are basically the same authors of the original Ibrahim study – if they have to defend their work in such a way, it only shows the opposite: that there is disagreement. All the blogs you are now citing do actually support my point: the Ibrahim reconstruction is incompatible with bipedal locomotion. Still, you base the reconstruction on it, leading to a thing violating basic laws of physics. I said everything there is to say, and now leave this point for others to decide. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: Read your recent addition only now. As I explained above, I certainly do not ask you to reconstruct it in a quadrupedal pose. Rather, it is OK if you 1) reconstruct it in a swimming pose as in the original (although I personally don't favor this option), 2) reconstruct it based on synapomorphies of its clade, or 3) do not reconstruct it at all. But as it currently is, it is OR and certainly not what any of the paleontologists involved had in mind, and therefore I am unable to support the nomination. But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Like I alluded to earlier, though, precedent says it's fine to include speculative reconstructions in FAs about fragmentary taxa, like Dromaeosauroides and Paranthodon, nor does it, in my opinion, fall under any of the criteria for removing an image listed at WP:DINO and WP:DINOART. As far as I can tell you're criticizing it based on your own view of it without precedent or guidelines backing your claim it should be removed up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
But that was never my point. My point is that the reconstructions are incorrect and not in agreement with any published source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It appears we cannot come to an agreement on this. As far as I'm aware, there must be consensus and these particular points must have been addressed, otherwise this review cannot properly proceed. Inquiring FunkMonk and IJReid for opinions on this matter, since they have experience with dinosaur FAs. Also because if what you've said is true, then none of these[9][10][11][12][13][14] images belong on Wikipedia articles and certainly not on Featured ones. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems that Jens is saying that the reconstruction should be more conservative because we only know of one spinosaurid with leg proportions like that (or at least that single specimen assigned to Spinosaurus that is not even from the same formation), while all others don't. And Spinosaurus is thought not to have been bipedal due to those proportions, so we can't have it both ways; either it has short legs and is not bipedal, or it has normal legs and is bipedal. He's not arguing against speculative restorations in general, just saying they should not introduce controversial ideas, and that's more in line with FAC criteria than "regular" articles. So I think it's a valid point, and also keep in mind that Jens is an actual palaeontologist, whereas I'm just some guy reading about dinosaurs in my spare time. As for the other images, it seems they have the problem of showing Spinosaurus as bipedal, but at least it is less controversial to show the weird proportions there, because they show Spinosaurus itself. One of them is also from a scientific publication (the one by Knüppe). FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Due to the fact no consensus can be reached, I suggest the reconstruction simple be removed, a situation I think nobody will be outright opposed to, even if it's not everybody's preferred solution (and thinking over it again, I'm beginning to agree more with Jens, but I digress). Alternatively, a reconstruction not showing the legs, perhaps with it in water, might be useful. As far the Spinosaurus issue, I suggest we discuss that on its talk page, since it's a more complicated and pressing WP:SYNTH issue. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The water idea seems pretty good. As for the issue with Spinosaurus itself, I think that will not be solved for many years. Some independent researchers really need to look at that material, Sereno and friends seem a bit too entrenched. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I could redraw the legs and place it in the water, as Jens previously stated; such as in Tomopteryx's Halzkaraptor, would that be acceptable? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I was suggesting not having the legs visible at all so as to avoid the issue; presumably hidden under opaque water. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion we should go with Jens Lallensack and FunkMonk's previous idea, the legs should simply be redrawn to hover in a swimming pose on both images, so as to also not remove the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't half the dispute about their size in the first place though? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I was also thinking of hiding the legs entirely, but if Jens is ok with showing them under water, I'm ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That is fine I think, it just shouldn't show the animal engaging in bipedal locomotion. But it would be tricky to add water to the scale chart? This is how a recent paper solves the problem: [15]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Although I'm wondering if the scale chart is valid in the first place, because the size estimates presented by Kellner and colleagues (2011) were based on the traditional Spinosaurus reconstruction? Not sure how great the effect is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Water in the scale chart shouldn't be necessary, merely a floating swimming pose like with marine reptile size comparisons. I'm more worried about making the caption even longer; perhaps it could "Tentative size estimate, with the animal seen in a swimming position", with the text going into more detail? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we don't need to go into that much detail... But if we did, it wouldn't be that weird; captions in FAs are usually quite long anyways. Just look at the one on the Ceratosaurus scale chart, for example. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm half-done with the changes to the size chart and restoration, the new images will be up later at WP:DINOART. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem! Glad we could come to an agreement. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have a bunch of minor comments, more of which I will add the coming days:

  • (in reference to Oxalá) – maybe include "African deity" for explanation, as you have the same degree of explanation for the species name in the lead?
 Done
  • spinosaurid theropod dinosaur – this might be too many attributes for the first sentence; think about adding a separate sentence stating it belongs to Spinosauridae. Instead, adding "a poorly known genus" might be a helpful addition.
I'm not sure that's necessary, the same number of attributes (or more) are used in the opening sentences of Velociraptor, Dromaeosauroides, Tyrannosaurus, Diplodocus, and Deinonychus; five other FAs on theropods. And "a poorly known genus" seems redundant, since we already have "Oxalaia is known only from two partial skull bones" in the lead.
Only a very minor suggestion, I write down what comes to my head, and perhaps you are right here – the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • at the Alcântara Formation – "in" the Alcantara Formation? Also, I would explain what this thing is, e.g. "within the rocks of the Alcantara Formation".
 Done
  • Kellner et al. – avoid as many technical terms as possible, especially in the lead and especially when you used the alternative "and colleagues" before already.
 Done
  • including two replacement teeth – do you mean two replacement teeth in each tooth position?
 Done
  • that better distinguished it from other genera than the various tooth taxa named in the Spinosauridae such as Siamosaurus, which may become invalid in the future. – This does not seem like the place to have this information, it is not really relevant, I would remove.
 Done
  • This environment had a large variety of lifeforms also present in Middle-Cretaceous North Africa. – Maybe better explain why Middle-Cretaceous North Africa is important in this context.
 Done
  • Elaine Machado – better unlink, it does not appear to meet notability requirements.
 Done
  • some terms that needs a link and/or explanation: bone bed, holotype
 Done
  • and stated in a press release that "this is how most scientific discoveries happen, it was by accident" – since the source is in Portuguese you need to include the exact original quote as well, according to WP:MOS#Quotations.
Being worked on
How do I go about doing that? Can you give me some examples of the format on other articles, etc? Because there are a few quotes in Oxalaia originally in Portuguese, and I feel like simply writing down both the translation and the original would be rather awkward and cluttered, so I'm assuming this is done some other way.
  • The jaw fossils were presented at the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in March 2011, where the discoveries of Oxalaia […] were announced – Two issues. First, I do not understand what "presented at" means here, do you mean "presented by", and if so, where did they present (a journal?). Second, "where the discoveries of Oxalaia were announced" means the same as "the jaw fossils were presented", and is thus redundant.
 Done
  • surpassing the previous record holder Pycnonemosaurus that measured 8.9 metres (29.2 feet) – this reads like sensational fan-speech and is not professional; I would simply write something like "it is larger than Pycnonemosaurus, which was estimated at 8.9 metres by one study".
 Done
  • The maxilla extend forwards along the underside – the plural of maxilla is maxillae.
 Done
  • It cannot be confirmed whether this reduction in tooth number is due to ontogeny; for that, a larger sample size is necessary. – Unclear. Do you mean that it is unclear if the number of teeth got reduced during growth? This would be unusual, as the contrary is usually the case in dinosaurs.
 Done; fixed the wording, it was supposed to refer to the smaller quantity of teeth in the aforementioned Spinosaurus specimen (MSNM V4047).
  • It also features a shallow dent in the middle, suggesting it was located near the external nares (nasal openings) – but if so, wouldn't it be located more anteriorly than indicated in your head diagram?--Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done, I found this [16] diagram by the authors illustrating where the maxilla should go, I was off by one tooth. Also linked that source on the image information page.
  • it is also rounder than that of Spinosaurus – maybe add "in side view" (if correct) to be precise? Otherwise you might think it is rounded in top view or whatever.
 Done
  • The maxillae extend forwards along the underside; they are encased between the praemaxillae and border an elaborate, triangle-shaped pit in a structure known as the secondary palate. – A bit vague, it sounds like the secondary palate was located anterior to the anterior processes of the maxillae. I think the whole roof of the mouth formed by the premaxilla and maxilla should be called a secondary palate, thus the anterior processes would be part of it. Furthermore, it seems you lack a citation here, as I can't find a mention of the secondary palate in the Kellner paper.
 Done
  • This structure is more ornamented in Oxalaia than in other spinosaurids, which have smoother secondary palates. – But I think your source (Kellner) is only talking about the premaxillary part of the secondary palate, not about the maxillary part. It is generally safer to stick more closely with the original wording.
 Done
  • The two ventral processes of the maxilla are very thin and are also present in Suchomimus, Cristatusaurus, and MNHN SAM 124, although not as exposed – not sure what the ventral processes would be. Do you mean the anterior processes you were talking about in the previous sentences? If so, I would call them by name from the beginning on.
 Done
  • Another diastema of nearly equal length is found between the fifth and sixth alveoli; – I think you need singular here: alveolus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; – not sure about the use of outgroup in this context; maybe reformulate to avoid it.
  • they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan – what does this mean? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The subject of the above two suggestions was touched by Lusotitan, under his only comment marked as yellow tickY Partly done. Here is the original excerpt from the source: "Oxalaia is clearly more related to the African spinosaurines (Figs 8 and 10A). Hence, at least with respect to Angaturama and Oxalaia, the Brazilian spinosaurid taxa represent successive outgroups to the African spinosaurine material MSNM V4047 (and MNHN SAM 124). Spinosaurinae seem to have been more morphologically diverse than previously thought."[17] - Like I said below, I wasn't sure how to explain "successive outgroups" to general readers, so the sentence in the article looks to have come out with some undesirable results. Any idea how I can fix it? I'm still not certain. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lusotitan[edit]

Should the following comments be addressed, I'll be waiting on a resolution to the disagreement over the restoration before giving support:

  • I would link Alexander Kellner's article from his first mention in the taxobox as well.
 Done
  • ...during the Cenomanian of the Late Cretaceous, between 93.9 to 100.5 million years ago. - perhaps say "sometime between" instead here, since we don't have material across the entire Cenomanian.
 Done
  • Its fossils were found in 1999 on Cajual Island in the rocks of the Alcântara Formation... - a bit pedantic, perhaps, but "its" fossils doesn't quite feel right here, maybe "known fossils" instead? It doesn't own the fossils, it's a taxon. But again, I might be seeing nothing here. Don't feel obligated to implement this if you disagree.
 Done, you're right, it also kinda assumes that they're the only fossils left entirely.
  • ...which is known for its abundance of fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens. - correct me if I'm wrong, but even counting the isolated teeth I don't think there's enough specimens to qualify as an "abundance". Either way, "known for its abundant fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens" seems more natural here.
  • That's how most scientific papers on the Alcantara Formation describe and present it, besides teeth there are many isolated remains found there; although most are in a partial condition, it is still a rich fossil site. Also, "its abundance of" sounds more natural (at least to me), either way is grammatically correct though.
Okay, fair enough then.
  • ...who assigned the specimens to a new genus containing one species, Oxalaia quilombensis. - as the genus is monotypic, the binomial is another name for the article subject and should be bolded. I also usually like to mention that its the type species in sentences like these, but I'll grant this is a bit redundant.
 Done
  • Generally, the majority of fossil remains found at the Alcântara Formation consist of teeth and isolated skeletal elements, of which the Laje do Coringa site yields hundreds. - do the sources make it clear if this is hundreds per [unit of time, perhaps year] or merely that's it's yielded hundreds of specimens? If the former, that obviously needs including, if the latter, it should say "has yielded". If it's not clear, then there's not really anything that can be done and the statement is fine.
 Done, added "has yielded".
  • Besides the partial skull bones, numerous spinosaurid teeth had earlier been reported from the Laje do Coringa site. - do any sources indicate teeth have been found since? I would assume so, and if so then it should be mentioned they were found later as well. If not, obviously this can't be included the statement should be left alone.
  • I think it's probable that more teeth have been found since, but since it's not stated in any of the sources then yeah, the sentence should be left as it is.
  • The species description of Oxalaia, among many others, were composed into a volume of 20 works on prehistoric biodiversity that was published by the Academy in March 2011.[5][12] Oxalaia was described and named by Brazilian palaeontologists Alexander Kellner, Elaine Machado, Sergio Azevedeo, Deise Henriques, and Luciana Carvalho in 2011; - err, isn't this the same subject communicated slightly differently in two sentences in a row? Both are about the fact that Oxalaia was described in 2011, just with some different details added on.
 Done, Merged the two sentences into each other
  • the type species is Oxalaia quilombensis and as such is the eighth officially named species of theropod from Brazil. - I'm not really sure what the "and as such" is doing here.
 Done, well spotted! I do love removing a good redundancy.
  • The generic name Oxalaia is derived from the name of African deity Oxalá - looking at the article for the deity, it has many names, and "Oxalá" is only used in the section about the American beliefs. Is it known by this name in Africa? If not, "African deity Oxalá" isn't quite correct.
  • I'm not sure, the paper puts it as "The generic name comes from Oxalá, the most respected masculine deity in the African pantheon, introduced in Brazil during slavery"
Not a huge deal, it's not the topic of the article anyways.
  • Most general readers won't know what a specimen number is; most uses of them are accompanied by the word "specimen" or are in a list of taxa, but a few are isolated and could be confusing. Adding the word "specimen(s)" near these might be useful.
 Done, I added "specimen(s)" near a few more, but I feel like doing it for every single one would be jarring, perhaps only during the first mentions?
Seems fair to me.
  • The referred maxilla fragment (MN 6119-V) has two alveoli and a broken third one that includes a partial tooth. - since you were just talking about other taxa, I would say "The maxilla fragment referred to Oxalaia (MN 6119-V) has two...".
 Done
  • Both show typical spinosaurine dentition; morphotype II, however, has smoother tooth enamel. - is this smoother than morphotype I specifically, or compared to typical spinosaurine dentition? It's a bit unclear.
 Done, it shows smoother enamel than the morphotype, not typical spinosaurine teeth.
  • Oxalaia's remaining teeth display a closer morphology to morphotype I while the second grouping of teeth represent either worn down morphotype I teeth or an undescribed spinosaurine from the Alcântara Formation. - err, "remaining" teeth? The paragraph never established we were talking about some of its teeth.
 Done, removed "remaining".
  • The type elements of Oxalaia closely resemble those of the neotype and holotype fossils of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus - the given reference is from 2011, from before the description of the neotype. It can't possibly support an assertion the two specimens closely resemble each other.
 Done, I've not a clue as to how "neotype and holotype" got in there, it is supposed to refer to specimens MSNM V4047 and MNHN SAM 124 from Spinosaurus. Also added in the missing PLOS one reference to that sentence.
  • The other, more fragmentary taxa such as Siamosaurus and "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis are based only on teeth and might become invalid in the future, when they may be reassigned to Ichthyovenator, Spinosaurus, or Suchomimus. The habit of naming theropods from isolated teeth or tooth fragments has resulted in many invalid and synonymous genera; it has also occurred with spinosaurids and is compounded by the common lack of overlapping skeletal remains—a precondition of validly distinguishing taxa.[16][18] - this feels like it should be relevant, but nothing in this excerpt is tying any of this information to Oxalaia as opposed to just being about Spinosauridae. As things are, this passage does not belong in this article rather than the family-level one.
  • Most general readers won't be aware of the history of research into spinosaurids, and how many genera in the family are so tentatively assigned or referred to new genera. In comparison to Oxalaia, which has good enough remains that it can be considered separate from other taxa with more confidence, especially due to the overlapping remains with Angaturama, Spinosaurus, Cristatusaurus, etc. Therefore I think it should stay.
Fair enough then.
  • In 2017, a phylogenetic analysis by Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz showed that Oxalaia was more closely related to African spinosaurines than to Brazilian spinosaurines like Angaturama - I'd prefer this say "an analysis by [...] found that" to prevent it sounding like an objective statement.
 Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan, accounting for the small differences in their anatomies. - err, Oxalaia has no remains from the body. I see what this trying to say, but I feel it could be misleading (ex. a reader might feel this means they didn't have the short legs, when we don't know). Could a better term be found than "body plan"?
yellow tickY Partly done I see what you're trying to say, that is a problem, but I'm having difficulty finding another term. We might need more input on this, I believe it came as a byproduct of attempting to explain "successive outgroups" to lay readers.
  • All mentions of "diplodocids" should read diplodocoid; it's referring to what I presume are rebbachisaurids and dipldocoid is the term used in reference three.
 Done
  • Since "Titanosauridae" is not generally recognized as a single family, I think it'd be preferrable to use "titanosaur", since that's what the linked article is called anyway (an article that uses Titanosauria, which might be confusing from a link labelled "titanosaurid"). Titanosaurid is what's used in the reference, but "titanosaur" seems like an acceptable non-WP:SYNTH substitute as long as "titanosaurian" isn't used.
 Done
  • Reference three makes no reference of an abelisaurid; only the term abelisauroid used. Additionally, the reference says no large carnivores other than carcharodontosaurs and spinosaurs are present in the sample from Laje do Coringa, and that the only abelisauroid present is the Masiakasaurus-related noasaurid. As far as I can tell, the mention of an abelisaurid being present is entirely erroneous.
 Done, nice catch, I must've misread it as "abelisaurid".
  • Notosuchians are mentioned in reference three (with genera identified) but are absent from the list of contemporary taxa in the palaeoecology section; they are not crocodilians.
 Done, I forgot crocodilians are only a small part of the greater crocodylomorph superorder.
  • Also, a single-vertebral centrum was referred to Spinosaurus sp., suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region. - the paper repeats the previously recognized two teeth morphotypes evidence for there being more than one; they don't connect the vertebra to the argument.
 Done, please clarify, is it the "also" you want me to remove? Because this paragraph was not previously discussing the morphotypes.
No, what I mean is the current sentences states that there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that this suggests the presence of a second spinosarid; the paper doesn't claim this, it says there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that teeth suggest there's a second spinosaurid. Two different facts about spinosaurids in the formation are being conflated here.
I see what you mean, removed "suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region." since that is already stated in the description paragraph discussing Medeiros's morphotypes.
  • with a few exceptions like Oxalaia quilombensis... - this isn't every difference in fauna listed in table one of reference three, so I'd say "with a few exceptions including Oxalaia..."
 Done
  • It has become apparent from the fossil record of Africa and South America that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of diplodocidae, spinosauridae, abelisauridae, and carcharodontosauridae. - all family names here should be capitalized. Additionally, "Diplodocidae" should again read "Rebacchisauridae".
 Done, also removed duplicate "diplodocoidea" link.

Claude Debussy[edit]

Nominator(s): Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk); Tim riley talk 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has featured articles on nine French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns – and we hope to increase that number to ten with this article on one of France’s greatest. After a particularly thorough and fruitful peer review we think the article is ready for consideration as a featured article. We look forward to your comments. Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk); Tim riley talk 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

My few concerns in the peer review were all met, especially transforming a mere list of influenced composers' names to a meaningful section. Bravi. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledging and adding thanks for this support. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Lead
  • Really minor, but there's a serial comma at "(1894), Nocturnes (1897–99), and Images (1905–1912)", but not elsewhere.
  • Slightly pointlessly, the MoS now states that we should put dates as "1897–1899", etc.
  • He "was nearly forty", but died "at the age of 55" with a "career of a little more than thirty years": needs to be consistent.
    • All attended to. (Strange new rule about date ranges: out of step with general publishing practice surely?) Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed it is, but such is life for those who needlessly tinker with the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Early life
  • Should "premier accessit" and "deuxième accessit" be in italics? (Asked from a position of ignorance!)
    • And answered from the same position, but I think probably yes, and have changed. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

More later. – SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these points. We'll await your further suggestions for improvements. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuing...

Return to Paris, 1887
  • Probably worth a comma in "During the Exposition Debussy", or it looks like it was named after him.
    • Tweaked Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1894–1902
  • "well liked" hyphenated?
    • I've checked and I think not. The rule seems to be that there's a hyphen only if it's used as a compound adjective before the noun, as in 'she was a well-liked woman'. Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Spot on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
        • As per my 'early life' comment, this was also asked 'from a position of ignorance!' – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
          • It's the kind of thing I feel I ought to know - but always have to look up. Google to the rescue! Looking forward to further comments when you have time. Dmass (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Done to the end of his life, and it's a lovely read so far. I shall wrap a cold towel around my head and tackle the Works section when I've built up the courage. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • No more needed from me. I did a couple of minor tweaks to get in line with the MoS, but I'm happy with the rest, from a prose position (I have no knowledge about the content, so this is a prose review only).

Support from me; nice work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SC, for your support here and earlier input at PR. Greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt[edit]

Support My detailed comments can be found at the peer review. Very nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support here and for your input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

Just to lower the tone a bit, I'm surprised his love life left him any time or energy for composing. Despite its length, I couldn't find anything significant enough to mention, a great read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim, for the support. He was certainly consistent in his relations with the opposite sex: a complete cad from first to last. Tim riley talk 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Maison_natale_de_Debussy.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death
    • All we know is that it's a postcard from the 1920s, so I don't think these problems can be rectified. We could maybe replace with this File:Saint-Germain-en-Laye_Maison_Claude_Debussy_2011_10.jpg which is less atmospheric, would be Ok with copyright but perhaps fall foul of freedom of panorama (the criteria for which I confess I don't understand). Nikkimaria, I'd be grateful for your comments on this (and am grateful for your review as a whole). --Smerus (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's a bit more nuanced, but we'll go with this for now: In countries that have freedom of panorama, like the UK, you can take pictures of 3D things in public - buildings, sculptures, etc - without any regard to the copyright status of the work. In countries like France, which do not, you basically have two copyrights to consider - the photographer, and the creator of the work being photographed - and therefore should have copyright tags for each. If Debussy lived in the building, we can generally assume that the building would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. However, see last point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Musical recordings should generally include a tag for both the original composition and the performance
  • File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées2.ogg: why would the uploader have right to this work? Same with File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_4.ogg, File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_6.ogg
    • Why indeed? - as the uploader seems to be the guy that made the recording but doesn't give any indication that the performers have given their consent. Dmass, Tim, I think these will have to go, subject to your comments.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree Dmass (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Me too. Blitzed. Put not your trust in Commons! Tim riley talk 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works should include an explicit copyright tag for the work.
    • See my comment above on panorama. As regards the tomb, there's been a long discussion on the tomb of JP Rampal which seems to be heading clearly for keep.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The issue in that case, and potentially in the case of the alternate house image you mention above, appears primarily to be originality - if a thing doesn't have creativity in its expression, it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria ([[User Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC) talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • This section of Paris was built in 1854 as part of the second phase of Baron Haussmann's sweeping reconstruction programme under Napoleon III. The architect was Adolphe Alphand (1817-91). Would this make the copyright status public domain? Tim riley talk 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yep, any building around during Debussy's lifetime would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for review and follow-up help. Tim riley talk 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments etc - Brian Boulton[edit]

Generally delightful and informative (though I think the bloke who thinks the "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" renders Wagner into insignificance has a slight judgement vacuum). I didn't finish my PR musings, but here are a few further thoughts from my full reading of the article:

  • One of Debussy's best-known works, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is mentioned several times in the text, without any information which describes its character (other than references to it being orchestral). I'd like a little more description – for example, that it's a symphonic poem (many people think it's a ballet), and that it is very short for a major work considered to be a masterpiece, lasting only around 10 minutes.
  • I am struggling to get on top of this sentence: "His early mélodies, inspired by Marie Vasnier, are more virtuosic in character than his later works in the genre, with extensive vocalise:". I reckon someone without music knowledge will be stumped altogether. The noun form "vocalise", meaning a particular form of sung music, is pretty obscure – many will read it as a verb and thus read the sentence as nonsense. Can the point be expressed in slightly more demotic form?
  • I'm uneasy about devoting a specific subsection to "Nature", particularly as it consists almost entirely of a quotation that doesn't directly relate to Debussy's music, rather to his personal philosophy of life and religion. It's relevant, but including it in this way seems rather to compartmentalise it. One way of treating it would be to use a paraphrased or part-paraphrased form of the quotation as a general preamble to the "Influences" section, so that we begin the section with an idea of Debussy's essential beliefs. The specific "Musical" and "Literary" subsections can then be read in that context.
  • "Their self-appointed spokesman, Jean Cocteau..." – when "their" refers to Les Six, this might sound to the casual reader as if Cocteau was one of their number. Possibly reword to clarify?

Nothing else – although I've embarked on a sources review and will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Thanks BB. I've reworded the cakewalk sentence to give it a clearer context. And I've clarified that L'apres midi is a symphonic poem, and qualified Cocteau. Thinking about the other points.--Smerus (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've also WP:BOLDly incorporated the 'nature' section, having abbreviated it, in the 'impressionism' section where I think it belongs and copyedited that section accordingly to give what seems to me to be a better flow of ideas. And I've clarified (I hope) 'vocalise'.--Smerus (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this, Smerus! Most of the points BB was unhappy with were my fault. Tim riley talk 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Tim, I'm a bit worried about the 'Mysterious nature' quote actually. Does it appear anywhere except in the Vallas 1933 book? I don't find a source citing whether it appears in a letter, or in something published by CD, or whatever.......--Smerus (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Nothing leaps out from online sources, certainly. I'll toddle down to the British Library later this morning and have a rummage. I've ordered Vallas's book and will see where, if anywhere, he reckons to have got the quotation. More on this after lunch. Tim riley talk 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I'm glad to say I think we can be satisfied with the provenance of the quotation. It is from an interview with Debussy by Henry Malherbe, published in Excelsior magazine on 11 February 1911; this was while Debussy was composing the music for Le Martyre de saint Sébastien, and the religious aspect was an important part of the interview. Vallas devotes three pages (224–226) to the article. – Tim riley talk 11:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks: as this quote is featured a lot online in various places without source or date, I've added these to the article.--Smerus (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • V. good move. Quite apart from validating our own source, it will make Wikipedia the online authority for anyone wanting to cite the quote. Tim riley talk 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: All concerns thoughtfully addresed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, BB, for your support, and for your input at PR and your sources review below. Hugely obliged. Tim riley talk 17:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources are generally of the appropriate quality and reliability; I have noted one possible exception below. There are a few format issues (numbers per this version):

  • Ref 5: language should be stated (also 17, 105)
  • Ref 20: Why is this source (Djupdal) reliable per WP:FACR?
    • A legacy, of doubtful interest which I shall gladly blitz forthwith. Tim riley talk 20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (And duly done. Tim riley talk 06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)))
  • Ref 53: pp. missing
  • Ref 54: space required after p.
  • Ref 55: pp missing
  • Ref 59: "passim" is not particularly helpful to a researcher. It would be better to employ the form used in the previous ref, which gives a selection of page references
    • It seemed to me, and still does, the best way to refer to a whole book rather than any particular part of it, but I've replaced with the complete page-range of the text. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 88: replace "p," with "p."
  • Ref 89: please check this link – it's not working for me.
    • Me neither. I only put it in last week, too! Substitute found and used. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 113 (first part): the University of Illinois is not the publisher. The material is apparently a copy of an email sent by Dr Tipei to a student.
  • Ref 158 is rather oddly constructed.
  • Sources list. A couple of alphabetic order slip-ups:
  • reverse Brown → Boulez
  • reverse Poulenc → Potter
    • Reversed Dmass (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review, BB. I think we have covered all the points you raise above. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

This is also primarily a source review, specifically focused foremost on formatting consistency.

  • In templated references, typically, archive information goes last. Now, there's no requirement that you template, or do things the same way. But the problem here is because the webarchive template ends in a period, it produces an unfortunate ".," sequence in many of your references.
  • For journal articles indexed by JSTOR, you link the titles to the JSTOR landing page, and then provide a Wayback Machine archival link to the JSTOR page. That's not... exactly correct, since the Wayback Machine isn't providing an archival copy of the source itself in this situation. The templates typically link JSTOR entries by number, at or near the end of the citation. That's probably not mandated by the MOS, but might be something to consider.
  • The "Concours du Conservatoire" reference has some problems. First, it's missing volume/issue information for Le Mercure Musical (specifically: volume 4, number 8). Additionally, although what you are citing is on page 98 of the pdf, that's actually page 940 of the journal.
  • Pasler, in The Musical Times, is missing volume/issue information (volume 123, number 1672).
  • You cite Grove Music Online most of the time, but the Nectoux reference calls it Grove Online.
  • I'm fairly certain the MOS requires lists of page numbers cited in a single reference to be in order (as opposed to "pp. 12–13, 24, 27, 59 and 4").
  • Newman (1918) is missing volume/issue information (volume 59, number 903).
  • The "Alphabetical order" reference is formatted in a very different way than the rest of the Centre de documentaion Claude Debussy references are. As it isn't explicitly bylined to the Centre, I believe this one is incorrect and the format of the others is preferred.
  • Pasler, in 19th-Century Music is missing volume/issue information (volume 6, number 1).
  • Goubault has an issue number correctly provided, but is missing the volume number (76).
  • Orledge, in The Musical Times is missing volume/issue information (volume 115, number 1582).
  • Nadeua is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 1).
  • DeVoto is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 4).
  • You have two citations to BBC Radio 3, but they are not formatted in the same way.
  • You have at least a couple of initial author names that are either presented incorrectly in [first last] order, or else are missing the comma ("Robert Andres", "Phillips C. Henry", "Briscoe James R.").
  • Briscoe is missing volume/isuse information (volume 44, number 12).
  • What are the criteria for having a source in §Sources instead of cited in-line in §References? I assumed that the sources were all book-length works, but there is at least one journal publication there as well (de Martelly). That's doubly inconsistent because it uses a cite family template, which formats it rather differently than the hand-rolled entries in the previous section.
  • Some of your publisher locations are smaller or less familiar cities which probably require the inclusion of their country (Château-Gontier, Milton Keynes) or state (Van Nuys, etc.). But be consistent about when and how you do this, on a per-location basis.
  • Schmitz (1966) has what I presume to be an errant "P" at the end.
  • You don't always cite editors in the same way. Compare Nichols (1980) and Orledge (2003). Consider the editor (and, where appliable, translator) fields of the cite book template, or else ensure that people and roles in the others field are consistently treated.

No examination of prose or images done, at least for now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments noted. Thank you. Tim riley talk 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Co-noms: I'll have a further look at these points over the next day or so. All pretty minor at first glance, but possibly worth considering. More anon. Tim riley talk 06:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking the above comments seriatim:

  • Yes, the template is badly designed (there should be no full stop as the words are not a sentence) but there it is. It doesn't affect the reader's ability to verify the citations.
  • As above, a problem with the software. But nevertheless better to have the Wayback links, I think. They may be ugly but they provide continuing verifiabiity, which is what references are for, of course.
  • Vol etc numbers otiose. Publication and month suffice. It would be possible, but equally unhelpful, to add, say "Issue 38966" to ref 61. Verifiability is not compromised by the dual pagination – it is clear enough to anyone.
  • As above. For extreme consistency I have removed the vol etc from the MQ ref.
  • Yes. There is a now a Grove Art Online too. Done. You do not mention the publisher, but I have made it the OUP at each mention.
  • That would be unhelpful to the reader, as the pages refer in that order to the content.
  • As above.
  • Agreed. Done.
  • As above.
  • Issue number needed in this case, exceptionally, as there were two issues in 1990, with no month named. Volume would add nothing useful, each year having its own volume number.
  • As above
  • As above
  • As above
  • Indeed. Now harmonised.
  • Done
  • As above
  • I'll ask one of my co-noms to address this point.
  • I don't think the geographical coordinates of Van Nuys are going to be a matter of concern to the reader.
  • Removed.
  • Sadie given brackets.

There are a few helpful points there, for which thanks. (May I ask {@Smerus: or @Dmass: to consider the point raised in the seventeenth bullet point, above?) Tim riley talk 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • For what it is worth, my own practice is to include anything which is (originally) printed or is a standard source of reference in 'Sources'. That would include e.g. anything in Grove, Britannica and Oxford Companion (on- or off-line), and journal articles such as the De Martelly article mentioned. (Mea culpa, I was the one who unthinkingly put de Martelly in Sources when I did an edit, so I am the one who sparked this off). I.e., for me anyway, as far as possible the only sources given in full in 'References' are web-site references. But a simple alternative for consistency purposes would be to remove my de Martelly cite to References. I promise to lose little sleep.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Quite so. Duly adjusted. Tim riley talk 16:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ssilvers[edit]

Support. Comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced and beautifully illustrated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ss, for your support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 06:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This article has been promoted to GA status and has been stable for quite a while now. I have recently beefed up the lead section to better represent the material found in the body of the article, in anticipation of a Featured Article candidacy. Aside from that there have been very few edits since the GAC process and these represent minor if not superficial change. The article is very short but covers a wide variety of topics, while utilizing a decent amount of scholarly sources. The images are all properly sourced and licensed. As far as I know there are no glaring omissions of any major themes covered in academia that pertain to this topic. For anyone who's a fan of ancient history, including the reigns of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, it will most likely be an entertaining and informative read. Enjoy! Pericles of AthensTalk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: that's good to know! Thanks. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday had several careers. In private life he was a dealer, but he is remembered best as the British Museum’s first specialist restorer. His “immortality as the prince of restorers”, as it was put at the time, was assured when a drunken young man smashed the Portland Vase, one of the museum’s most famous treasures, and Doubleday pieced it back together. Doubleday was also called upon to restore Babylonian clay tablets—the results were catastrophic—and to testify in criminal trials, including when another young man (this time sober) stole thousands of pounds worth of coins from the museum.

Doubleday’s life is enigmatic. Despite research by myself and others, all that can be said of the first 30-odd years of his life is that he was born between 1796 and 1800 in New York, and that he worked at a print shop in his youth; at the other end of his life, the disposal of his estate is curious. This article nevertheless represents an exhaustive look at the available sources, and has benefited by the input of multiple people. There is little more that can realistically be asked of this article, which is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_Doubleday_with_the_Portland_Vase.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:JohnDoubledayHC-NPG.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. The earliest publication I know of is in a 1989 book. Should an unpublished tag be used instead (and any suggestions for which tag)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Typically an unpublished tag would only work for things first published after 2002 - 1989 is too early. Is it possible the NPG/BM would have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, in the US at least, should the copyright of unpublished works with author unknown not expire 120 years after creation, so here in 1965? ——Usernameunique (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit more complicated than that since the works are not originally American - see the Cornell chart. {{PD-US-unpublished}} specifies no publication before 2003. More details if possible would help nail down the status. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Primarily looking at sourcing and source formatting, at least on this pass. First impression: you might want to think about two columns for the Bibliography.

  • Done.
  • I really don't understand when you choose to use {{free access}} versus {{open access}}. In my mind, open access represents a source published under the open access model, as distinct from one where a freely-accessible copy now exists. In any case, there's no clearly consistent rule being used here.
  • Open access is being used when the source is in the public domain, free access when it still might be under copyright but is nevertheless available to read for free online. This is per Firebrace's advice here, which is based on Open access#Gratis and libre open access.
  • Book-format sources that lack an ISBN (such as due to age) should have an OCLC identifier, when possible.
  • Which ones are you thinking of? I include an OCLC if it neither has an ISBN nor is available online (such as the 1856 auction catalogue), but if it’s an out-of-copyright work that’s available online (such as on Google Books), there’s no real point in double providing the bibliographic information.
  • Periodicals typically only require a publisher when that would be necessary or useful to identify the work in question (although you certainly have more cause to do so when citing 19th century publications). Publication location is discouraged for periodicals except where necessary for identification (it's fine with The Morning Post, for example). In any case, although there are some aspects of editorial discretion here, you should check the list for consistent application one whatever rules you set.
  • Added locations, and a few publishers, when possible. There are a few for which I'm unsure what the correct information is (e.g., Petrie, Sharpe & Hardy), and a few for which it seemed some information would be entirely redundant (such as the Report of the Architectural Society of the Archdeaconry of Northampton), but I've added a fair amount.
  • If you retain publisher locations, "Saonara" will absolutely need to include country.
  • Done.
  • Volume XXXII of Archaeologia doesn't display the volume number in bold. Honestly, I'll admit – I have no idea what is going on here. The rest of the entries display normally, and the template is formatted exactly the same.
  • Yep, this annoys me too. Apparently bold cuts out when the volume number is too long, so XXXI gets bolded but XXXII doesn’t. Solving this probably requires a template edit, which I have no idea how to do.
  • ISBNs should ideally all be presented as correctly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • All post-2006 books have the 13 digit ISBN. Is conversion necessary for those published before 2007?
  • Any particular reason why it's best practice? Sorry if I sound incorrigible here; I don't mean to be, just feels weird to cite a book with information that's not contained within it.
  • If you need to cite the 1851 English census, is it possible to do so directly, rather than a summarized excerpt at FamilySearch? Consider whether there's a need to directly cite this sort of primary material rather than, for example, the National Picture Gallery capsule (already referenced elsewhere) that appears to include much or all of the same content.
  • I'm open to suggestions—just tried using {{cite census}}, but turns out that's particular to the US censuses. I think it's worth having in some form, for a number of reasons: there are very few primary sources about Doubleday, this provides a fair amount of information, and some of it (such as the names of Doubleday's daughters) is not included on the National Portrait Gallery page. Another option would be to link to Ancestry, which actually has a photograph of the page, although that requires a paid account (FamilySearch requires a free account).
  • Is there a reason you are citing two editions of The English Cyclopædia: Arts and Sciences for what seems to be the same fact? Should you list "British Museum, The" as the internal section / chapter cited?
  • Not a good one: removed. Added the chapter.
  • What is the benefit of referencing Timothy Miller Limited's commercial auction site for three specific example pieces? Contrariwise, are any of the images available of Doubleday's work outside of the British Museum distinctive enough to be worth a non-free use inclusion to illustrate his work as a dealer?
  • The benefit is that the links have good, detailed photographs of the items Doubleday sold, and they are also the only source for "Shakespeare's tree" and the lead seal. I’ve emailed both Millett and Shenton to see if I might use their photographs, but didn’t hear back. I would much like to add "Shakespeare's tree" if you think the non-free use is worth it—the images will also be undergoing a bit of a shuffle in a day or two, as I'd like to add an image of Doubleday's headstone to "Personal life".
  • There is some inconsistency about when you include a page number in the reference. At first, I thought you were omitting the page number when the reference was a single page (which I wouldn't do, but which is probably acceptable if done consistently). But at least in the case of the Notes and Queries reference, you include the (single) page number in the references. Personally, I'd prefer to see page numbers in the references for anything paginated, but what really matters is that your citation style is consistent.
  • That's what it was supposed to be, but you're right, Notes and Queries was inconsistent. I've gone through each footnote, and that's the only one that I could find to change. Three others might look inconsistent, but are that way for particular reasons: with Williams 1989 I'm citing to the entire book, Williams 1993 doesn't have the page numbers included in Google Books for some reason (I could ILL it if necessary, but it's a minor point in the article; tried asking Google Books, but their full copy doesn't have page numbers either), and Pickup 2017 (for which I have only a word doc version that Pickup emailed me, not a scan of the work as published).
  • I don't have access to the Panzeri & Gimondi work, but I do have a couple of questions about it. Is the content you are citing from this book independently authored and/or titled? Are you certain that the title is half-Italian and half-English? Indices I was able to find seem to list the book primarily as Amplius Vetusta Servare. Primi Esiti del Progetto Europeo Archivio Storico dei Restauratori Europei. Likewise, is the cited content in English? If it is Italian, it will need a language tag.
  • Good point. It's an independently authored section (by William Andrew Oddy), in English, that takes up a page or two in the book. I won't be able to add the details for about a week and a half (I'm travelling and the scans are at home), but my memory is that there are two titles pages, one in Italian and one in English, and that the English one retains the Italian title but translates the subtitle (see Princeton's catalog entry, e.g.).
  • Is Caroline Shenton's blog a high-quality reliable source?
  • Surprisingly, the answer is probably yes. She wrote a book on the subject, The Day Parliament Burned Down, which is cited repeatedly in the featured article Burning of Parliament. Though Doubleday is also mentioned in the book, the blog has the benefits of being illustrated, and free to access.
  • The sale of his library probably needs a footnote given the rough equivalent of that value in modern currency; I know there's a semi-automated template providing that service for American dollars. I'm not sure if we have one for British currency.
  • Done.

In general, this is a very thorough examination of 19th century sources, but seems like it may be light on more recent scholarship. Julian Reade's article in this conference proceeding discusses Doubleday's conservation work with bronze artifacts from Nimrud, and contrasts his (admittedly unknown) technique with those of his contemporaries. I don't have access to this paper, but I'm fairly sure that someone will be able to help you out with a copy; indications elsewhere suggest there's some retrospective commentary on his failed attempts to conserve the clay tablets. Doubleday created a fairly impressive amount of cast copies of seals and coins; is there any discussion of their fate in the modern numismatic press (that answer might very well be "no"; I certainly didn't have much luck). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Re. the article suggested above (Reade, J., 'The Manufacture, Evaluation and Conservation of Clay Tablets Inscribed in Cuneiform: Traditional Problems and Solutions', Iraq 79 (2017), 163-202.), I've emailed you it in case you don't have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those; information from both is now included in the article. I haven't seen much on Doubleday recently—the 1993 Catalogue of Seals in the National Museum of Wales considers him briefly but uncritically—and until the two articles you provided, had thought I had done an exhaustive search of the available materials; have just done another full search on jstor without turning up much. There's also what looks to be a self-published work (link) from December that has more specifics (e.g., DOB & date of baptism), but these appear to mostly be larger leaps of faith taken off the same primary documents. How did you turn up the two articles?


Thanks for taking a detailed look, Squeamish Ossifrage. Bit of a drawn out undertaking today, and sorry for that, but I think I've now responded to all your comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

V. Gordon Childe[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent and important archaeologists of the 20th century. Childe oversaw a number of important excavations, created important interpretative frameworks, and was a pioneer in using Marxist ideas to understand the archaeological record. It has been a GA for a number of years and underwent an FAC earlier this year, but fell by the wayside due to lack of contributors. Second time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Sorry I missed the first FAC. I recommend letting previous reviewers know about the renomination, if you haven't already.

  • Worth a category for being an academic in Sydney, given that he taught there? (Probably not...) London School of Economics?
  • I've added Childe to the "Academics of the London School of Economics" category, although his associations with that institution were not longstanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there categories for translators? Political assistants/secretaries? Librarians?
  • Oh I have no idea, to be honest. I've found "Category:Australian librarians" so I'll stick that one in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a link for T.J. Smith? I think we're OK with redlinks on people's names now if we don't have an article (which we should)
  • I don't mind redlinks although a lot of editors seem to so I nowadays I'm often loath to add them. I've done some Google searching and I cannot actually find any reference to an Australian leftist politician known as T. J. Smith, but I wonder if it actually a reference to Tom Smith (Australian politician), whose initials were T. J. and who seems to have been active in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want to guess, but presumably it wouldn't be too hard to find comprehensive lists of MPs from the period? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Schipenitz is presumably also worth a link
  • You introduce How Labour Governs twice. I also really don't link like the in-line external link!
  • Me neither. I'm not sure how that got in there. Removed the links. I've also removed the first reference to How Labour Governs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "it reflect Childe's disillusionment" Tense
  • "W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J.G. Callender, Walter Grant" Any worth linking?
  • I think that Lindsay Scott is probably sufficiently known within certain archaeological circles to warrant a link. Actually, I'm just going to link them all, and people can remove the redlinks if they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Involving them in experimental archaeology, of which he was an early proponent," Worth mentioning in the lead? (Also, you use that same "opening subordinate clause" sentence structure a few times in quick succession. I think some readers will find that irritating.)
  • I'm loath to lengthen the lede much more, to be honest, and I'm not quite sure that this is 'important enough' given that only one RS seems to mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Was Piggott really a "comrade"?
  • I've changed this to "colleague", which is perhaps more accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Earn's Hugh, Larriban, Knocksoghey, Wallace Thorneycroft, Finavon, Rahoy, Walter Grant... Worth links?
  • I've linked them all, but all but Finavon are presently redlinks. Hopefully those with an interest in the geography of Britain and Ireland could flesh them out at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You claim in "London and early books", concerning The Dawn of European Civilisation, that "Its importance was also due to the fact that it introduced the concept of the archaeological culture into Britain from continental scholarship". You later say about The Danube in Prehistory that "The book introduced the concept of an archaeological culture to Britain from Germany, revolutionising the theoretical approach of British archaeology". This doesn't feel consistent!

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more comments:

  • Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but I found the paragraph beginning "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford" a little tricky to follow.
  • I've made some alterations to the opening sentence, which now reads "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford resigned as fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They did so to protest the selection of James Mann—keeper of the Tower of London's armouries—as the society's new president, believing that Wheeler, a professional archaeologist, would have been a better choice". Was this sentence the problem or do you think that I should take the pruning shears to other parts of the paragraph too? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "History (1947) continued his belief that prehistory and literate history" Continued to defend his belief? Or something like that?
  • I've gone with "History (1947) promoted a Marxist view of the past and reaffirmed Childe's belief that prehistory and literate history must be viewed together, " Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anthropology is mentioned several times before it is first linked.
  • The section on Marxist archaeology is a bit quotefarm-y; I think most readers will be more interested in hearing what Marxist archaeology is and what Childe's contribution to it was, rather than what lots of people they may not have heard of said about Childe's relationship to Marxism.
  • I was slightly surprised by how much there was a challenge to the idea that he was a Marxist archaeologist. I wonder if there is a way to get these kinds of debates into the lead?
  • I think that this is a reflection of the sectarianism that seems quite endemic in social groups (like Marxism, but also many religious formations) where people get very invested in being the "true disciple". I'm open to the idea of putting something about this in the lede, although I'm just not quite sure how to go about it. I don't really want to lengthen the lede any more. Perhaps something brief in the fourth paragraph? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe's concept of "revolutions" were not universally adopted" Do you perhaps mean "Childe's conceptualisations of these "revolutions" were not universally adopted" or "Childe's concept of "revolution" was not universally adopted"? I'm a little puzzled by the current phrasing.
  • By "particularist", do you mean "an adherent of historical particularism"? If so, a link would be good. If archaeological particularism is a distinct ideology, a redlink would be good!
  • "probably the best known and most cited archaeologist of the twentieth century" This belongs in the lead (if it isn't already there)!
  • You're right; I've amended the fourth paragraph of the lede to make this claim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Many of the conclusions about Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe that Childe produced have since been found to be incorrect" This probably does, too!
  • I've added the following to the fourth paragraph of the lede: "Although many of his interpretations have since been discredited, he remains widely respected among archaeologists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Various archaeologists have debated and disagreed over the importance of various different parts of Childe's work." Could I recommend dropping this? I don't think it tells us anything of consequence!
  • "who did the more to develop Childe's "most innovative ideas" after the latter's death than anyone else" A bit wordy
  • I've gone with "In contrast to this American neglect and misrepresentation, Trigger believed that it was an American archaeologist, Robert McCormick Adams, Jr., who did the more than anyone else to posthumously develop Childe's "most innovative ideas"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "in which Boasian particularism had been hegemonic within the discipline" Jargony
  • "Following his death, various articles were published that examined Childe's work from a historical perspective." Again, this is super vague.
  • I've replaced this with "Following his death, various articles examining Childe's impact on archaeology were published." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe is referenced in the American blockbuster film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the motion picture was the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series that dealt with the eponymous fictional archaeologist and university professor. In the film, Jones is heard advising one of his students that to understand the concept of diffusion he must read the works of Childe." I'm leaning towards suggesting that this is dropped. I don't think it warrants a whole section!
  • I'm not sure about it either. I don't think that I was the one who originally added it, but I could be wrong. Certainly, I've never been totally comfortable with it. What I'll do is delete the section and move a brief mention of the film to an earlier point in the "Legacy and influence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Really great read; I learnt a lot. That said, when reading the section on his theoretical contributions, I realised I'd come across this kind of thing before; presumably I was seeing Childe's influence without realising it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, very interesting article. I've changed a few things. Here are my first comments, but will probably be adding more:

  • Was Childe's father originally from Australia? Or did he first move there in 1878? In the former case, I'd suggest "They moved back to Australia in 1878". In the latter case "a middle-class couple of English descent" seems a little misleading.
  • The Schipenitz referred to in the article is today's Shypyntsi, now Ukraine (Schipenitz was its German name). I've added a link. However, in 1922 it was part of Romania and named Şipeniţi. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to change it in the article.
  • Childe referred to the settlement as "Schipenitz" in his publication, so I was following his lead here. I don't think it matters a great deal which term is used, although given Childe's example "Schipenitz" perhaps has the strongest case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm generally not a big fan of inline external links, but won't insist on anything.
  • Me neither. I'm not sure when the link to How Labour Governs got added, but it wasn't by me. I'll remove it (with apologies to whoever it was that did add it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "This job meant that he came into contact with many of Britain's archaeologists, of whom there were relatively few during the 1920s" This is a little awkward (many vs few), maybe "most of Britain's archaeologists"?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Difficult. "many" and "most" are not quite the same thing and I am unsure if he actually did meet "most" of them. I'll try and take a look at the original RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more comments:

  • "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, Walter Grant, and Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to the latter's youngest son" That long list seemed a little excessive to me, since most people won't know who those people are. Maybe it would make sense to shorten the list a little and explain who the remaining people are?
  • "he organised the BSc degree course so that it began studying..." would that be the degree in archaeology or prehistory?
  • " he was particularly interested in the role of Soviet archaeology" Archaeology's role in what? In society?
  • I've never seen Harvard University referred to as the "University of Harvard"
  • "something he believed pivotal in providing knowledge for "the masses"" the quotation marks feel a bit like editorializing, as if you're using the left-wing terminology mockingly. I would suggest omitting the quotation marks and maybe changing it to "for a mass audience". Or was this the way Childe phrased it himself? In that case, I would say so explicitly.
  • "he had kept silent over his disapproval of government policies" This left me wondering what policies, especially since Childe's political views feature fairly prominently in the article. Are the sources any more explicit about this?
  • "called towns by their Slavonic rather than Germanic names" this confused me a little. Would this be something like saying Praha instead of Prague or Gdansk instead of Danzig? Saying that Prague is a Germanic name doesn't seem quite right, since Prague and Praha clearly have the same origin (a Slavic origin according to our article). They're just slightly different ways of spelling and pronouncing the same name. Also the name is different in other Germanic languages: Prag in German, Praag in Dutch, etc.
  • Might it be worth mentioning that Lewis H. Morgan heavily influenced Marx?
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyediting you disagree with. There's one thing I was curious about: I added an "it" to "Childe's theoretical work had been largely ignored in his lifetime,[206] and remained forgotten in the decades after his death, although would see..." because it sounded wrong to me. But I think there were several instances where the pronoun was omitted after an "although", so I was wondering if this is a normal expression in British English.

I have two more issues, which I guess are more about personal taste. First, I feel like there are a lot of excessive footnotes in the article. I understand that there's a trend towards using an increasing number of footnotes, particularly in FAs. I think this is starting to get a little out of hand and I've never seen this kind of density of footnotes with nothing but source references outside of Wikipedia. I do think that every claim in an article needs a source, but references can be combined and they certainly don't need to be repeated. Since this is in keeping with what is becoming established use on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to insist on this, but I'll edit one or two paragraphs to condense the references and you can decide whether to revert my changes or not.

The second issue concerns the weight given to various aspects in the article. I felt like the "Archaeological theory" section could do with a little more context. It starts by mentioning diffusionism, functionalism, and evolutionary archaeology without explaining those terms and, as someone who knows nothing about archaeology, I immediately felt a little lost. The same thing goes for processualism and post-processualism. Maybe those things are too complicated to briefly explain to a lay reader, but if not I think a little more explanation might be useful. I also felt like some of the biographical details were excessive (including those on Childe's personal life), while I would have been much more interested to learn more about his views on archaeology and the results of his research (and maybe a little more about his politics). But, this is probably just a question of personal taste. In any case, despite not knowing anything about archaeology I thought it was an interesting article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Orkney_Skara_Brae.jpg: what was the question asked of the author to get that response?
  • File:Bust_of_V._Gordon_Childe.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Drummond (RAF officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Roy Drummond (nicknamed from youth, and later officially, "Peter") was a World War I fighter ace and one of the highest-ranking Australians to serve in the Royal Air Force. Having created this ten years ago, my memory's a little hazy, but I think I became interested in him because for a while it looked like he might be the solution to the long-running conflict between George Jones and William Bostock over command of the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II. It wasn't to be, though -- the Jones–Bostock feud continued to simmer and Drummond ended up losing his life in a plane crash over the Azores in 1945. This was GA for yonks but I recently expanded it and put it through MilHist A-Class Review, and I think it should satisfy the FA criteria as well. Tks in advance for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Chetsford[edit]

What a fantastic article; comprehensive, well-written, thoroughly referenced, and interesting. As an aside, I was surprised to learn that 5'7" was a disqualifying height for WWI era infantry. I hope I don't get too much flack for giving a drive-by support without suggestions for improvement, however, despite having read the article twice I'm really struggling to find anything meaningful to say. Though, having just been promoted to A-Class, perhaps that's not unexpected. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tks Chetsford. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

Even by your high standards Ian, this is an excellent article. I have the following comments:

  • " He was twice offered command of the RAAF during the war but did not take up the position on either occasion." - this implies that he turned down the position, when it's later stated that the main reason was that the RAF was unwilling to release him for it (though on the first occasion it seems he didn't want it)
    • Actually I couched it the way I did because I felt it was a bit more ambiguous than saying he turned it down twice -- did you have particular wording in mind?
      • "He was twice offered command of the RAAF during the war but the RAF was unwilling to release him to take up the position" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "lost in a plane crash at sea" - suggest tweaking to "killed in a plane crash at sea" or similar to avoid the euphemism
    • Again I chose the wording deliberately, not to be euphemistic but because AFAIK neither the plane nor his body was ever recovered so "lost" was the better term. If you feel strongly about I'm happy to change and see if anyone else has an issue with it.
      • I think that historians generally discourage the use of the term. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we know how he gained his nickname?
    • I wish!
  • "Drummond was evacuated later that year, suffering from dysentery." - I'd suggest noting that he was evacuated to England (which suggests he was very sick, and also helps to explain why and how he was able to join the RFC)
    • Will do.
  • "Drummond himself believed that the situation would be counteracted by attrition from the upcoming invasion of Europe" - the source takes a slightly different approach, stating that "By May 1944 he thought that only high casualty rates in the planned invasion of Europe would take up the over-supply." which I read to mean that he also recognised that there was an oversupply which would only be corrected if casualties were high, not that he expected this.
    • Heh, perhaps I inadvertently implied that he expected the situation in my quest to avoid closely paraphrasing the source, so happy to tweak -- can you suggest different wording?
      • Drummond himself believed that the situation would only be counteracted if the upcoming invasion of Europe led to heavy casualties" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tks as always for reviewing Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Very nicely written. Only a couple of things.

  • "Drummond was awarded the Military Cross for "conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty" on 20 April 1917, when he and Lieutenant Adrian Cole engaged and drove off six enemy aircraft that were attempting to bomb Allied cavalry;" This makes it sound the award took place the date of the action.
  • Yes, I'd hoped that finishing the sentence with the award was promulgated in the London Gazette on 16 August I would nullify any confusion... Just a thought, if I said for his "conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty" does it make it any better? If not I'm open to suggestions...!
  • "Empire Air Training Scheme" this is piped twice in consecutive paragraphs--to different articles!
  • Well spotted -- that would've fooled the duplink checker nicely! The second link is the more appropriate one, will amend.

--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Ian, just a few possible tweaks... (I've got L plates on re gazettals)

  • the 2nd Stationary Hospital - add location WA?
    • I don't think my source for that statement gives a location, unless I missed something...
  • promoted to lieutenant on 1 May 1917 - temp?
    • Yes -- tks.
  • he and observer/gunner John Knowles - seems to be Frederick John Knowles
    • I'm sure you're right but in fact the observer's name isn't mentioned in the sources I've used, or have available -- looking into the article's history it was added by another editor without a citation, apologies for missing it.
  • Garjak Nuer tribesmen - add adb ref as Nuers not mentioned ref 28
    • Tks!
  • Nuer tribesmen - wlink Nuer people?
    • Yes, I guess so.
  • Air Force Headquarters, Melbourne - wlink Air Board (Australia)?
    • While the two terms do seem to have often been used interchangeably, I think they were distinct if closely connected entities, and I'd prefer keep them separate.
  • RAF Middle East Command in Cairo - hmm why that article say not established til 1939?
    • Will have to check on that.
      • My fault, although I'll plead extenuating circumstances... The link should be to RAF Middle East Command, but that article didn't exist when I created Drummond's article, so I'd linked to the next best thing at the time (technically RAF Middle East Command wasn't formed until 1941, but RAF Middle East had existed since WWI, and that's what Drummond joined in 1937). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • administering the Empire Air Training Scheme / marking the closure of the Empire Air Training Scheme - two close blue links but diff targets, change second one to Plan?
    • Yes, Wehwalt noticed it too -- fixed.
  • St Martins-in-the-Fields - singular Martin
    • Tks.
  • memorial service - add an online ref too?
    • Fair enough.
      • I chose a different newspaper as I think the one in this link got the date wrong. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Australian Dictionary of Biography credited Tedder and Drummond - present tense credits?
    • Ditto.
  • Order of the Bath on 23 September 1941 - date Gazette 23 but St James's Palace date is 24, so which is actual date of order?
    • My understanding would be the date immediately beneath which the honour appears, which is indeed 24 Sep, so will change date in main body.

Notes and Refs

  • 18 - page not found, RAF site being redeveloped, can't find any mention squadron 111, 145
    • They would do that, wouldn't they? I may have to use archived links...
      • Glad you could find archived but now that I can read it, I'm confused. He is now in Squadron 145 but ref 18 is for Squadron 111. Wayback doesn't seem to have any captures for 145? I know from this that plane was used by twenty-four squadrons and can see specifically on here that both 111 and 145 used that aircraft, so I know it's correct but... Sorry to have to ask. JennyOz (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Mmm, don't know why we had 111 Sqn there -- I found the 145 Sqn link, it was in a different area of the archived site to 111 Sqn. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 40, 58, 59 - need supps in refs
    • Okay.
  • 67 - needs supp and page 4689?
    • Will check.
      • Done -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Odgers, Air War Against Japan, pp. 15–17] - stray bracket
  • Newton, Dennis (1996). Australian Air Aces. Fyshwyck - Fyshwick
    • Will do, tks for picking up those two.

Thanks for all your input to this article over so many years! JennyOz (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough check, Jenny -- will update the article in the next day or so. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I've addressed everything now, Jenny. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - All online refs are working and verify content. Thanks very much Ian, JennyOz (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I can't see anything that requires attention – everything is in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. I'd merely make the mild suggestion that, for the sake of tidiness, the isbns are standardised into modern 13-digit format. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, will take care of the ISBNs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:UK3125Drummond.jpg: Orde was a British artist, so why would this be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Tks for checking Nikki -- naturally I'm going by the Australian War Memorial's tag, are you saying that even if the Australian Government / AWM commissioned or otherwise acquired it the licensing would be an issue? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If they commissioned it, no - the issue would be "otherwise acquired". The AWM site only says PD, not specifically why, and that matters when deciding US status, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Well I can ask them, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if they know more than is stated on the image file. What would you suggest if I get no joy, as I'd like to use the image if possible -- I'm not aware of any decent photos from the second half of the war, and the unfinished nature of this sketch seemed kind of appropriate given the circumstances of his death. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I suspect, unless there is information available about commissioning, we'd be looking at a UK tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
            • It's feasible that the UK War Artists' Advisory Committee purchased the final painting, and the Australian official war art scheme purchased the sketch (as is implied in the AWM database entry). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done and a pleasure to read. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Binary search algorithm[edit]

Nominator(s): Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most ubiquitous algorithms in computing. Binary search is usually one of the first algorithms taught to computer science students. The premise is quite simple: given a sorted list of numbers, binary search eliminates halves of the list in which the number you are looking for cannot lie until it finds the number. However, binary search has lots of subtleties. Surprisingly, when a famous programmer asked his students to implement binary search, 90 percent could not provide a correct solution. I have wrote this article to not only cover those subtleties, but also compare binary search to other search algorithms, placing the algorithm in context. I believe that this article is FA quality as I have strived to place every relevant detail that I could find on binary search, which is surprisingly a lot of details and subtleties that the average textbook chapter on search algorithms neglects to cover. Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Nice work! Interesting article, I especially like the diagrams & the comparison with non-sorted array datastructures. My own preference would be to use very tiny sample Python programs rather than the mathier description of what the program does, but I respect that if it was done that way, there might be a problem with random students replacing it with their own code.
There may be copyright issues if code is copied verbatim from a book (mostly for the CS students needing to plagiarize binary search code), and if I write binary search code based on the information in the article in Python for example, there may be verifiability concerns. In addition, the mathematical description is more abstract and eliminates language-specific implementation details. However, I will consider adding a pseudocode version like in Euclidean algorithm#Implementations Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
as binary search trees can effectively be structured in filesystems.

I think "efficiently" might be more clear here?

Good suggestion; replaced. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If the array must first be sorted, that cost must be amortized over any searches.

Kinda sorta? Phrasing is a little weird too, with "must" sounding like accountants are being ordered around. If we're talking about a hypothetical system, The opening sentence of the section already notes that constantly sorting the array is kinda inefficient; future binary searches presumably would still have to sort the array, because they aren't sure if a previous check happened and already sorted it, so it's not like the cost gets to be amortized through these. Could have an "isDirty" type function that would remember if the array has been modified since it was last sorted of course, but that's getting too much into the weeds I think.

I agree that it's kind of obvious that the cost of sorting needs to be considered, and given that the target audience really is new computer science students, communicating such an important aspect with concepts like amortized analysis is confusing, so I decided to only mention that the array needs to be sorted and leave it at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Exponential search

Can the diagram (File:Exponential search.svg) be modified to clearly be unbounded? Seems misleading at a glance... if nothing else, have the right edge with a "...".

I still have the TeX file, so I'll add the ..., however it can also be applied to bounded arrays. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Fibonacci search

This section is not real clear at the moment. There's something to be said for not taking too much space, and letting people who are curious about more click over to the article, but maybe give it a once-over if there's a way to still be precise but also accessible? It's great there's a diagram, but maybe call out the green highlighted section a little more in File:Fibonacci_search.png to show that section "won". If nothing else, I would recommend highlighting in the first or second sentence that rather than a specific answer (like in binary search), Fibonacci merely returns a range where the answer might be.

I think it's better to remove it, because it is only vaguely similar to binary search. It's more of an optimization algorithm rather than a "search" algorithm, and an obscure one at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The noisy binary search problem can be considered as a case of the Rényi-Ulam game,[49] which Alfréd Rényi introduced in 1961.[50]

Why is the date it was created relevant? I'd say a description would be more helpful. "a case of the Rényi-Ulam game, a variant of twenty questions where the answers can be wrong," say.

I think it is better to put it in a footnote, as it does not add much to the main description, and I have adopted your proposed wording. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1946, John Mauchly made the first mention of binary search as part of the Moore School Lectures, the first ever set of lectures regarding any computer-related topic.

There is no way this is possibly true as phrased - there are tons of computer-related topics, like math, that people have been giving lectures on since the ancient Babylonians. Not sure what TAOCP was saying here, but judging by the Wikipedia article, maybe something like "the first and foundational college course in computers?"

Reworded it a bit, but I decided to use "seminal" instead of "first" as there is no way of knowing whether it is the first course on computing (some can say that the study of logic and abstract machines counts as a computing course, and those fields were studied decades before). Esquivalience (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
ninety percent failed to provide a correct solution after several hours of working on it,[57] and another study published in 1988 shows that accurate code for it is only found in five out of twenty textbooks

I think the article is taking Bloch & Bentley at their word a bit in a way that will confuse casual readers. Binary search, while not quite fizz buzz, is a sample easy problem generally that takes 5 minutes to solve, and surely Bentley's complaints were on hyper-specific issues. I would add in "rare edge case" or the like in discussing the overflow error in Programming Pearls and Java; it's arguably not even really an "interesting" flaw, because arrays are already size-capped in most languages to the size of the index (unsigned int, say), so this error was merely not taking advantage of the maximum amount of space available. (And heck, even with BigInteger array indices, declaring too large an array will already cause an out of memory exception unless you are on a Turing Machine with an actually-infinite tape.) SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the wording about many of the errors being rare edge cases for Bentley's assignment, but textbooks should be expected to provide correct code that works on edge cases, so I left the textbook sentence as is. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Thanks for the suggestions, and I hope my changes have addressed your concerns. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Good to see a CompSci article at FAC. Some interesting tidbits in the article. Some comments:

  • Alexandrescu (2010) and Leiss (2007) are not referenced in the article. Suggest removing them.
  • Suggest removing the wiki-links to Childs, Landahl & Parrilo 2007 and Høyer, Neerbek & Shi 2002 (which just points to the reference) as we already have footnotes.
  • No reference on the second last paragraph of "Implementation issues"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Added the ref and removed the redundant citations, thanks for the suggestions. Esquivalience (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1991 comic book series that served as primary inspiration for this summer's massively popular Avengers film. I dug into lots of old print sources to flesh it out and I believe it's about a comprehensive as it can be. Please comment quickly, before Thanos snaps his fingers and you lose your chance. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64[edit]

Uh, Argento Surfer, I don't feel so good... but I'll comment before I disappear. JOEBRO64 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

First round of comments. This is just from a quick glance (don't have much time), so I'll be leaving more comments in a bit:

  • "although other writers had scripted some tie-in chapters of the First Thanos War" is uncited.
    • I added two citations, one is a third party website that mentions a different scriptor, and one is a primary source directly citing a tie-in comic. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "George Pérez is a popular artist known for drawing comics that featured large casts" seems to start in the present before shifting to the past.
  • Aren't the "I" and "G" in "infinity gems" supposed to be capitalized?
    • Possibly! The comic is written in all caps so it's not immediately obvious, but it's capitalized at Infinity Gems. I capitalized them here as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If my understanding is correct, plot sections are supposed to be limited to 700 words. The "plot" section of this article in the synopsis is 791 words.

JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Part two:

  • "He also did high-profile work for DC Comics, such as Batman and Cosmic Odyssey." Wouldn't linking to Batman (comic book) make a bit more sense here?
  • "...but Editor-in-Chief Tom DeFalco..." Sort of the opposite of "Infinity Gems" here: I'm don't think the "E" and "C" need to be capitalized.
  • "the start of the second act was spun off into the two-issue limited series Thanos Quest, released in Fall 1990." Watch out for WP:SEASON.
  • "but the sales of Thanos Quest were high enough to warrant another spin-off." This isn't a big deal, but I don't think "spinoff" needs a hyphen. The hyphen also isn't used later in the article, so I'd be consistent in how you use it.
  • "However, some characters, like Thor and Quasar, were wearing outdated costumes on the cover of issue 3..." Single digits should be spelled out.
  • During production, Pérez was also pencilling War of the Gods for DC Comics" You've already linked to DC before, so linking it here is overlinking.
    • removed
  • "One aspect of the promotion was sending Direct market retailers..." Why is the "D" in "direct market" capitalized?
    • Probably because I copy/pasted the article name. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You link to DC again in the tie-ins section.
    • removed

I'll be back with my final comments soon. JOEBRO64 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Round three:

  • Some of the characters linked in the characters section (Thanos, Warlock) were previously linked in the publication history section.
  • My only comment about the synopsis section is that it technically doesn't need references, since a creative work's plot section is assumed to be sourced to the work itself and does not require references unless it contains original research that requires verification.
    • I follow that guidance in articles on comics that take place all in one title (Archie vs. Predator or The Fade Out), but since parts of the synopsis came from Silver Surfer, Thanos Quest, Warlock and the Infinity Watch, and Doctor Strange, I felt it was worth noting the source for each plot chunk. It also alerts readers that the tie-in issues are not directly referenced. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the different styles continues to be an issue for some critics." "Issue" is considered a word to avoid.
  • "When Capital City released their top 100 best selling single issues of 1991, Infinity Gauntlet issues fell between the 42nd and 64th positions." This is just a minor suggestion, but could you add a footnote explaining where all the issues placed on the list? Some readers (including myself) might be interested in this.
    • I can add this, but it might be next week before I can dig up the sales lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its sequels were poorly received by fans, and Warlock and the Infinity Watch was cancelled in 1995." While it looks like the article is written in American English, "cancelled" is British English.
    • I had no idea. I just went with it because it didn't have a squiggly red line under it. I have removed the second l. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's it. Overall this article is very clean and well-written (indeed, I actually based a few of my articles on it!) Once these comments are addressed, I will gladly support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is FA-quality now. Well done! JOEBRO64 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have anything substantive to add to the FAC, but I will commend you on bringing this article into a much better shape than it was when you started working on it in February: [18] BOZ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest that in some cases it would be worth adding citations to captions
    • I added two references to the caption in the plot section. I think everything else it BLUE, but let me know if you disagree. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Think the caption on the final image also needs citing - the accompanying article text cites more general inspiration, but not this specific image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've removed this image. There won't be any sources that directly compare it to the cover. I'll just trust that anyone who makes it that far into the article will be familiar with the film's imagery. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_1.jpg: elaborate on purpose of use statement
  • File:Sleepwalker_number_7.png: not sure we can justify the full cover just to show the marking - a crop of the top third would be sufficient for that, and the FUR needs to be stronger
    • I originally considered cropping the image, but chose to use the full cover to give an accurate impression of the relative sizes of the triangle and the cover. If it's cropped, that frame of reference will be lost. I have expanded the purpose statement to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not convinced by this, particularly given the number of non-free images, but interested in if any other reviewers have an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • If no one else weighs in, I'll crop the image to be the upper right quarter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For both File:Infinity_gauntlet_excerpt_Perez.png and File:Infinity_Gauntlet_excerpt_issue_6.png, the content currently in the "not replaceable" section of the template belongs in "purpose of use". Same with File:Thanos_Avengers_Infinity_War_promo.jpg. The FURs are particularly important to given the number of non-free images in this article - as a general rule, the more you have the harder you need to work to justify each
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_Toys.png: see commons:COM:TOYS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link. I have revised the licensing based on File:Alternator smokescreen robot mode.jpg. If that doesn't work, then we can scrap this image. I think it's useful for showing the variety of toy types since most people don't know the difference between a minimate and a Diamond Select, but not 100% needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Russian occupations of Beirut[edit]

Nominator(s): Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers an unusual series of events in the history of Beirut. In both 1772 and late 1773-early 1774, the city came under brief Russian occupation as part of a wider Russo-Turkish war. It marks the first occupation of its kind for an Arab city and the first time Beirut falls to a European power since the Ottoman conquest of the region in 1516. With the exception of a German-annotated map in the lead (which I hope is not a serious issue), I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now there's an English version of the map. Credit goes to Don-kun. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support Comments: G'day, interesting topic and nicely done. Makes me realised there is so much I don't know about history! Fascinating. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • there are no dab links, and the ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the map
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • in the lead, suggest adding the years that the occupations occurred to the first sentence
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "small Russian squadron": suggest wikilinking to Squadron (naval) here and on first mention in the body
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Instead of providing soldiers to the Porte...": as a lay reader, I wasn't sure what "Porte" meant here. Could this be linked, or explained? (Potentially in a note?)
Done. I linked to Sublime Porte instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done (plus alt text). But it reads as "Battle of Çesme" in the caption instead of "Battle of Chesma", as it appears to be an officially given name to the painting. Hope it's okay. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine with me, although potentially a note might be added explaining the difference in spelling. Not a warstoper for me, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. I added a separate note group within the caption. Tell me what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "550,000 qirsh worth of loot": per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Suggest maybe changing it to "A total of 550,000 qirsh..." or something similar
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Sources, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Marti work. The cite book template supports "|trans-title=" as a field, which could be used to format the translation
Not done. I don't feel comfortable adding my own translation or that of Google Translate, as I'm not an Italian speaker. Do you have someone in mind who could help with that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps mariomassone can verify a translation from Italian? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Bear with me, it's 18th century italian; "History of the war in Syria in the year 1771: From the arms of Aly-Bey of Egypt and the further successes of the aforementioned Aly-Bey to the present year of 1772" Mariomassone (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Added. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest maybe reducing the width of the table in the Second occupation section. It might look a bit less stretched if it was at 60 per cent, or thereabouts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Nice to see this here, your first FAC? Will review as I read along. Too bad Al Ameer son isn't around anymore, I think he would have been interested in this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
My first one, yes. I was actually talking to Ameer a couple of years ago about Ali Bey, asking whether he had relevant sources that could be used to expand articles in this topic area. Too bad indeed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "In response to Russian violation of the Ottoman border while suppressing a Polish uprising, among other factors" Kind of long and confusing sentence. Who was suppressing the Polish uprising? I of course assume the Russians, but the wording here could go both ways.
Done. But in doing so, I had to expand a little, which some might consider a bit off-topic. Sources treating the occupations wouldn't mention the casus belli of the war. In fact, Persen intentionally omits it: "For reasons which are outside the limits of this paper, the Sultan declared war on Russia in 1768." Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's good with this extra context. This is not a research paper after all, but should be able to stand alone. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ali Bey and other things only linked in the intro (like Druze and Beirut) should also be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "at the Battle of Chesma" This is spelled "Chesma" in the linked article, and "Çesme in the adjacent image caption. Perhaps there could be consistency, what is the most common spelling?
The battle article calls it "Chesma", but the town's name on Wikipedia is Çeşme, which also appears in the name that was officially given to the painting, either by Aivazovsky himself or by the Feodosia gallery hosting it. A bit like Gdańsk/Danzig. No idea what should be done about this though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hope this solves the issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could maybe be good for orientation to show an image of how Beirut looked at the time, if such are available. Perhaps under "aftermath".
There are none on this project that I'm aware of. But it would be great if someone uploaded the maps analysed and recreated in this initiative. One of them can be found here (second map in the bottom second row of the gallery); it's from the Atlas of the Archipelago. Another one, which is the main subject of this study, is the von Palen map that is currently in the Russian State Navy Archive. Thing is, the image policy and I don't seem to get along that well. So there isn't much I can do about this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, maps that old would definitely be in the public domain by now, see the PD Russia template:[19] I think one of them could be a great addition to the article, they don't have to be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I can upload the one from Atlas of the Archipelago. I prefer the von Palen map though. But I couldn't find it on Google Images (the one in the PDF I linked contains a blue frame and removing it may disrupt the map's quality). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Tell me what you think: File:Beirut in the Atlas of the Archipelago.png. I hate the quality though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Better than nothing, I'll see if I can extract it in better quality, otherwise someone will probably do it down the line if they see it in the article. There is a way to download full res images from those weird tiled flash things, but I never got the hang of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Maghrebis" links to Maghrebi Arabic, which I'm not sure is appropriate (we're talking about people, not a language). Maybe a link to Maghreb would be better.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Persen played down", "Perminov" Why not give full names to all historians?
Persen's first name is already mentioned in the 'First occupation' section. That said, done. As for Perminov, I honestly don't know his full name and Catlemur (see the GA review) couldn't explicitly figure it out either, apparently. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "described it as an early manifestation of modern Soviet assistance" This could need a date for context. Also, how exactly does he phrase it? Seems a bit strange to give the Soviets credit for something that happened long before they existed...
Regarding date for context, I mentioned the Cold War, per the source. I felt like the article needed a Russian/Soviet perspective, and this is probably the only prominent one I could find throughout my research on the subject. Since the scholar's full name is already an issue, do you think the sentence should be removed altogether? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to keep it for perspective in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - not much to nitpick to begin with, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Ivan_Constantinovich_Aivazovsky_-_Battle_of_Çesme_at_Night.JPG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Which particular template do you have in mind? This one? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think an additional tag like the one here[20] is what could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Here. Didn't notice "additional" in your comment. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

An interesting read, some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • You should link (at least) Ottoman Empire, Acre, Sidon, Black Sea at the first occurrence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • imprisoned and died a few days later— how? No indication whether he was executed, already injured, ill or whatever
  • Hard to confirm. He was most likely poisoned on the orders of Abu al-Dhahab (du Quenoy, p. 135). Wouldn't it be a bit off-topic to delve into such controversies in this article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really, if you did know it would just be a matter of a couple of words to clarify whether he was killed or not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Abu al-Dhahab to turn against Ali Bey and that he would be made ruler of Egypt in his stead.—I'd try to avoid he... his when they are different people
  • Perhaps mention that the Druze are not Muslim in any standard sense?
  • Done. But I have to admit that I'm not entirely fond of that, largely due to the fact that it's not mentioned by the sources used in this article (and for a good reason). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Butting in here, I was almost about to ask why you even had to mention their sect, as this is not mentioned for any of the other actors, but I guess in this sense it is more like a "tribal" designation than of strictly religious significance. But as such, I don't think it has much relevance whether they are considered Muslim or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, not a big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope you can forgive me for this. Druze is already linked twice in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why have you linked to Google Books in your refs? Unless free full text is available, it's annoying for readers and reviewers to click through and find nothing worthwhile, and you are just linking to a sales site that's giving nothing back in return. Even if there is some preview text (not the case for me in the UK for those I checked) accessibility varies from country to country and isn't permanent, so personally I don't even previews in my own FAs
  • I tend to avoid WP:LINKVIOs as much as I can when it comes to books. Which kind of link do you have in mind? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added better links for Anderson and Mariti for now. Will you check the link to the former and tell me if it's okay? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anderson is fine, thanks. I'm thinking of links like eg Khalaf and Solov'ev which link to pages that have no actual text, just links to sales sites, in one case complete with a price. At best a waste of time following the link, at worse links to sales sites. I'm not going to oppose on this point, the fact that you do it and I don't doesn't mean I'm right, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added links with search results. I used the Solov'ev and Mariti books only because they contained the full names of the admirals (Kozhukhov's and Alexiano's respectively). I couldn't find a Solov'ev version that has a good preview besides this, which I added. The Khalaf e-book I found doesn't have page numbers, so I replaced the link in the article with this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess the point I'm getting that is that hard sources like books and journals don't have to have a link because they can in principle be verified elsewhere. My just-promoted Ham Wall had only three of seven books courtesy-linked since the others didn't have full free text, similarly some of the journals were unlinked, eg refs 4 and 26-28. Anyway, I said I wouldn't oppose on this issue, so changed to support above, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I like the idea of having no links at all. Most of them are useless previews anyway (even the Anderson book I feel uncomfortable with), and there is of course the possibility that you'll encounter some copies with different/invalid/lack of page numbers. Okay if I removed the whole lot of them? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said, I'd only keep any link if it gives permanent free access, which mostly applies to out-of-copyright material and some reports not controlled by the academic publishing companies. But your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've decided to delink them all except for Mariti's book, because it has two volumes that can be easily mixed up by readers (happened to me during this review). I don't trust e-books to remain freely accessible forever. And, like you said, the validity of such sources can be easily verified elsewhere. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I've no access to these sources. From my perspective they look reasonably comprehensive, many of them recent studies, and thus appear to be of the appropriate standard of quality and reliability.

One tiny presentational point: the page range in ref 2 should have a ndash not a hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Bougainville counterattack[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers what must be one of the worst military blunders of World War II. In March 1944 around 15,000 Japanese troops attempted to attack fortified positions on the island of Bougainville which were held by 62,000 Americans who knew that they were coming. While the Japanese fought bravely, the offensive ended in total failure, with the veteran US Army units stopping the attack in a matter of days.

A draft of this article languished in my user space for four years until 2016 when AustralianRupert prompted me to resume work on it, and went on to write at least half of the article (and possibly much more) himself. The article draws on a wide range of American, Japanese, Australian and New Zealand sources to provide a comprehensive account of this little-remembered, but important, battle. It was assessed as a GA in September 2016, and passed an A-class review in January this year. We have since expanded and copy edited the article, and are hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by PM

  • I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the copyedits and changes since 1 January when I last looked at it. I have just one nitpick, relating to the use of the term "pillbox". I believe this is a misnomer, and the structures being referred to were bunkers made of logs. Pillboxes are generally concrete structures. It is not a war-stopper, but I thought I should mention it. I consider this meets the FA criteria, I haven't looked at the image licensing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
G'day, PM, thanks for taking a look. I agree that "bunker" is how I would describe them, but the cited source (Miller) does use the term "pillbox": [21]. Gailey does also: [22]. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them as concrete positions, so it doesn't seem to be a US-English thing. It might be dated American language in the sources? If this is the case, changing to 'bunker' or similar seems sensible. Thanks also from me for the review Peacemaker. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bougainville_Operation_map.jpg: are any details given about provenance in the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • G'day, Nikki, the map was sourced from Reports of General MacArthur: Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area, Volume II, Part I. The preface to the cited work states that the work "...is the Japanese official record, contained in operational monographs furnished by the Japanese Demobilization Bureaux, the successors to the former War and Navy Ministries, developed by Officers of the Japanese Imperial Headquarters, Tokyo, and on the Staffs of major Japanese Commanders in the field". The foreword, also provides: "The preliminary work for compiling the MacArthur volumes began in 1943 within the G-3 Section of his General Staff..." as well as "Since they were Government property, the general turned over to the Department in 1953 these volumes and related source materials" and "Volume II of the Reports represents the contributions of Japanese officers employed to tell their story of operations against MacArthur's forces." Not sure whether that impacts the license, though. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If it's a Japanese work originally, I'd expect a Japanese tag would be more appropriate - while the immediate publication was commissioned by the US Army, the original work wouldn't have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dan. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Any time. Sorry I've gotten behind on my wiki-work lately. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Hyūga[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and any remnants of AmEnglish. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago, during which there was much discussion of some of the images. I deleted the images until I could prove to my satisfaction that they were official photos and thus war booty. I've reinstated and retagged them with the appropriate license. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and stand ready to address any issues identified by reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Support from Vami_IV[edit]

  1. I advise the use of harv references. –Vami_IV✠ 02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, won't be happening. I much prefer my own idiosyncratic style that involves less typing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Acceptable, but unfortunate. I have nothing else to offer but my support. –Vami_IV✠ 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things.

  • " In addition, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time ..." the reader may take the "in addition" as building on the quote immediately preceding. I might say "during the reconstruction" instead of "at this time".
  • " Captain Shigeushi Nakagawa assumed command on 30 April[13] and the ship was completed on that same day, too late for service in World War I.[18] " I might cut "on". Also, as we are using UK spellings (armoured), should "World War I" be "the First World War"? (plus obviously similar usages for WWII)(also are you going Pearl Harbor or Harbour?)
  • There isn't actually a strong national connection between the UK and First World War, etc. I've got plenty of British-published books on hand that use WWI.
  • " Beginning on 27 March 1932, she patrolled off the coast of China during the First Shanghai Incident, together with her sister ship Ise and the battlecruisers Kongo and Kirishima.[13]" Our article on same says the Shanghai Incident ended on 3 March 1932.
  • Good catch.
  • "When the war started for Japan on 8 December,[Note 4] the division, reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu and the light carrier Hōshō, sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands as distant support for the 1st Air Fleet attacking Pearl Harbor, and returned six days later." I imagine the sortie had to have begun before 8 December, if so, possibly the language used is a bit ambiguous.
  • The Bonins aren't very far from Kyushu and it appears that they did sail on the same day as the Pearl Harbor attack.
  • "she returned to Kure for repairs." Kure is linked on a second use.
  • Good catch
  • "the same day that the conversion officially began. It actually began two months later.[13] " I might say "Work" instead of "It".
  • Excellent idea.
  • "and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu;" I'd lower-case "southern".
  • You are inconsistent on the capitalization of "Main Body".
  • Sometimes the IJN formally designed parts of the fleet as the main body for various operations, while other times it's just a handy collective noun.
  • " The convoy reached the Matsu Islands, off the Chinese coast, on the 15th and was unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Rasher before they reached Zhoushan Island, near Shanghai, China, that night." I would cut ", China" as unneeded.
  • After referring to cruising off the coast of China after the First Shanghai Incident that seems reasonable.
Otherwise excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt review; see if my changes address your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the pretty minor changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. A single nitpick:

  • During the reconstruction, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time. Redundant, as we've already established when this happened at the beginning of the sentence.

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • There are no citations to Whitley, listed among the sources
  • I don't really see the point of adding the subscription template when there is no online link
  • The sources section would look tidier if isbn formats were standardised into the modern 13-digit format.

No spotchecks carried out. Subject to the above the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Alexandra Stan's second studio album, Unlocked (2014), released after her highly-mediatized violent event with former manager Marcel Prodan.

Unlocked has made its way through five FACs before, although new issues were 'discovered' every time. I believe the article is at this point well-written and well-cited, but I need further response on what should be improved. In the article's last FA nomination — among several support votes — two users were complaining over clipped sentences and American vs British English issues. While I tried to adress their queries, none of them responded to my ping-backs in the nomination, as well as on comments I left on their talk pages suggesting to work on the article. This may sound odd, but I do think that Unlocked has the potential to become a FA, with it having gained some considerable support among oppose votes. However, I need users who are ready to help me improve the article and to look over it again once I've implemented their suggestions, and don't ignore my ping-backs after leaving an oppose vote... Face-smile.svg Thanks in advance for every comment I'll (hopefully) get here. Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

  • File:Dance_(Sample).ogg: given the length of the original work, this exceeds the limits outlined by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hi there and thanks for the notice! I have shortened the sample down to just 20 seconds now, hope that does it. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

It passes an image review. Good luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Yeomanry Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers the history of the British yeomanry from its formation in 1794 during the French Revolutionary Wars until its amalgamation into the Territorial Force in 1908. A uniquely aristocratic institution, it was retained after the Napoleonic Wars for its utility as a mounted police force, gaining notoriety for its role in the Peterloo Massacre. It struggled to justify itself militarily, and survived in the late 19th century largely due to the wealth and political influence of its leadership. It found a renewed purpose as mounted infantry, much to the distaste of those members who remained wedded to the cavalry tradition, following the failure of the regular army in the Second Boer War. The article received some attention in a peer review (before this article was moved to its current name), and more thorough scrutiny, including a full image review, in a successful MILHIST A-Class assessment. I am aware of one potential probem with the sourcing: Mileham's The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820 was published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, but not having access to this in JSTOR, I used a copy published on http://www.balfronheritage.org.uk/home. Whilst I'm certain the venue fails FAC standards for sourcing, the actual source document does, I believe, pass muster. Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11 is incomplete
Not sure in what ways it was incomplete. I've added website name and founder name as publisher. Is that enough, or is it still missing something?
  • Hansard should be italicized
Done
  • Mileham 1985 should include full details of the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure which source you're referring to here. I've added issue and page number information to the JSTOR element. I've also put in a RX request to see if I can get the page numbers for the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research copy of the original document. Hopefully I can dispense with the balfronheritage.org.uk link altogether. Factotem (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It turns out that Mileham's article was split over two editions of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. I've added all the info to the single cite in the bibliography, but it's not possible to add to different JSTOR refs, so I've recorded the second as a hidden comment for now. I'll fix this when I know the results of the RX request. Factotem (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
RX came up trumps. I've updated the ref for the actual JSAHR document, added both editions to the bibliography, and removed the url for the balfronheritage website. Factotem (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by PM I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I also reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

I originally usurped the article Yeomanry, which is a general history of the yeomanry from formation to present day. When it became apparent that I was actually writing a sub-article dealing with a specific period of the yeomanry history, my edits were spun off to create this article, and the yeomanry article was restored to the version before I started.
Ok - I don't know why this can't be seen from the page history. Did you do a cut n'paste move without saying so?
No. I put in a request at WP:RM and one of the editors there did the move. Factotem (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Yeoman's first mention had "Yeomanry Cavalry" - I don't know if it's part of the FA requirements, but a check on missing links to the article should be done - basic housekeeping (and views promotion).
As I see it, this is a sub-article for Yeomanry, so that's where the incoming links will originate. Links in other articles that mention the yeomanry will logically link to the main article. I see you linked to this article in the Yeoman article, whereas I would have said that the more logical link there would be to Yeomanry.
Well I hadn't looked at Yeomanry, but no I do, there's no link to this there either in the first two sections, with "descended from volunteer cavalry regiments. ....In the 1790s, the threat of invasion of the Kingdom of Great Britain was high, after the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. To improve the country's defences, volunteer regiments were raised in many counties from yeomen." Only a "see also" that ought to be a "main". Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Edited Yeomanry to give this article a bit more exposure. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that in view of the unusual nature of these units, and the frankly rather limited extent of their actual military engagements, it would be better to abandon the usual unit article layout, and put all or most of 5 Recruitment, 6 Popular perception and 7 Funding, remuneration and terms of service before the history. Really they are more interesting, and I found reading the history gave rise to many questions that were only answered (and very well so) much further down.
I'm not sure about this, and think there will be issues however we cut it. Certainly, the "Perceptions" section relies on knowledge of the yeomanry's activities, so logically it should come after the historical narrative. The first para of the recruitment section also becomes problematic, mentioning as it does Peterloo, the Swing Riots, the Chartist disturbances and the yeomanry's dual role as police force and military auxiliary. I'm hesitant to introduce these without first explaining in some detail their relevance. This is especially the case, I think, when it comes to the yeomanry's role. I think the common perception (certainly mine before I started) is of the yeomanry is as a military force, and its role in policing is less well-known. I'd be interested in knowing some specifics about what questions you had, and also the opinions of other reviewers on this.
  • "Between 1818 and 1855, the peak years of its employment in support of the civil power, the yeomanry was on average called out for approximately 26 days per year." What does the last bit mean? Individual units somewhere were called out? Annual average for all units?
Individual units somewhere. The source states "...the force spent cumulatively at least 960 days on duty: approximately 26 days a year for this 37-year period." Not sure I see the problem with the current wording. Do you have any suggestions?
  • "according to Scottish Peer the Earl of Airlie,..." - something wrong here. A Scottish peer is different from a Scottish peer (neither should be capitalized), and the Earl of Airlie is a Scottish not UK title. I can't see if he had a UK peerage also & can't be bothered to check if he was a Representative peer. His bio is little help. And in UK English a "the" is needed to avoid a false title error.
    I looked at List of Scottish representative peers, and there he is, on the list as a representative peer from 10 December 1885 until he was killed in the Boer War on 11 June 1900. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm not entirely sure his Scottishness is worth mentioning really - I see someone at the A class review wanted it. His dying in a cavalry charge a few years later might be. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed the false title. I added the additional information about Berkeley and Airlie as a result of an ACR comment. I'm ambivalent about whether this info is kept or not; anyone who's curious can follow the link. I don't think it useful to add that Airlie died in a cavalry charge. For one thing, the source I used doesn't mention it, and for another he was leading a regular cavalry regiment, so it's not really relevant in an article about the yeomanry.
That he commanded a regular cavalry regiment is surely relevant to his comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've removed "Scottish peer" and added that he was an experienced cavalry officer, then adjutant to a yeomanry regiment and later killed leading the 12th Lancers (my error - the source did mention it). Factotem (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • With the big image, the "Recruitment" para needs splitting.
Done.
  • "Members of the Beaufort family" actually the Somerset family - "members of the Somerset family headed by the Duke of Beaufort" perhaps?
Amended to state that "Dukes of Beaufort served with the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars for over 150 years..."
  • "by 1892 all but one troop of the Middlesex Yeomanry were recruited in London" - not entirely surprizing given the majority of the couunty had already been absorbed by London sprawl.
The statement supports the fundamental point of that para, that recruitment was increasingly urban. Is there anything specific that needs to be addressed here?
  • In general there are links missing, and some repeated. I have added some - mostly peers and counties.
Some of the links added were duplicates, which I removed. I did, when writing this article, look into finding links to the peers you added links for, but there was nothing in the source to establish with certainty a link between the name given in the source and the article linked to. It seemed to me to be a bit of an assumption, and straying into WP:OR to add those (I left the ones you added, though). I also try to avoid links that are not relevant to the text in the link. For example, " Royal Midlothian Yeomanry Cavalry Races" refers to a horse race event, so I'm not sure that linking Midlothian is all that useful (but also left that one in). I do try and link wherever it seems relevant, though, and I'm not sure I see any grievous underlinking. Could you give me some examples, please?
Well, you seem to have removed most of them. If you trust your source as to the name and the date, then identifying the peer, whether with WP or other sources, is hardly OR. Other Windsor, 6th Earl of Plymouth was certainly the only "Lord Plymouth" in 1832, and indeed the bio article mentions his involvement with the Worcestershire Yeomanry. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nearly finished - more later Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium[edit]

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about is the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be. ^_^ It's just finished going through a peer review and I believe it's ready for FA now! Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

Support. My comments have been addressed. Note: I actively participated in the pre-FAC peer review and a majority of my comments was dealt with then.--R8R (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • Preliminary experiments in 2017 have shown -- looks like "showed" would be better;
  • targets, and significantly increasing -- looks like the comma doesn't belong here;
  • the yields from cold fusion reactions -- I'd not use the article here;
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory -- interestingly, this laboratory is referred to by Livermore rather than its acronym LLNL throughout the article unlike, say, GSI or JINR. Is there a reason for that?
    • Not really, so I've changed it to LLNL. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • JINR–Livermore collaboration published its results -- I notice that the collaboration is referred to as a singular noun, but some time ago the GSI team was referred to as a plural one: The GSI team attempted to similarly synthesise element 113 via cold fusion in 1998 and 2003, bombarding bismuth-209 with zinc-70, but were unsuccessful both times. Consistency would be great;
    • Changed so that the GSI team is referred to in the singular. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In June 2004 and again in December 2005, the JINR–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim for the discovery of nihonium -- it would be best not to use the name "nihonium" here as it will only be established as official in 2016. I suggest element 113;
    • I agree; I must have missed this one somehow. Changed. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Further experiments at the JINR in 2005 fully confirmed -- as is, this is seemingly too bold a claim as the JWP did not recognize that;
    • Actually, the JWP did recognise that the data was consistent: they write in their report "The first two events in each chain showed excellent mutual agreement for both decay energies and lifetimes" (on the 2007 studies), and "The 2013 Oganessian collaboration [21] and the 2013 Rudolph collaboration provide redundancy to the three 284113 chains observed in 2004 with the alpha energies being in excellent agreement among most of the events. ... Much of the minor discrepancies in energy are accommodated when sums are considered." What they did not recognise was that this data was from elements 115 and 113, because they considered that Z had not been convincingly established. I've changed it to "experiments at the JINR in 2005 confirmed the observed decay data", to avoid mentioning Z. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • halogens (the group containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine) -- it is important to note when talking about the superheavy elements that halogens are not necessarily a group as element 117 may not be a halogen. Perhaps you could use set of elements or the like.

Other than that, the article seems great.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I'd love to see is the three-level location introduction for LLNL (all other places have that so this would match the current writing style) and then I'll be ready to support.--R8R (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep[edit]

  • The lede now says: Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its lighter homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium, and is predicted to behave as a post-transition metal like the heavier four. I think "lighter" is not needed (distracting from the fact), and "the heavier four" is not clear right away (use "the latter four"?). - DePiep (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: I've changed this to "Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium. All but boron are post-transition metals, and nihonium is expected be a post-transition metal as well." Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Green tickY (N.B. per FAC procedure: as I did not "oppose", I think it better not to write "support" either, especially since I cannot FAC-judge the whole article). - DePiep (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by XOR'easter[edit]

Looks pretty good!

  • In the intro, it says Nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability" — perhaps this should be At least one isotope of nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability". As written, it's a slightly confusing bit of backtracking.
    • Replaced with Some nihonium isotopes are expected to be within the "island of stability". Double sharp (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have the feeling that many readers will be more familiar with a different meaning of the term "cold fusion". (In the disambiguation page, the sense of fusion reactions "where the product nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy" comes fourth of four.) Perhaps a brief note should be added to clarify this, particularly since the term occurs early enough that fairly casual readers are apt to bump into it.
  • It looks like a couple words are missing just after footnote 47, perhaps "to reference" or "to honor".

XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to support the nomination now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: You're welcome! I still plan on addressing your well-founded criticism of our quick introduction of the term cold fusion, and have in fact been thinking about what to do about that. I'm currently leaning towards just adding an explanatory footnote at its first occurrence, since it has to be introduced very early and explaining it then means that we're already going slightly off-topic before the reader has even gotten a clear sense of what the topic actually is. Of course, I'll be most grateful if you have a better suggestion than that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote at the first occurrence sounds good to me; I can't think of anything better. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: I've added an explanatory footnote, reusing text from the unbinilium article. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Billy Martin[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a larger than life figure, even almost 30 years after his death. Growing up in the New York area in the late 70s, Billy Martin was on the front pages, or the back pages of the tabloids, very often. I was at the Old-Timers' Day in 1978, and I well remember the crowd cheering for 15 minutes ...Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Info: He played baseball. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes well I figured it went without saying ... it does say Major League Baseball in the lede sentence...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm going to do a sweep for any writing issues as time permits and expect to find myself supporting afterward. One thing I notice immediately is that ref 138 is a bare link. That needs some further formatting. Otherwise, I look forward to sinking my teeth into this article and will report any further issues I find. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've cleaned up a few things in the article and just have the following source-related comments to offer:
  • Note c could use a cite, as it doesn't have one at the moment.
  • Haven't checked the relevant pages, but it looks like refs 1 and 168 could be duplicates that can be combined.
  • Done.
  • Ref 145 (the Neyer book) needs a page number.
  • Since ref 194 is to a website, that one needs an access date.
  • Did this one myself to move things along. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Publisher of ref 192 should be italicized, because that's to a newspaper article.
  • Some of the date formatting is inconsistent in a few places, and should be made internally consistent.(UTC)Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I've got everything. Thank you for the edits and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Support – An enjoyable read which appears to meet FA standards to my eyes. Hopefully we'll get some more reviewer activity here soon, because the article deserves it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for leading the way. Thank you for the kind words. Hopefully we will see more action.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Taapaca[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the northernmost volcanoes of that country in fact. Taapaca is a holy mountain for local people and was one for the Inka. The volcano was once considered to be extinct but now we know that it had eruptions until about 2300 years ago. The important local town of Putre lies on its slopes and on top of recent volcanic deposits and thus could be in danger from future eruptive activity. This is my second nomination for FA after Tutupaca; as with that article Mike Christie did a thorough copyedit on Taapaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. My only reservation is criterion 3, images; the article would benefit from a map, though it's not a significant enough issue for me to withhold support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see a map's been added; that's helpful. Even better would be a map showing local topographic features mentioned in the article, but that may not be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Images that are present are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

  • If sector collapses is technical enough to be red-linked to a non-existent article, you should explain what it means in this context.
  • I agree that a diagrammatic map of the locality would be an enhancement
  • You've linked tarapaca which is a disambiguation page head by something you've already said before about the word for eagle. I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that link
Otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In order:
  • I swear, I had promised at some point to write an article about sector collapses. In the absence of an article I've added a parenthetical.
  • There are a number of geological maps, none of which is freely licensed. There is File:Txu-oclc-224571178-se19-10.jpg which is topographical and could be cropped. Otherwise, the only other way would be to ask someone at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop to see if they can make a map.
  • Um, clarify the issue please? I am not sure I understand.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

Will try to get to this in the next few days. ceranthor 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak and Ceranthor: in case there any follow ups... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I had honestly forgotten this was on my todo list. Will get to it ASAP! ceranthor 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - Still going through and making some copyedits here and there, but this is pretty much ready. ceranthor 19:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I've been unable to check many refs specifically, because of paywalls and language, but in general the article seems to be based on scholarly sources and I am happy to AGF. A few minor issues:

  • Ref 1: does not give full source title
  • Ref 2: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 3: gives links to two separate web pages. Which, respectively, are the sources for a, b and c?
  • Ref 3: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 9: Link is to abstract only - see note below.
  • Ref 23: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 61: You shouldn't use caps for the source title, even though that's how it is presented in the original. See also Reinhard in the sources list
  • Wegner, W.; Worner, G.; Kronz, A in sources list lacks publisher information
  • General: some of the sources link to abstracts & require purchase or approved login to get access to the source articles. It would be helpful if these were indicated, e.g. by use of subscription templates.

Otherwise, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton Got most issues. Re paywalled/restricted source articles, I was using an university VPN which isn't paywalled to access them. My account on that VPN has now lapsed, so some sources I need to access in other ways; I've added some "subscription needed" tags. Regarding http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010040366, to be honest I am not entirely certain who the publisher is for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You need a publisher. Surely its the Institute de Recherche pour le Développment? It's on their website. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Added it as "website". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Black Friday (1910)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the Black Friday of 1910, rather than the modern shopping frenzy. It was a suffragette demonstration in which 300 women marched to the Houses of Parliament where they were met with violence, some of it sexual, by the Metropolitan police and bystanders. This article has been overhauled recently and any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary comment: Please check the caption on the Votes for Women cartoon image. "Offing"? More detailed assessment to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops- many thanks Brian! - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This is a very interesting and high quality article on an important topic. I have the following comments:

  • Why did the suffragettes not complain about police brutality?
    • It's not made clear why Pankhurst had the policy of non-reporting, just that it wasn't what they did. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • OK. Presumably it was done to appeal to the conservative side of politics. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • To what extent did the Conciliation Bill offer suffrage? ("introduce a measure of female suffrage" is a bit unclear)
    • The actual conditions are a little cumbersome to include in the lead, so they are in footnote H - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'd suggest moving this up to this sentence though. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've added that the Bill would have added a million women to the vote, which seems to be a good part to add, without the extensive rules of how to be in that million. I hope that's ok. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why were different police drafted to handle this demonstration?
    • It was never fully explained by the authorities. I've added a line that says no-one knows, but probably an administrative decision. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did the attacks continue for six hours? Were the suffragettes continuing their protest, or had they been trapped? (or both?)
    • I'll check on this point (I don't remember seeing an explanation, but that may have been me) - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I've found nothing in the literature that explains the length of time they kept up the attacks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "there would be facilities for a Conciliation Bill to be put to parliament." - is 'facilities' the right word here? (given that the problem was a lack of dedicated parliamentary time)
    • I'll check on this - I think it was the language they used at the time, but no problems in re-drafting it to avoid antiquated language. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. (It was Asquith who used the term, but I think it probably confuses things here). - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Have there been any commemorations of this event? Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of, but I'll search specifically for this and report back. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Only one vigil on the night of the 100th anniversary - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Nick. There are a couple of things for me to check on, and I should have that done shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Nick-D: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, but please see the suggestion above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick. I've added something to address your point, which covers most parts, but without excessive detail. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from SN54129[edit]

  • Nice article, as always expected. The immediate thing that jumps out is the duplicate image, in the lead and the reaction section—any particular strategy with this? You've got plenty of good images already (and possibly, where they came from?); I think the one that's bordered by the newspaper headline would look good up here?
    • Yep: newspaper cover moved up to the top. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Couple of other things; " The conciliation committee were"—I immediately think, obviously, collective noun="was" (as opposed to "members of the committee were..."). Does this depend on it being the committee itself or its members though. Also, I can see some (extraneous?) commas which seem to break up the flow of the sentence unnecessarily ("The rising levels of violence by the police, was not raised or complained about", "Asquith called a general election, and said that parliament") Ironically I also note a couple of places where I thought a comma would fit better :) but perhaps its style rather than necessity. Bloody interesting piece though.Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural (and grammatically neither is considered 'better' than the other), so I think its OK here. I'll have another look over the commas. It's been through a bit of a heavy trim just pre-FAC, so there possibly are some errors that I'll look into once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Always a moment of supreme enjoyment...having my lingua franca explained to me  :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ha! I knew as soon as I posted it that it looked a bit stuffy! - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Notwithstanding stuffiness, I'd just like to emphasise my support for this article's promotion. I understand the concerns expressed below, but I do not see the sources used as being particularly egregious, lightweight or outdated; as long as the coverage is sufficiently broad and in-depth, there is no requirement to give every source equal weight. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks SN54129 - your thoughts are very welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I'm reading carefully, this being my first detailed look at the revised and improved text. Here are a few comments on the lead and first few sections:

Lead:
  • Metropolitan police → Metropolitan Police
  • "well-supported" - delete hyphen
  • "Asquith refused to grant further parliamentary time for it to be discussed." Suggest: "Asquith refused to grant it further parliamentary time."
  • "Asquith called a general election" – for clarity, I'd insert "another" before "general".
  • "The demonstrations led to a change in tactics by the WSPU, because many of their members were unwilling to expose themselves to similar violence again; the organisation moved further towards direct action, such as stone throwing and window breaking, which gave the women a chance to escape before encountering the police." I'm not sure that "change in tactics" is the right wording. It was more a resumption and extension of the militant tactics pursued before the truce – as evidenced in your own later text in paras 3 and 4 of the "Women's Social and Political Union" section. I'm also unsure about "which gave the women a chance to escape..." etc, which motivation isn't mentioned in your text and ought to be referenced somewhere.
    • Added in the body, under the existing reference - it should have been mentioned there in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main text mentions a change of tactics on the part of the police, which is not mentioned in the lead.
Women's Social and Political Union
  • The blockquote seems a little on the long side (170 words), going beyond the function of emphasising the text. You might consider a trim.
  • You describe Herbert Gladstone as "the Liberal Home Secretary". You don't add a party label to Asquith when you describe him earlier in the section as the Prime Minister - probably just "the Home Secretary" would suffice.
Political situation
  • Give date of the January 1910 general election, as you do in the lead
  • A hung parliament eliminates, rather than reduces, a government's majority (as Mrs May learned to her discomfort last year).
  • "Asquith took power" – retained power, I think, as he was already in office
  • "they accepted it was an important step and called a truce in militant actions in support". A bit clumsily worded, I think. Suggest "as an important step", followed by a comma, and replace "actions in support" with "activity".
  • For the benefit of those unversed in British parliamentary procedures, it might be useful to add the words "and it would therefore fail" after "but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it".
  • "Grey" not mentioned previously in the text, only in a footnote, so should be properly introduced.

More to come soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian: these are now all covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

18 November
  • "On 18 November 1910 Asquith called a general election..." Although the reasons for this don't impinge on your topic, a few words of explanation would be helpful, e.g. "On 18 November 1910, in an attempt to resolve the parliamentary impasse arising from the House of Lords veto on Commons legislation, Asquith called a general election. He said that..." etc. – or you may devise a briefer insertion.
  • "the first groups of men..." – who were these "men"? Were they just bystanders? Calling them "the first groups" makes it sound as though they were organised. Perhaps delete the words "the first"?
  • Six hours is a mighty long time. What were the demonstrators actually doing all this time, apart from being beaten up? Was it a passive demonstration, or did they make attempts to enter the parliament buildings? I think a little fleshing out of detail would help to form a better picture of what was going on.
    • There is very detail about what happened, aside from the reports from the women about their individual treatment. I've clarified that they were trying to get into parliament fr that time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on wheelchair mechanics, so I'm a little bemused by the policeman who "stole the valves from the wheels". What can this mean? Do wheels have stealable valves?
    • I suspect it's rather like bike tyres (or at least bike tyres from a century ago!) I've added a link - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Reaction
  • On 19 November 1910, newspapers reported on the events." I would add: "of the previous day".
  • "an attempt was made by the police to suppress publication" – "the police" is rather too general here. Perhaps "the police authorities"? Also in the following sentence, "he" and "they" require clearer definition.
  • "When members of the Conciliation committee..." earlier "conciliation committee"
  • "they demanded a public inquiry, which was rejected." Who rejected it?
Assessment
  • "Emmeline blamed the maltreatment Clarke received at the two November demonstrations" – I'd insert "her death on" after "blamed"

Primarily these are small points I would have suggested at the peer review, had I got there. The only significant issue, I believe, is the "six hours" matter that I raise above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian; all covered per your suggestions. Thanks for your thoughts, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: My specific points have been adequately answered. I believe that, overall, the article has benefitted from the searching analysis it has received at this FAC, and as it stands meets the FAC criteria. If new sources are found that provide significant fresh details or interpretation, the text can be adjusted as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Brian, for all your suggestions and advice here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, those that are not should not
I thought these were OK? Can you point out the ones that are not? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:The_Daily_Mirror,_19_November_1910,_front_page_(cleaned).png: UK tag requires that you outline in the image description steps taken to try to ascertain authorship.
Photographer identified (inc date of death); tag changed - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with File:A_policeman_tries_to_seize_a_banner_from_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday.jpg.
Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with File:Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson;_Emmeline_Pankhurst.jpg, which also needs a US PD tag and the source link of which appears to go to a different image
Explanation and tag added; link re-directed to correct image - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Suffragette_Banner_-_Museum_of_London.jpg: who is the author on which the life+70 tag is based?
Tag changed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with File:Suffragettes,_Daily_Graphic,_14_February_1907.jpg
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Votes_for_Women_-_1909_front_page.png
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Pankhurst_at_the_Black_Friday_demonstration.jpg.
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically same also with File:Flier_for_a_suffragette_demonstration.jpg, but that one I would argue is too simple for copyright protection
It probably is - the type is unexceptional and layout simplistic, but I've swapped the tags anyway, just for safety's sake. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Arrest_of_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday1910-11-18_(22163159204).jpg: per the Flickr Commons tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks Nikkimaria: all the tags etc sorted (hopefully!), but if you answer the question on your first point I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

A very worthy topic.

  • "a truce in militant actions" is a rather curious turn of phrase. There's "truce in militant activity" further down, too.
  • I feel the final paragraph of "18 November" could have more details about what actually happened on the day; is that basically all of what is known? Did the police not tell a story about what had happened? You mention lots of journalists being present; did this not tell of more details? I see now that more is discussed in the sections following!
    • Aside from the stories of the individuals involved, there is very little information aside from 'the two sides struggled'. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the image may be that of either Ernestine Mills[59] or Ada Wright.[60][61]" Presumably you mean that the person displayed was either Mills or Wright, not that one of the two of them took the picture?
  • "The committee's secretary, the journalist Henry Brailsford, and" Was Brailsford the secretary? If so, dashes might help!
  • "she had witness against others" Witnessed?
  • In one place, you refer to "stone throwing and window breaking" and in another to "stone throwing and window-breaking". I'd have thought it should be "stone-throwing and window-breaking".
  • "The historian Elizabeth Crawford considers the events of Black Friday "was to fix the image of the relations" This is grammatically a little odd.
  • "Sir Edward Troup" but " Sir Edward Grey" (twice)
  • The lead feels very long for what is actually a relatively short article.

Hope that's useful. This reads very well. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Josh! Your suggestions taken on board here; please let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if there is anything else you think should be addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Lead image[edit]
The Daily Mirror, 19 November 1910, front page (cleaned).png
The Daily Mirror, 19 November 1910, front page.jpg
Black Friday, London, 18 November 1910, suffragette attacked.jpg
Black Friday, attacked suffragette on the ground (2).jpg

Hi SchroCat, I see you've removed the higher quality image from the lead again. I think it should be restored to either File:Black Friday, London, 18 November 1910, suffragette attacked.jpg or File:Black Friday, attacked suffragette on the ground.jpg (the lead image since 2015). Swapping it for the Mirror front page means the quality of the image is reduced considerably, and the article isn't about the news coverage. SarahSV (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the article isn't about the news coverage, it was an important part of driving public opinion (both toward and away from the demonstrators), so I think we do need the front page in there somewhere. At the resolution the images are shown in the article, the difference between them is negligible, and I think the impact is greater showing it as, very literally, front page news. (It was also you who suggested it ;-) ) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the Mirror front page being the lead in principle; it's the quality that's the problem. Is there any way to download a higher quality version of the Mirror image? SarahSV (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've put in a higher quality version, but it contains a stamp on the front that appears in all the historic copies of The Mirror from their archive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The image reminds me of File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg: Ian Tomlinson and several police officers just after one of them (not in picture) pushed him over. We use that in the lead of Death of Ian Tomlinson, but not as it appeared on the front page of The Guardian.
Despite this being a women's protest, the image shows only two women: one on the ground and one (possibly) in the background. It shows around 17 men, at least six of whom are police officers. That tells a story: for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women. We lose that detail by using the Mirror image. SarahSV (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we're losing Sarah: it's the same image, just with the additional impact of having The Mirror masthead above it. It's the same story being told in the two identical images. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We lose the detail, as I said above. The Mirror images are just a mass of black. SarahSV (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you may be reading way too much into it "for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women"? There is nothing to back that up at all. What the Mirror version does is to reflect the reliable sources of it being a highly publicised front page matter. We have a whole section dedicated to the reaction, much of which is about the media. If you remember, there was a previous image of an old woman being tussled with by a policeman, which could also be happily put back in. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As I recall, she has written about it. What did she say happened? SarahSV (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The little old lady? I don't think she's ever been identified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The woman in the lead image. SarahSV (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
So, I'll go back to the suggestion of a large policeman wrestling with a little old lady. You seem to have missed that suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking about the woman in the lead image; the woman in the image in this section. She wrote or talked about the experience. You can take what happened directly from her. SarahSV (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, you seem to be talking past me on this. I've suggested an alternative image to get past this, as there is minimal difference between the two images, except for the additional impact of the newspaper headline. As to what someone has said, the reliable sources do not even agree on the identity of the woman in the photo. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I'm discussing: The Mirror (as I recall) identified the woman on the ground as Ada Wright. She identified herself as Ada Wright and wrote or discussed what happened to her. Every RS I have read about this (as I recall) names her as Ada Wright. Her name and statement should be in the article. Given how that image became a symbol of Black Friday, it should be the lead image, as it was from 2015 until you changed it recently. Of the various versions of that image, we should use the highest quality so that we can see the detail.
As for the National Archive saying it was Ernestine Mills, are they alone in that, or do any of the primary sources or reliable secondary sources say the same? SarahSV (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
No, the Mirror do not identify her as Wright. I am not happy about dismissing the National Archives version, as they are fairly good at what they do (although I have not seen HO144/1106/200455, the document from the Home Office where the identification as Mills is made). I don't agree that the "detailed" version is better (as far as I can see, amorphous shapes are all facing perpendicular to the woman and may have nothing to do with her specific situation), and it loses the impact of showing it as front page news. I do not wish to continue this discussion: you are talking past me much of the time, and I am prepared for other reviewers to chip in to make comments as they see fit. Hopefully a consensus will develop out of the other attendees at this FAC, particularly as it was your suggestion to use this particular image in the first place! - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Where does the National Archive say anything about the Home Office? They say only "Possibly Mrs Ernestine Mills prone and Dr Herbert Mills in top hat". [24] Given that they don't even mention Ada Wright, that could be a simple mistake. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
[25] It could be a mistake, but as this very reliable source refers to Mills in more than one location, it seems an odd mistake to make. Either way, I'm happy for others to chip in to get some consensus from third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tracked down the source (the citation, not the book itself) for Ada Wright's statement. She was interviewed by Antonia Raeburn for her book The Militant Suffragettes, London: New English Library, 1973, pp. 170–171. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't seen this, so I should make clear that I'm assuming she interviewed Wright directly. I believe that she did interview suffragettes for the book, and that Wright's statement that she was the woman on the ground is in the book. I'm inferring from that that Raeburn spoke to Wright. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Now I see that the Raeburn book with Ada Wright's statement is quoted by Caroline Morrell, a source you've cited a lot, so you would already have known about it. (I wish you had said; it would have saved me time.) SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I have not had time to check. Most of my limited Wiki time this evening has been spent emailing you documents or discussing the lead image here, even though you seem not to be taking on board some of the things I'm saying. Try and work with me, rather than against me please. I'm off to bed, having been going round in circles here and not actually achieving anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • It matters very, very little when making the decision about the lead image, and whether or not Wright thought that image was of her or not. Again, I am happy to let others chip in with their thoughts on the selection. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It matters for two reasons not related to which image is in the lead: (1) we should name the woman in this famous image, assuming it has been established; and (2) her statement describing what happened to her belongs in the article.
Re: the lead image. For background, the higher quality image was added to the article in January 2015. You added a rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018, which removed the image and added the Mirror one to the "Reaction" section. I restored the higher quality image on 20 April and placed it in the lead. You removed it again on 31 May and moved up the Mirror image instead. SarahSV (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Im always wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred. Either way, the reliable sources show two names and we should reflect that. I would not be happy to see something like the National Archives ignored on an interview of someone claiming that it's them.
I am very aware of the history of the use of the image in this article, but I'm at a loss as to why it matters. A consensus of reviewers here will suffice. -SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: your point about being "wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred", Sylvia Pankhurst names the woman as Ada Wright in The Suffragette Movement (1931), which you use as a source, and says she saw her. Describing Black Friday, she writes (p. 343):

I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling around her.

SarahSV (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Which of these six times is the photograph of, do we know? On the assumption that's what it's of, of course. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, sorry, I don't understand the question. Pankhurst says that she witnessed the attack on Wright. The implication is that she saw the tall man in the silk hat try to help. That's the man in the photograph. SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

At present, the text reads: "the image may be of either Ernestine Mills or Ada Wright." The weight of evidence in the sources clearly points to Wright rather than Mills, so at the very least I'd be inclined to reverse the name order, and perhaps prioritise Wright's claim a little more emphatically, e.g. "the image is likely that of Ada Wright,<references> or possibly Ernestine Mills.<ref>" Perhaps add a short footnote explaining that Wright identified herself in a 1973 interview? Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly do the first half of your suggestion, but the second half (as it stands) is a problem: Wright died in 1939, and the details of when the interview was, or who it was to, remains a mystery. We can fudge something to say that she claimed it, but without too much additional information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It might not remain a mystery if we had the chance to do the research, but this article was rushed from a sandbox rewrite (with no notification to page watchers that it was taking place) straight to peer review, and presumably it would have been straight to FAC had I not raised objections on talk. There are other problems with the article, but anyone wanting to review it seriously needs time to send off for the sources, and some will take weeks to arrive. I don't understand why this had to be rushed to FAC over an objection.
I added a selection of the sources identifying the woman as Wright to Ernestine Mills, but you've removed them to a footnote and edit-warred to keep them there. Here is the section as I wrote it (I would normally not even mention the photograph in that article until I knew more; I wrote that section only as a compromise). Please see the discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills. Georgiana Solomon identified her as Wright in a letter to Churchill in December 1910. Sylvia Pankhurst identified her as Wright. That is significant because the National Archives description page is claiming that the man in the silk hat might be Mills's husband, Dr. Herbert Mills. But Herbert Mills was the Pankhurst family doctor. Sylvia would surely have recognized him had he been the man in the photograph, or he would at least have mentioned it to her.
I've emailed the National Archives to ask why someone has added to their catalogue description of the image that it is "possibly" Mills (because that page appears to be the only source that says this), so we have to wait for their reply. Again, all this should be sorted out on the talk page, not during an FAC.
I object to the removal of the high-quality image from the lead. We see detail in it that you can't see as clearly or at all with the image as it appeared in the Mirror, including detail that sources discuss (e.g. the smiling boy); also that the policeman appears to have removed just one glove, which may suggest that he had hit her with it, and that the crowd around her is almost entirely men, which is significant. Someone appears to have dragged her away from the other women. You don't see that in the Mirror image. SarahSV (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
1. No notes are needed to page watchers (not that anyone can identify them) as they are notified by the opening of the PR/FAC by the addition of the templates to the talk page.
2. This article – in approximately this form – since mid-April. How long do you suggest we wait for you before doing anything?
3. (Re: edit warring on the Mills article: You Boldly added sources, I moved them, you reverted: you are equally culpable of edit warring on that article as I am. As I pointed out on the talk page, discussions abut the potential identification in an image belong in a footnote, not in the main text.
4. The specific identity of the person in the image is of minor academic interest compared to the remainder of the article, and there is no reason why this process should be held up for you to undertake Original Research.
5. Regardless of that, I have included (in footnote M) several of the sources that identify Wright. I have not included the synthesis of Pankhurst "surely" recognising Dr Mills.
6. I have already said that I am happy to keep the decision of the image to other reviewers, rather than the opinion of one person over another. Personally I think you are reading an awful lot into the static image (Someone appears to have dragged her away? Really?) and none of what you suggest is backed up by the sources. I also think the fact it was front page news in one of Britain's widest circulating daily newspapers gives it much more impact than minor details when seen at 300px wide on the page. Either way, let other reviewers chip in with their thoughts and suggestions, and let's not forget, despite your objection, it was you who originally suggested it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You added a sandbox rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018 (with the edit summary "a ttweak or two..."), and later asked that the sandbox be deleted. That means page watchers knew nothing about it until it was done.
You took it to peer review the next day, then presumably intended to take it straight to FAC. I objected on Talk:Black Friday (1910), for several reasons, including because you had copied a paragraph word-for-word from text Brian wrote at another article (diff). You responded that you would not edit the article again.
On 28 May you said you had changed your mind and would be nominating it for FAC shortly. You asked me to make any further comments immediately. I told you I didn't have time and wouldn't be able to support it (discussion). Had I known about the rewrite when you started it, as is the case with most editing on Wikipedia, I'd have had time to order the sources. But instead everything is done in a rush, so the only people able to review it are people without access to sources. That's a big problem.
As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in Ernestine Mills and Ada Wright (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. SarahSV (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I really have no idea how you think me adding a PR and FAC template onto the talk page isn't going to alert page watchers, but never mind.
Thank you for potted history: it means sweet fanny Adams (particularly to me, as I know what steps I took and when), but the main point is that it is here for those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so.
It's not true to say only those with access to sources can review this, and I've lost count of the number I have sent though to you, when you have requested them directly or through the resource exchange.
I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me. If you could do that, life would be much more constructive for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The "sandbox-to-FA pipeline" bypasses the normal collaborative process. Reviewers are probably not familiar with the issues, and no one has had time to access the sources (I mean books, not newspaper articles). If the article is promoted, it becomes even harder to change anything. The PR and FAC templates alert page watchers when it's too late. Please take that point. There's no point in having your work reviewed exclusively by people who don't have the sources in front of them. Yet that is what this speed causes. SarahSV (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry it doesn't fall into the way you do things, but it is not uncommon, and I have never heard anyone complain about it before. I will certainly not change the way I do things on the basis of one comment. As I have already pointed out, I have emailed though a large number of sources to you (more than anyone has ever asked before) and I have done so because I want the articles I work on to be the best they can be. I disagree that this method by-passes a collaborative process: both PR and FAC are collaborative processes and those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the question of the lead image and the related text re Wright/Mills. I think the present adjusted text and footnote is acceptable, unless incontrovertible evidence emerges that either confirms Wright absolutely or rejects Mills entirely, at which point further adjustments can be made. As to the choice of image, I'm always inclined to go for the best quality available, but I can see the force of the argument for including the DM masthead even if the image is inferior. Is it possible, I wonder, to create a fresh image by combining the better quality photograph with the masthead? Is it legal? If so, I doubt that it's beyond the skills of our techies to create it, which could provide a pleasing solution. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of FAC[edit]

Off topic

Ian Rose and Laser brain, can I ask you please to look at what's happening here and consider archiving this? It's another sandbox-to-FAC article. It was rewritten in a sandbox in April (without alerting page watchers that it was being rewritten), added in one edit to the article, immediately taken to peer review, and presumably would have gone straight to FAC had I not objected on talk.

When I objected to some of the edits, SchroCat said he had changed his mind about working on it. On 28 May he announced that it was going to FAC after all. This has left no time for other editors to get hold of the books via inter-library loan. Now, very contentious edits are being made during the FAC (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems for more details), and BRD is being ignored. These issues should have been resolved on talk before the nomination.

I'm minded to add the NPOV template; I've held off only because it's something I do very rarely. But this feels like a misuse of FAC to gain control of content, content that can't be reviewed thoroughly because of the speed from rewrite to nomination. If the article is promoted, it will be pretty much impossible to change. SarahSV (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. The article has been there since APRIL to allow people to comment or edit, and guess what: nobody did. Not even you. If you have a problem with what you call "sandbox-to-FAC articles", then open an RfC and get the process looked into. As far as I am aware there is no policy or guideline against this, nor have I ever heard anyone complain about it until you raised it today. There are no contentious edits being made, apart from you trying to delete a reliable source. I would be glad for the co-ords to look at this nom: it is uncontentious (or a the least it was until you tried to derail it). The only person trying to "gain control" Sarah, is you. You have been obstructive on this in both the PR (where you refused to use the process, but were obstructive on the talk page), and you have been equally obstructive here. I do not now how many times I have requested that you work with me rather than against me, and I have gone out of my way to dig out sources and send them over to you when requested, but my pleas have consistently fallen on deaf ears. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. Butting in, in a big way having watched this play out since seeing the edits to Mud March last night. Writing about the history of women's fight to simply be able to vote is difficult and it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times. That's the elephant in the room here and needs to be pointed out. Clearly Sarah is interested in the topic and is knowledgeable; in the spirit of collegiality and collaboration, she should be welcomed and her scheduled accommodated. In my view this and Mud March should be joint noms, but that's just me hoping for a better world. In terms of minor points: I looked at this a few weeks ago when I noted it on mentioned on Sarah's talk page and wondered why the lead image was a blur of black; 2., in March I linked this article that I found to the discussion on Mud March - the first para discusses the woman in the image. I'm not sure why these points have become so contentious, but my suggestion, if anyone is interested, would be for everyone to step back for a day or so and to take a few deep breaths. I agree, that no good can come at this point and archiving isn't the worst decision. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times". Oh good grief... One of us is here is 'gender-blind'. Victoria, this is nothing to do with my gender or Sarah's gender, it's to do with 'playing nice' with others and trying to end up with a quality article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This idea of "playing nice" is patronizing (and means I have to do what you want), as was the comment about the "little old lady". There is a lot of misogyny in the primary and secondary sources. You have to know how to spot it, and know how to handle those sources and their language. The people in the privileged position always believe they are "blind" to race and gender; that's part of the problem.
If your aim is a high-quality article and not a gold star, why the rush? SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"Playing nice is patronizing"? Sorry, but that's nonsense. You have not come across at any point during the writing or review processes as being collegiate or co-operative: that's why you have been asked so many times not to be so confrontational. As to the "privileged position", are you saying that only women should work on suffragette articles? I'm not sure what you're saying otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
As a neutral bystander, who is so shy that the post above is filled with typos, and yet felt compelled to speak out, the tone isn't good and continues to degrade. Speak of the edits not editor, and all that, would be a very good rule to follow at this point. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Victoria, I agree entirely that the comments should be about edits, not editors: I am being called patronizing on no basis at all, and by being in a "privileged position" (which appears solely to be because I am male) I am "part of the problem". How much more personal and misguided can these comments get. It isn't the FAC that should be archived here, just one sub-section of it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree about discussing edits, not editors. But I would like to post this analogy for SchroCat in the hope it might prompt a lightbulb moment.
Imagine this were an article about the civil-rights movement or Black Lives Matter. A white editor inserts a rewrite; ignores objections from a black editor; tells the black editor to "play nice"; removes an image that clearly shows a black activist on the ground surrounded by white cops and other white people (rather than a blob that doesn't show the background figures); adds at least one source that black historians regard as racist and problematic; refers to a black figure in an image using a racial slur (insert "girl" or "boy" for "little old lady"); follows the black editor to an article about a black activist to revert related edits there; and reverts the black editor's removal of the racist source. When another black editor arrives, they're told they ought to be "race blind" like the white editor. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am afraid your comments are way off the mark here. I suggest you read WP:AGF and try not to cast every move made by someone you are in disagreement with is inherently bad. Your mischaracterisation of the situation here is shockingly bad and woefully misguided. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The disgraceful behaviour seen at this FAC, by persons who should really know better, is depressing to witness. Why is it being hijacked by a lot of virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap", to coin a phrase from elsewhere. Are we really now at a stage in society where unless you fit the race/gender/sexuality profile of the subject you're writing about, you're not qualified to even speak about it. No wonder people are leaving in droves. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Reiterating what I wrote below: telling a female reviewer that she's obstructionist, to "work with me", to "play nice", and now "disgraceful behaviour", "hijacked" "virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap" is ironic given the article topic. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • You can reiterate all you want. Being female doesn't negate you from criticism, whether that criticism comes from either a male or a female. This type of oppressive behaviour doesn't wash with me. Treat everyone as equals is how I like to play it. CassiantoTalk 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I think, hopefully, that everyone has had their say on the process issue, though the temptation is always to try and get an extra word in. Would it be possible to get back to reviewing this article? The particular issues I'd like an opinion on are
  • Does my suggestion that we "doctor" the lead image in the way described above meet objections?
  • Does the present text fairly reflect the sources, in relation to Wright v. Mills?
  • Are there other issues of problematic text which need consideration?
I really think we ought to try and move on. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Brian - concentrating on the article is the most constructive path. In answer to your questions,
  • I don't have a problem (although I'm not adept enough to do it myself, and I am happy to ask the graphics lab to do what they can
  • I think so, but let's see what others say
  • There are one or two things that have been raised on the talk page, rather than here, that probably need sorting, but these are limited and can easily be overcome.
If there are any other things that people wish to raise about the article (rather than the process), I am very happy to deal with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I actually agree with Carabinieri that this is an important discussion to be had, and they are never comfortable. In terms of the two points that were raised, this article clearly identifies Wright as the woman in the photograph, and Frank Meeres, p. 43, reiterates Wright's own words. I'm in favor of the image that's not so dark. I might be able to lighten the image from the Mirror, but suspect it's dark because of the ink smudging, in which case it's better to use the original photograph. Will look into it later, and I intend to open my own section with review once I've read through. I'm on my way to an appointment and might not get back for a few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton and Victoriaearle: I demonstrated the new image above...but I guess it got lost in the adjacent brouha...using the lightest image with the masthead as an example. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the mock up Serial Number (which I missed). I think that could be the best way round it - the higher quality image, but still retaining the impact of it being (literally) front page news. I will see if there are any dissenters in the next 24 hours or so before I request the graphics lab to do what they can. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Serial Number 54129 and Brianboulton:, There have been no objections to the suggestion, so I've requested this at the graphics lab. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
How to proceed[edit]

I'll try butting in as well. I don't want to stop the previous discussion. I think it might be helpful, but I don't know if I have anything substantive to add to it. I just want to raise the question of how to best proceed. I don't think we necessarily need a policy for dealing with the "sandbox-FAC pipeline" in general. We just need to figure out what to do in this instance. As far as I understand it, as of yet, you have no actual objections to this article, Sarah (other than the image question, which I think can be resolved). You just need to time to review the sources to be able to form an opinion. Is that right? I really don't see any harm in giving Sarah that time. Do you have a rough estimate on how long it would take you? I would suggest asking that this FAC not be closed until Sarah has had the time. The oldest FAC open right now is from March, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for this one to stay open long enough for Sarah to do her research. The article could certainly profit from that. Most reviews (mine included) tend to be fairly superficial, mainly because reviewers aren't knowledgeable about the subject matter and haven't read the sources. If Sarah is willing to go through the sources and gives this a more in-depth review, isn't that worth the wait?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Carabinieri, thanks for the response. I do have objections, and I'd like the article to be open for editing so that they can be fixed in the normal way, with discussions on talk. FAC is for articles that are nearly ready.
This is an important article about the history of first-wave feminism, written from a male or masculinist perspective. Several of the sources are red flags. Bearman is notorious (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems). Rosen is a problem (published in 1974; see this article), and there are other issues. I started discussing the problems in April when I saw the rewrite and found plagiarism (from another WP article). The discussion stopped only because SchroCat withdrew. Five weeks later, he announced he was taking it to FAC after all.
Now instead of fixing the article, am I supposed to post here with suggestions? Am I expected to spend the summer doing this because someone else has decided this is the timetable? Even if I were willing to do it, the books will take weeks to arrive, then have to be read or re-read, and an infobox RfC alone will take 30 days. This is not what FAC is meant to be. SarahSV (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There wasn't plagiarism, there was an editing oversight in the draft stage. Again, please see WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The way to proceed is to let the article ontinue on its path through FAC. I'm seeing a concerning number of red flags in the comments you are making Sarah - ticking them off the list at Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements. You have said that I should not be writing this because I am a man (seriously?) and because you don't get to determine the timetable. You do not get to give your seal of approval to every article just because it is your area of interest. There are other editors beside yourself interested in this area who are more than capable of providing balanced, high-quality content. I'm going to stop interacting on these tangential attempts to disrupt the process. This is a community review process: either join in by reviewing it properly or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And I assume there will be a source review at some point? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There certainly will need to be a source review, as in all FACs, perhaps sooner rather than later here, and perhaps by more than one reviewer. I've noted Sarah's concern with Bearman in particular; I don't have access to it but if the abstract is accurate I can understand how it would be controversial. Its reliability/appropriateness needs community vetting along with the other sources employed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't make strong promises,but I will give a little time to a source review tomorrow...! Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Ian I spent some time yesterday reading Bearman - the one that's on Jstor - and some of the other sources. I have loads of academic experience in source reviews and will gladly take this on. I do intend to do a full and fair article review but decided to wait until the dust settles a bit. In the meantime, I'll begin with gathering sources. Victoriaearle (tk) 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Victoria, given your approach so far, I think it better that someone with a more neutral stance take on the review. - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Schro, you've quite reasonably asked several editors to AGF here, I think it applies all round. I doubt it will all come down to one review(er) in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
            • You're probably right Ian, although my stock of AGF has run low, given both on and off-wiki shenanigans that have been going on. Thanks for the reminder tho. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I guess there's value in 2 pairs of eyes. No need to pick among volunteers. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • SchroCat, if you have sources yu could send by email, that would expedite things considerably.... Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. Drop me an email with details and I'll ping them back. Same goes for anyone else who wants the full sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain: Whoever... I have been busier than expected, but expect a breather next week. I will not be able to do anything until either Monday or Tuesday but may have considerable time then. Sorry Axylus.arisbe (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Carabinieri[edit]

Great article. I've made a few changes, but feel free to revert if you don't agree.

  • "The police also changed their tactics, and in future demonstrations they tried not to arrest too soon or too late." Shouldn't this be "at" or "during future demonstrations"?
  • I feel like the long Sylvia Pankhurst quote in the background section might be a bit excessive. I think it can be trimmed and parts of it paraphrased without losing any information. I can make a suggestion, if you agree.
  • "Public opinion turned against the tactics and, according to Morrell, the government capitalised on the shifting public feeling to introduce stronger measures" What kinds of measures? This sounds fairly vague.
  • I don't quite understand how a budget is a way to circumvent the House of Lords if the Lords are in a position to reject it.
  • I've done some rephrasing here, for the sake of clarity. Please check that I haven't mucked things up. More explanation is contained in the footnotes which could, I suppose, be incorporated into the text. But it's a bit off-topic and I think it better that the footnotes remain as footnotes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian - that looks good. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that the lead group and the first group in the Nov 18 section are one and the same. Is that right?
  • It's not 100% clear from the sources, and it's possible that the elderly women in the first group were overtaken by a younger group - or they may have stayed in order. Either way, the sources don't make it too clear! - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Previous demonstrations at the Houses of Parliament had been policed by the local A Division, who understood the nature of the demonstrations and had managed to overcome the WSPU tactics without undue levels of violence" Undue seems like a rather subjective POV word. In any case, doesn't that contradict the background section?
  • I've added the name of the historian who states this. It doesn't contradict the background section, as A division policed Parliament, whereas the suffragettes were in action across the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Groups approaching Parliament Square were met at the Westminster Abbey entrance to the square by groups of men, who manhandled the women" I'm assuming this is not referring to the police. Maybe this could be made clearer.
  • Perhaps "men" could be "bystanders"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Bystanders it is - thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "4 men and 115 women were arrested on 18 November" Were those men part of the demonstration or onlookers who took part in the violence against the women?
  • I check - I think all pro-suffrage, but I'll make sure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't find any reference to the 'side' of these men, but I'll go over the newspaper sources to see if they can provide any information. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to place the image of the flier somewhere earlier in the article?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but we are image-heavy further up the article, so there would be too much overlap and/or text sandwiching going on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Carabinieri. I need to address your penultimate point, but will be back shortly; all the others are done, unless otherwise said above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Lingzhi[edit]

  • I have been truly impressed by this article. Excellent. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Axylus.arisbe/Lingzhi - I am most grategul. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

I'm sure everyone involved here will appreciate that our job as coordinators is to be maddeningly fair, and operate based on consensus on the nomination page unless there is some astonishing disruption. I have no position on the sandbox-to-FAC strategy, although I've observed it succeed and fail spectacularly in different cases. Opposes based on WIAFA (including stability) are actionable and that's a potential reason to archive a nomination if that's the consensus among reviewers. We've occasionally and reluctantly archived a handful of nominations in the past because the reviewer–nominator interactions got disruptive on their own, but that scenario serves no one. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Off topic
Laser brain, every time this issue is raised at WT:FAC, people agree, including the coordinators, that reviewers willing to oppose should be supported (and clearly I'm opposing); that FAC shouldn't be used to get unprepared nominations in shape; and that "archive early, archive often" is a good principle. But again in practice this fails.
The article obviously fails 1e ("it is not subject to ongoing edit wars"). The nominator is edit-warring here and at related articles, over related content. Victoria has added a DS template to one of them, and I'm considering posting DS alerts. The nominator is adding contentious material during the FAC itself and edit warring to retain it. I shouldn't have to keep reverting and actually add the NPOV tag for it to be obvious that the article isn't stable. SarahSV (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Laser brain, I wrote the above without having seen the latest comments. This is really unacceptable. Please archive this. SarahSV (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're saying different things. I'm just now getting to looking at the actual nomination—I was just responding to your request that I consider archiving the nomination for behavioral or procedural reasons. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This comment feels like either a threat or a promise. I can continue in this atmosphere, am half way through the article, have some concerns, but given the reverting of copyedits will have to write up quite a lot and that will take time. I shouldn't have to continue in the face of bullying, nor should my opinion be dismissed. What that will achieve is that the coords will be the position of having to read a false consensus, which is not ideal. I'm taking some time off. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Good grief! A threat? This is absurd. I said "please think very carefully" because if a comment was made insinuating filth like I'm some sort of sexist arsehole for wanting to write an article about a woman, then my relationship with Sarah, which has always been very good, would suffer. I'm out, I won't be getting involved in this any further. CassiantoTalk 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just going to throw this out here - but the irony of being told to "I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me." on an article about feminist history is a bit withering. I'm pretty sure that the male editors here won't see it as patronizing, but ... yes, it is. It's just a step above being told to "run along to the kitchen because the men are going to talk about important matters". Most women get told to "play nice" and "work with me" a lot, and it gets very very very very old. Sarah pointed out she found it patronizing. So... instead of not doing it again, everyone piles in to say that she's wrong. So she's wrong because the men know how SHE feels? REALLY??? Please stop and see how politely nasty that is... someone says that they feel slighted/patronized and the person who made them feel that way tells the original person they are wrong. Cass rightly gets upset when he is told to play nice about his editing, SchroCat gets upset with being told to play nice (i.e. be civil) about his editing, but you both feel it's okay to tell Sarah to play nice?? Ugh. I hope that many of the editors here can stop and think here about what they are saying. I'm not involved in this article, and *I* bristled at the "pat the little lady on the head" tone that I clearly felt from the tone of the discussion. Yes, I'm offended. And, yes, I'm annoyed enough that I'm not caring if you think I'm mad, because .. yeah, I'm mad. It's freaking madening to see two editors (SchroCat and Cass) who get all up in arms whenever the civility police to come call them to account ... turn around and expect perfect civility from female editors. "Play nice", indeed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. This is not about a man making a comment to a woman, this is about someone being mightily fucked off with an obstructive editor who has trouble with someone editing an article on the basis of their gender. I have made similar comments ("play nice", or similar) to other editors who have been obstructive or shown OWN tendencies; I have not bothered, cared or known the sex of the people I've said it to before. The "pat the little lady on the head" tone? Rubbish. I treat all editors the same – yes, normally not brilliantly, but all equally. Fuck me, I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and you're offended, Ealdgyth? I guess my compass may differ on what is offensive to yours. What a joke: "Wikipedia, the article anyone can edit, unless they are a man editing a suffragette article". I don't give a flying toss what gender ANY editor is, but I do expect them to treat article development seriously and to play nice (i.e., be a flaming adult with something of a collegiate and co-operative attitude, not an obstructive pain). FFS, I see the Gender Gap being driven wider with this attitude, and the thought of AGF seems to have escaped you Ealdgyth, and a few others too. Well done for creating more heat than light with a lack of AGF that has been a constant during this review process. Ian Rose, Laser brain, I will confirm that I want this review to continue, despite everything else, as the subject, and the article, deserve better treatment than the rather shoddy approach some people are exhibiting. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone around who is prepared to actually provide a review on the article, rather than just snipe? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

To be very clear: I brought it up. I pointed out the irony of the situation, plus issues, here and this comment. I did not, nor would I ever under any circumstances say that a man cannot write about a woman. That's just bullshit. Furthermore, I intend to review in the same manner that I review every article I've ever reviewed. To suggest otherwise is a gross assumption of bad faith. Ealdgyth nailed it. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The "irony" is that I've been accused of misogyny and compared to a racist, and I'm the bad person here? I have made the same comments to obstructive and disruptive editors before and not known, cared or noticed the gender of the person making them. I don't care what sex they are, but if someone can make a good faith review on this article it would make a pleasant change. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, on the internet, no one knows that I am a dog, but it seems to me that we have three self-identified female editors making similar comments, and a bunch of (apparently) male editors dismissing it. On this topic, of all topics.

Please, SchroCat. Umbrage is not the correct response here. Have some respect for the people you are talking to. Just listen and reflect, and check your privilege. At some point, someone needs to mention discretionary sanctions because this is getting ridiculous.

(And for those editors not following the discussion, for what it is worth, the National Archive has revised its catalogue entry of the woman in the photograph. Discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills.) 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, IP, umbrage and anger are the right answer here. I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and I'm supposed to respect the people that have dived into the gutter to cast those aspersions? Discretionary sanctions? It should funny an IP knows about these, and probably no coincidence that DS tags have been applied to two articles I am working on (although there seems to be confusion about whether this is for Gender Gap or Gamergate), neither of which I have any knowledge of, or interest in. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I may be an IP but I am not an idiot: I am quite capable of reading the pages linked to from banners on talk pages, or indeed reading the sources and contacting the National Archive.

This is not about what you mean. I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist, and that was just an analogy to help you see what they are saying). It is about how you are coming across. Please listen without responding, take a break, and come back to this later. Please. It will be better for everyone if you do. There is no rush. If you are in the UK this weekend, you might want to consider this: https://www.processions.co.uk/attend-processions/ 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to be the patronising one? "I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist", Balls. If that's the case, then why the fuck was the analogy raised if not to blacken or bully? The duplicity and underhand tactics are quite sickening. I am working to try and improve a topic in which I believe and am interested, and all I have got for doing this is insults, bullying and attacks BECAUSE IM A FUCKING MAN! Fuck me, what a twisted way to treat editors trying to deal with this subject. IP, I have no idea who you are, but look at today's front page. It's The biography of Emily Davison. I re-wrote it in the same way I re-wrote this (the supposedly controversial "sandbox-to-FAC" route), I took it through PR and FAC, and no-one said I shouldn't write it because I'm a man. These double standards are utter nonsense, and people saying I don't understand sources, or that I'm purveying sexist claptrap are, baldly, spouting fucking nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are editors here who believe that being "gender blind" (and presumably "race blind") is a good thing. It isn't. That kind of blindness is the result of privilege. It's the men and the whites, the people in the privileged, default groups, who can afford it. If we were writing an article about black history, and black editors complained about racism, would we really tell them to "play nice" and insist on ploughing on?
This article should not be written from a "gender blind" perspective. The primary sources about the suffragettes were deeply misogynist. They're so bad they make you gasp (and it wasn't that long ago!). The first secondary sources were sexist too. Why does this article rely on authors who have been criticized as sexist by feminist historians? Why the heavy reliance on an author from 1974 to support contentious points? One of the problematic sources was added during the FAC, and now there's revert-warring to retain it.
These discussions about suffragette historiography are difficult, and they need to be thrashed out calmly on the talk page. It will take time, because we need to read the sources, be familiar with the issues, and agree on neutrality and on which details matter. This just isn't an appropriate topic for a quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone who is prepared to provide a quality review? Sarah, try AGF. Claiming "quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination" is untrue. Try being collegiate and co-operative with people who are trying to improve the article, rather than being the road-block to article development here based on little more than the gender of the person whose undertaken the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The pressure-cooker atmosphere of FAC is not conducive to patient, careful, collegiate and co-operative article development. This is not the way to do it. If you don't want to listen, fine, that is your choice. 213.205.198.235 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

IP, I've been through FAC I don't know how many times (20? 25?) and I don't find a pressure cooker when people are responding positively and in good faith. Sadly there are several editors who are not acting either in good faith, or positively. If they did, then I'd be able to deal with their comments appropriately, rather than try and defend myself on the basis of my gender. The stupidity of the situation is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Despite his/her username, I have to agree with pretty much everything IP wrote. Might I suggest a 48-hour moratorium on editing anything related to this article for anyone involved in this discussion? Right now, this isn't getting anywhere. The only hope I have for this discussion is that heads could be cooler two days from now. --Carabinieri (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Carabinieri—and I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but if any editors provide a good faith review of the article, I will deal with their comments and edit the article appropriately. My thoughts towards anyone acting in good faith in providing a constructive review remains unchanged: they are warmly welcome. To those who are obstructive on flimsy and facile grounds, I will ignore or respond appropriately, particularly if they decide to sink to the gutter, as some have done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth Crawford

As I did with the article I wrote on Emily Davison, I asked Elizabeth Crawford and Professor June Purvis for their thoughts on the article. Elizabeth Crawford has replied saying that it is "that looks a very thoroughly researched piece of work – and it all looks fine to me". She had some input into the photograph, and thinks the source used by Raeburn probably comes from her papers in the Suffragette Fellowship Collection at the Museum of London. I have emailed the person at the MoL to ask if she can help.
If Professor Purvis is good enough to reply, I will also pass on their thoughts on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Victoria[edit]

I think in terms of rubrics, so am following Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. These are broad-brush general comments:

  • 1. a., (prose): It can be tightened a little and there's some repetition throughout, but not anything that can't be taken care of fairly easily. My experience is that it's always best to get another pair of eyes on the prose to find issues. I did make a few copyedits to tighten (reverted, but that's fine); generally something along that line should be continued throughout the article. I don't have tons of time today, but this sentence jumps out at me as needing to be split: "The question of women's suffrage was divisive within Cabinet, and the bill was discussed at three separate meetings[33] before, at a Cabinet meeting on 23 June, Asquith stated that he would allow it to pass to the second reading stage, but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it and it would therefore fail.[34]"
  • 1. b., (comprehensive) - yes & no. The background is very comprehensive, slightly too long for my taste because I want to get to the action, whereas the "18 November" section is less than 600 words of a 3200 word article. Also, there seems to have been some continuing actions/arrests throughout the next seven days until 25. Nov. Is any of that worth a mention?
  • 1. c., (well-researched) - the rule of thumb for women's studies (now known as gender studies) is to go to the most recent scholarly material. It's a new discipline (and one this article falls squarely into), in that study wasn't available in universities until the mid- to late-seventies, departments generally cropping up in the eighties. It's taken a generation to "grow" scholars, so to speak, so it's best to lean on scholarly sources published in this century instead the last. As an aside, that's true in general in the humanities, not only in terms of gender studies, but highlighted in this topic because the scholarship wasn't really fully established until the nineties or later. Generally when writing about literature or art, I tend to go the most recent scholarship. This has the added benefit of allowing the scholar to bake in all the primary sources. Every discipline has a *the* expert or two or maybe three, and it's best to research, identify, and then lean on their work. Added to that, every discipline has a pioneer whose work is generally very well-respected. Bearman wasn't great (aside from showing an obvious bias) because he's not a subject expert (his other publications have to do with folk music); Rosen pre-dates the prevailing scholarship. I'm not familiar with the History Today website, so can't speak to whether it's high quality or low; the best thing to do is take a look at their bibliographies (they will be leaning on the same sources) and determine accordingly. The same applies to websites, i.e BBC - obviously RS but there are better academic sources available. The amount of primary sources seems ok to me. One comment re primary sources: I have access to the New York Times archives, so if anyone is interested in how these events were covered in the US I'd be happy to take a dig - but not at all actionable or necessary.
  • 1. d., (neutral) - I have a few niggles: I'm curious about note m: "Morrell, when writing in 1981, observes that the only reference she found to the suppression of the photograph was in Antonia Raeburn's 1973 book, The Militant Suffragettes.[70] The image was also published in Votes for Women,[47] The Manchester Guardian[71] and the Daily Express.[72]" Morrell is an early author in the field and would be supplanted by now, I'd assume. Kelly, published in 2004 doesn't raise the issue. Kelly is an academic, Morrell's book a senior thesis in 1979 see here, it might be best to defer to defer to the more recent scholarship. Right now, it does appear to throw doubt on Raeburn's assertion (she's a pioneer and relies on the women's own voices). That's a book I might order and take a look at; the same with Morrell. Finally, there needs to be a better balance between the background and the events of the day.
  • 1. e., (stable) - better than last week.
  • 2. a., (lead/style) - lead should be concise. I trimmed some detail from the lead i.,e this, which was restored. It seemed better to summarize it, ("the women reported groping"), plus "complained" about having breasts twisted isn't maybe quite the right word. Regardless, these details aren't in the "18 November" section. Re MoS, very nit-picky but MOS:NUM tells us to write out numbers between 0 and 9; I fixed one of these and it was reverted. It's massively nit-picky but technically we should adhere to MOS.
  • 2. b., (appropriate structure) - background could do with a trim and more emphasis on the day, the week, etc.
  • 2. c., (consistent citations) - very fancy, very nice
  • 3. (media) - if the pastiche is allowable, that's a good compromise. If available, it would be nice to focus more on the day in terms of images, but I don't know what available.
  • 4. (length) - same as above. Suggest trimming "Background" and focussing more on the event itself; otherwise fine.

I'm exhausted and removing this from my watchlist now. Note that these are comment only, neither a support or an oppose, but simply my general impression according to our criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief note on the numbers question: MOS also tells us: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Therefore, "Police arrested 4 men and 115 women" is correct.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed: I forgot that rule first time round (and even managed to erroneously put it back in after one edit)! I don't particularly like the rule, but there are only so many times I care to bend the MoS. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Victoria. In response to the 'broad-brush general comments', here are some 'broad-brush general responses' to explain. The upshot is that yes, I will go over the background section to see what could be trimmed from that, without loss of historical context, and look at the prose to tighten where necessary. In more detail:
I will have another look at what could be trimmed from the background (although there has already been considerable cutting from the first draft. This is one of those events that came about because the twists of history that lead up to it are all important, and all those strands had something to do with it (the increasing aggression shown towards WSPU demonstrations in the preceding years; the budget problems/battle with the Lords faced by the government; the conciliation movement within parliament): all these factors go towards why the march took place. That said, I will go through it again and see what can be trimmed further.
Morrell's book isn't her university thesis, but it is based on her thesis. Much of her research was at the Fawcett Library, which has moved from where she (and I when a lowly undergraduate, for that matter), researched and is now the Women's Library at the LSE. The book is referenced throughout and carries a good bibliography. It chimes with much of the more recent histories.
In terms of the photo suppression, Kelly cites her mentions to Hiley. Despite being published in History Today, there are no references or a bibliography to support what he's written. He is described at the end of the article in HT as "Nicholas Hiley is a freelance writer and teacher". I'm not sure Morrell's statement throws doubt on Raeburn's assertion, but it does put a question mark over Wright's claim (In all the other sources I've read, most link the claim to Raeburn, or to another source that circles back to Raeburn. None of the sources have pointed to police or home office primary source records, and The Mirror (either at the time, or subsequently) makes no mention of such an attempt being made). You would also have thought it would have been raised in either Pankhurst's (1931) or Fawcett's (1912 and 1921) histories, but they don't refer to it. Wright's is the only claim on which this is based, and one does have to wonder how she found out about the behind-the-scenes machinations of government or police, if there is no earlier record of the fact. While I wouldn't be comfortable putting any of this into the article, I am comfortable citing Morrell's research: we are not saying Wright is wrong on the point, but it does need to be acknowledged that all sources of the story lead back to her.
You are right that the lead should be concise, but it also has to tell the story (as that is all some people will read); including some details of what the women went through is, I think, key to that (the information is included in the "Reaction" section).
Images. A surprising problem given this was in 1910, in that although there are some great images on web searches, getting them back to a free status is a bit of a struggle and I can't see many of them published in the press to give us the 'first published' date. Conversely, there are some newspaper images which may be great, but whose quality is too low to use. If anyone can find some more images (particularly of the violence), then that would be great. In terms of the main image, the current one is the combination of both newspaper headline and higher-quality photograph.
Thanks again Victoria, and I'll go through the background again to see if I can trim. I hope you are better soon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I ordered Caroline Morrell's book from the library last week because I was curious about it, picked it up today, and before sending it right back, took a look at the last page, where in my experience a good summary should be. This is what she writes:

Thirdly, the suffragettes were stepping out of their accustomed role as ladies. They were no longer behaving quietly and submissively but were taking part in a militant and noisy campaign defying male authority.

There's two more pages in this vein; I won't write it all out. It's this analysis, a vein of which runs through the subsequent secondary sources, written since the 1990s, which I don't see in the article. Why did it happen? Because they were defying the social order.
Re the bachkchanneling remark: I found it offensive because a., I was very ill and found a post on my page that seemed to ask me to do something; b., the "unless you've gotten them from Sarah" (paraphrased) insinuates a situation that doesn't exist and c., suggests I can't do this. The third might be true. I know I did a crappy job, but I tried and I think there's material missing. For that reason I could oppose, but I'm choosing not to. I'm choosing instead to walk away from the project. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
As I've said before, I think the reasons behind the motivation of suffragettes to demonstrate does not belong in this article, as it's slightly too tangential. In the WSPU article, or the one of Women's suffrage, yes, of course, but not this one. (Morrell is the only source that writes about the motivation in connection with this event and does so in one paragraph; others deal with it in the general context of the movement as a whole).
I am sorry that you took my offer to email sources to you in the wrong way. It was a good faith offer to make things easier for you, and I am sorry you did not see it in that light. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an example only: the 3rd para in the section "Women's Social and Political Union" (beyond the long block quote), describes a June 1909 incident ending with a footnote cited to Morrell, page 17. On page 17 of 'Black Friday' and Violence against Women in the Suffragette movement Morrell discusses a 1906 incident, writing: "On 23 October [1906], the opening day of the autumn session of Parliament, the WSPU organized their second deputation to Westminster, again carefully planned in advance. On failing to obtain a promise from the Prime Minister that female suffrage would be considered before the end of the session women went before the lobby and began to make speeches. Ten were arrested and imprisoned in the Second Division" she has a superscript footnote here. The footnote reads in full, "Under the Home Office rules then applying, prisoners convicted of offenses considered to be motivated by political rather than criminal reasons could be placed in the First Division. They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing material. Prisoners convicted of criminal offenses were placed in the 2nd or 3rd Divisions where they were subject to the normal prison regime". (Morrell, 1981, p. 17). Victoriaearle (tk) 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've read this wrong, as far as I can tell. The paragraph describes the events of the June 1909 incident. The three sentences are supported by citations 10 (van Wingerden 1999, p. 123.), 11 (Atkinson 2018, 2709–2722.) and 12 (Pankhurst 2013, 6011.) The information in the footnote, which is about the grading by Division in prisons, is supported by the Morrell citation. Morrell is not being used to support the 1909 information.
Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
1., it appears that Morrell is being used to support the 1909 incident; 2., the footnote we use is almost identical to Morrell's footnote; 3., Wingerden does not discuss the 1909 incident on page 123. I'm stopping now. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
1. No, Morrell is only being used to support the information in the footnote, not the 1909 events, which are supported with the other three citations. 2. Not too closely. Morrell writes "They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing materials"; we have "They had unrestricted access to reading and writing materials, could wear their own clothes and receive visitors". I'll tweak slightly to move it even further away, but it's not really oppose worthy. 3. Quite right, mea culpa: I've tweaked to the right pages.
Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review x 2[edit]

While this detailed sources review takes place off-stage, to be revealed here I assume at a later date, I have carried out a general MoS check on links, formats etc, There is nothing amiss in these respects; formats are consistent, all links are working. I will defer any substantive comment on sources until the ongoing review is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I've done all I'm able, disengaged, and, thus, moved my comments to the talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can with the suggestions given in the review, but without further details to back up general statements, many of which are inaccurate, there is nothing else needed. I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is community I'd like to be part of and feel welcomed in, but there are times when it's impossible for me to edit. I refuse to discuss personal circumstances, nor am I required to, the self-imposed restrictions I follow, but suffice to say there is no deadline is my mantra these days. I got exhausted, tried to keep up with the questions/replies, was unable, and decided it's best to step away. I've never sat across a table and shared a beer with a fellow Wikipedian, but sometimes we should be reminded that there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain, is capable of finding material and doesn't appreciate being accused of back channeling, nor badgering, nor accusations like these. Getting things right, quality, these are things that interest me; breaking inter-personal relationships and cutting into limited family time, not. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • "Back channelling"? So asking if you would like me to forward you sources to aid the review is now something bad? I've not badgered you Victoria, and I am sorry if you got that impression: I posted to ask of you could clarify some points in your review, which, I am afraid to say, was unfocused, vague and incorrect: it is entirely appropriate that I ask you to clarify things that are unclear in a review - it's the only way people can understand things. After you posted onto this page saying you were going to disengage, I asked if you were going to do any work clarifying the points, but I certainly did not "badger" you at all. You are not the only person who is interested in quality, which is why I have spent considerable time on this article to ensure it is in the best state it can be, using the highest-quality and most appropriate sources. Perhaps you should also try to remember that 'there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain [and] is capable of finding material' - it is something that cuts both ways, you know. As I've said above, I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe for any further suggestions to improve the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Your offer was given as an example of back channeling, not badgering. "Back channeling" means that you took a public discussion to a "back channel". In this instance, you spread a discussion from this central page to an individual editor's talk page. Some editors would likely consider that a friendly and personal gesture, but others don't appreciate it, and prefer to keep everything in one place, so that everyone knows what's been said to whom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks WhatamIdoing. I knew the example was about back channelling, but making an open offer to provide sources directly to someone who has said they are going to undertake a source review? I had already said on this page that I would send them, but there has been so much noise on the page that it was too easy to get lost in the background, thus the direct reminder of what was available. It's certainly not an action for which people should be berated: there has been a dearth of AGF in this review (yes, from me too), and helpful gestures shouldn't be used against people. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • On another reading of what Victoria wrote, she seems to suggest that I accused her of back channelling, which I don't agree with either. It is a shame that this effort to make someone's efforts easier (in the same way I provided Sarah with sources whenever she asked) has been taken so badly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, it really is a shame that things have turned out so badly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While awaiting further suggestions, I would just say:
  • I am very grateful to Victoria for the time and trouble she has taken over this sources review. I accept fully that her over-riding concern is that the article meets the most exacting of quality standards, an aim which I'm equally sure that SchroCat shares. He has been generous in sharing his sources with enquirers, and has responded to earlier sources criticisms by replacing certain dubious sources (Rosen, Bearman) with better ones.
  • If I understand Victoria, her main outstanding concern is that the article might not be based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and may be lacking in specifically "scholarly" sources. Note the word in the 1c criterion is "representative", not "exhaustive". Victoria doesn't say which essential works she thinks are missing from the present rather copious list of books, but suggests that "more is available" if time is allowed to search for it. Unless specific works which give additional insights into the topic can be identified specifically, this is, I'm afraid, too open-ended. In subjects like this there is always more material, and more still will be written. We can never reach a stage where we can say that absolutely everything has been covered, however much time we allow. This is of course true of many of our articles.
  • An earlier concern, expressed I think by Sarah, was that once an article receives its bronze star it becomes difficult to change it. My own experiences indicate that this tends to be so if the new material added is trivial, unsourced or contentious. But most of the articles that I brought through the FAC process between 2008 and 2015 have been substantially altered, updated, and improved, without controversy as new material has become available. There's no reason why that shouldn't be the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I could approach sources in two different ways: one would be to generate statistics showing how many cites are from academic sources etc., and another would be to go looking for additional sources.... Since we seem to be focusing on "adequate coverage" etc., I have spent a couple hours doing the latter. My initial thoughts (yes a couple hours only qualifies as "initial") are that Schrocat is largely correct in saying this event seems to be woefully under-covered. Wikipedia herein fills an important gap, especially for the general public, who don't have a couple hours to look fruitlessly for info... Stepping back and looking at the big picture, I am not convinced that there is any value that can be added, nor any detrimental material removed, by Opposing this FAC. I just don't see any major facts being omitted, nor any major omissions or errors being committed. [I did see that perhaps first division criminals were not political prisoners per se but were those convicted of minor offenses and thus that status was equated with political protest in suffragette's minds... reasons for breaking windows included the desire to be arrested which would reduce opportunity for injury, plus desire to involve insurance companies....]. But those are tweaks. If anyone wants me to do stats I will, but after searching for sources and finding precious little, I stand by my Support. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Axylus.arisbe /Lingzhi. Your second review here is very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Like Brian Boulton, above, I have read particularly carefully through the revised text of this article, and I find it admirable. I honestly don't understand why it has provoked such unusual dissent from a reviewer, and as far as I am concerned it meets all the FAC criteria handsomely. Happy to add my support for an excellent article. – Tim riley talk 16:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. This, and your comments at the PR, are much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief comments, Outriggr[edit]

  • I don't understand the use of "reportedly" in the lede. It happened, right? (Another "dilutive" phrase; see comments on passive voice below.)
Struck - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The demonstration led to a change in approach: many members of the WSPU were unwilling to risk similar violence, so they resumed direct action—I'm not sure what constitutes direct action, but I read this as "they tried a new approach by resuming [x]"—which doesn't make sense—is something like "employed a new form of direct action" appropriate?
No, it wasn't a new form. I've tweaked so it reads "so they resumed their previous forms of direct action—such as stone-throwing and window-breaking" - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • he was so concerned about the potential impact of the image that an attempt was made by the police authorities—very very passive construction if the fact is uncontested (and really, what does it have to do with uncontested, but that's the message a reader receives with passive constructions—a dilution of impact, if you will). There is quite often a use of passive voice where the police are involved, which has the effect on me of diluting the importance of their actions and could be mistaken for a point-of-view bias. Other examples: "She had her wheelchair pushed into a side road by police", "to say that she had been assaulted by the police", "Three hundred women were met outside the Houses of Parliament by lines of police", "3,000 police were involved in preventing" (not passive, but a dilutive phrase), "Following the violence used by the police on that occasion", "women attempting to enter parliament were beaten by police". I mean some are fine, I've not included the one in the first paragraph—and I agree it's not always about the police—but there is too much passive voice which has the effect of diluting the apparently factual actions of the police. Edit: another similar sentence: "There were two deaths of suffragettes that have been attributed to the treatment they received on Black Friday."
All tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "another woman reported that a policeman grasped her thigh, "I demanded...—this creates a run-on sentence with the quote
Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • who campaigned from an invalid tricycle—I'm not 100% up on preferred modern terminology (which is to say, the terminology that a community itself prefers) but "invalid tricycle" rings those bells. And it's just a weird phrase—would "who used a special tricycle" work?
It was the term she used for it: I've just gone with "wheelchair" now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an image of her invalid tricycle? It may be a form of wheelchair, something like a bath chair, and see this image from around the same period. But some invalid tricycles were essentially early self-propelled invalid carriages, e.g. [26] The Disabled Drivers Asociation was the "Invalid Tricycle Association" when it was founded in 1948. 213.205.198.245 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
File:Rosa May Billinghurst (39633766971).jpg, File:Rosa May Billinghurst (24849570088).jpg from this category. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) File:Rosa May Billinghurst demonstaring.jpg is one: it's a wheelchair (having now seen it), so we've got the right wording on place now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(Apologies for random changes of IP) With its levers and gears and steering, arguably that is a handcycle. Hats off to Rosa May Billinghurst. 213.205.240.140 (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Outriggr. All tweaked, per your suggestions, except where I've said otherwise above. Should you have any further comments, I look forward to hearing them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support A very few issues, just below. I won't pretend to know the period as well as do the nominator and many of the reviewers (and I have no opinion on certain discussions above) but here's my bit:

  • "H. H. Asquith, leader of the Liberal Party, " I might say "Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party".
  • "The Liberal government of 1905" I might insert "elected in".
  • "for the new year to obtain a new mandate for the legislation." I would cut "new" before "mandate", or change to "fresh".
Reads very well and otherwise seems from my perspective to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt; your input is much appreciated. All three of your suggestions now adopted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

Recognising that the FAC has proved controversial, I've tried to focus specifically on the criteria. Under these, and having read it through four times, I think it clearly passes. It is very well-written, is properly structured and cited, is stable, aside from the ongoing FAC developments, and seems of an appropriate length and focus. The issue, which would also appear to be the main concern above, is whether it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Gender studies is not my area, although the government of Asquith is a speciality, but it seems to me that the sources being used are comprehensive, representative and include many recent works. I'm therefore pleased to Support it. As a personal observation, having also read this FAC through more than once, it is sad that it has become acrimonious. The nominator, and some of the commentators above, are very well-versed in the history and the relevant literature. That could have been the basis for what this place does best, a productive collaboration. It's a great pity that's not how it's played out. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1 for your thoughts on the article. I also heartily agree with your closing lines, and I am sad how this has turned out (for which I am partly responsible, obviously). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

William M. Branham[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I have submitted an featured article candidate, but I believe I have good one for you. :) William Branham was interesting character in the history of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement, and is credited with beginning the revival from which the modern Evangelical and Charistmatic movement emerged. A person from Indiana, my primary work on the article has been from the perspective of WikiProject Indiana and the work I have done improving content on famous Hoosiers. The subject is fairly controversial, and I have worked hard to have presented it in a balanced way by using all the major biographical works available on his life. (I give a special thank you to the article's other editors who contributed to fact checking and vetting of the article, and the multiple editors who assisted in copy editing.) I will be watching and try to address any issues you identify. Thanks and cheers! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Driveby comment: First, I am struggling to understand how we can justify a non-free image of the subject in the lead when we have at least three free images further down in the article. The use of the non-free image could perhaps be justified further down in the article (as a "this is what the photograph looked like" image rather than a "this is who the article is about" photo) but I don't really want to offer an opinion on that. Second, I'm getting a lot of "Harv errors" in the footnotes and bibliography; this should be looked into. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Bad harv links are fixed or removed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not an image I uploaded or placed in the lead, but I am open to removing or moving it. My argument for keeping it would be that according to all sources, this is the most iconic photo and "greatest relic" of his lifetime. This photo itself has mention within the article for its importance, so my fair use rationale would be that it meets the "contextual" requirement for fair use. It certainly adds alot of value to have it in the article to demonstrate an actual event noted in the article. While there are other available images of Branham himself to use, this particular image is the one he is most associated with and is notable in its own right for its importance to the subject. (As an aside: I have searched diligently, and I have not actually been able to verify this image is copyrighted. According to sources, the original photo was taken by a newspaper photographer in 1950. The claim of copyright on it is dubious to me, I cannot find anywhere that it was ever published by its creator, or even who the copyright holder is. I have found the image in multiple books, and none of them state the image has a copyright status, and none say published with permission of X, or any such thing. In short, the image has no verifiable copyright status that I have been able to ascertain.) Ultimately, I would agree to just remove the image rather than allow that to torpedo the article's FA candidacy. I have never used copyrighted images in other FA articles I have worked on and agree it is generally a good practice to avoid it altogether. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  • File:William_M._Branham_historical_photo.jpg: since there are other images of the individual in the article, there isn't a strong rationale for {{non-free biog-pic}}
    • As noted above, the argument for keeping this particular image is because of its importance to the subject. The picture itself is refereed to as "the greatest relic of the healing revival", and it is not that there are not other images available of the subject, it is that this particular image is important. But again, I am open to moving or removing if you think that is warranted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The move and FUR expansion definitely helped. I would advise against using {{non-free biog-pic}} under these circumstances though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why do we believe the copyright for Man Sent From God is expired? There were editions of it published after 1950
    • I have the original edition, as well as two subsequent, they all state the original 1950 copyright date (including one that was published in 1981). I have found no evidence showing the copyright was renewed in 1978 as required. The copyright holder died in 1965, and his immediate successor organization dissolved in 1971. Publishing of the later editions was not actually done by the copyright holder, so it would appear they also assume the copyright has expired. I understand we should err on the side of caution, but every evidence (short of a paid for copyright validation) points to the fact that this copyright has expired. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Photo_of_the_grave_of_William_M._Branham.jpg: what's the copyright status of the sculptural work?
    • This is a tombstone. :) I do not believe this falls within the scope of copyright-able artwork. However, if you have concerns I can remove the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I think it would more than pass the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I feel confident the tombstone is not copyrighted, but I have no way to verify that. To err on the side of caution I have removed the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The tag on File:Signature_of_Rev._William_Branham.png does not make sense
    • In what way? I adjusted the description. This is from a public record, it is not copyrighted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's from a public record, yes. But the current tag makes two claims that I don't believe are supported: first, that Clark County held copyright to the signature of an individual; second, that they have released that copyright worldwide (which would be atypical for sub-federal-level US governments). The image may well be PD for another reason, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I have went ahead and removed the signature though, it is not of great importance. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A large number of your harv links aren't working
      • ...sorry, this actually looks worse than it was! You might find this script helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I used the script, that is an awesome tool, thanks for sharing! I only found two which were not linked, which I fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • FN78 is incomplete
  • Suggest a pass for MOS issues, such as dashes, overlinking, etc
    • I have given this a once over again, and used AWB to do a link and dash cleanup. There are a fair number of editors involved in the article, which leads to this problem a bit. I hope to have cleaned it up. I did see a couple dash issues, but did not notice any linking issues or other MOS issues. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Examples include linking of United States (overlink) and "Book of Revelation 6:1-17" (should use dash rather than hyphen). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I think I got these all now. Please check again. Thank you for your patience. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • See WP:LEADCITE - things like quotations should be cited even in the lead
    • That is a rather strict reading of LEADCITE, it says cites are neither required nor prohibited in the lead, but subject to editor consensus. All statements within the lead, including quotes, are cited within the body already. I went ahead though and duplicated the cites on the two quotations in the lead. I can add more if you feel it is needed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Hyatt a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The author has a Doctor of Ministry degree from Regent University. I would say it is borderline acceptable. The book is self published though, I had not noticed that before. The source was only used exclusively on two sentences, I have removed those from the article along with all other Hyatt references. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for your review, I have replied inline. In summary, I would rather just remove the disputed images rather than torpedo the review, but would encourage at least a second look at the lead image. I think there is a fair rationale for it, see my reply to Josh Milburn. If I cannot satisfy you that A Man Sent From God has an expired copyright, that would leave only two images in the article, and no picture of the subject of the biography. I have looked diligently, and A Man Sent From God is the only source of images I can find that I believe are in the public domain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there could potentially be a case made for the lead image, but not with the biog tag and not with the current rationale - it needs to be stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I echo Nikki, but add that I don't think there's much of a case for it as the lead image. We should use a free image in the infobox, and then use this image further down with an informative caption clarifying its significance. (This isn't my main concern, but there's potentially a POV issue with using something presented as a "saintly" image in the lead anyway!) Josh Milburn (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I have taken your advice and adjusted accordingly, I am using a free image for the Infobox and moved the questioned image into the body of the article where the image is discussed. I have also updated the fair use rationale on the image. I am open to removing it if you are still unsatisfied. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment (shock! horror!)[edit]

How come that at this stage nobody has noticed "principle architect" in the first lead paragraph? (added in this edit by one Charles Edward) Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Indignez-Vous! :) Your diff above is me re-adding compromise wording after the original sentence was added (which was also added by me). I am not sure I understand the context of your concern. But I assume you are worried about the term "has been called" as a potential WP:WEASEL term? The quote is attributed to its sources in the body of the article and is a partial direct quote (Moriarty and Weaver both use the term). I will add further attribution to try and address what I think your concern is. (It is referenced to both sources with footnotes already.) I will go ahead and add further attribution. If I misunderstand your concern, please better inform me. :) And to perhaps give a fuller context of explanation, the current wording is compromise phrasing with some other of the article's editors. It originally said "he is recognized as the principle architect...",Diff which continues to be my preferred way to express it. Try this on for size, it now says "...is recognized as the "principle architect of restorationist thought" for Charismatics by some Christian historians." Maybe "Christian writers" would be better? Weaver is certainly a historian, Moriarty is less so. (Again note, there are two references given and this point is fully attributed within the article in full context of its meaning.]) I am open to suggested alternatives in any event. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding my concern. I'm surprised that I have to point this out, but "principal" as an adjective is spelt thus, not as "principle". That, not anything else, is my concern, and also that such an error has been in the first lead paragraph, unnoticed, for weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, understood! Please accept my sincerest apology. I will do some new page patrol as penance. :) This is a quote, and I had not really thought about it. I will check the source to see how they spell it, since this is a quote. But I suspect I will find the source has it correct and the improper spelling is my fault! The horror! I will update as soon as I verify the source later today. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I finally got to check the sources. I have discovered that "principle" is used by Weaver rather than "principal" which would be the correct spelling as you state. I was about to add a [sic] tag, but decided to check Moriarty to see if he had the correct spelling. The quote as given was from Weaver. Moriarty however uses the correct spelling, "principal". So I have altered the quotation to use Moriarty instead, thus resolving the problem. Let us breath a collective sigh of relief! Thank you, that is a really good catch and much appreciated! I hope you don't mind my humor. :) I really appreciate the feedback! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Isis[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Isis is the ancient Egyptian deity with the greatest impact outside her home land. She lies near the center of many puzzling questions about Greek and Roman religion and still shows up in odd places in modern Western culture. This is the most thoroughly researched article I've written, so it should meet the criteria.

For source-checkers: I use academic sources in nearly every case, but when discussing Isis' impact in modern culture, that's not always possible. The source I'm least comfortable with is Forrest 2001, which is mostly a devotional book for modern worshippers of Isis. I used its least subjective chapter to support a couple of statements about Isis' modern followers that are pretty obvious but hard to find citations for elsewhere. Another difficulty is that the article cites sources in French and German, languages I do not speak. I copied fairly long passages from most of those sources and had them translated (special thanks to User:Iry-Hor and User:Nephiliskos). In Bricault 2001 the information is drawn from the maps, so I only needed enough French to read a map key. A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It must be Egyptian Women's Month, with Cleopatra below. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:David_Roberts_Temple_Island_Philae.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Pompeii_-_Temple_of_Isis_-_Io_and_Isis_-_MAN.jpg, File:Isiac_water_ceremony.jpg, File:Figure-6-Fresco-of-Isis-lactans-at-Karanis-fourth-century-CE-Karanis-Tran-Tam-Tinh.png
  • File:ThebanTomb335.png: reproduction of a 2D artwork garners no copyright for the author under US law
  • File:Temple_of_Isis,_Delos_02.jpg needs an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Marble_statue_of_Isis,_the_goddess_holds_a_situla_and_sistrum,_ritual_implements_used_in_her_worship,_from_117_until_138_AD,_found_at_Hadrian's_Villa_(Pantanello),_Palazzo_Nuovo,_Capitoline_Museums_(12945630725).jpg
I have added US public-domain tags for all of the above, although I'm not completely sure I used the correct ones or, in the case of the statue and the temple, formatted them correctly in relation to the other license templates. A. Parrot (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Auguste_Puttemans_Isis_2.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculpture? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it from this Commons page, the statue was "published" when it was first displayed in a venue where it was free to photograph. That would have been either 1922, when it was installed at the Thomas Welton Stanford Art Gallery, or, if the gallery didn't allow photographs, 1939, when it was moved to its current open-air site. I can find no copyright notices for the statue in the records for either 1922 or 1939. Should I use {{PD-US-no notice}}? A. Parrot (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Assuming there is no copyright notice on the statue itself, and you can add a ref for its display history to the image description, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find any sign of a copyright notice on the statue. Done. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review soon, some initial points below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a good deal of duplinking, perhaps try this script:[27]
I've removed some, but the few that remain (Behbeit el-Hagar, veil of Isis, and Hermes Trismegistus) are terms that appear a long way apart in the article. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. I can see removing the second occurrence of the veil link because it's also linked, though less transparently, in an adjacent image caption, but I think removing the other two would be, to be blunt, silly.
  • What is the infobox image based on? A specific ancient depiction, or is it some original amalgam based on various sources? Either way, this should be stated in the Commons description, and perhaps even in the infobox caption.
User:Jeff Dahl's images of Egyptian deities are composites. By eyeballing them, not because of anything he himself said, I can tell they lean heavily on the imagery from the tomb of Nefertari. In this case, everything except the ankh and papyrus staff corresponds very closely to a pair of images from that tomb (visible here in the third and fourth clickable images). I've added something to that effect to the Commons description.
  • "Philae as seen from Bigeh Island in the early 19th century" I think exact date and artist should be given here.
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Coptic form ⲎⲤⲈ (Ēse) and to her Greek name Ἰσις" No transliteration for the Greek?
Given that it's just "Isis", I wasn't sure whether to include it. Do you think it should be added?
The reader doesn't know, so probably good to include in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Done.
  • "The Egyptian term for a throne" Which is what?
Also st. I've added it to the text.
  • Several writers are mentioned, but only a few are presented. I wonder if it might be good to present them all by occupation.
I'm never sure how to handle this problem, especially because the least wordy way to do it is to use the contentious false title. In a section like the first, where several scholars from the same discipline are named close together, it only seems necessary to use it for the first of them (where I've just added it). Because this article draws on multiple disciplines, it gets more complex in later sections. I'll mull how to handle them.
  • "Isis took the active role in Horus's conception by stimulating her inert husband" What is meant by "stimulating" here?
I changed it to "sexually stimulating", as that's what's meant, but there might a better way to word it.
  • "apotropaic power" Explain this uncommon term in parenthesis.
It felt awkward to do that, so I changed the wording to "protective magical power", with the link destination the same. A. Parrot (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll review the rest of the article once the structural issues discussed below are resolved, so I don't end up reading a soon outdated version of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Isis Pelagia developed an added significance" Shouldn't the name be in italics here too, like at the previous mention?
I've italicized the second mention too. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "as priestesses in the many of the same" Seems "the" is not needed.
Yes. Just a typo, now fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nature is capitalised inconsistently.
I think I capitalized it when thinking of nature as a personification, but I didn't think too hard about it. I've made it consistently lowercase. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Nergaal[edit]

  • Why isn't this article split into 1) Egypt and neighbors; 2) Greco-Roman world; 3) After/elsewhere? Nergaal (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

This is pretty cursory at the moment.

  • First off, I have concerns about the overall structure of the article, which might be solved by restructuring the existing sections underneath broader categories, as suggested by Nergaal above. For example, right now, you have "§Relationships with other gods" and "§Adherents and priests". Those names are location-neutral, and so one might expect to see a discussion of both Egyptian and Greco-Roman aspects of those topics in those sections. But that's not how the article is constructed; those are exclusively Greco-Roman material. It doesn't help that the Egyptian and Greco-Roman material are not organized into exactly parallel section structures.
Nergaal, Squeamish Ossifrage: The major reason I didn't use overarching sections on Egypt vs. the Greco-Roman world is that the current subsections would have to be dropped down to Level 4 (i.e., ====Mother goddess====). I don't think Wikipedia renders level 4 headings visually distinct enough from Level 3; I often don't recognize the difference between them when reading and lose track of the article structure. If it's necessary, though, it would be easy to add new top-level headings. If I do that, do you think the section on Christianity should be put into the larger Greco-Roman section (given that any possible influence was in ancient times) or kept separate?
I thought about including an Egyptian "relationships with other gods" section, but Isis's connections with other Egyptian deities are tied very tightly to her roles, so I considered it redundant. An Egyptian "adherents and priests" section wouldn't make sense because Isis was just a regular part of the religious landscape in Egypt. If there was anything distinctive about the people who worshipped her or who served as her priests, other than what's already mentioned in passing in the article, it hasn't been studied. In Greece and Rome, on the other hand, the demographics of her worship are easily studied (the evidence for individual religious behavior being much more abundant) and scholars have discussed fairly extensively who was attracted to this cult that started out on the religious fringe.
Well, I'm not wedded to Nergaal's proposal of Egyptian / Greco-Roman / Other as the organizational guideline. But I do think something needs to be done. You've got top-level sections that don't actually contain top-level content, and that's confusing for the reader, to say the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that a tighter look at structure might also help with the prose in general. There are some, well, clunky bits. On a cursory examination, I especially noticed that discussion of patients being identified symbolically with Horus in order to benefit from healing spells dedicated to Isis appears in §Roles in Egypt > Mother goddess ... but then appears again in very similar form in §Worship in Egypt and Nubia > Popular worship.
I'll work on this over the weekend.
  • There's some leeway about whether chapter title and journal articles should be presented in Title Case or Sentence case (my preference being the latter, but you're welcome to ignore me); in any case (rimshot), there's some inconsistency in which is used here.
I've capitalized them all—except in a couple of quotations that are included in article titles, and in the case of French titles. I'm not sure how to handle these two cases, as French uses capitalization much less often. (In Brill's multilingual volumes, for instance, titles of studies in English are in title case and those in French are sentence case.) For that matter, I'm not even sure how to capitalize French book titles. Any advice would be appreciated!
  • You are not consistent about how you cite edited works that include chapters with separate authorship. Compare the Bodel (2008) and Cruz-Uribe (2010) (and other) sources with any of the times you list the edited work in §Works cited, while referencing the specific chapter only in §Notes and citations > Citations.
I've never been sure how to handle studies within books. (Right now the books in which more than one study has been cited are listed as books, whereas single studies are listed by themselves. Arbitrary and finicky, I know.) If all the individual studies in this article were listed separately, as they are in at least some FAs, the works cited list, already very long, would be made much longer. Is it acceptable to just list the books in the works cited and relegate the listings of studies to the citations?
Personally, when I'm dealing with a book that contains a number of published studies (and/or just chapters with distinct authorship), I use {{cite book}} to just point at the material written by each author I reference, individually. If that means I've got two or three sources in the same book, well, so be it. That has the advantage of letting me point sfn tags at the actual author who I'm referencing, without a lot of extra clutter. Now, that said, Wikipedia is nothing if not permissive with referencing styles so long as there are consistent rules being applied. I'm ... not sure I've seen anyone else draw the line quite where you have here. It's not what I would do. But it is a consistent decision, so it's (probably) copacetic with regard to the FA criteria. On the other hand, don't ever worry about a Works cited / reference list being too long if that's what's needed to reference an article (you can probably kick that Works cited list to 30em columns for a little more compact presentation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Journal references (such is Bianchi) should ideally include the page numbers of the article cited.
Done.
  • Book-format sources that lack ISBNs (like Griffiths (1960) and several others) should ideally have an OCLC identifier.
Done.
  • In §Further reading, I assume the Bergen source is in French?
The studies in the book are in different languages: French, English, German, and Italian. If there's an established way to reflect that in a citation template, I'd be happy to add it.
Cited individually, that's easy, of course. I'll need to give some thought to how you'd do that if you opt to retain your current practice. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Though the volume by Berger et al. is in the further reading, not the works cited, so addressing studies individually wouldn't make a difference there. A. Parrot (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Bricault is cited quite a bit in the article itself; what warrants giving him four entries worth of further reading also?
Many of the Bricault volumes, both in the works cited and the further reading, are edited by Bricault but largely written by others. The study of Isis in the Greco-Roman world is becoming almost its own sub-discipline, and Bricault is its hub. The article text has only three citations to works actually written by Bricault, because, not speaking French, I wasn't able to use his work very extensively. Regarding the two books in the further reading that are fully his: Bricault 2005 is the definitive collection of epigraphic references to Isis's cult, and Bricault 2013 is a much longer and (one hopes) thoughtful and thorough overview of the subject than the two rather superficial English-language overviews (Witt 1997 and Donalson 2003) that I was able to cite. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I know how it goes when you need to rely heavily on the major experts in a narrow field. That said, even if he's central to current scholarship on the topic, you might opt to pare down the Further reading to the essentials (perhaps those 2005 and 2013 works?). That does raise an interesting question though – whether you should redlink him and/or kick out a stub for him, if his scholarly contributions are significant enough to garner him notability in the project's sense. He does have articles at the French and German Wikipedias, although neither are really the sort of quality to get excited about. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to return for a more diligent pass later in the process, although the structural issues are a significant barrier to support at the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage: I've created overarching sections for Egypt and G-R, and it works better than I thought it would. I hope it helps with the problems you raise. I cut the one passage you pointed out as a problem and tried to look for other redundancies or passages that might better be placed differently, but I didn't see many. I've been steeped in this article for so long that it's hard for me to see whatever flaws there may be. A. Parrot (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Support. Apologies for the slow response time here. Travel and Wikipedia rarely combine well. I think the new structure is a substantial improvement, although, perhaps pedantically, I would move §Adherents and priests under §Worship. Others may (and do) have a different opinion there. I also still think you're better served citing works with individual authorship separately, even if there is more than one such work cited from a single edited compilation; the established rule (that multiple such citations warrant a reference to the larger work, with the individual authorship defined in the note) strikes me as somewhat challenging from a maintenance perspective. But, again, I do think that your standard is probably FACR-compliant, and the FAC process isn't about making me happy! Regardless of whether or not you fiddle around with either of those considerations, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't satisfy the criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Squeamish Ossifrage: I think I will separate out the works cited entries sometime in the next few days. Thank you very much for your critiques and your support. A. Parrot (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by PericlesofAthens[edit]

@A. Parrot: I am quite happy to support this article for Featured status. It is obviously well researched and utilizes a wide variety of reliable scholarly sources, with a seemingly large representative sample of academic material on the subject. It is well written and relatively easy to digest despite covering a large amount of topics. I disagree with reviewers above about structural issues; I think the article is reasonably formatted and organized in a logical manner. The images are well sourced and as of now they don't seem to violate any licensing rules. If this is not an example of quality FA material on Wikipedia, then what is? Pericles of AthensTalk 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Fascinating topic, happy to see it here (I used the opportunity to improve on my poor knowledge on the topic by reading related FA and GA articles as well). The article is high quality overall, and I found it difficult to pinpoint any concrete issues. I however agree with the above reviewers that the structure could be improved on. I tried to provide suggestions below, but I'm not sure at all if this would be feasible, and I certainly see the logic of your current structure.

  • I can imagine there might be very good reasons against it, but I still wonder why not dissolve the headings "In Egypt and Nubia" and "In the Greco-Roman world" completely. I feel that you cannot strictly separate these two categories anyways, also because Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt can be argued to belong to both categories. If topics like "Iconography" and "Roles" would be discussed for both categories together, it would be easier for the reader to follow, and to understand the long-term evolution of the cults. This would result in a completely different structure, as, e.g., 1) "Names and Origins", 2) "Mythology", 3) "Spread", 4) "Iconography", 5) "Roles", 6) "Worship", 7) "Possible influence on Christianity", 8) "Influence in later cultures".
Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt are a sticking point because they're both Egyptian and Greco-Roman, but the Greco-Roman cult was too radical a transformation to be lumped in with the original form in Egypt. As the "spread" section of the article states, the cross-cultural worship of a deity by a small but personally devoted minority of the population was not only a dramatic departure from the customs in Egypt; it was an entirely new phenomenon in world history at the time. Combining these sections would obscure that distinction. That aside, the sections on worship really can't be combined with each other. With the exception of daily temple rites, Isis's worship was dramatically different in the two cultures. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I had the impression that the "In Egypt and Nubia" is pretty much centralized around the separate roles of the deity. Other important aspects, most importantly the mythology, is treated within the sub-sections of the separate roles as a mere side note. Also, a lot of information given in the "roles" section is not strictly about the roles. I understand that these roles are extremely important; still I was surprised to find it organized in this way, as I would have expected a stronger focus on the sources and the mythology before discussing the roles. Also, isn't the mythology (at least the Osiris myth) also of relevance for the "In the Greco-Roman world" section? What speaks against having a section on the mythology, which, e.g., focuses on Isis's role in the Osiris myth, and also discusses different variants of the myths, before the section "Roles"?
For one thing, every book that has separate entries on Egyptian deities integrates deities' actions in myth with their roles, rather than covering the two separately. (The larger entries in Wilkinson 2003 have sections titled "Mythology", but they're really about roles. Most deities didn't have any myths about them.) Greek myths are elaborate stories that often don't have much of a religious meaning, so it makes sense to have mythology sections in articles on Greek gods. Egyptian myths are rarely narrated as continuous stories, and nearly everything about them has a religious meaning. Egyptian gods are what they do: their mythical behavior is the prototype for their interactions with humans. Isis's roles truly are outgrowths of her actions in the Osiris myth, which is why the article covers the relevant parts of the myth in the related subsections of "Roles".
Moreover, Isis doesn't play a significant part in the two or three other major groups of Egyptian myth, so a separate section on her mythology would be a not-quite-complete retread of the Osiris myth article. Perhaps the link to the Osiris myth article in the body should be replaced by a Template:Further at the beginning of the "Roles" section, to make it more prominent? A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

For now, I have two more minor notes:

  • I miss something about the Iconography in the lead.
I've added it. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The image caption "Isis and Nephthys standing over the deceased during embalming, 13th century BCE. A winged Isis appears at top" did not specify which is Isis and which is Nephthys, that would be helpful to know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the convincing answers. There is no more to add for me – great work. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • A fine piece of work. Structure now seems fine and natural.
  • I was rather surprized by "In Roman times, temples to Isis in Egypt could be built either in Egyptian style, in which the cult image and the daily offering rites were out of public view, and in a Greco-Roman style in which the cult image was freely visible to the public.[99] Yet Greek and Egyptian culture were highly intermingled by this time, and there may have been no ethnic separation between Isis's worshippers.[100] The same people may have prayed to Isis outside Egyptian-style temples and in front of her statue inside Greek-style temples.[99]" - which I think overstates the difference between the two styles of worship, making the Greek & Romans sound like Catholics of recent centuries, which they were not. Most Roman worshippers also stayed outside the temple, and sacrificed at altars in the precinct, rather than praying to statues. Some cult images were tourist attractions in the modern style, but it is often unclear who could access others, and when. But I'd need to research that a bit more.
I see the problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Dunand is vague about who might have been allowed into these temples. Aside from Naerebout, who doesn't discuss the accessibility issue, she's the only one who really deals with the ethnic/cultural implications of this type of temple in Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This has several useful pages on access in the Greek world, evidently very varied, and generally fairly poorly evidenced, it seems. I think it might be enough to tone down the language here though. Or there's this which other books refer to, & I don't think I can access. Mind you this pp. 212-220 supports fairly general access & praying before statues. Maybe our Greek temple needs rewriting somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The first link you provided isn't accessible to me, but I looked at the entry for Greece in the "Sacred Times and Spaces" section in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Page 269 says: "Ordinarily, the cella was open for worshipers who wished to pray to or touch the image; some images that were too precious for this (such as the gold and ivory Zeus in Olympia) or attracted the fervor of too many worshipers (such as the images of the healer Asclepius) were protected by a low balustrade. Other activities were strictly forbidden; a sacred law from the Athenian Acropolis explicitly bans cooking meat from the interior the temple—sacrificers were supposed to prepare the meat outside." It also mentions that the adyton was restricted to priests or other specific classes of people, but the adyton wasn't where the cult image was and not every temple even had one. The corresponding section for Rome doesn't specify who was allowed in temples, but it says: "In principle, one only entered the cella only in connection with worship, public or private." That seems to imply that people were at least sometimes allowed to worship in the cella for personal reasons. If really perplexed, we benighted non-classicists can ask Haploidavey.
In any case, I've toned down the language of this passage a bit in case the cult statue wasn't free for just anybody to see. A. Parrot (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Both the iconography sections could do with a mini-gallery of 1-2 rows showing iconographies mentioned and not illustrated otherwise. The article seems generally under-illustrated (though the images are nicely chosen), with very long gaps at the insanely small default px size. We have a plethora of good images on Commons.
A fair point (and I agree about the default size!). I'll look for some examples of the iconographies mentioned in the text, although my initial poking around suggests many of them will be inconvenient to find. I definitely want this for the gallery, as the winged Isis image needs more prominence in the article and I've wanted a good photo of that end of the sarcophagus for years. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • the current images 2&3 look off the page.
If you don't mind, I'd prefer not to move them. Left-aligned images can look kind of awkward with section headings below second level, as they often separate the headings from the text that follows and there's no horizontal line to extend the heading across the page. I think the MoS discouraged the combination back when I was learning how to handle image layouts, but that's changed now. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Before that time, cults tied to a particular city or nation had been the norm across the ancient world" - a big hmmm there. While cults were certainly localized, the Greek Twelve Olympians, and then Dionysus in particular had broken those bounds before Alexander, surely?
True, and Woolf does mention a fair amount of trans-Mediterranean religious contact in classical Greek times. I'll have to come up with a more nuanced way of conveying what he says. His article is crucial—its subject may be the most important one touched upon in this entire article—but it's hard to boil down into a few sentences. A. Parrot (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Many Roman temples instead used a jar of water, a hydreios, that was worshipped as a cult image or manifestation of Osiris.[222]" - is this different from the situla Isis carries in G/R images, which was supposed to contain Nile water?
It is, but upon reexamining Wild 1981 I realized a problem. For the record, this is a statue of Osiris Hydreios (that is, Osiris in the form of a water jar), and the thing in this priestess's left hand is a situla. However, the pitcher in the hand of the Capitoline Isis statue probably shouldn't be labeled a situla, even though Tiradritti calls it that. According to Tiradritti, the pitcher was added in a 17th-century restoration based closely on a vessel described in The Golden Ass XI:11. But Wild, when discussing that passage of the novel, never calls this type of vessel a situla. He says instead that it was the cultic water pitcher that took the place of the fixed cisterns. The Osiris Hydreios statues are statues of this pitcher with the head of Osiris set atop them to indicate that Osiris is present in the jar. What a mess. I meant to write an article on the hydreios, but now I'll have to examine Wild's terminology very carefully to figure out what to call that article. For now, I think I'll just use "pitcher" in the caption for the image of the Capitoline Isis and in the paragraph on veneration of water. Situlae seem to be more bucket-like than pitcher-like. A. Parrot (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Images of Isis with Horus in her lap are often suggested as the basis for the iconography of Mary" - I don't know what the sources say, but there is actually rather a long gap between the end of the cult of Isis and the appearance of the classic Virgin and Child image. The Virgo Lactans, apart from one early Egyptian papyrus, only really gets going after 1000.
Well, it is often suggested, regardless of whether it's true, albeit more often in anti-Catholic and anti-Christian polemics than in academia. That one papyrus apparently isn't the only example, though. According to Higgins 2012, Tran Tam Tinh's extensive 1973 study didn't find any images of Maria lactans from Egypt before the seventh century, whereas the latest of Isis lactans date to the fourth. Although (says Higgins) a few more early Maria lactans images have been discovered since then, the chronological range hasn't been extended any further back. However, Tran Tam Tinh still apparently acknowledged a limited amount of influence from Isis lactans. I don't know his exact reasoning, but images of Isis may still have been extant in some places at the time the first images of Mary nursing were created. Mathews and Muller make a much more ambitious argument, claiming stylistic similarities between the third- and fourth-century frescoes and panel paintings of Isis and several non-lactans images of Mary, including the sixth-century enthroned Mary of Sinai. Their argument is complicated to explain, so I haven't done it in the article, but as it's one of the more recent opinions on the subject and they apparently reiterate it in a recent book that I don't have, I thought it worth mentioning. A. Parrot (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The Sinai icon, usually taken as pretty much the start of the surviving V&C depiction, is usually dated around 600 - "sixth or early seventh century", so that's still a fair gap. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the article should mention the gap. I'll figure out an adjusted wording for the section tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's it. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Switched to support; all comments sufficiently addressed. A very fine piece. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

In general the sources seem to be presented in exemplary fashion. I have not spot-checked (there's very little online that I can reach) but the range of the sources used certainly suggests comprehensive coverage. I have a few nitpicks:

  • Multiple citations should be in ascending order: see Note 1
Fixed. I looked for other examples of this problem but didn't find any.
  • There are several instances where "p." should b "pp." See 23, 51, 113 and check for others
  • Likewise, a few "pp." should br "p.": 269, 290
I've fixed these, looked over the other refs, and found and fixed a couple more examples. I don't see any more.
  • Ref. 78 returns a harv error
This is odd. My citation-checking script doesn't show any errors, and when I look at ref 78 I can follow the links through to the citation and the cited source.
  • Wendrich source: ref 13 provides a link to the cited article. Refs 69 and 111 give page refs, but on examining the source it appears to have about 10 subsections, so it's not clear to me where the cited page numbers are to be found. Can you clarify?
I apologize; I thought I linked each of those articles. Links have now been added for the other two. In each case, the page numbers apply to the individual articles.

Otherwise, sources appear to be consistently formatted and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Brian. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Katolophyromai[edit]

This is an excellent article; it is well-written, meticulously cited to reliable sources, well-organized, a good length, and illustrated with plenty of insightful images. Though I have tried, I simply cannot really find any faults in it that I would consider significant enough to possibly hinder its promotion to "Featured Article" status. I think this is definitely suitable for "Featured Article" status beyond a doubt. Excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Modernist[edit]

Excellent job; long overdue. Interesting, informative and an important Featured Article addition...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


Nominator comment. Nikkimaria, Brianboulton: In response to Johnbod's suggestion of a gallery, I've added a few images to the article and rearranged some references in the iconography section. The new images are [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32], and as far as I can tell they are all appropriately licensed. The reshuffled text includes what used to be ref 78, on which Brian saw a harv error but my citation-checking script didn't; the ref is now 77, and I still don't see an error in it or in any of the other references in the article. I thought it best to notify you of these changes so you have a chance to check them. Many thanks to everyone who has reviewed this FAC. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The harv error seems to have gone away – maybe it was a glitch in my checking routine. All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Images look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This article covers the presence of thousands of Australian soldiers in the UK during World War II. While the huge Australian Army establishment in the UK during World War I is reasonably well known, the much smaller deployments during World War II are not. This is something of a shame, as they are quite interesting. The largest of these deployments was 8,000-strong combat force which formed part of the mobile reserves which would have responded to the feared German invasion in 1940. In addition, over 5,000 released Australian prisoners of war passed through the UK on their way home during 1945. Other Australian soldiers dispatched to the UK included liaison officers, railroad engineers and some very cold foresters. Following the war, members of the AIF took part in an almost test-level cricket series and the 1946 London Victory Parade. This article may be the only online resource covering all of these deployments.

I have developed this article over the last year. It passed a GA review in December 2017, and a A-class review in January. The article has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your consideration and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Nick, nice work with this article. I reviewed it at A-class and saw it evolve before that also. I have a few minor suggestions/comments, otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • War Office is overlinked in the Liaison officers section
  • in the Works consulted section, is there a page range for Beaumont's chapter in Dennis et al?
  • same as above for Beckett's chapter in Bridge, and Field's chapter
    • Beckett's chapter was published in html format, so there aren't page numbers. Fixed for field. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • for Field's chapter, suggest adding the editor for Tobruk and El Alamein
    • The book doesn't identify the primary author as also being the editor of that chapter. It may have been commissioned and edited directly by Gavin Long in his role as the general editor of the series (which I think was the case for the corresponding chapter on prisoners of the Japanese in The Japanese Thrust). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Nick, I meant for the volume itself. Isn't that Barton Maughan? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, he's the primary author, but he's not identified as also having edited Field's chapter. Given that Maughan was notoriously slow in finishing the book and did so from eccentric locations (Broken Hill and, from memory, India), I'd imagine that Long handled the POW chapter which covers soldiers captured throughout the AIF's time in the Middle East rather than only the period Maughan covered. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
          • No worries. Didn't know that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Please don't ask me why I know so much gossip about the authors of the official history! Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • the title link for the Field chapter doesn't seem to go to Tobruk and El Alamein, its seems to go to Walker's medical series
    • Whoops! Fixed - and well spotted. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Loftus, Australia" --> "Loftus, New South Wales"? (earlier you use "Clayton, Victoria")
    • The books used that style, but I agree that it's not the best. I've changed this to NSW. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Released_Australian_POWs_marching_down_Horseferry_Road_in_1918.JPG: with no identified author, how do we know this is AustraliaGov? Unlike some of the other images, this was taken in a place accessible to civilians. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Largely as it's from the Australian War Memorial's collection. The photo appears to have been taken from a building on Horseferry Road in London. At this time the Australian Imperial Force occupied most of the buildings on the road. As such, the image was either taken by an Australian government employee or was donated to the AWM (an Australian Government institution). Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at GAN and again at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about in either review. I've gone through the additions/changes since, and I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem[edit]

Prose (mostly nitpicks)

  • You sometimes run a leading subordinate clause directly into the main clause, e.g. In April 1944 two majors from the Army's Directorate of Research..., but other times separate them with a comma, e.g. In April 1944, the Department of Information... When I asked about this a while back, the response was that it does not matter which method you use, but it does need to be consistent throughout.
    • Good catch - I've standardised on using a comma. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You missed a few, so I went through it myself. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are many instances where you use "with" as a conjunction, e.g. Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, with up to 600 forestry troops being active there between July 1940 and mid-1943, which I believe is frowned upon. They should be replaced with proper conjunctions (in this example, "Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, and up to 600 forestry troops were active there between July 1940 and mid-1943" would do it).
    • Fixed - and this is a big improvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

  • While the UK had accommodated... While implies concurrence, which is not the case here. Replace it with "Although"?
  • ...January 1941 in order to concentrate... Believe that "in order to" is generally frowned upon, and the "in order" can be deleted.
    • Good catch - fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In mid-1944 AIF personnel were dispatched to the UK to establish facilities to accommodate and support... Personally I find the repetition of "to" clunky. I would write this as "In mid-1944 AIF personnel arrived in the UK to establish facilities for Australian POWs due to be released from German prison camps."
  • Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK as the war in Europe neared its conclusion during April 1945 and ended in May This sentence ends awkwardly. Does the "ended in May" refer to the release of POWs or the war? I think you mean "Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK in the last two months of the war in Europe"?

Background

  • ...airmen who had been trained under the Empire Air Training Scheme and several flying squadrons... Not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but you're effectively saying that "airmen trained under several flying squadrons", which doesn't really make sense.
    • Good point: fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Liaison officers

  • His role included representing Australia on senior decision-making bodies... Not sure about this one. People can be on the board of an organisation, but aren't they generally in an organisational body?
    • I'm pretty sure that 'on' is the standard usage (eg, someone is 'on' a committee - especially if they're relatively senior in their organisation) Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Major General Rupert Downes, who was the Army's most senior medical officer as the Director General of Medical Services, arrived... Is it an aussie thing not to hyphenate the ranks of general officers, or a typo? Do we need to say "most"? Isn't senior in this usage a superlative? I would be tempted to write this sentence as "Major General Rupert Downes who, as the Director General of Medical Services was the Army's senior medical officer, arrived...".
    • I don't think that a hyphen is used here (eg, [33]). That change reads much better - thanks.
  • ...and helped to facilitate orders of medical equipment for the Army Did he facilitate orders, or the supply?
    • Orders of stuff (presumably figuring out what was the best equipment and placing the contract) Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Arrival in the UK

  • ...and Convoy US 3 off the Australian coast Missing "was" after 3.
  • Several ministers believed that the British Government was seeking to divide the AIF... British or Australian ministers?
    • Australians. I think that this is clear in the context? Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ...and been promoted and been appointed... Quite sure that second "been" should not be there.
    • Oops, yes. Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Reorganisation

  • ...leading to the 2/3rd Field Ambulance being split in half to form the 2/11th Field Ambulance The use of "form" tripped me up by leading me to expect two units to be listed rather than just the 2/11th. Maybe "create" would be better?
    • I've gone with 'establish' Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain. Invokes images of Australians in Spitfires and Hurricanes chasing Heinkels and Messerschmitts. Perhaps "caught up" would be more accurate than "involved"?
    • No, they were involved. The Battle of Britain wasn't just an aerial campaign (see, for instance, [34], [35], [36], as well as the official history which discusses the role of the Army alongside that of the RAF in its chapters on the battle (for instance, [37]). Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The question comes down to whether "Battle of Britain" refers solely to the air battle or to the wider issue of defence against invasion. The latter indisputably involved army, navy and air force, but the former is, I think, the common perception of the battle. The article Battle of Britain seems to back this up. The source you provide makes no explicit mention of the BoB, and provides no sense of "participation", in relation to the casualty suffered on 13 July. It does state, on p. 305, "In fact, the ability of this army to defend Britain was not tested because the Navy commanded the seas girdling Britain and the Air Force defeated German efforts to gain control of the air. In the air battle the principle role was to be played by Fighter Command which included (in July when the Battle of Britain opened)...". This contradicts, I think, the assertion that "Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain", and does so more explicitly than any statement on p. 307 that might be construed to support the assertion. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The B-class Battle of Britain article represents the outdated view that this was only an aerial battle (totally ignoring the huge RN role, and the large land force assembled in southern England). That said, I do take your broader point and have tweaked this to "Australforce remained on alert throughout the Battle of Britain" which is clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Currently working through a source review. It will take a few hours yet. Factotem (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for checking the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The narrative on the 9th Division confused me a little. It took me a few attempts to figure out that Australforce became 9th Division, if indeed that is what actually happened. I think what confused me was the statement ...Australforce was to be used as the nucleus for a new 9th Division, which led me to believe that significant parts of Australforce/6th Division remained. The problem is compounded when you continue to discuss Australforce in the subsequent paragraphs, and apart from the appointment of Wynter as commander, 9th Division is not mentioned until the rather sudden re-appearance in Following the departure of the 9th Division... in the next section.

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    • The situation seems to have been confusing. This was also raised in the A-class review, and the basic problem is that I can't find a source which specifies exactly when Australforce became the 9th Division/when the 9th Division was formally established. From looking at the Australforce war diaries on the Australian War Memorial website today it appears that this came into effect at the start of November 1940. However, this isn't explicitly stated, and the war diaries use Australforce and 9th Division pretty much interchangeably well after this time! As it doesn't really matter for this article, I've tweaked the text to refer to Australforce (which, per the primary sources, is correct).
See no problems with the responses so far, except for the issue of involvement in the BoB, which I've responded to above. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Couple more points:

  • There are quite a few instances of "in addition", which is often redundant. The two sentences "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, and large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK. In addition, Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." might be better combined as "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK, and Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." A similar merge might improve the narrative relating to Dunhill in the second para of the "Liaison officers" section. There are a coule of other incidences, but "In addition to their military functions, the AIF personnel in the UK..." seems a perfectly legitimate use to me.
    • Only five, which is probably below average for me! (I use it to avoid over-using "also"). I've gotten this down to just the one use. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You use "at this time" quite a lot, which can also be redundant. For example, in the first para of the section "Arrival in the UK", you have already set the time period in the very first clause, so beginning the second sentence with "At this time..." is not necessary.
    • Also trimmed Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing for more info on these issues. Factotem (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • I understand the preference at FAC is to have consistent ISBN formats. You have a mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
    • Standardised on ISBN 13 Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Volume III of the work Australia in the War of 1939–1945, Tobruk and ElAlamein, appears to be authored by Barton Maughan. Field's contribution, Prisoners of the Germans and Italians, is an Appendix to that work. Adding the parameters editor1-last=Maughan and editor1-first=Barton, whilst not technically correct, would present this correctly in the Works consulted.
Just discovered that AustralianRupert also pointed this out. Barton Maughan is listed as the author in the Worldcat entry for this volume. Factotem (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but he's not listed at the editor anywhere. As the series had a general editor (Gavin Long), it's more likely that he was the editor of the chapter, and this was bolted onto the book. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
OK Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Jackson's Australians in Overlord missing publisher info (Media Marketing Group in Canberra, according to Worldcat)
  • Minor quibble, more an FYI and not a problem: You specify the 1952 edition of Long's To Benghazi, but the the OCLC ref you supply relates to the 1986 edition according to Worldcat. Both editions are 336 pages long, so page numbering in your refs should not be affected.
  • Same issue with Greece, Crete and Syria. Again not a major issue as pagination does not appear to differ.
    • Worldcat doesn't seem to have separate OCLCs for the first editions of these two books. The 1980s editions were reprints, with only the addition of new introductions which didn't affect the page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Publisher for McClymont's To Greece appears to be War History Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs
    • Fixed (the details in the NZETC summary differed from the title page). Thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes the Australian Forest History Society's newsletter or Graham McKenzie Smith a reliable source?
    • McKenzie Smith is the leading expert on the structure and deployments of the Australian Army in World War II, and recently authored this vast and comprehensive work on the subject (which was supported by a grant from the Army). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see any issues with the online sources, other than how the CWGC database is used (see below).
Except ref #18 ("Smart, Edward Kenneth"), link is dead. Factotem (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The link works fine for me when I click it, and is still at the same url. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Me too now. Temporary glitch. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I conducted spotchecks on Refs 3, 20, 35, 38, 65, 75, 83, 87 (as at this version of the article), which all checked out OK, plus the following, for which there are some mostly minor quibbles:

  • Ref #101 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 5, 7) Source does not constrain female contingent to Australian Women's Army Service; it actually states "...women who had served across the Australian forces" and specifically mentions the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force
    • That para gives the details of a female major in the Australian Women’s Army Service who took part in the contingent, and the page later refers to the PR material highlighting the involvement of "female soldiers". Page 11 also notes a report from the AWAS party in the contingent which referred to the experiences of women in the plural, so she wasn't alone. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the number of women, but the units they were from. You mention only the AWAS, but the source also mentions the WAAAF. This is a technicality. The article is not wrong, it just misses out a small detail. Factotem (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The WAAAF was the female branch of the Royal Australian Air Force. This article is about the Australian Army. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Silly me. Good point. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref #102 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 10-11) Source states that the male and female contingents were sent to separate camps, and identifies Kensington Gardens only for the male contingent. It does not specify where the female contingent was accommodated.
    • Well spotted - fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref #84 (Field p. 801) Source states that AIF personnel were either sick or "protected" (whatever that means)
    • From the contemporary newspaper report, which describes a party from a field ambulance unit arriving together, I'd guess that "protected" personnel were medical personnel (who often volunteered to be left behind with wounded soldiers to be taken prisoner during retreats to care for them). But the source uses the term without explaining it! I've removed the reference to the 28 being ill, as this doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref #32b (McClymont p. 31) I don't see anything on that page to support the assertion that "The New Zealand Government also agreed for its forces on Convoy US 3 to be sent to the UK".
    • Good catch. The NZ Government had already agreed to this in April, and McClymont doesn't state that it was re-agreed in May (it seems like the NZ government maintained this position, but this isn't explicitly stated). I've corrected the page number and article. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref #45 (Plowman p. 124) Where on that page is there support for the statement that "The 18th Brigade was the largest Australian formation on the convoy..."?
    • Where it notes that it comprised three infantry battalions (or about 3000 soldiers). I could trim this if you think it's too much of a stretch. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough: unstretched. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref #107 (CWGC) I don't have any fundamental problem using the CWGC database as a source, but I believe it qualifies as a WP:PRIMARY source, and we have to be very careful how we use it. The source makes no mention of Australforce or the Forestry Group, so it appears to be your own WP:OR to specify these in the article. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to re-phrase the last para to "A total of 33 members of the Second AIF are recorded by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) in the United Kingdom as being buried in or commemorated at graveyards it administers. The men came from a variety of units, the majority of them infantry." or similar. This reflects only what can be confirmed from the source, without adding any evaluation, interpretation or synthesis.
    • Not at all. If you use the 'download results' button on that page it provides you with more detailed information on these men, which includes their date of death and the unit they were serving in (these also appear via the green arrows to the right of each person). The units listed here relate directly to the units listed in the article, and it's not OR to match this (for example, it lists five members of the forestry companies). I didn't seek to attribute the casualties who I was unable to match up - eg, those from various infantry battalions which didn't serve in the UK. These were presumably POWs who had been repatriated due to serious ill-health, but no source confirms this. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that having to download the results or click on each individual entry in the cited search result strays into analysis, which is specifically proscribed for primary sources. I think that, given the standards expected at FAC, you can still make the fundamental point you wish to make about 2AIF casualties based simply on the information readily available from the search results, without requiring the reader to dig deeper. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so - it's just summarising what the source clearly presents in tabular form. No analysis is required to say that (for instance) five members of the forestry group died when the source clearly shows this. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Understand, and I don't dispute that the data is in the source, but don't agree that we're permitted to do that. Maybe other reviewers can weigh in with an opinion. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's me done now. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC) @Factotem: I think that I've now addressed all your comments, other than the last one where we have differing views. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You have. Just need some third party input on the CWGC issue now. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Nick, I already made a few minor edits 27 May, but here are a few minor queries...

  • Malaya - link to British Malaya?
  • at a British artillery school at Larkhill - wlink pipe Royal School of Artillery?
  • comprehensive range of services - couple of examples? telegrams/postal/Aust'n newspapers/cold beer/Aust'n newsreels?
    • Added. There's scope for a great article on this facility. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • advisors v advisers
    • Tweaked to "advisers" per the Macquarie Dictionary. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • agents general - wlink to Agent-general
  • rapidly transport liberated POWs to the UK, usually by air, after being liberated.[87] Few prisoners were liberated - 3x liberated, maybe swap one for 'freed'?
    • oops, it looks like I messed up the first sentence a bit while copy editing. Now unmessed (I hope). Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Axis forces - wlink
  • Following their return to Australia in November, the forest companies were - forestry?
    • Yep - fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation 90 - Jones, Barry O is Barry Jones (Australian politician)?
    • I'd be amazed if it wasn't - added. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, JennyOz (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot Jenny. As a question, do you have an opinion on the final sourcing query immediately above? Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick, regarding Ref (now) 108 - I don't really feel experienced enough to talk to all the concerns mentioned by Factotem (evaluation, interpretation, synthesis, analysis), but if the database allowed interrogation to refine the search to list a subset of eg the Forestry Coy only members, you'd be able to cite that total as a separate result. That function however is not available so you have simply used the one source to achieve such results. I would think that the totals you are providing are more akin to the spirit of WP:CALC. Most importantly, as long as those figures are verifiable from that one source, I don't see any analysis.
I will be interested in learning from any others' opinions but in the meantime I have no deal breaking concerns so am happy to sign my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again Jenny Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article (on a subject I knew nothing about before). Very readable, nice use of images and well put together. Support on prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA standard. (I corrected one typo). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks Hawkeye Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Lana Turner[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about film actress Lana Turner, who had a prominent career in Hollywood over multiple decades. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Read more about her here: Lana Turner Online Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publisher and/or location
Applied locations to local newspapers and other bibliographic sources that didn't have locations; is this necessary for nationally-known publications like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, where the publication is famous and the location self-evident? --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN4, 107: formatting is incorrect
  • Note that the numbering has changed since my initial comments; these are now FNs 10 and 130, the former of which still has issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are referring to the Speed & Cameron-Wilson citation missing the location and ISSN, which I've now added. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Geni a high-quality reliable source? Total-Movies.com?
  • Don't italicize publishers
I couldn't find an instance of this.
Examples include UT San Diego and UPI. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN15: title is incorrect, and if you're using via for Google News why not for this?
  • FNs 31 and 43 and 58 are to the same publication, but are formatted differently - check for others
Unsure if you were referring to the Wayne 2003 reference—if so, I'm not clear on what is formatted differently as these are shortened footnotes that anchor to the publication.
Now 36, 49 and 71. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The Life magazine articles--got it. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN36 needs time codes for specific references, and why the IMDb link?
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
  • FN121: video has been removed from YouTube due to copyvio issues - check for other linkvio instances
I have attempted to find a video source for this, but cannot find it; the quote cited does very much appear in the program, which is a small (around 10 min.) interview with Turner's daughter on MacRae's Born Famous series.
Major concern here is rather the linkvio issue, which hasn't been fixed - looks like FN245 has also been taken down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I've pulled the YouTube links to prevent the violation issue, but have retained the references as they are still useful.--Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn148: complete date?
Pulled this source and replaced with a bibliographic one. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and if so how
Not sure of the implication here, but I'm assuming it has to do with there not being a third-party reference about the Frank O'Hara poem, and rather a link to the Poetry Foundation's entry for the poem itself. My only response to this would be that the poem should be included here because her name is referred to explicitly in the title, and she is the subject of it. If need be, I can find a literary studies reference that corroborates the poem's title, but I'm not sure what the point would be.
The point of the RfC is, it's not enough to demonstrate that the reference exists, but rather that it is significant, which requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Introduced secondary bibliographic source --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN208 is missing italics
  • No citations to Parish 1978
  • GBooks links should be trimmed down
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Brown 2004 publisher is incorrect. Check for other such issues
  • Still incorrect, please review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you are seeing that the publisher is incorrect; Da Capo is the confirmed publisher according to Google Books, Worldcat, etc. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Parker 2003 appears incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken as I removed and replaced the Parker source earlier --Drown Soda (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: thanks for the source notes; I'll address these points and do another run-through for consistency. You're definitely correct about the Geni source; this was added by another editor and I didn't didnt want to excise it if I didn't have to, but I've unfortunately been unable to find other sources that corroborate the birthdates and deaths of her parents--in the end, that information is not vital to the integrity of the article and can be excised without creating any issues. There are plenty of sources pertaining to their names, which should suffice. I'll start work on your points within the next day or so; I'm currently out of town and do not have my computer with me and it's a bit impractical for me to make these changes on my mobile. I will return to this soon and make note of when they've been cleared up. - - Drown Soda (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed the above notes concerning sources; I combed through all of the book references to add proper locations and publishing houses, cleared up the abbreviated page references, and also made time-stamped footnotes corresponding to the documentary source. The only points above that remain unaddressed are ones I've responded to specifically in green text. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3[edit]

I've done some light copyediting to the article in the hopes that it will help in this FA process (hope you don't mind!please feel free to revert!). Will write some comments about the content here.

Childhood

  • "relocated to nearby Wallace" — year (or approximate) needed
  • "hard times" — perhaps a bit too euphemistic, I'd go with something more specific. I take it the reason was the Great Depression? If so, mention it.
  • "profound effect" — this is minor, but how did this profound effect manifest itself? E.g. did Turner develop mental health problems, or later in life refer to the tragedy in some specific way?
  • How did Turner begin attending the church with family friends? Are confirmation names really worth mentioning?
  • "reportedly" — Weasel word alert, it's better to write who reported this or leave it out altogether (i.e. if undisputed).
  • "overseer" – or manager? If she did not play an 'official' role like that of a manager, maybe just write that "after Turner was discovered, her mother began managing/overseeing/etc. her career".
  • Are there any photos of Turner as a child?

1937-1939:

  • First film: how major was the supporting role? If only a couple of lines or scenes, it's worth specifying instead that she had a minor role. If she was one of the main supporting actors, it's worth mentioning her role.
  • Why did Turner change studios? If she was successful at WB, why did the studio give her over to MGM?
  • "graduated from high school in between filming" — what was she filming?
  • Is LeRoy's role in the studio change actually disputed?
  • If she was already cast as the star of several MGM films in the late 1930s, you should go into a bit more detail about their reception, her roles, etc.

1940-1945:

  • Why did these film projects fall through?
  • Again, there needs to be more about the reception of these films.
  • Turner's first marriage hasn't even been mentioned, and now the section mentions her second divorce. You should briefly mention the marriages, even if you have a separate 'Personal life' section; the reader doesn't want to jump back-and-forth between sections.
  • It would be good to add maybe a quote on Turner's thoughts on Gable. Were they friendly?

Postman section:

  • What were her characters in Green Dolphin Street, Cass Timberline and Home Coming?

1948-1960:

  • Had she actually begun filming Bedeviled?
  • Why did the Topping wedding delay beginning filming?
  • Was it just announced that she'd be starring in the Cukor film? Unclear as the first sentence makes one think she began filming it in '49, but the next sentence states the script was shelved?
  • TCM is not a reliable source, I'd try to look for a better alternative.
  • Were the films made in Europe dramas, musicals...? What roles did she play? Again, more detail on the projects is needed.
  • Why was Turner reluctant to appear in The Prodigal?

Last section:

  • "She followed this with the lead role in Bittersweet Love (1976), a romantic comedy about a woman who unwittingly marries her half-brother" — erroneously implies she plays the woman who marries her half-brother
  • The Van Welder quote is awkward, given that Turner doesn't even play Patricia, the main character.
  • How were her theater performances received?

Personal life:

  • In the childhood section, she is described as a devout Catholic, but here it's stated she only became one in 1980?
  • It's mentioned that Turner suffered multiple stillbirths... how many exactly? One would think these were made public, as 'stillbirth' implies she was in the late stages of the pregnancy when they occurred. In general, this seems like such a major issue in Turner's life that more than a brief mention is needed.
  • It's also not clear why the blood type would lead to stillbirths. A brief (no more than one sentence) clarification would be a good addition.
  • Why weren't Lana and Cheryl close until the former's later years? It's also a bit awkward to jump then to something that happened when Cheryl was a teen.
  • Why is Tyrone Power's marriage significant enough to warrant a mention?
  • No lists are permitted in FAs to my knowledge, I would make a separate section for this, and perhaps merge it chronologically with the other section on relationships.
  • "habitually married" — sounds tabloidy, revise
  • Shaw marriage — give some background the marriage: how did they meet? why did they elope on their first date (which is pretty unusual)?
  • Same with Topping; how did they meet, etc.
  • Who is Judge?
  • Details about wedding ceremonies (i.e. clothing) don't really belong to an encyclopedia unless very notable (e.g. Diana & Charles's wedding, Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love's wedding...).
  • Once again, background is needed for the Barker and May relationships.
  • Stompanato:

- clarify how they met

That's all for now! In summary, you need to add more background to Turner's roles (e.g. what characters she played, how did the projects do in the box office, how did they fare with the critics, what were her opinions, did she undertake any specific training or other preparation for the roles...) and to rewrite 'Personal life' so that the marriages are no longer in list-form.

Good luck!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@TrueHeartSusie3: I've addressed most of your notes here, and eliminated the marriage list and converted it into prose. I've tried to find as much as I can on the critical reception of Turner's films, but it is difficult to track down information pertaining to some (specifically in regard to mentions of Turner's performances themselves, exact box office receipts, etc.) In regard to Turner's training, again, there is little discussion/published material on this; she was a product of the studio system, though I've found no information regarding her acting style, method, etc. I'll look some more and see if I can find something about this arena of her career. Let me know if you find any pressing details I've missed; there are still a few things that could use brushing up I'm sure. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Great work! I'll try to take a closer look next week, but this article is definitely close to FA. Have you asked any particular editors to review it? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
@TrueHeartSusie3: I have made posts on talk pages on a couple of WikiProjects looking for editors, but so far no one has expressed interest. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

St Donat's Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little castle in a corner of South Wales. It has quite an interesting history. The article received a very helpful Peer Review and I look forward to any and all further comments/suggestions here. A quick note on two of the sources. I've not been able to find the page numbers for the Venning or the Procter, although both can easily be viewed as Google snippets. Neither is essential, and both could go if necessary. Better still would be if an editor had access to the sources. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments and Support by Chetsford[edit]

This article is surpassed in its nice illustrations only by its pleasantly readable prose. Most sources are available online in some form or the other so it was easy to check and, insofar as I can tell, everything looks okay. This also seems to be as comprehensive as anything out there about St Donat's Castle. I support it contingent on remedy of a few minor concerns ...

  • A number of images lack ALT fields.
Will attend to those. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - now Done. Hope they meet the need as I've no experience of writing alt text. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This line - "Of St Donat's, Shaw was quoted as saying, "This is what God would have built if he had had the money"." - is sourced to a Wordpress site which, itself, may not be RS but is no longer active and is currently unarchived in any case.
Green tickY - That's a pity, as it was a nice site. Replaced the source. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the ideal lead for an article of this length is two or three paragraphs, and this article has a four paragraph lead. While LEADLENGTH is not a fast rule, it seems to be a guideline that makes sense to follow in the case of this specific article.
Get the point and agree. Will look to trim to three. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Now done. In my defence, I think it originally was three and it appears to have become four when the distance from Llantwit was added. Howsoever, it's now three as per MoS. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Is "Cadw" supposed to be in all caps here: "but both Alan Hall and CADW sugges"?
It shouldn't be but I can't find it. Will keep looking. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Now found and corrected. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The castle site offers natural defences, in the form of steeps slopes to two sides and the coast to a third." Is "steeps" supposed to be "steep"?
Green tickY - yes indeed. Now Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In this sentence - "The unprotected, eastern, side is encircled by a deep, dry moat." - "eastern" is treated as a paranthetical expression, however, unless I'm mistaken the use of paranthetical expressions is limited to phrases and clauses and I don't think "eastern" is either of those in the way it's used. In other words, could both of the commas be eliminated? I'm not 100% sure on this point.
Green tickY - Done. A bit above my paygrade and should probably have waited for Mr Riley, but have amended in a way that hopefully works. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't look to me for reliable help with commas. I am in a continual tangle with the bloody things. I think Chetsford is right, but I'm absolutely no authority. Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford - Really grateful for the super-quick response and delighted you found the article an interesting read. Shall get straight on to your comments. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hope the issues raised have now been addressed. Really appreciate the interest and the improvements. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
They are - perfect! Chetsford (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for a nice excuse not to deal with another recent death: turn to a lovely article instead.

Lead

  • How about a year for the death in duel? 19th century comes late in what follows.
Green tickY - Done.
  • I think we don't need Hearst's given names twice in the lead, nor his name twice, just separated by a full stop.
Green tickY - Done.

The de Stradlings

  • That's a strange header - "the de", but I'd not know no repair. Perhaps "Stradling family"?
Green tickY - Done.
  • link the keep?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "at a slightly later date," - how about simply "later"?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "A number achieved more than local fame." - I don't believe it ;) - a number of them, or something more elegant?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "fought for and funded Charles I" - I may be the only one to think "for and funded" sounds strange.
Green tickY - Done.

Decline

  • "unscholarly (and) inauthentic" - why not "unscholarly inauthentic"?
Don't think that would quite flow. I'll see if I can rework the quote.
Green tickY - Now Done, by rewording. KJP1 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • any chance to link Edwardian somewhere else, not from a quote?
I see what you mean. Let me have a think. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Done now.

Citizen K

  • I believe that "ruthless" remodelling (or something else) should go to the lead, also would love the Shaw quote there, but know that some hate quotes in the lead ;)
Green tickY - Done. But I'll need to put the cites in. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely stories around the place, including the lives saved, - thank you. More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Many thanks. The castle does indeed have a great story to tell. Shall get on to your comments soonest. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all done, - I improved the other, and will be out now. Hope to back tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Architecture

  • "restorations of Nicholl Carne, Morgan Williams and Hearst himself", - I'd give them all given names, or none, and don't think "himself" adds.
Green tickY - Done.
  • I'd love a plan. The description is probably correct, but I don't "see" buildings and courts when reading.
Red XN - So would I, but sadly I don't know how to do them.

Interior

  • "beasts of the Apostles" - why Apostles, when the link goes correctly to the Evangelists. Can we trust that readers know about the beasts (or "living creatures" or symbols)?
Green tickY - Done.
  • link Devon?
Green tickY - Done.
  • The sentence about the listed building comes a bit as surprise in "description".
    • I know what you mean, but I think it's better here than elsewhere.

Thank you again, lovely reading. The minor points are just suggestions, I am ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Gerda - many thanks again. Shall address these tomorrow. Absolutely agree about a plan. I'd love one too as they hugely help understanding of complex structures, but I'm just not able to do one! KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - Gerda, thanks indeed for the comments and for the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Could you perhaps cast an eye on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - Would be pleased to have a look and shall do so tomorrow. Although music articles are not my forte! I've never recovered from being thrown out of the school choir by the music master, who said I had the worst singing voice he'd ever heard. KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
So sorry for that never-healing wound! If only teachers knew what they are inflicting ... - Comments always welcome, and especially by someone not familiar with the topic, but by now several looked, so take your time. The composer mentioned above appeared on RD, and I am pleased about that. (My last such attempt failed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Great piece of research, but I have few nitpicks, the first of which deters me from immediate support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not enthralled by the lead. The first paragraph seems to summarise the summary, so we have Hearst and Atlantic College mentioned twice, but on the other hand there is no indication that the castle is on the coast, so it was a complete surprise when I started reading about the RNLI two-thirds through (as you may have gathered, I've not visited this site)
Green tickY - A very good point. I've rewritten and re-read it so many times, that I'd become blind to what it actually was saying! You're quite right, para. 1 was like a lead within a lead. I've now tried a, further, re-write to give it better flow and remove the repetition. If you were able to review, I'd be very grateful.
  • ultimately, in the county— it's some time since we have mentioned the county, perhaps "Glamorgan" instead?
Green tickY - Done.
  • Red and one for Fallow deer— Caps inconsistent, either all lc as in their articles, or capped as "Red and one for Fallow Deer", style often seen in books.
Green tickY - Done.
  • The castle was designated a Grade I listed building, the highest possible grade reserved for buildings of exceptional interest, in 1952—perhaps give the reason for designation summary from the source?
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • I don't like all the links in your book sources, as far as I checked they all appeared to be links to Worldcat listings or Google book advertisements. I think the point of a url link is to take the reader to useful content, and personally I never link to journals or books unless they have permanently available full free text. I know you've written other FAs, so I assume that your practice is acceptable, and I'm just registering a concern that you are free to ignore.
Red XN - for now. I absolutely take the point, and another editor made it in relation to Cragside. They particularly disliked the Google links, on grounds of commerciality, and I now try to only use Worldcat, unless the Google link gives a useful snippet, as it does here. Personally, I must confess to a weakness for the links, and they've not proved deal breakers in the past. But I'm quite open to removing them if that's the consensus. I strongly suspect Brian B, who I'm hoping to see when he's put Guy Burgess to bed, will be firmly in the "remove" camp!
I'm 100% with Jim on this. It drives me barmy when I click on a link expecting to read a page from a book and find instead just the name of the publisher and the ISBN etc. Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Duly noted. I feel the groundswell of opinion on this may be moving in a direction not entirely to my advantage.....KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - Jim, many thanks indeed for the comments. I shall go through them later today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - Many thanks for the comments, especially the first one, and for the interest. I hope the revisions are acceptable. With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Reads much better, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Very much appreciated, and the lead's much the better for your comments. KJP1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article for PR and I enjoyed it again just now. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. A few odds and ends of no great consequence but worth a brief look, maybe:

  • Lead
    • "the Celtic chieftan Caradog" – I don't suppose the Celts had a special spelling of "chieftain", but I wasn't quite confident enough to change "chieftan" myself. Over to you.
Green tickY - You know bloody well it's my typing and not a Celtic variant!
  • History
    • "The Winning of the Lordship of Glamorgan out of Welshmens' Hands" – just checking again that the possessive apostrophe is in that position in the original, as opposed to "Welshmen's hands", as we would now write. I'm not sure the matter was sorted out definitively at PR.
Green tickY - Good catch, and it wasn't resolved. This, [38] clearly has the possessive apostrophe where you think it should be, as do the other inline sources I've found. So duly amended with apologies.
  • Citizen Kane's domain: 1925–1960
    • Heading: I'm delighted to see that reviewers at PR and, so far, here, haven't been so po-faced as to object to this title, which I think is whimsical but perfect.
    • "a nighttime tour" – the OED punctuates "night-time", as (even more importantly, of course) do I.
Green tickY - Done.
  • "Ivor Novello and George Bernard Shaw" – have I not previously registered my usual plea for the piping of Bernard Shaw's name to give him the courtesy of the title he insisted on, and which most reputable scholars give him? Not something I can insist on, I admit.
Green tickY - You have indeed and I got it right in the lead, but wrong here. Now corrected.

Nothing there to prevent my registering my support. Excellent stuff. – Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - Greatly appreciate your support and comments here, and your input at PR. Many thanks, and congratulations on Elizabeth David. I hope the clean-up after her TFA appearance wasn't too arduous. KJP1 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Tim riley p.s. - Tim - sorry, I did have a query. What do you think of "rooves" as opposed to "roofs" in the lead. I believe it's ok, if a bit archaic, but when I see it "on the page", it looks odd to me. And will it confuse non-native speakers? KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I always use "roofs" as the plural of "roof", and I'm quite sure it is the more usual form, but the OED is perfectly OK with "rooves", and if that's your preference I'd stick with it. (It may conceivably be significant [sic] that I didn't notice the spelling.) – Tim riley talk 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All the online sources I can access, which is most of them. say what the citations here say they say. The citation style is a little inconsistent: some online citations lack issue/access dates. I don't look to have both, but I think there should be one or other in:

  • "Archbishop James Ussher". www.libraryireland.com.
  • "Atlantic Arts". www.stdonats.com.
  • "Listed Buildings - Full Report - HeritageBill Cadw Assets - Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net. (hyphen should be an en dash, too)
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "LIU WRH – Collection Highlights". www.liucedarswampcollection.org.
  • "Penhow Castle". www.castlexplorer.co.uk.
  • "St Donats Arts Centre - Theatres Trust". database.theatrestrust.org.uk.
  • "St Donats Arts Centre, Theatre, Vale Of Glamorgan, Wales". www.visitwales.com.
  • "St Donat's Castle" (PDF). Could do with source info too.
  • "St Donat's Castle". www.parksandgardens.org.
  • "St Donats Castle, Castle/Fort, Vale Of Glamorgan, Wales". www.visitwales.com.
  • "St Donat's Castle; Atlantic College; United World College of the Atlantic, St Donat's". Coflein.
  • "'St Donat's: Part of the Castle, with the Watchtower Beyond', Joseph Mallord William Turner, 1798 – Tate". Tate Gallery.
  • "STRADLING, Sir John, 1st Bt. (1563–1637), of St. Donat's Castle, Glam. – History of Parliament Online". www.historyofparliamentonline.org.
    • And Stradling should be in ulc.
  • "Stradling-Carne of St Donats Castle papers". arcw.llgc.org.uk.
  • "The Old Swan". Llantwit Major History Society.

And

  • Refs 3 and 41 are one and the same
  • Ref 94 lacks a page number.
Green tickY - All the above done, I hope! KJP1 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These are small presentational points, which of course need tweaking, but the sourcing seems to me otherwise admirable. Tim riley talk 21:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - Tim, very much appreciated. Quite above and beyond. I shall attend to all these later today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Tim riley - with a rather throbbing head, I think I've now done of all these, with the exception of the bloody en-dashes. Do they matter? Is there a helpful script? Help! KJP1 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Fine now. I've dealt with the dashes. One last point (sorry for missing it before): refs 62 and 64 are one and the same and should be amalgamated. With that minor caveat the source review is now satisfactorily signed off. – Tim riley talk 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - 62 & 64 now combined. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil[edit]

Have read this article closely three times now; during the PR, in the interim, and in the last hour or so. Have taken the liberty of editing directly rather than a protracted back and forth, so please feel free to revert. Great stuff; I was gripped each time. Support on prose and story telling. My only remaining material gripe is that the image in the infobox is a little small; maybe Gerda could do something there. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil - Many thanks for your input and comments at PR and your enhancements and Support here. Very pleased with all of your amendments, none of which I'd want to change. With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:St.Donats2.jpg needs a US PD tag
Green tickY - Done.
  • File:HearstAbout1910.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - Many thanks indeed for having a look at the images. The first one, I've tagged as suggested. I'm afraid I've no idea about the second as I just picked it up from Commons. It's the best there but, if necessary, I could replace it. Some of the others appear to have been released by the Library of Congress, so I suppose they'd be ok? Could you advise? Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
[39]
Essentially for the given tag you need to be able to show pre-1923 publication, not just creation. If you're looking to swap images several of the ones in that Commons category meet that, eg Arena_magazine_-_Volume_35_(1906)_(14577938059).jpg or Hon._William_Randolph_Hearst,_1906.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Done. Many thanks. It doesn't work quite so well, but unfortunately we've none of Hearst in the 1920s which would be best. Thanks indeed for the review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support by Richard Nevell[edit]

The medieval history of the site looks a touch light compared to the 20th century, though perhaps not surprisingly given the wealth of information that is on Hearst. Have you checked Anthony Emery's Greater Medieval Houses to see what he has to say? I think it would also be worth noting the RCAHMW investigation of the site since that identified the 12th century keep which hadn't previously been appreciated. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Nevell - Many thanks. You're of course right that it's always possible to add more. If there's something specific on the castle's medieval history that you think should be covered, I'd be delighted to include it. I don't have Emery, but my library may have a copy that I could check if you think there's something that should be included. I'm not getting anything online in relation to the RCHME. If you could point me in the direction of anything that's available, I'd very much appreciate it. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Spuregon (1993) mentions the reinterpretation. I presume it was the result of a building survey rather than desk based assessment, but it's not clear from how it's written. Perhaps the 2000 RCAHMW volume currently cited might go into more detail? If it doesn't, I think it might be a dead end as I couldn't find more in the Historic Environment Record. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Richard Nevell - Very helpful and many thanks. I shall have a look at the RCAHMW again tomorrow and see if I can extract something on the keep. Tantalisingly, the Spuregon is giving me the first line about St Donat's but nothing more. You don't have full access by any chance? KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Richard Nevell - You were right to think the RCAHMW survey might have more. It references their, on-site, identification of the original Norman stone castle and notes that this was missed in their earlier survey, undertaken in the 1960s when the castle was being reconfigured to accommodate Atlantic College. I've put two references in, at the end of the first paragraphs of the Architecture and Description and Exterior sections. I hope they meet the need but I'd be pleased to expand it if you think something more is required or if the Spurgeon source has something that would warrant inclusion? Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
p.s. Have now added Emery as a source, but again, I'm afraid it focusses on the Hearst period, not the medieval! KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
p.p.s. And have now added a snippet from the Spurgeon article, which draws a very nice link with the church. Many thanks indeed for your help, suggestions and interest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hope it's not too late for me to switch to support. Good work with the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: KJP1 is temporarily unable to edit Wikipedia (being in a country where access is blocked), and he has asked me to record his thanks here for your support. Tim riley talk 19:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat[edit]

Another punter from the PR. The article has been strengthened since then, and on prose terms it passes the criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - Very much appreciated and glad you enjoyed it. For a small castle in a quiet Welsh corner, it’s had a surprisingly eventful history. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment from SN54129[edit]

Nice article, KPG1, as perfectly sculptured as its subject  :) Just one thing really; I can...senssse a gap in the literature, particularly for your medieval coverage (which, being, a medieval castle I suggest is its most important period as a working building, but, yes, MRDA, I know!) I'm thinking, for example, Stan Awbery and Ralph Griffiths on the Stradling / St Donats connection (1967 & 1968 respectively), Graham Thomas on the family library, or R. G. Williams on aspects of the Castle's chapel and church (1935). I see you use Whittle, but she did a tihng (1999?) specifically on the Tudor gardens too. No mention of the "miracle cross" of St Donats? See T. G. Law, 1886. Basically, I just think a little more could perhaps be mined to really fill out the earlier period.

Have a good holiday KP! Try not to get rounded up with all the other subversives  ;)  :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - Hi SN54129 and glad you liked the article. The castle does have rather an extraordinary history. I'd of course be very happy to expand the medieval coverage if you think there's something significant missing. The "Miracle Cross", for example, has quite extensive coverage, e.g.[40], and I could certainly put something in. You'll have seen from the above that Richard was rightly keen to have something on recent interpretations of the castle's Norman architecture, and I think that's been dealt with. So, if there's something specific from the authorities you mention, if you could indicate what, that would be most helpful. But it will have to wait, I'm afraid, for the reasons mentioned below. I'm in Istanbul from tomorrow and I don't think they currently permit access to Wikipedia, although reports vary. We shall see. I shall certainly seek to avoid arrest! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 - Having avoided arrest by departing just before Erdogan's big Istanbul rally, I've:
  • Added a little from Thomas on the library;
  • Included a little more on the medieval occupants and expanded the sources;
  • Referenced the "miraculous cross" with a couple of sources.
I unfortunately don't have Awbery. Is there anything in there you'd specifically like to see? If there is, I'd be most pleased to add it. I could also expand on the Whittle a little, but I think the significance of the "finest Renaissance garden in Wales" is made clear. Let me know. Thanks again and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Ian Rose - Hi Ian, it's me nagging again. We stand at 6 Supports, with cleared image and source reviews, and comments to which I hope I've responded adequately. My issue is that I go abroad at the end of this week and won't have access to the sources for a while. If it were possible to wrap this up by Friday, that would be helpful. If it isn't, not a problem and I certainly don't want to try and rush things. I'll just let any further commentators know that they may have to wait a while for a response. With many thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this might be a bit more of a problem. Wikipedia is currently blocked where I'm going, so it may not be possible to access at all. Not sure as to the best way forward? KJP1 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
While I agree the nom has garnered a good deal of support in a relatively short time, as a rule I prefer to give the community at least a couple of weeks to look things over. How long will you be away? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose - absolutely understood. It's my fault, I should have nominated sooner, or held back. I'm away until the middle of June. If responses can wait, that's fine. I'm just concerned that the current ban on Wikipedia in Turkey, I'm going to be in Istanbul, might make me completely incommunicado. What about if I put a note to that effect up here? Would that work? Sorry to be a pain. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe if the coords were willing to let it open until your return, and a few of us kept an eye for the easier responses on prose etc. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil - That would be really helpful. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, mid-June is not a prob, by then it will still have been open barely a month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Catopsbaatar[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the first article about a multituberculate mammal to be nominated here (if we don't count Ucucha's Ferugliotherium, which may or may not belong to the group). These extinct mammals lived alongside the dinosaurs and survived them, and the article covers one of the more completely known members of the group. All the relevant literature I know of has been cited, and all the images are from a CC-licenced journal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Very comprehensive, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The most completely preserved skeleton (specimen PM120/107) shown from above as preserved (left), with diagram showing individual bones—first "preserved" is redundant
Ah, yes, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The external appearance of their heads may have been similar to that of rodents.their… those or its… that
Took "those". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • which are thought to be the same geologic age. —no harm giving the age here too
Added, though I wonder if it will be seen as redundant since it is also stated in the first sentence of the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Djadochtatherium D. catopsaloides, with specimen ZPAL MgM – I/78—I'd prefer Djadochtatherium as D. catopsaloides,
Added comma and "as". I think it was like that before copy edit also. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned a damaged skull missing lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/79, an adult), a skull with partial lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/80), and a molar with a fragment of jaw (ZPAL MgM – I/159 from the Barun Goyot Formation of Khulsan, the only specimen not from Hermiin Tsav) to the species—it's a long way from Kielan-Jaworowska to …species, perhaps rejig
I tried with "Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned other specimens to the species;" which is followed by the list of specimens, still a long sentence, but at least "to the species" is moved back, and the meaning of the following is clear when the reader starts reading. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Catopsbaatar's lower pair of incisors was very strong and compressed sideways. —I'm not sure what pair of incisors… compressed sideways means. The diagram shows them leaning in to each other, is that what it's saying?
What is meant is that the entire pair (as a unit) was flattened, the source only says "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." I reworded to "Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways", is it any clearer? Though the meaning is exactly the same, it may be easier to read this way... FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Mammal jaws have been found in the abdomen of a specimen of the small theropod Sinosauropteryx, belonging to Zhangheotherium, which had spurs, —I first read this as saying that Sinosauropteryx belonged to Zhangheotherium perhaps rejig to avoid ambiguity?
Added "; the jaws belonged to". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replies, all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
And thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Generally suggest scaling up images that include diagrams. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Scaled up some of the diagrams that weren't just line drawings of the photos shown in the same images. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Reviewing now, more to follow the next days.

Thanks, I've answered a few things below, will fix stuff later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Late Campanian – substages are informal, and therefore are not capitalized per convention. It has to be "late Campanian".
Fixed, was also inconsistent in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It had very robust incisors, and cheek teeth with multiple cusps (for which multituberculates are named). – Multiple cusps are a typical for most mammals, including humans. I think the point is that Multis had a lot of them, which were very characteristically arranged in rows.
What distinguishes multituberculates from other mammals is mentioned under evolution, but the name itself only specially refers to the multiple cusps, not really to any other feature. Kielan-Jaworowska 2004 only says "Lat. multum—much, multus—numerous, tuberculum—tubercle, in reference to the multicusped molar teeth". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah OK, forgot that this is only referring to the name. Though it might be an idea to replace "multiple" with "numerous", which is the translation you cited? That would make clear that there are more than the usual handful of cusps.
Changed to "numerous". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation – correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hermiin Tsav just a locality within the Barun Goyot Formation?
Hermiin Tsav is a locality, but the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav is a formation, as far as I can see. See for example the table of formations on page two in this paper:[41] FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok I see, though it seems that only Jaworowska is treating the unit as a separate formation, with most dinosaur people only using the locality names, listing them under "Barun Goyot Formation".
It seems the two have increasingly been considered identical, but it seems some writers still retain use of both... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • and the name refers to its similarity to the genus Catopsalis – that was already mentioned with very similar wording in the preceding paragraph.
The first instance refers to the specific name, the second to the generic name (both refer to Catopsalis), but do you think the wording should be more different anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see. What you could do is adding "as is the case for the specific name" for extra clarity, but I'm not so sure if this would really be an improvement.
Added just for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to name some nodes in the cladogram?
The original it is based on only lists characters for each node (page 232 here[42]), so I wonder if it would be original synthesis to add clade names, if that's what you're asking. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem I would say, the text unambiguously links the node numbers with names. According to p. 228, node 18 is Djadochtatheriidae, and node 9 is Djadochtatheria.
I'll have to ping IJReid for that then, I am pretty much analphabetic when it comes to making cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the cladogram from 1997 is a bit aged? That is already 21 years ago.
I couldn't find any newer ones... Maybe Catopsbaatar is included in cladograms published in more recent descriptions of other genera, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Even the 2001 phylogeny paper only lists families in the cladogram, no genera, so can't really be used either. At a loss here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you are right and it is even better to keep the original one here, until a revision dealing specifically with this group has been published.
  • because the nuchal crest at the back of the head curved inwards at the middle – I'm not sure if all readers will understand, maybe add "creating an indention at the hind margin of the skull when viewed from above" or something.
Not stated specifically in the source, but I remember we discussed this very issue some time ago, so it is probably no problem to make this extra clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The zygomatic arches were strongly expanded to the sides, with the skull width (across the arches) about 85 percent of the skull length – confusing, because you previously indicated that the skull is wider than long due to the nuchal crest.
The most complete, adult specimen has a skull that is longer than it is wide, are you referring to these measurements? "the skull of the juvenile holotype (ZPAL MgM−I/78) is about 53 mm (2.1 inches) long and 56 mm (2.2 inches) wide". The holotype is juvenile and incomplete, which probably explains the discrepancy, which isn't clearly stated in the source, but I think the reader would by then know that the adult, more complete specimen listed firts has the most representative measurement due to those factors (age, completeness). FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I see, my mistake.
Not necessarily, seems it's the source that's inconsistent, if what we concluded is correct, and that it also says that the skull is wider than long if it is measured along the midline only... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • djadochtatheriids had a premaxillary ridge on the boundary between the two. – maybe add that this is visible in ventral aspect, otherwise a bit hard to follow.
Added something to that effect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • With four sentences, the bits on the premaxilla seem a bit over-represented and overly detailed compared to other bones.
Removed one sentence which was probably not as necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The suture between its nasal and frontal – not immediately clear where the "its" is referring to, maybe just replace with "the".
Said "the". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The infraorbital foramen (an opening at the lower front of the maxilla) was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three – Not sure, but would "infraorbital foramen" need to be plural here?
Since the sentence also says "lower front of the maxilla" in singular, it wouldn't make sense to have foramen as plural, but I might be inconsistent with plural and singular, but I think many journal descriptions are too. But I mainly refer to paired bones as singular here, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but you say that there can be one to three of these foramina per side? Can you really say "The foramen varied in number" instead of "The foramina varied in number"?
Ah, yes, I guess I got confused because the most complete specimen (which is the main focus of the cited source) only has one. Changed to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • dochtatherioids – is this a typo? Otherwise please link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Missing the first "dja" (not sure how that happened), now added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently, the I1 (first incisor) is missing? Perhaps worth mentioning just to avoid confusion?
I've added a mention of this, it seems to be a common feature of cimolodonts, and therefore not mentioned in the main source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Characteristic of multituberculates, Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways. – But the source puts it slightly differently if I interpret correctly: The single pair of incisors was characteristic for the group, but their strongness and lateral compression are specific for the genus.
All I see is this: "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." How I read it is that what follows "characteristic of all Multituberculata," is what's characteristic. But I could of course be wrong, so I made the order closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • and the front end of the ischium was a rugose suture – I think it has to be "rugose sutural surface".
Said "formed" instead, since the source says "and the anterior end of the ischium forms a rugose suture". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • os calcaris bone – as os already means "bone", this reads somewhat repetitive.
Hmmm, but since most readers hardly know that, I thought this is more simple than saying "had a bone called os calcaris", or "had an os calcaris, a bone on the ankle" or variations of that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • extratarsal – any change to explain, link, or replace this technical term?
Said "on the outer side of the tarsus (cluster of foot bones)", it that is any clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • not ossified (consisting only of keratin) – this is misleading, as I don't think you can turn keratin into bone, and this is what this seems to imply. You can do that only with cartilage. Maybe simply write that it consists only of keratin, without mentioning ossification?
The source says this: "The extant monotremes do not have the ossified cornu calcaris but retain the os calcaris and the hollow, keratinous cornu calcaris". Anyhow, I changed the text to: "The cornu calcaris of the platypus consists only of keratin, and is hollow". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Rest looks very good and solid, happy to support once the above nitpicks have been addressed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, should have addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes, supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • "specific name" — anything that can be linked?
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "its similarity" — "its" technically refers to the specific name
Said "the animal's" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Changed in the following section, but not in the lead.
Ah, changed there too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Catopsbaatar, "visible hero"" — suggest "Catopsbaatar, [language] for "visible hero""
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "with a skull" — is the fact that the skeleton has a skull not implied?
"Skeleton" could also imply a complete skeleton without a skull.
  • "It was a member" — what’s the it?
Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "those of rodents" — could be wrong, but should this not be "that of rodents"?
That's what I wrote first, but it was requested that I change it to the current form. I guess because "heads" is plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "its relatives" — its seems to refer to the skull referenced in the last sentence
Added name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "It had two" — the snout, or the genus?
Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "warmblooded" — why the quotation marks?
Because that is kind of an outdated way to refer to it (scientists wouldn't use it now), though it is also what most readers would be familiar with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "would have been" — is this debated, or would "were" work?
The keratin is not preserved, so it is only a very likely inference, so I felt it is better to be vague since the source is also, it just says "All Mesozoic mammals most probably possessed keratinous spurs covering the ossified cornu calcaris." FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation" — maybe belongs after the info about specimens; might be worth saying that these are in Mongolia, although it’s implied
Added "in Mongolia", but I kept the placement because I felt it mirrors the structure of the article better, where palaeoecology is last. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

  • "species;" — should be a colon
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "creating the" — suggest "and created"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "its similarity" — "its" refers to the name
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "they may belong" — suggest "they may instead belong"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "consists of a complete skull" — suggest "consists of the complete skull"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "rather complete" — mostly complete?
The source says "rather", which is kind of vague, so I feel I can't make it more specific than that without interpreting... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its pelvic ilia were stolen and destroyed" — any more details?
Added "on tour" back, which was removed during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • [9][11][3] — same journal, so why do the first and third have linked titles, but the second a doi?
Their articles were only published with dois after a certain date, but all their articles are freely available online. So in the case of the older articles, a direct link is included to the online version, but in the newer article, the doi serves as a link to the free article, and a separate link would therefore be redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Evolution

  • "their premolars" — what does "their" refer to?
Changed to "multituberculates", if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you could just say "Multituberculates are characterized by their premolars"
Changed to "having" instead of "their", to make it clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "from the Mesozoic Era (when the dinosaurs dominanted)" — suggest "from the Mesozoic Era, when the dinosaurs dominated". Also, typo (dominanted)
Fixed, typo was a leftover from when it said "were dominant"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Skull

  • "41-millimetre-long" — "44-mm-long" for consistency?
  • "35-millimetre-long" — same
Fixed both above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "those of rodents" — "that of rodents"?
As above, I guess it should be plural because "heads" is. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "middle than those" — suggest "middle than were those"
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three. One of the most characteristic features of the face" — perhaps present tense is warranted here, since you’re talking about the specimens as they are today?
Well, since the features were like that in the live animals as well, I think it is ok, but mainly for consistency... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "prominent than that" — suggest "prominent than was that"
Added, though I think it reads a bit weirdly? FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries if you want to revert to the original way.
I'll let it be unless someone else objects. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "similar to Kryptobaatar" — should probably be something like "similar to with Kryptobaatar" or "similar to Kryptobaatar's suture"
I said "similar to the condition in Kryptobaatar" if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "differed little" — you want an adverb, not an adjective (little)
Said "did not differ much" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dentition

  • "By comparison, the dental formula of humans is" — what’s the fifth number, given that Catopsbaatar only has four?
I'm pretty sure this refers to the wisdom teeth, which vary in number in humans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The thing that confused me was the "2-3", which per your explanation below (variation) now makes sense. If you can find an appropriate source, maybe it would be worth adding a parenthetical explanation, e.g., "(two incisors, one canine, two premolars and two or three molars)"
Can't find a source that states it specifically, probably because the writers assumed the readers would figure this out anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "its I3 incisor" — "its" refers to the I3 incisor (the I3 incisor's I3 incisor, technically). "Its alveolus (tooth socket) was formed" would fix this.
Here "its" also refers to the genus, so I added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "unlike Tombaatar" — should probably be "unlike Tombaatar"
Not sure what the difference is, but I added "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, that’s what I meant though.
  • "( with their alveoli)" — extra space
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "in shape (unlike" — again, probably "in shape (unlike with"
Said "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "smaller and lacking ridges" — suggest the Oxford comma, since you just used one
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "The lower p3 premolar" — "lower" is redundant given the above explanation re: capitalization
Alright, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "The m2 had a cusp formula of 2−3:2, with most specimens 2:2." — I don’t get this (but granted most of this section has been flying way over my head). The formula was X, but the formula for most examples was Y?
The dash refers to variation. Two to three. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

  • "was stout in side view ... was relatively wide in side view" — maybe another place for present tense
I see what you mean, and considered it myself, but I feel it might seem to inconsistent... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "and was about 40 mm" — you don’t need the "was"
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the meaning of this discrepancy is unknown" — any theories?
That is discussed under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "deep excavation" — depression?
The source says excavation, added "cavity" in parenthesis, which may be an acceptable translation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "os calcaris" — anything that can be linked?
Not as far as I can see, it is not really a widespread feature. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unlike other Mesosoic mammals" — perhaps "Unlike with other Mesosoic mammals"
Added, and corrected to "Mesozoic"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "As the spur may have been moved from its original position" — suggest relating this to the specimen, e.g., "As PM120/107's spur may..."
Added specimen number. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "like the platypus" & "Unlike the platypus" — suggest "(un)like with the platypus" or similar
Said "in", which I think might be a bit more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Palaeobiology

  • "basal (or "primitive")" — could this just be "basal (primitive)"?
Like "warmblooded", "primitive" isn't used by modern scientists in this context and its use is discouraged, but is still the term most layreaders would know. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "might enable" — should probably be "might have enabled" for consistency of tense
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unlike other mammals, the pelvis of multituberculates" — should probably be "Unlike with other...", and should pelvis not be plural?
Added "with", but I think it is ok to write pelvis singular here, would maybe not seem as weird if it was "skull" or similar, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the newborns" — perhaps "and that the newborns"
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "fossil mammals" — is "fossil" the correct term (both as opposed to the adjective fossilized, and as opposed to another word such as "extinct" or "ancient")?
Yeah, it is commonly used. To take one random example:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Feeding and diet

  • "feeding on plants and animals" — suggest "feeding on both plants and animals"
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unique among mammals" — should be "Uniquely"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "molars began" — suggest "molars would begin"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Similar to rodents" — should be "As with rodents" or the like
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Posture and locomotion

  • "supported the latter" — suggest "supported the latter theory"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "bottom (suggesting a sprawling stance)," — suggest "bottom suggesting a sprawling stance,"
Removed parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "running fast" — should be "running quickly"
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2008, they suggested" — new paragraph, so you should be clear about who "they" is
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "had the ability to jump (were saltorial)" — convention in rest of article seems to be 'technical term (lay explanation)', so suggest "were saltorial (had the ability to jump)"
Switched. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

  • "considered the result" — suggest "considered to be the result"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Might be cool to include a photo of fossils from one of the other species found in the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav, but your call
Since there are so many free images available of this animal, I'd rather devote space to those, but I don't think the article can carry more images as is anywya... But yeah, could have been added if there was a shortage of images of the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk, this looks great. Comments, almost invariably minor, are above. —Usernameunique (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, starting to fix things now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I've addressed it all now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Added about five responses above; you’ll have my support after addressing the first one. —Usernameunique (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Answered and fixed some of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The only issue I can find is with the authorship of Ref 21, where the joint authors appear to be Ryszard Gradzienski and Tomas Jerzykiewicz, not as stated. Otherwise, sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure what happened there, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lady Blue (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective and action-adventure television series, with David Gerber as executive producer, which originally aired for one season on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network from September 15, 1985 to January 25, 1986. The series revolves around Chicago detective Katy Mahoney (Jamie Rose) and her violent methods of handling cases. The supporting cast includes Danny Aiello, Ron Dean, Diane Dorsey, Bruce A. Young, Nan Woods, and Ricardo Gutierrez. After the pilot aired, Lady Blue was criticized by several watchdog organizations (particularly the National Coalition on Television Violence), as the most violent show on television.

This FAC is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Chetsford[edit]

I'm struggling to find much on which to comment. This, I think, is a testament to the quality of the article. In particular, Aoba47 has an impressive command of MOS:COMMAs. Further, they write in an engaging and stylistically fluid manner that allows the article to be easily digested. While the show itself seems a little schlocky, the treatment of its premise by Aoba47 is interesting enough that I fancy seeing an episode or two now out of curiosity. I support contingent on a few corrections or clarifications, which I've listed below.

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs. While LEADLENGTH is not a fast rule, it seems a good one to follow except under extraordinary circumstances which don't seem to occur here.
  • Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am the worst at writing and revising leads, so I appreciate the link to the policy about it. I have edited it down to two paragraphs by removing some non-essential information. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the images don't have ALT text.
  • To the best of my knowledge, all three images already have ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the section "Production" is very complex and difficult to read with the two conjunctions: "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber; and directors Guy Magar and Gary Nelson also worked on the series, and Jack Priestley was the cinematographer.. I wonder if there's a way to simplify it?

Chetsford (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! (Sorry I missed the ALT tags.) Chetsford (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries; I greatly appreciate your comments and support. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Freikorp[edit]

  • I don't think it's necessary to call her both "Dirty Harriet" and the alternate spelling "Dirty Harriette" in the lead. For the lead, I'd say just "Dirty Harriet" will do.
  • "in her 2013 book" - I'd add the book's title, or say "a book" instead of "the book".
  • I'd mention that Eastwood gave her advise on how to fire guns in the lead, but up to you.
  • Should 'Violent Crimes Division' be linked to Violent crimes? I was expecting to link to an actual division. This issue won't stop me from supporting, just bringing it up.
  • "Reesman noted that the latter" - I'd change "noted" to "stated" as per WP:WORDS
  • "was less graphic than future television programs" - were examples of more violent shows given?
  • Unfortunately, she did not provide any concrete examples. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "author David Inman called Lady Blue "one of the dumbest shows ever on ABC" - this is interesting, it is possible to use the source to expand on why he thought it was so dumb?
  • This quote and source was added by a separate user (though I did correct the citation format to match the rest of the article). Unfortunately, I do not have access to the actual source. I see the book on Amazon and eBay, but I cannot find a way to access online. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks great; will be happy to support after issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Freikorp: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you are having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy to support this now. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant[edit]

  • The opening sentence is awfully long and unnecessarily complex. It could be better as: "Lady Blue is an American detective and action-adventure television series. Produces by David Gerber..."
  • It's not the most natural transition from the supporting cast to filming to critical commentary and back to the cast. Why not have three paragraphs and have production details in the second.
  • See the above commentary by another reviewer (Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs.). Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Critical response to the series was primarily negative during its run, but feminist author Cary O'Dell questioned whether that stemmed from contemporary sexism in a 2013 book" - It reads as if contemporary sexism stemmed from the book and not the writer's view.
  • While I encourage the mention of writers and critics some of them are breaking the flow here and could be done away with as long as we have in-line citations for direct quotes. Case in point: 1. "John J. O'Connor of The New York Times" 2. "Jon Anderson of the Chicago Tribune" by removing attribution you'd be able to help with the flow.
  • I believe that the writer/author should be cited to emphasize that these are opinions and commentary from them and not from the publication as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading through. VedantTalk 08:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued:

  • "Rose described McNichols as similar to a character in the crime drama The Sopranos." - this would be better after the "McNichols is portrayed as fond of chili dogs and appreciative of Mahoney's more unorthodox methods of handling criminals, although he still criticizes her reliance on violence." but as the their sentence follows the first more naturally.
  • "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber." - do we need two "producer"s in the sentence?
  • "Produced by MGM Television and David Gerber Productions." - a comma.
  • "Rose recalled having a difficult time in Cabrini Green since the residents threatened the cast and crew and threw bottles at them during filming." - wow what? do we know why?
  • According to the source, "the people who lived there started getting restless and tired of us". I would imagine that people living in the projects would probably be mad at a film crew in their space, especially since they were facing some pretty severe issues with poverty and crime at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "According to the actress, Lady Blue had the same concept as the" - you might want to reintroduce her.
  • the television film Get Christie Love! - maybe the release year.
  • Revised. It was a television series so that was my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "however, the actress" - "the actress" isn't very encyclopediac.

The rest looks neat. VedantTalk 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the update. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I can support this for promotion. Your work on short-lived niche TV shows is inspiring Aoba47! VedantTalk 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support and kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • Not at all a must, but I'd consider mentioning Depp in the lead. An early appearance by someone of his stature gives a general audience a reason to care about the topic.
  • Good point! I have added it to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether O'Dell's area of expertise is more important than the fact he's a feminist. (Lead and reception section.)
  • I replaced it with television studies, as O'Dell seems to primarily wrote about television. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "how to mimic using a gun from the director" Is "the director" Eastwood, here? If so, specify earlier on that she worked with him as a director.
  • I just replaced it with "Eastwood" to avoid any ambiguity. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Bit of a silly point, but did Rose get advice from Eastwood at a shooting range, or get advice from him and then have a go independently? There's some ambiguity in the article.
  • It is a good point; from the newspaper article, it reads like she went independently so I have revised the parts to hopefully read more clearly. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "John J. O'Connor" Who is he? A journalist? Critic? Film studies scholar?
  • O'Conor is a writer from The New York Times, and he is introduced in the "Premise and characters" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "her former lover. Mahoney discovers that her ex-partner" Ambiguous; I'm assuming the former lover and ex-partner are the same person, but are they formerly involved with Mahoney or the mastermind?
  • That is a good point, but I am not sure how to avoid the ambiguity. I do not have access to the episode itself, and there are multiple male guest stars so I unfortunately cannot reference the character by name. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you don't have a date for the final episode?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find an exact date for this episode other than a generic "1986". Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "include a female private detective in Veronica Clare and Partners in Crime" would female private detectives not be better than a female private detective?
  • I wouldn't bother including publishers for journals/magazines, but, if you do, do so consistently!

This is a very well put-together article. I can't imagine that writing about relatively minor shows from the '80s is easy! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope that you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the episode is called "Beats of Prey"? Googling is throwing up the title "Beasts of Prey", but not from the best sources! (That's apparently the one Depp was in.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That was a typo on my part so I have corrected it. Thank you for bringing it up as I have kept reading over it lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear: Have you taken a look through any newspaper archives (Nexis is the one I use, but there are others)? I don't know if there will be anything there, but I just want to make sure nothing crucial has been missed. I'm happy to help out if you don't have access to anything like that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I unfortunately do not have access to any newspaper archives to the best of my knowledge (I no longer have access through my undergraduate or graduate universities, and I am too cheap/poor to pay for access to them myself). I do not believe there is anything else that could really be added though. Thank you for the comment though as I had not considered it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't expect you to pay for your own access. I'm getting a manageable number of hits on Nexis. I'll post to the talk page of this FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of the information. I greatly appreciate it! I will start reading through everything and integrating it into the article today and tomorrow. I apologize for the delay; I have been having some computer issues over the past week >< Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that I have incorporated all of the relevant information into the article. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Leaning support. I think the Aoba has done a really good job of putting this article together. While it's on the shorter side, that is to be expected given the topic. All key questions are answering. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

  • The lead is kinda long for only two paragraphs. Maybe it would be better to split one.
  • The lead was originally three paragraphs during its GAN, but I was informed by a reviewer for this FAC that it needs to be two paragraphs according to Wikipedia's policy on the lead length in proportion to the size of the article as a while. If you feel that any information should be removed, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to reduce the amount of quotes and try using more object remarks? It's a critcism I often be told.
  • I feel that I have used quotes where it is necessary and in instances in which the critic's own words would be better than my own, but if you feel there are certain parts (i.e. sections and/or paragraphs) that are too bogged down with quotes, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also the use of "()" is not often recommended.Tintor2 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The "()" construction was introduced during the copy-edit that I requested from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I believe that it was added to make the sentences flow a more clearly. I have not personally heard or seen advice against the use of parenthesis before though. However, if you believe it is absolutely necessary, then I can go back in and revise and reorganize things to make it work without the parenthesis. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I see ALT text on all but the first image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. The first image already has ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review- spotchecks not done[edit]

  • What's your source for the non-plot details in the episodes table?
  • Information in episode tables are typically sourced through the episode itself. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Plot details, absolutely. However, IME air dates are not typically included in the episode itself, and writers only sometimes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Episode credits always (to the best of my knowledge) include the individual writer and director (it would not make any sense for them not to include the names of the primary creators). I could add sources though for the air date if absolutely necessary, but I never had to do that in my previous FACs for television show articles. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Print newspaper sources should include page number but do not need publisher.
  • I have removed the publisher. I do not have access to the sources for the page numbers. @J Milburn: could you please help me with this as you provided the sources? Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Only some of the sources I provided had page numbers, sadly. This is a problem with Nexis; recent articles almost invariably have page numbers, older ones often don't. The Washington Post articles I posted have page numbers (H1 and B3) but the Globe and Mail ones don't. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I have added the page numbers where appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes NewNowNext a high-quality reliable source?
  • NewNowNext is a website for the channel Logo TV. Here is the link to the about page. I can remove the source if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the background of the author? What is the editorial policy of the site? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is a page that suggest the site uses editors in some capacity. The list of editors for the site (i.e. the masthead) can be found here with this link. Here is a link to all of the articles that were written by the author cited in the article. Since the website has an editorial staff listed, I am assuming that everything (including material written by this person) must go through them in some capacity. Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Edition statements shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not know what you mean by "edition statements". Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification (and your help overall). I will get to this later tonight, and hopefully, it should be a quick and easy fix. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised. For some reason, I thought that I would have more trouble with it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have answered your comments. Hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks. I would prefer to see cites for the air dates, and I wonder whether Josh could provide permalinks for the newspaper refs without page numbers. I'm also not quite convinced about NewNowNext - you might consider posting it to RSN for other opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response; I greatly appreciate all of your help with this. I have posted a question about the NewNowNext source on the RSN, though I think the link to the "About Us" page showing that it has editorial oversight should clear it as acceptable (that is just in my opinion though, but it is always good to get other people's opinions). I will research and include citations for the air dates later this weekend if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added the references for the airdates; it took less time to find appropriate sources than I thought. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I've added permalinks. I assume the content won't be visible to you (give it a try!) so {{subscription needed}} might be a good addition. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I added the tags to the references as the content is not visible to me. Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that this has been updated. Apologies for the multiple pings over the past few days. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Hello. Almost all of the concerns posed in the source review have been cleared, except for a question about the NewNowNext source. I have posted a message on the RSN as requested, but I have yet to receive a response and I believe that it may be buried under more recent posts. I was wondering if any of you could provide feedback on the source. I have found evidence that the source has editors, but I would also be perfectly fine with removing it if absolutely necessary. I believe that once the source review is cleared, this should be ready for promotion (as it has already received an image review and a fair amount fo commentary). I apologize for being a bother (and for the long message), and I hope that all of you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't comment as a coordinator, but if you're looking for a second opinion from a reviewer standpoint I'd be happy to recuse and offer one. Frankly there's not much about that site that screams "reliable" and seems to be a blog likely repeating things the author googled. I'd look for the actual source of information and cite that. If watchdog groups were critical of the show, find that information and use it to expand on that point, because it's more important than one phrase. The "featuring a drum machine" just strikes me as extraneous and can be removed. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain:@Nikkimaria: I have removed the source completely. There is already information on the watchdog groups in the article so I think that I am fine on that front. Thank you for the response! I think that this should be ready for promotion then. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Cortinarius caperatus[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an esteemed edible mushroom from Europe. Have scraped sources and feel it is as comprehensive as possible for lay readers. Also reads ok and got a going-over at GAN. Anyway, I feel it is within striking distance of F status so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Hooray! This must be the first mushroom here in a while. Pleased to see it here.

  • I confess I'm sad to see a one-paragraph lead at FAC!
added second para. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Is "free" in the lead jargon?
added explanation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Bohemian naturalist Julius Vincenz von Krombholz illustrated it in his Naturgetreue Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der essbaren, schädlichen und verdächtigen Schwämme" Could we have a year? The significance of this may be missed.
yes/done. it's a date range. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "double veil" in the taxonomy section strikes me as jargon.
linked now, but probably needs an explanation of some sort... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "species Rozites (now Cortinarius) meleagris and R. castanella (now Cortinarius subcastanellus)" This, especially with the cryptic link, is a little tricky. How about "species C. meleagris and C. subcastanellus, both formerly of Rozites."
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • By boss, do you mean an umbo? If so, a link to umbo (mycology) would be good.
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's a highly regarded edible, perhaps "choice" would be preferable for the mycobox? Also, why the details about the taste after cooking in the description section? Taste in the field is relevant there, but probably not in the kitchen!
yes/done. moved latter bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect there may be a little more to say; I'll dig out my guidebooks and see if they have anything to add! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

yes, I did scour and scour....and found much less than I expected for such a species! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, a few possibly useful comments from some of my guidebooks...

already had a note on soils but is helpful and has been added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
has been added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ISBN 9780002200127 has some technical details. "[Cap cuticle] a cutis with hyphae 5-25um diameter. Pigment epimembranal, encrusting." It also mentions that it is readily recognisable because of the "whitish frost-like veil and white ring". pp. 456-7.
the microscopic stuff I think is beyond intrest of laypeople but added note on veil - we had the structure in but did not use the right word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have at least one more worth looking at, but it's at the bottom of a pile of books I don't want to disturb at this time of night. There may also be some subtle differences in description, but I wasn't really looking for that. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

May have miss-typed some of those ISBNs... Any problems, let me know, but need to go now... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Great/thanks! I'll get started on these as this has been difficult to get info for.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Some authors are not presented at all (not referring to Persoon here, I see from last time why we might want to avoid nationality, hehe). FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
done now. I was emboldened after discussion at the last FAC and went with "South African" for Persoon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "a name thought quite apt given its wandering like a gypsy between genera" Thought by who? Seems a bit specific, since I doubt that's why it was called that in the first place... Is this idea retroactively applied in light of the taxonomic history, or is that really why it was called that? Also, I wonder if Gypsy should be linked there.
removed per below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this image[44] or something like it could be used. It looks very different from the photo in the taxobox, which might have some significance? If so, could be mentioned in the image captions.
I'm not sure that is correctly identified.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Chanterelles is duplinked.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "However, picked mushrooms are often infested with maggots" Does this happen before r after they're picked?
Before - I tried to clarify. does that help?
  • "isotopes of caesium", "potassium", Link all.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "is a highly esteemed", "highly regarded" Source? Mention in article body? Also seems a bit much for both of these in the short intro.
I changed it to this. The Persson book is the cite that covers the first two sentences of Edibility section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

I can't see much to criticise that hasn't been picked up by previous reviewers, just a couple of comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Christian —Why the Anglicisation of Afrikaans "Christiaan"?
no reason/changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • granny′s nightcap—perhaps give the Finnish original too if known?
sadly not in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Common names include the gypsy mushroom,[13] a name thought quite apt given its wandering like a gypsy between genera—I don't like much about this sentence. Most of it is, as far as I can see, one author's wry comment, rather a widespread opinion. Hardly a fact anyway. Also the conjunction with the common name gives the impression of an etymology, although that's obviously not what you're suggesting. A real etymology seems elusive. OED has "gipsy-bonnet" a woman's hat or bonnet with large side-flaps, but there's nothing to link this to the fungus.
removed it as misleading, and only one person's whimsy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Reifpilz-1.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 7: Language of source should be given
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 9: Year?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 10: "British museun" s/b "British Museum"
fixed (I think?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: 13-digit isbn formats should be standard. Compare this with 19, and check others
all converted to 13 digits and spaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 20: Publisher missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: I'm getting repeated timeouts. The fault may be temporary, but please check
timing out for me to. Has doi so just removed link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 32: Gives message: "This page cannot be found".
fixed url Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Laser brain[edit]

Great work overall—I can scarcely find anything to grumble about.

  • Is MOS:SEASON a concern in such articles? Obviously they occur only in the northern hemisphere so there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion, but I'm unsure what the standard is for biological articles.
given most of the readership is in England and North America, there is a tendency to push for "southern hemisphere" qualifier. It strikes me as a tad overinclusive to write "northern hemisphere" every time here. It is clearly a northern hemisphere thing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You use flavour and taste synonymously... I don't believe they mean the same thing in culinary terms.
I flavoured them all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Awfully nitpicky but I don't feel like I'd be doing my job otherwise. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

being thorough is fine by me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Death of Ms Dhu[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a sad chapter in the Australian government's treatment of Aboriginal women. I rewrote this article from scratch in April this year, and it has since passed a GA nomination and received a copyedit from GOCE. I now believe it meets featured standards. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Ian Rose. So I have five six seven supports, an image and source check and no opposition. Is there anything else you'd like on this one? I ask as I'll start making trade offers for whatever is still needed if that is the case. Also I've got another article I wish to nominate. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the protest image. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Television/radio channels should not be italicized, though programs should
  • Commissions/courts also shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reviews. I've made these three changes. Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are still italicising "ABC News" via "work=" in the template. ABC News is not a "work"; you should use "publisher=". Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

First impressions: exceptionally well written and source quality is fine (newspapers but the incident happened in 2014 so still very recent). Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The headings dont work for me; "Background" "Julieka Dhu" (I don't like using this name in a header at all) "Incarceration in Western Australia" "Arrest" "Death" lacks flow, in particular the balance between 2nd and 3rd levels is a bit jarring. The material in "Incarceration in Western Australia" is good but its heading is misplaced, jolting, and indicates an editorial POV. I would absorb this into the Background sect instead. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ceoil. Thanks for reviewing this. You say you don't like the heading "Death". Well, I don't particularly like it either. I preferred 'Deterioration and death', which was my choice of wording, though I note you changed it to Death instead. If you don't like the headings 'Arrest' and 'Death', can you suggest an alternative? I don't see a problem with them regarding flow, therefore I don't know what change would be an improvement.
Why don't you like the heading "Julieka Dhu"? It was her name. I'll change it to "Ms dhu" if you prefer, I don't particularly mind one way or the other, but you haven't said what you'd like it changed to.
Specifically for reasons of flow, I think it's appropriate to break up the background section between the information on Dhu and the information on Western Australian incarceration, both of which the reader needs a background knowledge of to understand the rest of the article. I thought the best way to do this would be with sub-headers. I think the section will read awkwardly if it goes from straight talking about Dhu to talking about fines. If 'Incarceration in Western Australia' is an editorial POV (can you also explain why this heading is POV? I am assuming good faith but I don't see the problem, I accept that my judgement may be impaired because I've been following this case for some time though) can you suggest a more neutral alternative? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Freikorp, all this just struck me as reading, so I just threw it out for discussion. For sure "Ms dhu" is better, given the opening sentence. Have reverted to Deterioration and death. My issue with "Incarceration in Western Australia" is that from a scan of the TOC, it might seem pointed, and there is a break in the logical flow which otherwise is around her story. Will mull it over, but not a deal beaker.
That said, this a gripping and compelling article, I read it in one sitting and per my initial comment, the writing is first class, and as someone familiar with your other work and form, I'm inclined to trust you on the above. On that basis its a Support from me. Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Freikorp,

  • times, 12:30pm and 8pm - insert space before pm
  • "... practise of jailing people..." - Auseng noun 'practice'
  • the 2 paras starting "In October 2017..." and "In September 2017..." - swap order to be chronological? (If so, will need to move Quigley wlink and his AG title and wlink up to the September para.)
  • Lol, can't believe I missed that. Cheers for pointing it out.
  • "...whereas in all other Australia states and territories..." - Australian?
  • "In October 2017, the Australian federal government was reported to be urging states and territories to implement a CNS" - but NSW and ACT had already done so after the royal commission. Maybe insert 'the other' or 'the rest of'?
  • Consider adding - In ref 18 (ABC Gartry 23 Nov 2015), George Newhouse is mentioned as representing the Deaths In Custody Watch Committee (WA) Inc at the coronial inquiry.
  • Add category 1991 births
  • Refs from The Guardian - should the 'work' link to Aust online edition ie Guardian Australia?
  • Ref 6 needs AAP added?

Thanks for all your work on this article, JennyOz (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your comments JennyOz. I've made all the recommended changes. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again Freikorp, very happy to sign support, JennyOz (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review soon. At first glance, as is customary, her full name should be spelled out in thge first section about her, as it is in the intro. I realise the circumstances with the Aboriginal naming conventions, but I think you should instead remove her full name from the caption to the infobox image, where it is less needed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The diseases could be linked in the infobox.
  • Thanks for your comments so far. I've made both these changes. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For the background, is it known which Aboriginal ethnic group she belonged to? In any case, I think it could be repeated under background that she was Aboriginal, I'm pretty sure it should be possible to read the article body as a stand alone entity without having read the lead (which is only supposed to be a summary of the article body itself).
  • Hey that's a really good point. Several sources describe her as Yamatji so I've added this to the article. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The payment does not prevent Dhu's family from taking further legal action, and is separate from a civil suit lodged in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in July 2017 by them." It seems a bit out of place that you suddenly change to present tense here (everything around it is past tense). Yes, the issues discussed there are recent, but this article will probably exist for many years to come.
  • Good point; done.
  • "Kelly-Ryder believes the publicity surrounding her case caused the withdrawal, though she asked" Likewise, mix of tenses, which I think is unneeded.
  • Done.
  • "As of May 2018" Do you plan to change this sentence every month? Seems unnecessary, why not just say "presently" or similar?
  • It's my understanding that I can't use terms like 'presently' as per WP:REALTIME, and that I will have to keep updating it.
  • Perhaps add an external link to the videos of her in custody? I looked it up[45] after reading the article, horrible stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the article looks good to me, and my points were very minor anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Do you think that you should include Ms. Dhu’s full name on the first instance in the body of the article? The full name is currently only present in the lead, and not in the body of the article.
  • For this sentence (according to her family, after leaving school she seemed to associate "with a bad crowd" and was a "wild child”.), I would add a comma between “school” and “she”.
  • For this part (when they woke her she appeared to be intoxicated), I would add a comma between “her” and “she”.
  • For this part (On one of the occasions she kicked a female police officer), I would add a comma between “occasions” and “she”.
  • The above four issues have been fixed.
  • Could you explain the placement of reference 11 after this part (One of its 339 recommendations)? It awkwardly cuts the sentence apart, and I was wondering if there is a way to move it to improve readability.
  • I've moved the citation placement.
  • For this sentence (On the anniversary of her death, multiple protests were held around Australia demanding an investigation into the matter.), do you think that you should specify the year of the anniversary (i.e. one-year anniversary, etc.)? I just think that it needs to be made clearer when these protests took place on a timeline.
  • For this part (on the first day it heard that Dhu's cause of death was), please add a comma between “day” and “it”.
  • For this part (The inquest heard that eleven police offers had received), please use “11” instead of “eleven”. I would also recommend that the numeral be used in this part (and ten police officers were interviewed as part of the inquest) instead of spelling it out.
  • For this part (rejected a suggestion that if Dhu had been white she), please add a comma between “white” and “she”.
  • The above four issues have been fixed.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Joe Francis, then Minister for Corrective Services, opposed any plans to end jailing people for unpaid fines.) Did Francis provide any reasons for his opposition?
  • I've added some sources from earlier that year that should explain the kind of human being he is.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review Aoba47. I'll be happy to review your nomination shortly. Freikorp (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a wonderful job with this! I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

A very well-written article on a sad subject. Imprisonment for fines non-payment is also a controversial issue in England, but the number of recent aboriginal deaths in custody is the truly awful figure. Some comments, but nothing to stand in the way of support.

Lead
  • I doubt it's "solvable" but I see from the link that aboriginal custom also deprecates the dissemination of photos of the dead. You'll get the cultural sensitivities better than I but I wonder if there's any guidance on infobox images in such cases?
  • I'm not sure if there is any policy on this, but being a neutral encyclopaedia I would assume we do not have to respect cultural sensitivity (obviously I didn't upload her image to be intentionally disrespectful though). For example, it's against the Muslim faith to depict Muhammad, but the Wikipedia article on Muhammad has many depictions of him. Also I note Aboriginal people protesting her death could often be seeing carrying her image, and the official facebook site set up by her family (Facebook site:[46] Reference that her family set it up: