Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  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

Supporting and opposing

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


Kaikhosru Shapurji SorabjiEdit

Nominator(s): Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, an English composer, music critic, pianist and writer who is perhaps best known as the author of piano epics lasting anywhere between two and nine hours, and for having gone into self-imposed obscurity for some four decades. Sorabji's life and music have long been shrouded in myth, but this situation has improved considerably in recent years. The article draws on the recent scholarly writings that have addressed the myths, misconceptions and sensationalism that pervade much of the non-scholarly discourse on Sorabji, and presents a more thorough, objective portrait of him as a person and artist. The entry is coming fresh off a peer review and I look forward to this FAC (my first one in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia). Whatever its outcome, I believe the text presents one of the most fascinating and colorful biographies and creative legacies, musical or other, of the 20th century, and I hope reviewers derive at least some enjoyment from it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles I of AnjouEdit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 13th-century French royal prince who established a powerful Mediterranean empire before his and his retainers abuse of power led to a popular revolt, known as the Sicilian Vespers. He is also the founder of a powerful dynasty, with members ruling southern Italy, Greece and vast lands in Central and Eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane MichaelEdit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 23:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Michael's meteorological history. Keep in mind that this article contains some technical aspects due to its nature (too much for a main storm article); I have attempted to dumb them down to the best of my ability, but that was difficult for some items. NoahTalk 23:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The infobox says the Caymans were impacted, but I don't see that in the text
  • Removed it. NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Which specific NWS documents are being copied vs just cited?
  • Nothing has been copied word for word from the source. NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The usage of the information contained in all these documents. NoahTalk 01:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN24: don't see those initials at the source, and then Landsea is cited as Chris in the next ref
  • Removed the initials and changed to Christopher per the NHC staff page (changed this at the template). NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN25: the lab is the publisher in this case, and why include location here when it isn't present in other refs?
  • Fixed at the same template as mentioned earlier. NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN27 is incomplete
  • Filled it out completely. NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, but it doesn't seem to match what's at the source link? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The current source link goes to a republishing of the original (archived version). Which one should be used? The first one or the current one? NoahTalk 01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Date formatting is inconsistent
  • Fixed on one template and created a DMY style template for articles that have similar date formats. NoahTalk 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes Air-Worldwide a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cups (song)Edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 hit by Anna Kendrick. When it was introduced in 2012 in Pitch Perfect, every preteen and teen would play this during school. And I was part of that trend! It reached number 6 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and peaked within the top 20 outside the US. If you are American (which I am), the trend was popular again. But it wasn't cups this time. It was guns. The article has received been peer-reviewed and has also received a copyedit. Any comments are welcome! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, the non-free image use rationale for the alternative cover states "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article", but it isn't at the top of the article. Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Heartfox, has been changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The "minimal use" rationale still states it's being used as "a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". However, it's neither the primary identification nor dedicated to the work in question, as the article is not primarily about the mashup. Heartfox (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Heartfox, I have removed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The article appears to have an open peer review here. Did you forget to close it? Heartfox (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to close it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
You can see instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines. Heartfox (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Heartfox, Done. How does the article look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I just intended to provide some preliminary comments; unfortunately I don't really have time to do an in-depth reading. I shouldn't even be on Wiki until mid-December with university lol. Good luck. Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brainEdit

Doing an initial read-through now. An initial query:

  • Can you explain the thought process of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section? There seems relatively little information on composition, especially if Kendrick added any new lyrics not present in previous versions and what precisely the producers of this version brought to the table. I clicked into some other Featured song articles and most of them don't include a section interpreting the lyrics unless those lyrics were the subject of a considerable amount of critical commentary.
  • As an aside, I don't consider Holz a useful source for something like critical interpretation of the song. That's a religious web site focused on introducing their POV into popular media.

Let me know your thoughts on this section. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, I have removed the source and merged the composition and lyrical interpretation into the background. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-DEdit

Following on from my comments in the PR:

  • The article still doesn't introduce Anna Kendrick by providing any background about her, including how this song fitted into her career
  • The material on the video clip still seems much too lengthy and detailed
  • "Anna Kendrick first performed her version of the song as a part of the 2012 American musical comedy film Pitch Perfect" - the last sentence of the para where this appears to contradict this sentence.
  • "Kendrick said she had no idea the song would be used for Pitch Perfect." - it is still unclear what this means
  • " on the song's popularity and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloch to produce a new, longer version with new instrumentation" - this is also unclear - what does the president of the music and publishing arm do? (did he produce the single himself?)
  • "Salt Lake City radio station KZHT played it 48 times from March 4 to March 10, 2013" - seems like trivia
  • " Nielsen BDS started tracking the song while being followed by Indianapolis station WZPL and satellite radio station Sirius XM Hits 1." - this sentence is hard to follow - why were these radio stations following Nielsen BDS?
  • "Republic Records and Universal Music Enterprises released a remix of Kendrick's version of "Cups", titled "Cups (When I'm Gone)", for downloading and streaming as More from Pitch Perfect's lead single on March 26, 2013, on mainstream radio.[16][17][18][19][20]" - it it was released for internet sales, how was it published on radio? The wording here doesn't work well (and does this need 5 citations?).
  • The first para of the 'Critical reception' section needs an introductory sentance
  • "He also said the song "cemented Kendrick as a leading lady and set the foundation for Pitch Perfect to become a surprisingly bankable film franchise"" - given that the song seems to have been prominent in this series of movies, it would be good to discuss this more if possible
  • "Around the same time, Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it."" - this is unclear. Did he really have much influence by saying that? (and where did he say it?). Surely the music company did stuff to encourage radio stations to play the song and promoted it online, etc, which would likely have been more effective.
  • "The song was moderately successful outside the US. "Cups (When I'm Gone)" experienced similar success in Canada," - seems contraditory
  • "Her post showed a photograph of an overturned cup in the midst of flour and dough; she tagged it with "#coveredinflour"" - trivia
  • "In April 2016, 11-year-old Cruz Beckham covered the track in an Instagram video" - relevance?
  • Where people covering Kendrick's version of the song, or the version Kendrick was herself covering? (and how can we tell!) Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Not much to do with only a couple of images used. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: , please go ahead and close the nomination. I think this is going to be another lost cause like "Everything I Wanted". I respond to some of the editors and none of them replied. With school also going on and people who are going to oppose the nomination soon, that will take a huge toll on my mental health. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Candy (Foxy Brown song)Edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The above article is about the third and final single from Foxy Brown's third studio album Broken Silence (2001). It was produced by the Neptunes duo Chad Hugo and Pharrell Williams, and their frequent collaborator Kelis performs the hook. The lyrics are about cunnilingus, with one music critic describing the song as "an ode to oral sex". "Candy" was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews, and is the subject of academic analysis for how it represents black female sexuality. Although the song often appeared on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, only reaching number 48 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart.

I would like to thank @UrbanJE: for their GAN review back in 2018. The article has gone through two peer reviews earlier this year, with comments from @Ojorojo:, @Moisejp:, @Homeostasis07:, @:, @SandyGeorgia:, and @SatDis:. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback, and I will do my best to further improve the article. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HeartfoxEdit

  • A minor hit in the US: This feels too vague (is there a particular source that says so?); maybe just say it was a top 10 hit on the rap charts.
  • Fair point. The "minor hit" phrasing is rather subjective as I could see another reader looking at the data and saying the song underperformed instead. I have adjusted the lead to be more objective and hopefully clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Billboard b ref link no longer links to correct page (Billboard is so annoying with all this I don't know why they redo everything every year it seems). You may want to change the c ref as well.
  • That is strange. I should have double-checked those links prior to the nomination. I have replaced Billboard b and c. For some reason, I am having trouble archiving the latter so I left it unarchived for the time being. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Any reason the author isn't given for the Tidal ref? It does say "By Candace McDuffie" after the image.
  • Under the headline, it says "By: Tidal" so I had assumed it was by an uncredited Tidal writer. I should have checked further to make sure. Thank you for catching this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • July 2001a ref appears to have incorrect author

That's all. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for catching this. That was a very big mistake on my part. I have corrected it. I am going to re-examine all of the citations again over the weekend to make sure the data all matches up. Thank you again for looking through this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh and I don't think the Associated Press is supposed to be italicized? Heartfox (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't be. I have unitalicized it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Heartfox: Just wanted to check in with you about this. Aoba47 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Support from HĐEdit

  • Probably the date for the Broken Silence listening party should be helpful?
  • Added the date. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The song is about cunnilingus, and was described as an "ode to oral sex" by a music critic I think The song is about cunnilingus alone should be enough
  • Fair point. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The production and release section looks great!
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Overall a very good article. Will try to read through the whole piece within a few days' time, (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help so far! I hope you are having a great week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologize for the delay, below are my further comments after having read the whole article...

  • I think the subject for In comparison to her previous funk-influenced albums, Brown adopted a more pop sound for "Candy" is unclear; probably In comparison..., "Candy" has a more pop sound should work better?
  • Thank you for the suggestion! That is much better than the original wording. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • R&B category rather than pop I think R&B and pop are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as both genres have found their way to penetrate top 40 everywhere
  • That is a good point. The line between R&B and pop is very blurry, and there has been a lot of recent discussions on it, specifically how it is likely a race issue (at least in the US). Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • new wave and 1980s influences From what I know, new wave is a 1980s genre, so perhaps 1980s new wave influences would be more appropriate
  • Agreed. From my understanding, new wave music is mostly associated with the 1980s so your suggestion is better. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing quite a few quotes describing the track's lyrical theme. I'd consider rephrasing some of them
  • I have paraphrased a few of them, but please let me know if more should be done. I have the tendency to over-quote. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The Billboard review in the critical reception section is quite lengthy. I'd split it into two sentences
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • that helped to brighten I may be incorrect here, but isn't it supposed to be helped brighten?
  • I am actually not 100% sure, but your suggestion seems better (and more concise) so I've used that one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The para starting with Reviewers have compared "Candy" to music by other artists, specifically Lil' Kim seems to fit better under the "scholarly analysis" section below
  • I can understand your point, but I'm uncertain if it fits there sine a majority of the comparisons are made by music reviewers rather than academics/scholars. However, I will be more than happy to move this paragraph if necessary. I wanted to explain my rationale for its current placement first. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on the context. For example, Stephanie Smith-Strickland wrote that "Candy" and Lil' Kim's 1997 single "Not Tonight" helped to establish a trend in music explicitly about cunnilingus can be moved to the "scholarly analysis" section, (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @: Thank you for the explanation! I understand what you mean now, and I agree with you. I went with your original suggestion, and moved the entire paragraph under the "Scholarly analysis" subsection. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The rest of the article reads just well, and I like the reference format used here. Once my concerns are addressed I'm more than happy to place my support! (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @: Thank you for your review and your kind words. I've addressed everything except for the comparison paragraph placement, which I've left a response to explain my rationale. I'd be more than happy to move it, but I wanted to provide my point of view on it first. I've only recently started to use this citation style, but I prefer it as I find it cleaner and easier to read and navigate. Let me know if you have any further suggestions, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy to give my support now. Listening to this song reminds me of simpler times when urban tracks by the likes of Usher or Rihanna dominated the '00s pop scene. Great work with the article!
  • P.s. if you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you could help out with my current GANs for the fourth and fifth singles from 1989. GA reviewers are few and far between these days so I'm hoping these won't take half a year to complete... (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and support. I enjoy how this song is a great time capsule of that early 2000s sound. I actually prefer when the Neptunes produced music like this (with "I'm a Slave 4 U" being my personal favorite). I will pick up "Wildest Dreams for a review as it is the least I can for all your help. I'll see if I can get to "Bad Blood" as well, but I'll handle them one at a time. It helps that I'm very familiar with the songs and press coverage at that time period. Whenever I think of "Wildest Dreams", I cannot help but think of a YouTube video where Violet Chachki says she enjoys it even though she does not care for Swift lol. I've not been as active in the GAN space, but hopefully there will be ways to encourage more reviewers (ideally experienced ones) to participate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Placeholder by Homeostasis07Edit

I reviewed this during the PR stage, where I found little to complain about even then. Will go through the prose with a fine tooth comb over the next hour or so, and will post my comments here. I don't expect to find much (from a quick glance at the lead), but figured it's only good manners to see this through to its conclusion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Buruli ulcerEdit

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ga speakers in southern Ghana have two words for skin wounds: fla for "normal" wounds that heal in weeks to months, and aboabone for "abnormal" wounds that linger and sometimes never heal. More recently we've taken to calling these "abnormal" wounds Buruli ulcer. What begins with a bacterial skin infection can become an enormous yet painless open ulcer. The FARC at Chagas disease earlier this year got me interested in neglected tropical diseases, and this is the first one alphabetically. After a GA review by Tom (LT), extensive commentary from SandyGeorgia and Spicy, and a coat of polish from Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I think it's ready to shine. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing is compliant with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. I have not done a copyvio check, because Ajpolino does fine work at WP:CCI and knows how to paraphrase :) This is a short, readable and interesting medical article that I hope non-medical editors will engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review and comments on sourcesEdit

ALT text, captions and other aspects are fine. At first glance the article's sourcing is properly and consistently formatted. It seems like all sources except as noted below seem to be WP:MEDRS compliant. No spotchecks done, though. Vincent 2018 is a primary source but using it to elaborate on a case that is mentioned by another, MEDRS-compliant sources seems OK for me. MacCallum 1948 is 70+ old but the way it's used in the article seems like an acceptable use of ancient sources. Röltgen and Pluschke 2020 is in a publication by Frontiers Media, which is a somewhat dodgy source - are folks OK with it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note to say I can find alternative references for the material currently backed up by the Frontiers article. So if folks feel Frontiers publications are generally untrustworthy, I'm happy to replace. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes Frontiers is dodgy; when it is a freely accessible source to things well backed up by other reviews, I have no problem using it, as frequently the authors are well-established and published within their field. Individual evaluation of articles applies ... it can be justified in cases like this. Alternately, you could add an additional source, but I like the freely available for our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Image review (ec)
  • I can't verify that the pntd images are available under the stated license. It's not obviously stated on the image page[1][2] The Journal Information indicates that it is published under a creative commons license, but maybe a no-derivatives one?[3]
  • Other images are OK for licensing (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Buidhe at the bottom of each article [4][5] there is a statement that "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,", linking to CC-BY-4.0. Spicy (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok, now I found it. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SpicyEdit

I'll read through the article again and post my comments here over the next few days. Full disclosure: I was involved in the pre-FAC review for this article, and I've made a few edits to it, mostly image changes and minor copyediting. Spicy (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Consider linking muscle and tendon. Muscle is debatable but many readers might not be quite sure what a tendon is.'
    • Done.
  • Once in the skin M. ulcerans grows and releases the toxin mycolactone which blocks the normal function of cells, resulting in tissue death... - I would have put a comma after "mycolactone" (possible this is an ENGVAR thing)
    • Done.
  • may involve the bite of an aquatic animal The body of the article seems to say that aquatic insects are more commonly implicated
    • Changed to "aquatic insect".
  • Buruli ulcer occurs in rural areas near slow-moving or stagnant water This feels a bit repetitive since the previous paragraph says "The bacteria live in aquatic environments, particularly in slow-moving or stagnant water." I get why you're reiterating this since it's not always safe to assume there's a one-to-one relationship between where the bacteria live and where cases occur, but maybe this can be rephrased a bit so the wording doesn't duplicate that of the preceding paragraph.
    • Changed the meaning of the first sentence to elaborate on where the bacteria are within water. Better or worse?
      • Better, thanks. Spicy (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it truly always painless? For example, UpToDate (not the most authoritative source, granted) says "Patients with an initial edematous lesion... tend to have associated pain and low-grade fever". Yotsu et al. (2015) says "no or limited pain".
    • Most sources only remark on painlessness, but some mention that secondary infections of ulcers can cause pain (in particular Kpeli and Yeboah-Manu, 2019, "Background" ...secondary infection should be suspected when a wound develops cellulitis or becomes painful. and Yotsu, et al. 2018, "Description of the condition" A typical ulcer usually has necrotic, undermined edges, and is often painless (unless complicated by secondary infection). I've added a bit to that effect in Signs & symptoms.
      • Fair enough, thanks Spicy (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • with the ulcer a few centimeters wider underneath the skin than the skin wound itself - is it necessary to specify skin wound, or would just "wound" be okay?
    • Changed.
  • can be replaced by inelastic scar tissue - could "inelastic" be replaced with a simpler word such as "stiff", or would meaning be lost?
    • Removed "inelastic" instead. I think the "immobilizing the body part" bit immediately after should get across the idea that the scar tissue doesn't move well.
  • Might be worthwhile to link contracture somewhere.
  • Despite sometimes large ulcers, people with Buruli ulcer tend to remain in otherwise good health - I have some issues with this sentence. I get what you're trying to say - that people rarely die from it or develop life-threatening complications - but there's a large grey area in between "dying" and "in good health". I am not sure "otherwise good health" is a great representation of the sources, which say, for example "Buruli ulcer is a disabling skin infection...leading to functional disability, loss of economic productivity, and social stigma" (UpToDate), "it leads to contractures that cause disfigurement and long-term disability and has a high social stigma" (Guarner, 2019), and "Buruli ulcer, caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, is a chronic debilitating disease" (WHO factsheet). I would be more specific about what you mean by "good health".
    • I was hoping to get across that folks with ulcers don't tend to have systemic symptoms, which is surprising, since they have a huge open wound. I changed the wording of that sentence. Any better? I'm trying not not to use the word "systemic" since I'm not sure it's broadly understood and Systemic disease isn't very helpful.
      • That's better; I might revise it to something like "symptoms are typically limited to those caused by the wound; the disease rarely affects other parts of the body" just to make it 100% clear Spicy (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Category I describes a single small ulcer that is less than 5 centimetres (2.0 inches). Category II describes ulcers that are larger and can be up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in). - Does having multiple ulcers place you in category II or category III? It's not entirely clear from the phrasing
    • Category III. Clarified.
  • Sec61 inhibition prevents cells from signaling to activate the immune system, resulting in ulcers that lack infiltrating immune cells. - the "resulting in ulcers that..." phrasing seems a bit awkward because, if I've understood the article correctly, the inhibition of signalling causes immunosuppression but doesn't cause the ulcer itself
    • Poor wording on my part. Clarified to "leaving ulcers largely free of immune cells". Better?
      • Yup. Spicy (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • poor wound care is associated with a higher risk of acquiring Buruli ulcer.[13] Wearing pants and long-sleeved shirts is associated with a lower risk of Buruli ulcer - phrasing is a bit repetitive, could be varied
    • Rephrased. Any better?
      • Yes, that's better.
  • Link mycobacteria
    • Done.
  • This method correctly detects M. ulcerans... In practice microscopy correctly detects M. ulcerans in just... I think "correctly" should be removed here, because someone who is not familiar with the concepts of sensitivity and specificity could get the wrong idea from the way this is phrased. The sources are talking about sensitivity, and (as you know) sensitivity evaluates the test's susceptibility to false negatives, not its susceptibility to false positives. But by saying "correctly detected", you raise the possibility that it could be "incorrectly detected", which implies a false positive result. The sentences already say " infected people" which means the positive results are correct.
    • "Correctly"s removed.
  • to biopsy tissue from the ulcer - this may just be personal preference but the use of "biopsy" as a verb feels awkward to me. You could say "to take a tissue sample from the ulcer" instead
    • Changed.
  • Injections of M. ulcerans caused ulcers in... bare past tense seems odd here - why not "have been shown to cause ulcers in"...
    • Changed to present tense.
      • That's better, but (sorry!) I find the phrasing "Injecting M. ulcerans can cause"... awkward; I would have phrased it as "Injections of M. ulcerans can cause..." Spicy (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the "Other names" section wouldn't fit better in the "Society and culture" section, which is currently pretty thin. I also have to wonder why the opening sentence of this nomination, which is very interesting, isn't in the article... :)
    • Moved "Other names".
    • I'm glad you liked it! It's a fascinating tidbit that stuck in my head through all of this. It is just one of many, many ways folks have understood Buruli ulcer (and have drawn lines between the natural and supernatural). Best I can tell, this framing isn't particularly common and is hardly written about. I pulled that example from this paper which covers just one sub-district in southern Ghana. But I haven't seen a normal/abnormal wound classification mentioned elsewhere, and so I don't have any context to put it in. I've got my eyes peeled, so if someone reviews cultural understandings of BU, I'll be ready to add more to the article!
  • Link Mycobacterium bovis
    • Done.
      • Thanks - IIRC the name should be written out in full on first occurrence. Spicy (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall the article is very clearly written, concise, and easy to understand - an impressive achievement.


Since this is a first-time nomination it will need a source spotcheck. I'll consign myself to doing this as I have first-hand experience of how hard it can be to find someone willing to spotcheck a medical article :) Stay tuned. Spicy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Here we go:

  • 1 (Bravo 2019, p. 122) - the figure checks out, but the source doesn't explicitly say the cases are reported to the WHO. The frequency in the infobox is different from that in the lead section, any reason for this?
  • 2 (WHO 2019) - [a] checks out (see comment above), [b] checks out, the "insect bite" thing is supported by the other source, [c][d][e][f][g] all check out
  • 4 (Guarner 2018, pp. 3-4) - [a][b][c][d] all check out; [e] I don't see where the article explicitly mentions scar tissue, [f] not sure the article is saying this only applies to large ulcers, [g] it seems that plaque and edematous lesions are category II by default - shouldn't this be mentioned? [h][i][j] check out.
  • 10 (Yotsu et al. 2018, p. 251.) - checks out
  • 16 (Vincent et al. 2018, p. e0006429.) - content checks out; as noted above, this is a primary source, but it's only used as a supplement to information from a review article. I don't understand "p. e0006429" though. This seems to be a document number as far as I can tell, not a page number?
  • 20 (Guarner 2018, pp. 4–6.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 25 (Guarner 2018, pp. 6–7.) - [a][b][c][d][e] all check out; [f] strictly speaking, the article says that it's recommended but not that it actually works; [g] checks out
  • 30 (Zingue et al. 2018, pp. 30–31.) - the article is talking about African countries specifically; I would clarify that
  • 33 (Suzuki et al. 2019, pp. 87–88.) - checks out
  • 38 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, p. 159.) -[a][b] both check out
  • 44 (Röltgen & Pluschke 2019, pp. 1–2.) - [a][b][c][d] all check out
  • 51 (MacCallum et al. 1948, pp. 95–98, 103, 117–118.) - primary source, but only used to supplement secondary material. I can't seem to access this one, do you mind sending me an email or posting quotes of the relevant section?
  • 55 (Yotsu, Richardson & Ishii 2018, pp. 6–7.) - [a] and [c] check out. On [b], strictly speaking, "0 to 2%" includes 2%...
  • 57 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, pp. 160–161.) - [a][b] both check out
  • 61 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, p. 163.) - [a][b] both check out.

Random thoughts:

  • Guarner (2018) discusses osteomyelitis at some length; some of the other sources I've checked mention it too. I think it would be worthwhile to mention this in the article.
  • I think it might be helpful to point out that mycobacteria are also responsible for other diseases of poverty like tuberculosis and leprosy. Most readers won't automatically draw that connection when they see the term "mycobacterial infection". Guarner (2018) mentions "Together with leprosy, BU is one of the most frequent skin mycobacterial diseases worldwide" and a couple of the other sources mention tuberculosis IIRC
  • I'd link enlarged lymph node.
  • The Frontiers source was brought up above, I'm not too concerned about it as the same authors have published on the same subject in more reputable sources.

I haven't fully reviewed the citations for consistency because I'm not any good at that, but I did notice that while a lot of the sources are open access, only a few have the open access icon. I believe you're required to be consistent on whether you use that icon or not.

No copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns. Spicy (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vrbanja BridgeEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a small-scale skirmish between French UN peacekeepers and Bosnian Serb forces in Sarajevo in May 1995 in the middle of the UN hostage crisis. I usually steer away from Bosnian War articles because I am probably too close, having served there in 95-96 with the Brits, but this one, being French, seems at arm's length from my experience, although we did discuss it during pre-deployment training as it occurred just before we got there. Notably, the young captain that led the French assault is currently the French Chief of Defence Staff. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review: passEdit

Formatting and consistency

  • No ISBN for Beale, Michael (1997)?
  • Fill out the details for "Krilic, Samir (7 April 1996)": Indiana Gazette, page 6 etc. Also, the link provided is a dead link for me, but this works as a subscription only link.

Quality and coverage

  • All sources used appear to be good quality, reliable sources.
  • There are many additional newspaper sources that could be used, but scanning through some of the more prominent papers omitted, I can't see any significant details or opinions that have been missed.

As a frequent and trusted nominator, I have not carried out any spotchecks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
All good from my side. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks as always, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Review by Z1720Edit

Here's a prose review.


  • prompting the Commander, Bosnia and Herzegovina Command, British Lieutenant General Rupert Smith I assume Smith's title was "Commander, Bosnia and Herzegovina Command" but I had to read this sentence a couple of times to figure that out. Can it be replaced with "Commander of Bosnia" or would that be inaccurate?
  • EF-18A EF-18 is wikified but the A is not. The whole model name should be linked.


  • As the UN RRF deployed in June and July, it became clear that the UN was moving towards a peace enforcement stance rather than a peacekeeping one, with the British sending artillery and an air-mobile brigade including attack helicopters, and the force not painting its vehicles white or wearing blue helmets, as was usual on UN missions. This is a long sentence and I would split it.
  • the VRS commander, General Ratko Mladić that... Comma after Mladic
  • Alain Juppé and by Defence Minister Charles Millon Remove this "by"
  • On 30 August, at the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF... The use of commas and asides in this sentence are confusing and I would restructure. Perhaps, "At the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF fired 600 artillery rounds on VRS artillery positions around Sarajevo on 30 August. The UN RRF played an important part in ending the siege and in forcing the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table later that year."
  • In 2017, now Army General Lecointre, Was Lecointre made an Army General from this event? If not, I would just remove "now Army General" as it is trivia information that doesn't pertain to this article.

Those are my first round of comments. Please ping me when you are finished. Good luck! Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the first dinosaur discovered and named by a woman (Mignon Talbot in 1911), and also one of the first well-known small theropods discovered, which attracted international scientific interest at the time. Unfortunately, the only known specimen was destroyed by a fire, so it has become fairly obscure over time. All that will probably ever be known about the dinosaur is summarised here, so hopefully it can bring some attention to its historical importance. Some articles about it were published in Danish, which luckily is my native language, others in German, where I am grateful for help in translation by Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by EsculentaEdit

This article is well developed and reads smoothly. Here are some suggestions for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough look-through, I'll address these issues within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Esculenta, now most issues are solved, and I have added some comments to those remaining. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Perhaps genus should be linked in the first sentence, as this is what the article is about.
Done, strange it wasn't already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”of the earliest known dinosaurs” hyphen
Removed the entire sentence, it was a leftover from before I worked on the article, and I couldn't really find support for the exact claim in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • United States shouldn’t be linked (per MOS:OVERLINK)
Removed with the above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • the intensifier “very” is noticeably used several times in the second paragraph; consider eliminating some or using a different intensifier
Removed two. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • consider the following links for the lead: humerus, femur, affinities, family, holotype, Early Jurassic, cervical, dorsal, caudal (with the last 3, consider glossing with parentheticals like is done later in the “Discovery” section)
Done (Early Jurassic was already linked in the first paragraph). FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”and a natural cast specimen was assigned to it” what is a “natural cast”? Is this different than a “cast replica” referred to later?
Yeah, this could be confusing (natural vs man-made casts), but the distinction is explained in more detail under description. Perhaps you had not gotten to that part yet when you wondered about it? Or would you want more explanation in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • why is the family Coelophysidae not shown in the taxobox?
It is only widely thought to be a Coelophysoid, a level above family. It is likely a Coelophysid, but we will probably never know for sure due to the lack of material (this is discussed in detail in the last part of the classifications section). FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”but is currently believed to date” is “currently” necessary?
There is a fair chance it will change again because the dating has been so unstable historically (as is explained in the paleoenvironment and classification sections), so I thought "now" or "currently" would be good to underline that it may not be written in stone... But I can remove it if it is very jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


  • ”She asked the owner of the land for permission to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology, which was granted.” clause at the end seems awkward; may I suggest “She was granted permission by the land owner to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology.”
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • links: scapula, coracoid
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • scapula, coracoid, and astragalus are not helpfully glossed like the other anatomical terms are (I see this is done two paragraphs later; maybe swap places?)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • is the generic name derived from Greek or Ancient Greek]? Should the Greek text be wrapped with the template {{lang-grc}}? (See wp:GREEK)
It is almost certainly ancient Greek, but none of the sources specify this. Perhaps we have someone who can identify it by the text (ποδώκης σαύρα)? Perhaps Cplakidas? But yeah, I'll add that template. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi to all, while σαύρα is still used in modern Greek, ποδώκης is definitely ancient Greek. Cheers, Constantine 08:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's sufficient to label it as such. Also added the template. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The American paleontologist Robert T. Bakker stated in 2014 that while old professors grumbled that females were unfit for working with fossils during his time at university, Talbot's discovery of Podokesaurus was a counterargument to that.” Perhaps this tidbit would be better placed in the article about Talbot, as it seems quite peripheral to the article topic?
I see what you're getting at, but I think it also helps establish the significance of Podokesaurus itself; it is the importance of the specimen that was part of making Talbot well-known, and the discovery itself which countered the old professors. If it had just been an unimportant fossil, it wouldn't have changed any opinions. Bakker's text is also more in appreciation of the dinosaur itself, he says the model of it at Yale made him determine to apply there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”…specified that it was from the Longmeadow Sandstone.[6][2][11][7]” ensure that multi-citations like this one have the cites in correct numerical order (check throughout)
I don't think that's a requirement here, though. Haven't seen it in the WP:MOS. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Apart from a tooth…” any link to an article about the species to which this tooth belongs?
Interesting suggestion, I found one 1976 source saying Coelophysis, but today that would probably be considered too specific for just a tooth, so I have given it the cautious wording "assigned to Coelophysis in 1976". FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


  • seems inconsistent to present Lull’s estimated morphometrics in mm, while Von Huene’s is in cm
Now mm, used cm before because that's how von Huene gave them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Talbot stated… while Paul stated…” switch up verbs to avoid same-sentence repetition
Said "Paul thought" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”As a coelophysoid, it would likely have been similar in build to for example Coelophysis” is the struck part necessary?
There are other coelophysoids as well, the source doesn't only mention Coelophysis. Problem is, it says "likely that this theropod was built much like Coelophysis or Dilophosaurus", but the latter is not currently thought to be a coelophysoid. But the gist of it is that it is compared to more than one coelophysoid. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • styliform - unfamiliar word
Added "(resembling a pen or bristle in shape)". FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • check article throughout for use of “which” (some need a preceding comma or should be replaced with “that”)
I've shaken it up a bit, hope it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”… long and 2 mm (0.079 in) wide.” -> long and 2 mm (0.1 in) wide.” (so that sig. fig. output matches input)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • link processus lateralis, condyle
Linked and glossed condyle. No link for the former, but glossed it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Classification + the rest

  • ”forward directed pubis “, “smallest known Coelophysis specimens” , “latest surviving coelophysoids” need hyphenation
Added (if it is in the ways you meant). FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In the same volume, the paleontologist David B. Norman agreed …” I don’t think the first bit is important
It was more to avoid just repeating the year again. Or would hat be preferable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • favour -> favor (article is Am. Eng., I assume)
Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I noticed that you always use the definite article “the” with a noun phrase before a person’s name (e.g. “the writer Jan Peczkis”; “The paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn”, etc.). This read a bit odd to me, so I researched grammar rules to see if this was common. My understanding is that both ways are correct (i.e., with or without “the”); perhaps consider switching up its inclusion for a bit for more variety.
Heh, every other FAC, someone tells me to either add it or remove it. In any case, I think it'd be best to keep it consistent within an article. Since it's so subjective, I'd prefer to keep it as is, since it's impossible to keep everyone happy anyway, and it's be tedious to remove. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. seasonEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the first season played by Cardiff City F.C. in the Football League following their move from the Southern Football League in 1920. The side surprised many by not only adapting well to the new division but immediately winning promotion to the top tier of English football, missing out on the title by virtue of goal average. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • No images are included in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Imaginative TalesEdit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s; all the significant magazines from the era are now FA, so we're down to the also-rans. I've dug up everything I can find on the magazine, including a minor anecdote about Hugh Hefner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • How do you know that copyright was not renewed on the magazine?
    If you go here and click on the post-1978 link you can search for renewals. Searching for "Imaginative Tales" shows that some individual stories were renewed, but not the covers; searching for "Space Travel" and sorting by date shows that nothing was renewed from the three issues with that title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The table is wide enough and sandwiches with the infobox, it would probably display better with non-inline formatting. (t · c) buidhe 04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    The caption at the bottom of the table doesn't wrap, so you have to add carriage returns manually otherwise the table just gets wider and wider. Another user removed that carriage return not long before you looked at it, making the table unnecessarily wide. I've restored it, with a <br />, so it should be narrower now. Is that good enough? If not, rather than making it non-inline, I think I'd swap it with the second image, since that's narrower. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • External links: see WP:MOSSIS
    I assume the relevant point is not to have a section solely for the sister project link; if so, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref for launch date of Rogue? It's not in the text
    I've now cited this to the first issue of Rogue, though I have not seen it myself -- googling "December 1955 Rogue" finds examples for sale, so I think that's OK. I had to put in the cite by hand since there's no "title" parameter to use, and {{cite journal}} doesn't like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether Ashley short cites use date or title for disambiguation
    Oops. That's what I get for copying from other articles. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN15 should use displayed title. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Portsmouth War MemorialEdit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fresh from my success with the Royal Artillery Memorial, I bring you another war memorial featuring the realism of Charles Sargeant Jagger. This one was written almost on a whim after I visited Portsmouth in the summer. I found the dedication on it moving, and although I knew of it in passing, I was surprised that such an impressive memorial had no article at all. So here is the result of my research! It's had a very helpful A-class review at MilHist and I believe it's of the same standard as my previous nominations, but of course I welcome any feedback! Thanks you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

Great to see you pumping out memorial articles again, Harry. This is in fine shape, and I only have a few comments:

  • should it be "and decorated toon the sides"?
  • comma after Strathearn
  • suggest "Portsmouth iswas and remains"
  • suggest "the Battle of Jutland in 1916,"
  • move the last sentence of the first para of the Background section to immediately after "naval base"
  • in general, the structure of the first two paras of the Background section need work, they jump around quite a bit, suggest putting the information in rough chronological order then the para on Jagger
  • say when the Treaty of Versailles was signed
  • suggest "It consists of a semicircular sunken recess, known as an exedra,"
  • can anything be said about the design/elements of the WWII memorial monument?
  • be consistent about counties for locations in the Bibliography

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Portsmouth was a major port in the early 20th century" - source?
  • Corke: as far as I'm aware, Shire only started publishing out of Oxford after 2007 - can you double-check the location?
  • FN1: Historic England should be in |publisher= not |author=
  • Fn27: date is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Paranthropus robustusEdit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of the first australopithecine species every described. It failed the last time because after nearly a month it only received an image review.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Per MOS:ACCIM The images in the article should have alt text added. Also, text should not refer to images as "left" or "right". Username6892 (Peer Review) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
since when? This happens all the time and it's very useful to specify which is on which side. Also, is alt text a requirement anymore?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I (mis)interpreted the point about left and right to include all text (including captions). I've crossed it out accordingly. As for the alt text, it says all undecorative images should have alt text, so I think such text should be added before FA (I had a reviewer at GAN tell me to add alt text, though they noted lots of MOS issues). Username6892 (Peer Review) 02:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Quitea difficult subject, which is probably why reviewers have been wary, but I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[6]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Section names should make it clear what they are about. But I can't for the life of me figure out what "setting" means without looking at the text, but I should be able to.
changed to "Fossil-bearing deposits"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Reconstruction of OH 5, the holotype specimen of P. boisei" This caption doesn't establish the relevance of the image to the text.
"OH 5 (reconstruction above) was made the holotype specimen of the 2nd Paranthropus species P. boisei."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hamadryas baboon troop at Dierenpark Emmen with several males" Likewise.
"P. robustus could have lived in multi-male groups like Hamadryas baboons (above troop at Dierenpark Emmen)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • As above, suggest adding alt text
My problem is that the alt text wouldn't be anymore descriptive than the caption (like they'd all read something like "a skull" or "a tooth")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's true in most cases. For example, an alt text could describe the location of the Cradle of Humankind, or note what component is represented in the holotype. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Cradle_of_Humankind_plan.jpg: what is the source for this map? Ditto File:Paranthropus_robustus_Africa.jpg
As I said in the last review, I would assume google maps. If you want, I can list the map here as a source, or upload the map from [7] which is CC-BY-4.0 (but highlights Rising Star Cave which P. robustus is not known from), or this map which is kinda pixelly. Just tell me which is most preferable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest the second of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it alright that it's missing Swartkrans?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:DNH_7_Reconstruction.jpg: the review discussion for this image is weak.
Some reviews get more eyes than others, and this was definitely in the others category. I'm not sure what to do in this case, so I'll see what other paleontology people have to say about it, and I can always remove it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I would suggest removing by default, unless any weigh in in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess we should signal more opinions needed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. I don't know why but my brain always automatically puts down sa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek GenerationsEdit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In 1992/93, the producers of one of the most successful syndicated television shows ever decided to end the series after seven seasons and make a motion picture instead. The result... was thoroughly mediocre. This is Star Trek Generations. Thanks in advance for your comments and critiques. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brainEdit

I'm excited to see this here! Some initial thoughts:

  • The lead seems a bit light for a film article. The sentence "Generations was conceived as a handoff from the original television series cast and their movies to The Next Generation." isn't very elegantly written and could use more context here in the lead. Do you mean the handoff of the "film franchise" (I suspect you do)? The narrative is a bit unclear since you go on to suggest that TNG was well into its production lifecycle by time this film was released. Even knowing the timeline as I do, the lead is not too cohesive.
  • I'm not entirely satisfied by the Plot summary. It's not clear from reading it what Soran's motivations are, what the nature of the Nexus is, and how Kirk and Picard ended up meeting in the Nexus. There is not enough explanation of the involvement of the Duras sisters and why they kidnapped LaForge. You call Soran the "villain" in the lead and go on to say he's obsessed with "re-entering the Nexus" but don't clearly explain how that ties in to his attempts on the refugee ships. I think his character was more complex than that and there's a lot more to say about how he uses Picard's grief to his advantage.
  • In that vein... there seems to be worthy discussion of Themes and I'd be surprised if enough wasn't written about them to formulate a good Themes section. Is there guidance within the Films wikiproject on when to include a Themes section? Suggestions would be time and mortality, family, and I'm certain I've read about the Nexus as a metaphor for substance abuse/dependency. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be interested in your thoughts on these. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Hey Laser, thanks for the comments. I've taken a stab at clarifying and expanding the lead. I've worked on the plot a little too—I'm not really sure how much you can say about Picard and Kirk meeting in the nexus because the nexus famously doesn't really make much sense, but I clarified a bit more about Soran's motivations. I don't know how much else you want about the Duras Sisters—they're kind of irrelevant to the plot and La Forge doesn't really do anything but get tortured that isn't covered. I didn't include a themes section because the literature I've found searching GScholar, JSTOR, Gale, and the other databases I have access to are pretty thin in regards to Generations. At best, they're glancing one-off mentions about Generations as an aside to their main point, nothing I've found that singularly spends much time on the film itself or its themes specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll take another look today. As far as the Duras sisters, I'm thinking about how they fit the recurring plot device of how Soran uses other people to get his way. So he uses Picard's grief to his advantage, and uses the Duras sisters' desire to attack the Enterprise to get them to help him obtain the trilithium... you don't mention any of that and I feel it's a major feature of the plot. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really recall Soran using Picard's grief. He asks to get back to the lab, Picard says no, he does it anyway, and Picard spends all the rest of the time they're face-to-face trying to talk him out of doing what he's doing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Dang, don't you remember the "time is the fire in which we burn" speech? OK, I'm letting my Malcolm McDowell fanboy status show a bit too much. Soran knew Picard has suffered a loss and was fixated on mortality.. and used that to convince Picard to let him go back to the lab. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't get me wrong, it's a great line, but it doesn't lead anywhere. Picard never actually says he'll get him back on the station, no one reacts like they expected him to be there when they go to the station to evacuate Geordi and Data. Critics didn't really go on about Soran as some master manipulator, I just don't really see how it's important to understanding the broad strokes of the plot, especially since we never touch on it anywhere else in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Critical commentary on the film poster would bolster the fair use rationale per WP:NFCC#8. The other non-free image looks fine to me. Other images appear to be freely licensed. I made an edit to avoid sandwiching images. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • There's not really any critical commentary on the poster or its art, as far as I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Smooth newtEdit

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Another newt article, this time "the most ubiquitous newt of the Old World". Looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Random comment from Aza24Edit

  • Confused by "Central Asia" – the map is showing only a single dot in Kazakhstan, so I'm not sure using the term "Central Asia" is appropriate, that makes it sound like it's spread throughout multiple central Asian countries (Unless the map is wrong). I would stick to just "Northern Kazakhstan". Also Siberia is not in central Asia so I'm not sure how "central Asia (Siberia and northern Kazakhstan)" makes sense. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's true. I've removed "central Asia" in the lead and Distribution section now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


We can never have too many newts at FAC. I'll have a look soon, at first glance, there are a few duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out – I should have caught the remaining duplinks now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by EsculentaEdit

The "Captivity" section is only two sentences; is there nothing else relevant that could be said about this? For example, there are several more details that have not been utilised from Spareboom 2014.

As it stands, I'm not sure the article meets FAC criterion 1c ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). Esculenta (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Many of these look like primary source studies. Usually for science topics it's preferable to rely on secondary sources (eg. books or review articles) as individual studies may not be confirmed by later research. Still, I wonder if there is info that could be added to the article. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding secondary sources, I would suggest consulting Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas (2004); it is recommended (by Spareboom 2014, p. 240) as an excellent source on the natural history of this species. Spareboom also suggests Wiens et al. (2011) for information about the evolution of the male dorsal crest, a subject of research I don't see currently mentioned in the article. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Esculenta, thanks for your comments and the literature suggestions. It's always tricky to decide which are the "major facts" that make an article "well-researched". My impression was that the level of detail is comparable to other FAs of the same category. I am not quite convinced that the articles you point out would make a relevant contribution, but I am happy to add them and additional primary sources if other editors support this. I did add some more on captivity from Sparreboom 2014. The Handbuch is unfortunately not available online, a bit too expensive for my budget, and all libraries here are closed at the moment. Also, it might be a bit outdated now – I've relied mainly on the Sparreboom 2014 book and especially the Grosse 2011 monograph and would be surprised if the Handbuch was more detailed or up to date. Tylototriton (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and Chiswick Chap 20:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about scorpions, an iconic group of deadly predators. We've been working on this article for a couple months and it is already a GA. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Scorpion Photograph By Shantanu Kuveskar.jpg —isn't there a better quality, higher-res image for the infobox?
Would File:Asian forest scorpion in Khao Yai National Park.JPG be better? LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
That image is better, although tall images aren't ideal for infoboxes either. (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Scorpiones distribution.png — needs a verifiable source in the image description for this being an accurate projection of scorpions' distribution
Its does. Didn't you see the link to the Scorpion Systematics Research Group? LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There is some sandwiching in "Morphology" and "Biology" sections, against MOS:IMAGELOC
    • Addressed.
  • I removed some images from galleries where it wasn't clear to me whether they were adding value to reader understanding of the topic
    • Noted.
  • The images in this version of the article are verified to be available under a free license[9]
    • Noted.

(t · c) buidhe 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe
  • I flagged a number of issues with the sourcing (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by EsculentaEdit

  • "More recently, thirteen families and about 1,750 species and subspecies of scorpions have been described.” This is sourced to a 2009 publication. Is there nothing more recent with updated numbers? In fact, one of your citations (Howard et al. 2019) mentions over 2400 extant species. I added up the species numbers given the taxonomy section and got 2274, which is at odds with what’s stated earlier (and also in the lead).
Updated taxonomy section, list, and lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ”In addition, there are 111 described taxa of fossil scorpions.” This is certainly out of date, as many fossil taxa have been described since 2009. This source (2018) might have more current information, as might Howard et al. 2019.
Fixed. This book gives 121 species. Neither of the source you posted give numbers of fossil species. I changed the numbering to "over 100" such my new source is from 2012. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The order Scorpiones was named and created by Koch in 1837. I think this should be mentioned in the article text, and perhaps include a link to the protolog if it is available. What was his original circumscription like?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Only 25 species have venom that is deadly to humans; most of those belong to the family Buthidae…" The first cited source claims that all (not "most") of these belong to the Buthidae; the second cited source looks like it's written by students and doesn't look reliable.
Fixed, and removed the second source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Could we have some basic information on what the characteristics of each family are?
Added brief descriptions for the families in 'Taxonomy'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that the article doesn't use Stockmann & Ythier's 2010 Scorpions of the World is a major drawback, as it is considered to be one of the most comprehensive and informative scorpion books out there. I think the article would have trouble meeting FAC criteria 1c based on that alone ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). I think there's also an issue with 1b ("it neglects no major facts or details"), which would become apparent if you were to look through this book. A single example: there's no mention of keeping scorpions in captivity (even though books have been written about this topic). Based on this, I would oppose promotion of this article in its current state. Esculenta (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll work on those things. I've added a brief section on keeping scorpions in captivity, and further details of behavior cited to Stockmann & Ythier 2010. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
pinging Esculenta. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Esculenta you're not being fair here, that book has only one copy left and costs $95. We are already citing "Introduction to Scorpion Biology and Ecology" by the same author. If anything that book is more recent (2010 vs 2015) and more updated. I think you are jumping the gun here. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
What does price and availability of a source have to do with meeting FAC criteria? Are there no libraries where you live? The 2015 source by the same author is a single chapter in a multi-authored book, so not the same thing. Also, please cite specific page numbers when using the 2015 source (currently a range of 34 pages), to make it easier for users to verify information. Esculenta (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Added page numbers for Stockmann (2015). LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

  • Is it worth mentioning that similarly named invertebrates like the scorpion fly and scorpion wasp are not related to the true scorpions?
No, since they have "fly" and "wasp" at the end. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • back, ending with a venomous sting—perhaps and ending?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • woven into kilim carpets for protection—add from their sting
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • pulmonate—not linked or explained
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit underlinked, I’d link at least sea spider, horseshoe crabs, harvestmen esophagus, gonad, pharynx
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • German arachnologist Carl Ludwig Koch classified the order Scorpionescreated the order
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Five colonies of Euscorpius flavicaudis have established themselves in Sheerness... while Paruroctonus boreus lives as far north as Red Deer, Alberta, at 52°N.[28]—When did these colonisations occur?
Added. Alberta one is native. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • armouredarmored in AE I think
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The 7th and last somite do notdoes not,
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In caption Bird predator: Indian roller eating Indian red scorpion—I’d lose the first two words, or rephrase as Indian roller, a scorpion predator, eating Indian red scorpion
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sexual cannibalism after mating has only been reported anecdotally in scorpions.—move only before anecdotally?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • wavelengths of ultraviolet light such as that produced by a black light—black light is broad range, wavelength ranges perhaps
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Only 25 species have venom that is deadly to humans—You give the impression that scorpions are either deadly or harmless, I’m pretty sure, as with snakes, that there are species with an unpleasant but non-lethal sting
Deadly means able to kill. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fried scorpion is traditionally eaten in Shandong, China... They are used in Vietnam to make snake wine (scorpion wine)—Any particular species used for eating or for the wine (sound delicious)?
Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
None of the sources, formal or informal, go so far as to name the species used. Very likely it is a mix of species as caught. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The answer to the last point was what I expected, I just asked in case there was a preferred species. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from FemkeMileneEdit

Always excited to see articles about basic topics making their way to FA: thanks for working on it.

I'll be focusing on the first paragraph in light of WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Note I'm unburdened by any topic knowledge. I'll be underlining those words that I think should be avoided or if that's not possible explained, and give an attempt at an easier an first paragraph I would understand.

  • Scorpions are predatory arachnids of the order Scorpiones. They have eight legs and are easily recognized by the pair of grasping pedipalps and the narrow, segmented tail, often carried in a characteristic forward curve over the back and ending with a venomous sting. Scorpions range in size from 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) in Microtityus minimus to 23 cm (9.1 in) in Heterometrus swammerdami. The evolutionary history of scorpions goes back to the Silurian period 435 million years ago.
  • Scorpions are predators of the order Scorpiones. They have eight legs and are easily recognized by the pair of grasping pincers and the narrow, segmented tail, often carried in a characteristic forward curve over the back and ending with a venomous sting. Scorpions range in size from 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) to 23 cm (9.1 in) . The evolutionary history of scorpions goes back 435 million years.

The rest of the lead is understandable, except the word spermatophore. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed some but we can't just label them "predators". It is too broad a term. The average reader is familiar with "arachnid". LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Also wikilinked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Die HardEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1988 action film Die Hard, considered one of the greatest action films ever made, it made a star out of Bruce Willis and launched a franchise of sadly diminishing results. Still, the original holds up for giving us a vulnerable action star and charismatic uber villain Hans Gruber, played by the late, great Alan Rickman. One of the best OSTs as well IMO. This one means a lot to me as it is one of my favourite films and one of the few films me and my dad both liked and could watch together, plus it is nearly Xmas, seems the perfect time to finally elevate this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

  • Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
  • For, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ Not much discussion there, but it's not promising.
  • What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
  • What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
  • Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog. If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
  • appears to be self-published
  • Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
  • For and, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
  • What makes an high-quality RS?
  • Instead of as the publisher, use Library of Congress
  • We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
  • Ref 129 use The Guardian, not
  • Ref 136 is missing the publisher
  • Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
  • " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
  • See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS. It's used multiple times.
  • I have strong doubts that is a high-quality RS
  • WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
  • What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?

Overall, I'm having doubts that the best overall sources are used. None of these are really scholarly sources, while scholarly sources have given these attention. See [10], [11], [12], etc. I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that this article relies heavily on blogs and pop culture sites, but doesn't use much scholarly stuff. Source checks not done yet. I don't feel like this is a particularly prepared nomination, with the errors in titles and missing publishers and formatting issues and missing page numbers. I'm going to walk back the oppose I slapped on this for now, but I'm having some issues with the sourcing in this one. Hog Farm Bacon 23:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Spot checks
  • "Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
  • "His finished screenplay was delivered on a Friday in June 1987. It was greenlit by Saturday, in part because 20th Century Fox needed a big summer film for 1988" - Checks out
  • "De Souza used blueprints of Fox Plaza to help him lay out the story and character locations within the building" - Source doesn't mention Fox Plaza by name, but it seems to be implied
  • "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
  • "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
  • "The enduring popularity of Die Hard led to a wide variety of merchandise produced for fans including: clothing; Funko Pops" - Checks out
  • "and unranked by Esquire - Checks out

Overall, I don't really have any significant concerns to faithfulness to the sources, but I am quite concerned about the quality and choice of sources used. Hog Farm Bacon 02:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Still Working
  • Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
It is owned by Bauer Media Group which is a major conglomerate, it is international, it has an editorial team and the author of the article has a page on the site detailing their relevant work and education history. For the content of the article, I do believe it is reliable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Replaced this with a Maxim source i was able to find Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
According to the sources in the sites SlashFilm, it has won several awards for its content from sites we would consider reliable, it has an About page which details the notable people and other reliable sites that have referenced /Film and it is recognized by Rotten Tomatoes for review purposes also . I don't have any concerns about the site being reliable for the information it is sourcing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
It is referenced by reliable sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, etc and has also been awarded by reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog. If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
A blog on their website is surely their blog? Either way I've replaced it with a JSTOR reference. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • appears to be self-published
It is self published, but like SlashFilm, it is also widely recognised and respected, despite its terrible website design. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
Replaced Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For and, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes an high-quality RS?
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Instead of as the publisher, use Library of Congress
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
It's an e-Book, there aren't any page numbers. I've added the chapter. I can guestimate the page number by counting pages but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the chapter's fine under those circumstances. We just need more than just the whole book. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 129 use The Guardian, not
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 136 is missing the publisher
  • Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
Per both above re:136, removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS. It's used multiple times.
Maybe things have changed since those discussions because ScreenRant has a Fact Checking Policy, a corrections policy, an ethics policy, an Ownership, Funding, and Advertising policy, a full editorial staff, and a press kit. It's not a rinky dink publication by any means. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have strong doubts that is a high-quality RS
Replaced with the AV Club. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
It is a speciality website and an expert in the topic. It is referenced by and used by what we would consider reliable sources like The A.V. Club and the Telegraph, the New york Times, Radio Times, etc, it is involved with a legitimate publisher in Dennis Publishing, and I passed a source review with it for Trading Places just 2 weeks ago when it was spotchecked by Aoba47 who does regular checks for FAs, and apart from the Hart Bochner interview, it's not used for any contestable information. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?
I think this is reliable, but I've replaced it with a BBC source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Per the comments below this part, it is an object of popular culture, so it makes sense that popular culture websites are going to cover it and are going to be used. I do not believe in using documents to source an article that the majority of people cannot access, i.e. JSTOR. Anything in the article should be easily checkable by anyone, not just the haves. I do not believe that popular culture websites, by default, are not reliable, though if information is particularly contested, a secondary source can be used. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Ping Hog Farm feedback. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: - I've got no issue with the use of pop culture websites, and I don't think they're inherently unreliable, but I'd like to see at least one or two scholarly in there. You can access JSTOR through WP:LIBRARY, and EBSCO as well. I'd recommend using the Wikipedia Library. It's free, available to most editors, and it's helped me out a lot - I'm from a rural area with iffy local libraries, so that's where I get a lot of scholarly sources. I'll give this another formatting check, but this is getting fairly close for sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have had a look at the library but I will check again and see if I can find anything useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to tentatively opppose on sourcing per Laser brain below. I can help try to get you copies of sources through WP:LIBRARY or possibly my university (if applicable). I just don't think this is quite up to the comprehensiveness standards. I hope there's no hard feelings about this. I don't like opposing at FAC, but it's not quite ready at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 18:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Striking my oppose due to the new sources. I'll give it another formatting look soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Second round

I'll be giving a second run-through on formatting.

  • Use of Title Case vs Sentence case in the reference titles is inconsistent. Compare "They're making a Die Hard board game" vs "The Undying Influence of Die Hard". Pick one method and stick with it
  • Ref 122 to Ayers 2008 is flagging a no target error. The Ayers 2017 in the sources should be Ayers 2008, per the date of the journal article.
  • Not seeing where the Durnford ref in the works cited is used
  • In the long citation for the Shivers ref, you give the relevant page range as 12-15, but then you cite page 16
  • I feel like the note should probably have a citation

Almost there on getting everything correct with the sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Shivers and Durnford were in the same magazine, I'd accidentally reused Shivers instead of switching to Durnford for page 16. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "It is considered one of the better Die Hard sequels.[171]" - needs attribution to the specific source, as the cited source does not indicate an overall consensus, instead is just the work of a single writer who does not mention if there's a consensus on this. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I've just removed it, I could add a few sources saying the same, but it would still be opinion, it's generally top 3 of 5 films, which is like a B or a C. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Hog Farm Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brainEdit

Oppose on 1b and 1c based on a tentative library search. Here is a list of scholarly sources I found through Gale General OneFile. These should be consulted to determine what and how much can be written about the theme of the "hero archetype" present in this film, comparisons to other similar characters and actors, etc. I wouldn't consider this article comprehensive or fully researched until such time:

It does appear that the film and Willis' character have been written about in academic journals, so I'd recommend a thorough consultation using JSTOR and EBSCO as well. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Ping Laser_brain Hog Farm Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, looking promising on first readthrough. I'm striking my 1b and 1c opposition at this time and will do a more in-depth reading. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Laser_brain, have you had a chance to take a look yet? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: Apologies but I haven't had a chance to type up any notes. It looks promising and I don't anticipate any showstopper type of feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David FuchsEdit

Forthcoming, but is there a reason the article has been under indefinite pending changes protection for the past two years? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs I don't know but I would guess it is because people often try to change the genre in the lead to Christmas film to be clever. No other part is really changed by other users. My version has a section explaining the CHristmas aspect in the Legacy part, so there's no excuse for it now apart from trolls. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

2018 EFL League Two play-off FinalEdit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC), The Rambling Man

It's another play-off final for your perusal, this time the match to decide the last team promoted from League Two (the fourth tier) up to League One (the third tier). This one featured Coventry City, who had been relegated in 2016–17 (despite their win in the 2017 EFL Trophy Final - see my other FAC nomination, further down this page!). And they were playing against Exeter City, who were in the final for the second season in a row. I was at the game as a Coventry supporter, and it was a happy day for us, as the team raced into a 3–0 lead after half time, eventually winning the game 3–1. Unfortunately for Exeter they are still trying to get out of the division and they lost yet again in the same final this season. This is a co-nomination by myself and The Rambling Man, we both already have one solo nom open each but I think that's allowed. Looking forward to hearing feedback!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe thanks! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

2006 Football League Championship play-off FinalEdit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Another article on the world's most valuable single soccer match. This one was pretty one-sided but interesting nevertheless, with the added spice of the losing team having been managed by the winning team's manager. The Londoners triumphed with a header, an own goal and a penalty. As ever, thanks to everyone who participates in a constructive manner, and I'll do my utmost to get to all points raised as soon as humanly possible. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by KosackEdit

  • "FA Premier League", I noticed this was mentioned in the GA review but, according to the Premier League article, it was still the Premiership until 2007. The official FA site seems to have relocated or removed the history page which previously explained it, but the best links I can find seem to verify this [13], [14].
    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth linking replay to Replay (sports).
    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the link for Dean Henderson is meant to be Darius Henderson.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This would make the Henderson's link unnecessary in the last paragraph.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Foster being on loan relevant to the match report? Or at least maybe mention it the first time Foster is included?
    Moved to first use, I think it's notable that one of the team's had a Man Utd reserve keeper... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The Chapman book in the references seems a little odd on its own. Perhaps a further reading section or similar if it's not being directly used to cite anything?
    It is, ref 3. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    My mistake, didn't spot that. Kosack (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Very few issues I could find really. A few minor points above to look at. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Kosack thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all your points? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
That's all I can see I think. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Brute ManEdit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 21:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC), Hunter Kahn

Rondo Hatton IS The Brute Man! Or actually, he is The Creeper. Or is The Creeper actually The Brute Man? Whatever the case, this 1946 movie was Hatton's swan song as he died from complications caused by his acromegaly. It is believed that, fearing the film would be considered exploiting the actors deformity, Universal Pictures sold off the movie to Poverty Row. For a few decades it was considered a lost film until it resurfaced in 1982, where it was mass distributed for everyone to see how bad of a movie it was.

This is a co-nominator with me and Hunter Kahn, as explained in this discussion. We have previously done this with the nomination of Phantasmagoria (video game). And I believe that the article meets the standards of Wikipedia. GamerPro64 21:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47Edit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder, and I will post my review when I am done commenting on the Overdrawn at the Memory Bank peer review. Just so you know, I have not seen this movie or the MST3K episode. I have a few quick comments:

  • The TV Tropes page on this MST3K episode (here) mentions that Mary Jo Pehl was also uncertain about featuring the film on the series due to how it represents Rondo Hatton's illness. TV Tropes is obviously not a reliable source, but it does attribute Pehl's statements to an interview on the DVD release. If you have access to the interview and (this information is indeed true), it would be helpful to include in the article to further represent how multiple people in the show's production were uncomfortable with the film choice.
    • Ill have to watch my DVD copy to I need to find the time for this. GamerPro64 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
        • She does mention that in the episode. I added that mention in. GamerPro64 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, Jane Adams also starred as a blind pianist, I believe it should be stars since the previous sentence uses present tense and not past tense.
  • I would ALT text to the infobox image. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would reword this sentence, The film was produced by Universal Pictures near the end of their horror film period, to avoid the passive tense. I think something like, Universal Pictures produced the film near the end of their horror film period, would be preferable since the focus is really on the film studio anyway.
  • In the lead, I would link Poverty Row as it is a relatively niche phrase. The Wikipedia article on the phrase capitalizes the phrase (and it is capitalized in the body of the article), while it is not capitalized here. Which way is correct?
    • Wiki-linked and capitalized. GamerPro64 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a few times in the lead and in the article that you alternate between Universal Pictures and Universal. I would be consistent with one way or use Universal Pictures for the first instance in both and then shorten it to Universal for each of the subsequent uses.
    • Doing the latter. Trimmed it down to less usage unless it made sense to. GamerPro64 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, Universal released at least one B-western following the merger, would it be helpful to link Western? I have also primarily seen Western capitalized so it should be done that way here too. If Western is linked here, then make sure to link it in the body of the article as well.
  • Would it be worthwhile to mention in the lead that even people associated with MST3K expressed discomfort about the film's representation of Hatton's illness? It forms a rather substantial part of that subsection, and contributes to the overall narrative of how the film represents this and the critical response to it.
    • Added a sentence in. GamerPro64 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Jan Wiley should be linked in the plot summary.
  • Is there a reason Jimmy/Jack Parker is not included in the "Cast" section? I have the same question for the pawnbroker/Charles Wagenheim?
    • Added them in.
  • For some reason, the link on citation 12 is not working correctly for me. I try clicking on it, but it does not take me down to the "Bibliography" subsection like the other citations do.
    • I'm not sure how to rectify that. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I am not exactly sure either, but none of the Weaver citations link down the "Bibliography" subsection (at least for me). All of the other citations work properly so maybe compared them with the Weaver ones to see what the differences are? Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the sentence about this being one of Wiley's final roles, it may be helpful to add a brief explanation that this was because she retired from acting after marrying a year after the film's release.
    • Added source to that. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, The Brute Man was filmed in 13 days, I would move the citation to the end of the sentence as I think it awkwardly cuts up the sentence and interferes with its readability.
  • Link Vera West in the "Filming" subsection.
  • In the "Distribution" section, I would put (PRC) after Producers Releasing Corporation since I was initially confused on what the acronym stood for on my first read-through until I read it again.
  • I am uncertain if the quote box is entirely necessary in the "Reception" section, especially since it can be seen as putting undue weight on one critical opinion over the rest.
    • I would like to hear another persons take on the quote. I think its fine personally but another opinion would be nice. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That is fair. I do not have a strong opinion about it, and it would not interfere with whether or not I support the FAC in the future. It is also important to get multiple opinions so that is for the best. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, The review stated most audiences, I would say The reviewer instead.
  • I would remove this sentence: Film reviewer Leonard Maltin gave the film one-and-a-half out of four stars. Unless more can be added about the review, I do not find the star rating alone to be particularly useful.
  • For this part, contemporary reviews of The Brute Man were similarly negative, I think you mean retrospective reviews as the reviews being discussed here were not released contemporaneously to the film's release.
    • Changed to retrospective. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the third paragraph in the "Reception" subsection. The Willis sentence seems to be more of a negative review, while the Keith Brown parts are more of an analysis since it does not really work having them in the same paragraph as they are not particularly connected to each other. I would put the Willis part in the second paragraph as it is another example of a negative retrospective review, and I would live the Keith Brown analysis as its own paragraph.
    • This is part of a new analysis section. GamerPro64 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Please add ALT text to the Lothar image.
  • I am uncertain about the MST3K screenshot. You have not used a similar screenshot for Squirm or Soultaker, and I am not sure there is a strong enough justification to include a piece of non-free media.
    • That was added by Hunter Khan and I would see the use of the shot from the show as to show how the film was presented in the series. I thought of doing that for Soultaker initially but decided not to at the end of the day. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the explanation, and that makes sense. Since MST3K has a rather substantial subsection (appropriately so), then I can now understand how the screenshot would help a reader who has never heard of or seen MST3K and would not understand how the riffing is done. You have convinced me that it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, the satirical TV series, spell out TV as television.
  • I would link to Mike Nelson (character) in this part, Michael J. Nelson, the show's head writer who also plays the character of the same name.
    • But that is Nelson himself saying that, not his fictional self. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I am asking you to link this part, the character of the same name, not change the link in the beginning. Since you mention the character in the prose, it should be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and linked it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would not the year that Nelson and Chaplin made these remarks as I think it helps the reader to better understand that one was around the time of the episode's release and the other was retrospective.
    • I don't understand what you mean here. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Nelson made his comments in 1995 (presumably in preparation for the episode airing early the next year) while Chaplin made his comments in 2001 (five years after the episode originally aired). I would add the years that each individual made these comments to the prose to give the reader a better understanding of the timeline, and I also think it adds to the reader's understanding of how this topic was a point of discussion around the time of the episode's release and years later. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Whoops, I had meant to say "I would add the year" instead of "I would not the year". Apologies for the typo there. I just noticed it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Okay added that in. GamerPro64 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the Variety review from the "External links" section and instead incorporate information from the review into the prose.
    • Added it in the right section. GamerPro64 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Perfect Neanderthal Man": Rondo Hatton as The Creeper and the Cultural Economy of 1940s B-Films has some useful analysis on the film. I would pair it with the Keith Brown parts.
    • Added in. GamerPro64 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This SyFy Wire (here) can be useful in two respects. It offers another negative retrospective review of the film, and provides a review of the MST3K episode, specifically saying "the episode lets Hatton be and focuses instead on the awful script and bizarre side characters, most notably the incredibly angry grocery store clerk".
  • As you have done for Squirm, include information on how the MST3K episode was released.
  • There are a few books put in the "Notes" subsection rather than the "Bibliography" subsection. They are Jaworzyn, the American Film Institute, Rigby, and Friedmann. It is also confusing how citation 13 looks like it would the "Bibliography" subsection, but instead links to the Rigby book citation in the same subsection. I'd move all of the books down to the "Bibliography" subsection for consistency.

Overall, good work with the article. I will read through the article again once the above comments are addressed to make sure I catch everything. I hope you both are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

image reviewEdit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Was the poster copyright renewed?
    • I have no idea how to check that. GamerPro64 00:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest starting here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I was told by them their database focused on books and not posters. GamerPro64 20:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:The_rocketeer_lothar.jpg is missing info on copyright holder. Ditto File:Mst3k_the_brute_man.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I updated their rationales. GamerPro64 00:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment from SpicyEdit

Sorry, just a passing comment, but I keep tripping over this sentence in the lead: Most experts tend to believe that Universal simply found the exploitation of the deceased Hatton and his deformity for the third time, in his last film (in which evidence of his impending demise may be foreshadowed in his acting), and of a poorly-developed story, to be detrimental to its corporate image but did not want to take a financial loss by simply shelving the film permanently. There are too many clauses here and it's very hard to follow (for example, "the exploitation of... a poorly developed story"? and I had to go back and read over the sentence again to figure out exactly what "its" refers to...) This could be split up into two or three sentences. Spicy (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I removed that entire part as I think that causes Undue weight in the lead. Meanwhile I expanded a bit in the lead to make it more meatier. GamerPro64 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brainEdit

Nice subject! An initial inquiry before I leave more comments:

  • Can you describe the decision-making process for whether or not to include a section on Themes? I've been noticing a trend in film articles of omitting what I would consider to be a critical piece of writing about a work of fiction. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Honestly I do not think people have looked into the themes in this movie and and looked more into how bad of a movie it was. But I do not see anything about the movies themes. GamerPro64 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

I can't promise I have time for a full review, but I'm always happy to chip in for an article on an old horror film.

  • Footnotes 12, 16, 20, 26, and 34 have harv errors -- the links are broken.
    • As mentioned above, I have no idea how to fix the broken links. GamerPro64 01:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • The bibliograpy entries have multiple authors, while the footnotes only have single authors -- that's your problem. I fixed one as an example. That said, I'm now seeing issues in the bibliography; I've listed some below. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the whole film PD? I'm struggling with the licensing on the screenshot. If it's all PD, I'd love to see more images!
    • Looking at my MST3K boxset, the movie is under license by Films Around the World Inc. Which I guess specialized in orphan works but their website doesnt work anymore so this seems to be some copyright limbo. GamerPro64 01:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I checked again. It is under Films Around the World so its not under public domain. Though it could have been taken from its movie trailer, if it had one. Those usually were not copywritten. GamerPro64 05:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok -- I think we're going to need something a bit firmer than that. I advise contacting the uploader. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sold on the use of File:Mst3k the brute man.jpg. I can see a bit more of a justification for the other screenshot, but I do think it's a toss up on whether it should be included.
    • If someone else is not keen on the screenshot, I can remove it. GamerPro64 01:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I see you note above that there has been no real analysis of the film; I had a sift through Google Scholar and came across this article, which definitely needs to be engaged with. At least one other chapter in that book mentions the film, but that one's a must.
    • I added it in. GamerPro64 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Was that all that was in the article and worth including? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the bibliography, as noted above, the following jumped out at me:

  • Inconsistent use of locations. I would recommend them for books, but definitely not for periodicals. I'd advise against linking locations. I'd also advise against providing publishers of periodicals, but courtesy links to the articles themselves would definitely be appreciated.
  • GOLEM looks like a real (albeit small) academic journal, though it appears to have dropped off the internet (which is worrying). Luckily, the article you're citing is here; may be some more content that can be pulled from it, but, at the very least, you can tidy up the bibliography a little.
  • At least a few of the books you're citing appear to be encyclopedias, handbooks, edited collections, etc. You should cite the particular chapter, rather than the book as a whole.
  • On the other hand, you do this wrong when it comes to the Legassic paper. If you don't know how to do this, see Template:Cite book#Examples.
  • You need page numbers for particular chapters/entries; you don't need page numbers when you're citing the whole book. Page numbers are provided in the footnotes.
  • Lulu is a self-publishing service. Is John Howard Reid a recognised expert in something relevant (e.g., history of film)? If not, I think that source will have to go.
  • The Forum is a postgrad journal, which I'd normally recommend against, but the author gained a doctorate on the topic of "terror films" and appears to have worked as a film critic, so I'm not completely opposed to it in this case.
  • I'm not sure how I feel about "Harbor Electronic Publishing" and Doug Pratt's DVD: Movies, Television, Music, Art, Adult, and More!. Why do you think this is reliable?

There may be other issues, too -- these are just some that jumped out at me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, with regret. I'm afraid there are enough issues with sourcing, images, and comprehensiveness for me to oppose right now. I'll be happy to withdraw the oppose if the sourcing and image issues are resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FAC again. It was undercooked the last time but has since had a copyedit, major restructurings, some expansions and a peer review. Have at it! LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I engaged at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beaver/archive1 and am satisfied that the article is now FAC-ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Alt texts shouldn't be the same as caption - if appropriate you can use |alt=see caption
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Western_pocket_gopher.jpg: where is the CC licensing coming from? Don't see that at given source
It was confirmed to have a CC license by FlickreviewR when it was first posted. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Beaver_Eating_Lilly_Pads_(15682458379).jpg: source link is restricted - is this meant to be CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
"Ditto" does not answer my question. Which license applies? CC is not PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Tierra del Fuego is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "he also classified the species name fiber" One doesn't classify a name, he coined or named it.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "German zoologist Heinrich Kuhl classified C. canadensis in 1820" Likewise.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Prior to that, many still considered them the same species" This is very handwavey. Who, when and why? And what did they consider them as, subspecies? Does anyone still believe this?
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "shows evidence of dam and lodge building" Like what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "C. californicus was similar to but larger than the extant North American beaver." But what is the relationship between them? Ancestor-descendant, or sister species?
Just closely related. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Eurasian beaver may have descended from C. praefiber." Which lived when and where?
That already states that Castor originated in Eurasia. I don't need to get into that level of detail. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It could be helpful if image captions stated which species are shown.
Don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it would help the reader perhaps learn to spot the differences, anyway, your choice. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Phylogeny of extant and extinct relatives of modern beavers." You could specify if this is based on genetics or morphology.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The see also section seems pointless.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Any difference in overall size and colouration between the species?
Not really. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "while the underfur are 2–3 cm" Is? Fur is singular.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The nostrils of the North American beaver are square shaped while those of the Eurasian species are triangular." Do you mean the fleshy nostril or the bony nostril?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Their four incisors are chisel-shaped with continuous growth." This could be interpreted as if they get chisel shaped during growth. If this is not what is meant, you should state "and they grow continuously" instead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " They have one opening, a cloaca, that contains the genital, digestive and excretory openings." Is this unique to them among rodents?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Should be stated then, as it's interesting but the reader won't know by the current wording. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The source doesn't compare them to other rodents in this regard. Are you saying some editorializing is justified here? LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • One puzzling aspect that needs explanation why has the American beaver been introduced to Europe when there is already a European species?
They were first introduced to an area were Eurasian beavers were absent. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not use European beavers then? Because they were scarce?
Doesn't say. I think that is relevent more to the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Small populations are also present in Mongolia and northwestern China, their numbers were estimated at 300 and 700 respectively as of 2016" Native or introduced?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This video[15] shows the beaver foraging clearer than the one used, where it is behind foliage for much of the time.
Don't care for the video quality and the people talking. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You could choose a more interesting thumbnail for the video by adding the thumb time parameter, as in the video in Quagga Project. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Beaver need trees" You should be consistent in whether you say beaver or beavers in plural.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Beavers can fell a tree in about one-and-a-half minutes on average" That is pretty vague, what size tree? Especially since right after you say "trees as large as 25 cm (9.8 in) can require over four hours".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You say both "parental" and "paternal" colonies, would be best to stick to one term, the one used by the source.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Other studies found the presence of beavers can increase wild salmon and trout populations; as well as their size." Explain how.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "As trees are drowned by rising beaver impoundments, they become ideal nesting sites for woodpeckers" You could specify their roots are drowned, otherwise one might be confused and think the entire tree is below water.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Beaver modifications to streams in Poland have been associated with increased bat activity." How come?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Dead trees caused by construction of a beaver dam" You should specify in the caption thjat this is in Argentina, to establish its relevance to the adjacent text. Also, not sure why this image should be smaller than the others, it is hard to see.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "However, areas with introduced beaver" Again, no reason not so say "beavers" here as you do everywhere else.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Any difference in behaviour between the species?
Not really. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The infobox image shows a beaver kind of sitting on its tail, poking forwards. Is there any behaviour associated with this that could be mentioned?
No but I added information on bipedalism. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is important to not ethe differences between the two species in the taxobox.
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Since this article is about both species, the genus overall, it is crucial that this point is made in the intro, since you otherwise don't give it any coverage there apart from simply stating there are two species. I'd agree if it had been about a single species or multiple species, but not here. Especially since the differences are so few and simple to explain. FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "they are considered to be a keystone species" You don't need "to be".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "the young will help their parent repair" Parents? As you say in the article body.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - that's it from me. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

  • Please include "as of 2016" in the caption of the range map. This makes clear that it is the current range map (and not the original distribution). Also, the map is out-of-date already concerning the distribution in Central Europe, so the exact year is needed in the caption.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Generally looks pretty good, a few nitpicks

  • Beavers are known for building dams and lodges — Why not Beavers build dams and lodges?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • castoreum, a urine-based substance — I don’t think that’s right, the secretion is a mixture of castoreum and urine, the catoreum appears to be derived from plant materials (also repeated this lower in text)
Pg. 13 of Müller-Schwarze and Sun "Beavers produce dilute urine. Concentrated in the "castor sacs", it becomes castoreum....." LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • he also classified the species name fiber — worth saying this is just the Latin for "fibre"?\
I don't see the need. This isn't the species article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 24 subspecies have been classified for C. canadensis while nine have been for C. fiber.—clunky, perhaps 24 subspecies have been proposed for C. canadensis and ninefor C. fiber.
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • due to the presence of iron — add compounds
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • their numbers estimated at 300 and 700 respectively as of 2016were estimated?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Depending on the circumference of the trunk, beavers can fell a tree in about one-and-a-half minutes; — So what thickness of tree can they fell in one-and-a-half minutes? This is meaningless as it stands
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • beaver activity in ponds warms the water — How?
By the see last paragraph of "infrastructure". LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The text there says During the winter, warm air coming out of the vent helps melt the snow and ice on the lodge., which appears to be warm air, not warm water. I can't see how beaver activity can significantly raise the temperature of a significant volume of water, which has huge thermal inertia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • injected into the ear on the same side as the tooth — Do you mean the into the ear opening?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "beaver" is also a slang term for beards and the female genital — Beard is wrong, it’s derived from a different word “beaver” for the medieval armour covering the lower part of the face, from French bavière, a child’s bib. Also, is it worth saying that the pubic meaning is mainly American?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hanif Al HusainiEdit

What is the meaning of the colors of the range map in the infobox? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

John Neal (writer)Edit

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A child laborer cheating backwoods customers on the waterfront of a bustling New England city and later smuggling contraband blankets during the War of 1812 grew up to be a productive, athletic, outspoken, and quarrelsome lawyer with remarkable influence on 19th-century literature, art, and feminism. His is a truly unique story. I addressed every issue raised in this article's first FA nomination, but it got archived for lack of any support or opposition. After the first nomination was closed I made considerable changes to the article for clarity, flow, and comprehensiveness, so I'm curious to hear from reviewers. I now bring it forth once again. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

Images are either so old that they are in the public domain, or else released under an appropriate free license (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The "Firsts" section includes noteworthy accomplishments but it would be better to cover them in prose, in the relevant section (i.e. when discussing the rights of women speech, mention that Neal was one of the first to advocate women's rights, in section on art criticism mention that he was a pioneer, etc.). Otherwise it comes across as WP:TRIVIA (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, especially after perusing WP:TRIVIA. All of the firsts are already included in prose elsewhere in the article, so I deleted this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • {{sfnm|Sears||1p=113|Fleischman 1983||2p=145}} is causing a ref error because it is not connected to the sources in the bibliography (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed! Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24Edit

  • Marking my place, will get to this in the next week or so. Some initial drive by comments:
  • I would link diction and colloquialism, especially if he was so important to their use
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few duplinks – you may want to install this script to easily identify them
Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed duplinks except in cases called for by WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Repeated links. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Your citations are inconsistent, Fleischmann 1983 and Neal 1869 have years in the citations but Lease and Lowell do not for example (thankfully this can be quickly fixed by going to "advanced" near the top of the source editor screen, and then clicking on the magnifying glass on the far right, and doing search for "{{sfn|Hawthorne|" "replace with "{{sfn|Lease|1973|}}" although it may be more tedious for bundled refs...) now that I'm looking closer it looks like you're putting the author and year in the same sfn instead of {{sfnm|Pattee 1937b||1p=22|Lease||2p=70}} really it should be {{sfnm|Pattee|1y=1937b|1p=22|Lease|2y=1972|2p=70}} Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do here, so I need a little more help if you can afford it. I had been following the citation format you recommend until I found that citations like the one you picked out causes errors when written as you wrote it out. It seems the problem may be in having two works by one author in the same year. What I could do is change each citation like "{{sfn|Lease|p=1}}" into "{{sfn|Lease 1973|p=1}}". Would that meet FA standards? I've combed through Template:Sfn and Template:Sfnm and can't find any solutions there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Mirokado suggested I break out all the sfnm citations into multiple sfn citations in the "{{sfn|Lease|1972|p=1}}" style. This would unfortunately create pileups of 2 citations in 69 places, 3 citations in 14 places, and 4 citations in 1 place, but it would allow me to be consistent in the author-year appearance of the citations. Any thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a common issue so no worries. The easiest and standard solution is to create an "a" and "b" year, so like "{{sfn|Lease|1973a|p=1}}" and "{{sfn|Lease|1973b|p=1}}". This should solve the issue if I understand it correctly? Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately that hasn't solved the problem. As you can see in the example you copied and pasted into your original comment above, one of the sources in that sfnm citation already has a year letter (Pattee 1937b). All of my sources have a ref= parameter that matches the citation, which is the way I've found to work around the problem of including year letters in sfnm. For authors who have only 1 work in my sources list, I use just their last name as the ref parameter, as in "Lease." For authors who have more than one work in the sources list, I use "last name year" as the ref parameter, as in "Fleischmann 1983." For authors who have multiple works in the same year, I use letters, as in "Pattee 1937b," or for magazines, "Neal December 1824." I like to think it is consistently inconsistent, which to me is consistent. Plus it is the only way I've been able to get all sfnm citations to link to my sources. If you still think I should change it, what do you recommend? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I found the issues and have fixed them accordingly, let me know if I messed up anywhere... Aza24 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I am amazed. Thank you so much for not only figuring out the problem I kept experiencing but for going through the article and making the complete update yourself. I really appreciate it. When I checked, every citation still links to the appropriate source. Let me know if you see other issues with this article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
(stalking, if I may) Yes, excellent work, Aza24. I have made a further edit to use the simpler sfnm syntax for concatenations of multiple single-author+year callouts. --Mirokado (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Splendid! I just checked all the sfnm citations and they all still link to their sources appropriately. Thanks for simplifying the code, Mirokado! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Do you have any more comments to share? It looks like the sfn/sfnm issue is resolved. I appreciate you bringing that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I believe it is and thanks Mirokado for spotting that simplification. I see below this review has received much attention and rather than nitpick on the prose I think I can help more by doing a formal source review. I'll do spotchecks as well since this is your first FA. My schedule has finally cleared up so I'll be able to do both in the next few hours. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks mostly good formatting wise, two main issues
  • ISBNs should be consistent, ISBN 13s are prefferable (they begin with a 978) and should either have all dashes or none have dashes (with is preferable). You can convert ISBN 10s (ones that do not begin with "978") to ISBNs 13s with the converter; the converter does the dashes to, though if you need to convert ISBN 13s to ISBN 13s with dashes you can just convert them to ISBN 10 and back again.
I like consistency. I just converted all ISBN10s to ISBN13s and removed the dashes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Locations are inconsistent, sometimes you have "City, State" and other times "City, [abbreviation of state]" should standardize to one of them.
I like consistency. I spelled out all state names, though I left Washington, DC as-is since it is so seldom referred to as Washington, District of Columbia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fiorelli has an OCLC here
Good point! Added. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliabillity looks good Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for combing through the sources! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • 306 is good but if you look at the google book there is actually more than one page 29 so perhaps this should be better clarified in the reference
The link brings up multiple publications that are all packaged together as one Google book. Two of those publications are in my sources list and both link the same Google book. I just added a postscript parameter to both listings that I think clarifies this. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "He was the first American to establish a public gymnasium in the US" having trouble verifying this; note f says he was the second so why is this listed as "first" in the lead?
I just reworded note F for clarity. That note summarizes citation 7. Citation 7 is 4 pages showing that all the gyms in the US preceding Neal's were either established by Germans and/or not open to the public. Hence my wording both in the lead and in the biography section that Neal was the first American to open a public gymnasium in the US. I think the rewording I just did should make that more clear. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see, well in any case it looks better now I think
  • 81, 184, 293 are good
  • I want to check more but many of the books don't have urls, would you be able to email me scans or copies of:
    • Lease 1972, p. 159.
    • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152.
    • Sears 1978, p. 93.

? (note, I may have to email you back first before it lets you send scans/pdfs/images) - Best Aza24 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have copies of Lease 1972, Fleischmann 1983, and Sears 1978, as well as a scanner, at home, so I'd be happy to send that to you. Let me know how to do that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
If you go to Preferences: User Settings, under "Email options" you can allow other users to email you. After this I can send you an email and you can respond with scans of the pages. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Done! Send me an email when you get a chance and I'll respond with PDFs. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891Edit

Will take a look as the week marches forward. drive-by first:

My interpretation of WP:LEDECITE tells me that I should retain citations only for "material...likely to be challenged," which I am interpreting to include only the superlatives, so I have made that edit. What do you think about that interpretation? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
If it's cited in the body, citations aren't needed, but it doesn't technically hurt to have them. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ", John Neal is the first author to use "son-of-a-bitch" in a work of fiction" interesting, but you only mention it twice in the body, and once as a quote. Does it merit a mention in the lede?
As a superlative illustration of Neal's pioneer role in colloquialism that also illustrates his nontraditional brand, I think it belongs in the lede. Thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • standardize between US and U.S.
The only uses of U.S. I see are in a quote and a book title, so I consider the use of US the standardized. Is there anything I'm missing? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

More in-depth stuff to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a quick look! I look forward to more comments. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891 any additional comments? (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully coming tomorrow. I'm not in the right mindset to review prose at the moment, though you will see me editing. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Saving the lede for last
  • You can link Portland, Maine on the first mention in the body
Don't mind if I do! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • of ""clear intellect, and no little self-reliance and independence of will"" i'd recommend "a woman described by Elizabeth Oakes Smith as having "..."" or something like that
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Due to financial constraints," left because he couldn't afford school or to supplement their income, or both?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "passing off counterfeit money" i'd link
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "magazine's second-most prolific – albeit unpaid" second most prolific unpaid contributor, or just the second most prolific?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? I'll look at more of your comments later. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • o Neal "cast about for something better to do—something, at least, that would pay better; and, after considering the matter for ten minutes or so, determined to try my hand at a novel." I was disoriented when the quote went to "my hand" because I had no idea he was being quoted until that point. That's something I think could be handled better.
I think Neal's characteristically wandering and experimental style is to blame here. I trimmed the quote to make the statement more direct. Do you think the typical reader would have an easier time reading that sentence now? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "seventy American novels had been published" what defines an 'American' novel?
Fair. I think my rewording of this sentence clears that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "and according to him, the catalyst was a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?"" It's still unclear to me where he went to until the end of the paragraph, for a reader (at least like me) it would be better to have that upfront in the para.
I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to get across is that the consensus among scholars is that the Pinkney affair and other tribulations put Neal in a state where he was emotionally ready for relocation and just needed something to nudge him to anywhere in particular. Neal's own recollection doesn't put much weight on the forces driving him from Baltimore, but he and the scholars agree that the dinner party gave him the idea to go to London. I think the rewording I just made clears that up without going into undue detail. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. I appreciate the comments! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Your changes look good to me
  • "when William Blackwood asked Neal to become a regular contributor" do we have a date?
We do! I just wove that in there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Just did. Thanks for the recommendation! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " but the back-and-forth over manuscript " maybe "a back-and-forth over manuscript", because there's not been a mention of it yet, but that's really a cosmetic change, no big deal either way
I like that change, so I just made it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " Neal was set adrift in London once again with no source of income" date? Not sure 'once again' is needed, but no big deal if you are wedded to it
Date added. Instead of removing "once again" I removed "set adrift" since the thing that happened again was being without income, not being set adrift. I think this sentence is clearer and more informative after these changes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Yet having failed to achieve international fame with the new great American novel" I think this could be clarified a bit, maybe "Yet having failed to achieve international fame and write a new great American novel" to clarify that none of his books yet were "the great new American novel", not sure that's the best phrasing though.
I get what you're saying. What do you think of the rewording I just made? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Residents posted broadsides" how, exactly would they post "the side of a ship, the battery of cannon on one side of a warship"?
Ha! I'm talking about Broadside (printing). Wikilink fixed. Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "and uplift new literary voices" maybe "promote" instead of 'uplift'? I think it sounds more encyclopedic
I went for "encourage" instead to reflect not only the promotion to readers but the encouragement he offered new writers through direct correspondence and published praise. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from MirokadoEdit

I hope to have a look this weekend. Just to get started:

  • Rights of American Indians: please resolve the dab [[General Jackson|Andrew Jackson]]

--Mirokado (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for finding this. I accidentally swapped the two phrases on either side of the pipe. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Childhood and early employment
    • "At seventeen years old ...": this seems clumsy. "At seventeen years of age ..." for example.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Family and civic leadership
    • "... Neal became less active ...reduced Neal's reliance ...": no confusion of subject here, "his" would be OK for the second occurrence.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Can we add a sentence or so about his "book-length religious tract, One Word More"? Doctrine, motivation?
Since nothing else is mentioned of Neal's religion aside from his Quaker upbringing, I agree that this context is needed, so I just added that. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This is good coverage of the evolution of his own religious faith. If it is also possible to add a phrase about the message or motivation of the book itself, that would also be good. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I just added a little more about the book itself. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That is OK now, thank you. Perhaps we can add "One Word More (1854) Full text" to the Selected Works section under Other works? It is an example of a completely different subject area from the rest. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Scholars tend to disregard the work, but I like your idea that including it in that section expands the reader's understanding of the breadth of his interests as a writer. That's why I included Portland Illustrated, which scholars also tend to ignore, though I am partial because I am a Portland native and it's the first of his books I read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, fine now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • "Neal died on June 20, 1876 and ...": I think that sentence reads better with the full name: "John Neal died ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Building a career in Baltimore
    • Is it possible to add a phrase about the Delphian Club, in the absence of its own article?
I could do that. I agree that since it doesn't have an article of its own, the club should get a little more context here. I added something; let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
That is fine. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Novels
    • Capitalise "The" in the title the New Englanders?
The "the" in Brother Jonathan′s title is not capitalized on the book's title page or in the academic bibliographies, so I think I should stick with the way it is now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree it is OK, the whole title including alternative is italicised as one, I missed that. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • "Seventy-Six is considered one of Neal's most readable novels to a modern audience" early in the section and "Rachel Dyer: a North American Story (1828) is widely considered ..., most readable for a modern audience": Neither of these are wrong, but when reading the second, I had to go back over the paragraph to check whether I had understood the first correctly. Stylistically, this is a repetition which we should try to avoid by rephrasing. In any case "for a modern audience" is probably better, so the first occurrence should be changed.
I totally see what you're saying here. Upon reflection, I think the first occurrence isn't that important, so I just cut it, which solves the problem. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "favoring landscapes over history painting and focusing more on trades painting.": "trades painting" is not a term of art I am familiar with, neither does it appear in a simple google search as a term in its own right. It is reasonable to retain this if it appears in the reference. I think this is an aspect of genre painting so I would suggest linking to that: [[genre painting|trades painting]].
I see how "trades painting" doesn't really stand well on its own as a term, so I replaced it with "sign painting and applied arts," which pretty well encompasses what I meant by the term. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This is much clearer, thank you. "I the interested reader" am left wondering what sort of things he was actually reviewing during that latter stage, so a phrase-worth of extra detail would do no harm. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure! I added a phrase here that I think may satisfy this curiosity about Neal's taste for trades painting. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This is much better, thank you. The sentences have become rather long. I will comment further on this later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I just broke up the long sentence about trades painting and reworded the previous one a little. Let me know if you think this area needs more work. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Still not happy here, I'm afraid. I should emphasise that I don't quite believe the current content but do not know enough to be sure how to improve it.

  • Timing: "... but less the middle of the decade" is probably missing "by", but what I have been able to see in Orestano suggests that mentioning the late 1820s may be more appropriate: several mentions of 1828 and "by the late 1820s landscape and even still life were being mentioned by Neal. In his manner of doing so, Neal seems now to be capable to discuss and challenge ... Reynolds." (p. 134). This is partly a question of nuance, or the beginning and end of a process, so I may have missed something (the source is not an easy read). Correction or clarification and perhaps extra source references are needed.
You're right about my typo. I'll get that as I re-write this section again for the other reasons we are discussing here. What I interpreted as a mid-20s shift was Orestano's mention (pp. 132-133) of Neal's Blackwood's articles over 1824 and 1825. But Orestano spends many more pages on Neal's essays in 1828 and 1829, as you correctly point out. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Genres: The mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration" in Orestano (p. 133) is referring to the background of Chester Harding, a portrait painter Neal praises. The mention on p. 141 relates similarly to the experiences of landscape painter Charles Codman. It is clear from that, that Neal appreciated sign painting and so on, but this is in the context of his enthusiasm for landscapes. On Orestano p. 139 there is the "bitter" quote from 1829 criticising portrait paintings. I don't think we get the right idea if we list landscapes, portraits, sign painting, and applied arts all together without any differentiation. I'm seeing a change in enthusiasm from portraits to landscapes and an awareness of the importance of other genres. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I really appreciate you looking into Orestano's piece yourself. Your comments have prompted me to re-read it myself. This world of art criticism history is on the edge of my focus area and understanding here, so I really appreciate the extra pair of eyes on this section. After the re-read I agree that I was misinterpreting Orestano's mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration." Really, Neal is special in the late 1820s for giving so much airtime to portraits (qualified by the "bitter" quote you mentioned and what Orestano called a "eulogy of portrature" on page 141), landscapes, and engravers. That's how I'm reading it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of the current version of this section? Aside from the timing and genres issues you mentioned, I reordered two of the paragraphs and reworded a couple other things in that section in the hopes of flow improvement. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This is now much better and flows well. Mentioning engravings is a good improvement. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "Neal's approach to art criticism" seems incomplete without a mention of his opinion of portrait painting since he becomes concerned about the honesty of the artist anxious to please the customer rather than the art itself. It seems that he expressed his desire for "unadulterated truth" particularly clearly when talking about portraits. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I just added an extra sentence that speaks to the gap you just described. Because the two mentions of Reynolds were so far apart at that point, I broke out his second mention into an extra paragraph. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
That is a very well constructed insertion, avoiding disrupting the narrative or adding undue weight. I changed "wikt:prerogatives" to "priorities". Thank you for your patience during what became a long series of comments! --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw your word replacement and I appreciate it. This section of the article is more accurate, comprehensive, and readable thanks to your diligence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Style
    • "of his American predecessors/contemporaries": this is bad style :) . Please fix by saying " and " or whatever instead of "/".
I agree. I think "contemporaries" applies well here on its own, so I just removed "predecessors." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • "By contrast, he felt that "to succeed..., I must be unlike all that have gone before me" and issue "another Declaration of Independence, in the great Republic of Letters"[148] by exploiting distinctly American ...": This sentence conflates the quotes with how he realised his intention. Please split, for example "... in the great Republic of Letters".[148] He did this by exploiting ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! The article is better for it. Looking forward to more. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have copyedited, including using {{"'}} and {{'"}} for typographic spacing of nested quotes, and:

Thanks for the {{"'}}s. First time I've seen that and I like how it makes the article easier to read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "... though he didn't receive this recognition ...": "did not" is preferable for an encyclopedia article.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Drama and theatrical criticism
    • "but he never achieved this goal": "... that goal" would be better for something well in the past.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Feminism
    • Missing close of quotation, probably after "... I went to work."
Good eye! Corrected. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • "He cofounded the ... and co-founded ...". One or the other!
Again, good eye. Corrected --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Militia tax
    • please find a suitable wikilink for this or add a brief explanation.
When I looked I couldn't find a good matching Wikilink for the Militia tax, but it is referred to as a poll tax, so I added that link and spelled it out the rest of the way. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That is fine, thank you. I think you could repeat the link for militia here, since the other link is along way away and here it is the main focus of the section. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading the Feminism section, I am very pleased indeed that I started reviewing this article on the day that Kamala Harris was projected to be the first woman Vice-President Elect of the United States! As you quote Neal saying: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law". I've now got down to Banruptcy law. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. These comments have been so helpful, so I look forward to a few more about the last bit of the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No further requests for the remaining sections. A good choice of quote box in the Scattered genius section. I will comment about the citation handling and read through the whole article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I love that preface and I think it goes well in the reflective Legacy section. I appreciate you taking more time to consider the citations and to give it another read-through. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments about sfn etc to come. Everything else mentioned above here is now OK from my point of view. and I will read through the article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

sfn and friends are OK now after Aza24's update. While looking at those, I noticed that citation details for (now) Wells & Carson 2012a were repeated for each chapter cited. One way of improving that is as done in another featured article, Carl Nielsen. It is much easier to show by doing than specify in detail, so I did it. You are welcome to revert or change further if you wish. There may be other similar cases. And while doing that I noticed:

I like this change! To be consistent, I applied the same change to the 2018 DiMercurio book. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
That handles those citation dates better too. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The chapter title for Watts 2012 does not include the chapter number, as for the other citations.
Oops! I just added that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There are various citations in which the |editor2-* parameters appear before the |editor1-* parameters in the source. Even though the resulting display is still correct, I would change that to avoid confusion. --Mirokado (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Since it looks like all the concerns you raised have been addressed, do you support this nomination or do you want to leave your comments as just comments? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading through a second time, I will post again in an hour or so. --Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In the lead: "for over fifty years he supported female writers and organizers": did he also support female painters? "writers" here is rather specific. Two female painters are mentioned later, one he courted, the other he sat for.
I haven't seen any evidence of Neal focusing any of his work on female artists, whereas, whereas Fleischmann (1983, p 145) makes a point of showing how his literary criticism in The Yankee disproportionately supported women. So I think that sentence in the lead is appropriate as written on this point. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
That is OK, thanks for the confirmation. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neal claimed his lifelong struggle with a short temper and violent tendencies originated in public school": perhaps "in the public school" here, since we have just mentioned the particular public school he attended.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Two years later he took over as editor for the last issue.": This sounds ominous! Did he know it was going to be the last issue?
The article used to include a longer version of this story, but I trimmed it down during the first FAN. The story is essentially that Watkins, the editor, handed off editorship to Neal before leaving on the army tour described in his article, assuring Neal all he had to do was polish off the copy. Neal was dismayed to find he had to write most of it himself and that the magazine was also apparently on its last legs for many reasons, so Neal successfully released that issue, but was unable to keep it running any further. It's really something I ought to add to The Portico, but I think is too much detail here. So I just changed the wording to "he took over as editor for what ended up being the last issue." Do you think that sufficiently avoids the ominous tone? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that is OK now. It would be good if you can update The Portico with that background when you have time. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. There are a few things from my research on Neal that I could add to expand that article beyond stub status. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Pierpont's financial success with The Airs of Palestine": "with his poem ...", since the context of the paragraph is novels.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "if he was present to negotiate.": subjunctive is better here: "if he were present to negotiate."
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "He offered lessons in boxing and fencing in his law office.": So much more satisfying than the modern tactic of last resort: "challenge the law; if that doesn't work, challenge your opponent; if that doesn't work, bang on the table."
Agreed. Makes you wonder how much his law and athletics practices overlapped. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "... would remain so for the following twenty years." Perhaps interesting to say what supplanted it? I've no idea.
The full quote is "Not until Cooper's Littlepage Trilogy (1845-1846) did the literature of the United States see a unified work of fiction remotely as complex, ambitious, and demanding as John Neal's expansive Brother Jonathan." There is no Littlepage Manuscripts, though there are articles for the first two of the three novels in that trilogy, but not the third. So I decided that naming the trilogy would not satisfactorily enrich the claim about Brother Jonathan, though I am second-guessing that now, of course. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We do need something here, but I agree that our current coverage of the Littlepage Manuscripts does not justify a mention. This can be fixed later during the course of normal editing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to "Brother Jonathan: or, the New Englanders was the most 'complex, ambitious, and demanding' American novel until Cooper's Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy twenty years later." I think the way I had it worded before just raises the question of what work 20 years later the article was referring to, so I think naming it is worthwhile even though the trilogy is not well covered yet by Wikipedia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed! Being a Mainer, I didn't think of it. Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Many scholars conclude that nation's most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...": Can we omit "nation's"? This construction would need "... conclude that that nation's ..." and it would be better in any case to avoid the forward reference to "that nation" which seems redundant. Thus "Many scholars conclude that most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...".
Agreed! Word deleted. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished the second read though. All the above are quite minor, I look forward to supporting once they are dealt with one way or another. --Mirokado (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading it through again. Let me know your thoughts on the two questions I posed above. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is a well written article about a relatively unknown American author with an astonishingly wide range of interests. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

To the coordinators: I think this article would be an excellent candidate for TFA on inauguration day (January 20, 2021), considering his early promotion of womens' rights and the inauguration of America's first female vice-president. The quote from Neal again: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law" --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "public gym" Why gym rather than gymnasium?
Good question. I originally used gymnasium throughout because that's the term used at the time and felt more appropriate here for an old-school Turnen facility. But because gymnasium can refer to many different things and whereas the article for what I'm talking about is under gym, I decided later to use the latter, though now that I'm looking at it, I realize that I have one image caption still using gymnasium. Writing this out now, I'm feeling inclined again to switch back to gymnasium and [[gym]]nasium. What are your thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Neal's business failure had left him without enough "money to take a letter from the post-office,"[33]' It might be worth footnoting that in that era, recipients of letters were responsible for postage.
Agreed! I just added a footnote that I think makes this clarification. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neal was able to pay his expenses while completing his apprenticeship and independently studying law." Somewhere, the term reading law should be used or piped.
I didn't know this article existed! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I just added the Wikilinked phrase in place of "apprenticed with a lawyer." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You mention that he argued cases before the Supreme Court. Is there no more to be said about that? Like which cases, at the very least and their citations. Plus any known reaction from the justices.
Thank you for bringing this up! Looking further into it, I see that he was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court Feb 1823 and was involved in only one Supreme Court case, which he left to Charles F. Mayer and David Hoffman before he left for England. The case is Chirac v. Reinicker, which seems pretty marginal and doesn't have its own article, though it is redlinked from List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 27. And that is all to say that the current language isn't accurate, so I just changed it. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I would add the citation, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 280 (1826) after the case name and a comma. Did he argue it? You still say he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the scrutiny here since law is a bit outside my wheelhouse and Neal's law career is obviously overshadowed in the scholarship by his literary and activist careers. The scholarship says he was paid a retainer as one of five counsel on the case but that "little appears to have been done" on it before he left Baltimore. This tells me I should nix the language about the case and focus instead on his more clear status as having been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court as the accomplishment worth mentioning in this sentence. Let me know if you have further thoughts on this. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning, or it might not. It's very common today for a lawyer to be a member of the Supreme Court bar. I am, and I've never submitted a document or argued a case there. Thirty years ago it cost fifty bucks, and it's a nice certificate. Don't know how it was in 1823, I'm giving you this to show it can sound like a bigger deal than it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Did I mention that I appreciate your lawyer's perspective here? I can find no evidence to suggest that being a member of the Supreme Court bar in 1823 was a bigger deal than now, except for Neal's indignation that the Cumberland Bar in Maine suggested in 1827 that they would block his membership though he was a "Counsellor of the Supreme-Court of the United States for several years." Given that he earned admission precisely 3 years after joining the state bar, which I understand is the requirement to this day, I am inclined to believe what you suggest that this is not worth mentioning after all. I just deleted that part of the sentence in question. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I see they now charge $200!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You use Quaker unlinked and then later link Society of Friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:DUPLINK, I decided to link Quaker on first appearance and then leave it unlinked in subsequent appearances. I decided to keep Society of Friends linked even though it goes to the same place because SOF is a different phrase that many who are vaguely familiar with Quakers may not understand. Do you have thoughts on that? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "For the next year and a half, Neal made his living writing for Blackwood's." Citation needed.
Good call. After looking up where I got that impression, I decided to reword that language to stick a little closer to the claims made in those sources. I added citations to match. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "sent adrift" I think you mean "set adrift".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Precisely! Thank you for noticing. I just fixed that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I added a footnote at the term's first occurrence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Up to Activism, will handle that and the remainder either later today or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Great. I'm looking forward to more comments. I appreciate you taking the time. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I read through the remainder and made some minor edits. Excellent work. I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Neal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

John Young (astronaut)Edit

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle-era astronaut, John Young. This article just passed its GA nomination, and I hope to continue its improvement to FA status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Passing comments from Spicy

Nice work on the article. I am not feeling up to doing a full review at the moment, but here are a few things I noticed while skimming.

  • Check that ref numbers are in order.
    Think I fixed all instances (I'm sure I'll notice one that I missed as soon as I submit this comment). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:20-02-001-aviation.jpg is a derivative work. What's the copyright status of the original artwork?
    I never checked *facepalm* beyond seeing that the photo itself wasn't copyrighted, but I see that I'm wrong with that plan. I'll remove it for the time being and see if I can find any copyright info. My assumption is that it is copyrighted and unavailable for free use. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how and are high quality reliable sources?
    I was under the impression that they were. But to cover my bases, I have replaced the CollectSpace interview with interviews published by NASA at the same event, and I replaced the Astronautix source with scholarly work published by Steven Hawley in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
CollectSPACE is edited by Robert Pearlman, who is a recognized space historian. I think it's been discussed at one of my Apollo FACs, favorably, but I'd have to poke through.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good then - to be clear I wasn't implying that these sources are unreliable, just that it wasn't entirely obvious to me that they are RS from a quick look. Spicy (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am concerned by the article's heavy reliance on Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and Space, which is an autobiography and not really an independent source. Have all possible sources been consulted?
    I'll see if I can find more sources about the missions, as well as anything else about his life. Information about his pre- and post-spaceflight careers was surprisingly sparse (or my Google skills are lacking) and I relied a lot more on his autobiography than I wanted to. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    Definitely realizing that I was lazier than I should have been regarding multiple resources (including some that I had either as a PDF on my computer or a book on my shelf) and am working my way through improving the refs (and the content) of the mission sections. Not finding much more about Young's early life or his time in management. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Spicy: Did what I could to reduce the use of Young's autobiography; could I get your thoughts on it now? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

I gather ref improvement is in progress so I'll hold off on reviewing until I'm pinged. Some of the books by Burgess or French contain short bios of some of the astronauts, I'll look through what I have and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a thumbnail bio, a page or two, in Colin Burgess's Moon Bound: Choosing and Preparing NASA's Lunar Astronauts. If you send me an email I can email you a copy or alternatively tell you where you can download one if it's too big to send.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Completed the ref improvement (famous last words)! Looking at the info in the Burgess book, is there much additional info about Young's early like/late career in the provided bio? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I will let you know. Meantime, I'll proceed.
  • I think his selection as an astronaut, which group/year would be usefully in lede.
  • " He completed a Pacific deployment as fire control and division officer in the Sea of Japan during the Korean War." Presumably this was aboard the Laws and I would say so, it reads oddly to describe him as in the Sea of Japan with no mention of ship.
  • "In 1962, Young was assigned to fly with Fighter Squadron 143 (VF-143) until his selection as an astronaut candidate in September 1962" Astronaut candidate? As I understand it, when they were selected by NASA, they became astronauts.
  • Removed "candidate." Definitely something I had read previously and I didn't think about it when I was typing that. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Young was assigned to work on the environmental controls system and survivor gear. Young's group selected the David Clark G3C pressure suit," I might say control rather than controls. The word "group" could be taken to refer to the Group II astronauts, or to the people he was working with in his specialty at NASA.
  • Typo on controls, and I replaced "group" with "team" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "On the third orbit, Young fired the retrorocket " singular or plural?
  • Is it worth mentioning that Young was reprimanded over the sandwich?
  • Could you clarify what you're asking? Do you think the sandwich description/subsequent investigation is too long and its not worth mentioning, or do you think there should be more info about Young getting reprimanded? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't mention the reprimand. I'm asking whether it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "After Gemini 3, Grissom and Young were assigned as backup commander and pilot for Gemini 6A" I guess if you want to be technical, when they were assigned, it was for Gemini 6. That was changed to 6A after the mission did not launch when it was supposed to.
  • "The primary mission of Gemini 10 was to dock with an Agena target vehicle and use its engines to maneuver, which had been a failed objective of Gemini 8 and Gemini 9. " The maneuvering failed, yes, but Gemini 8 did dock with an Agena. I'd be clearer.
  • "At 3:39 PM, the Agena target vehicle launched and successfully entered orbit. Gemini 10 launched as scheduled at 5:20 PM on July 18, 1966 from LC-19," I'd mention the date early on.
  • "PM" Don't we lower case am and pm?
  • "After 18 hours into the flight," This is odd phrasing
  • I really question whether tears need a link.
  • "due to irritation from the anti fog compound in their masks. Masks or helmets?
  • "After the crew was recovered aboard the ship, flight controllers completed several burns on the Agena target vehicle because putting it in a 352 kilometers (219 mi) circular orbit to be used as a target for future missions.[7]:350" You use "because" but never give a reason.
  • "On November 13, 1968, NASA announced that the Apollo 10 crew would be commanded by Stafford and with Cernan as the Lunar Module Pilot and Young as Command Module Pilot." Shouldn't this be in order of rank?
  • "To get realistic training, mission control linked the Command Module and Lunar Module simulators to work with the crew in two spacecraft simultaneously." I'm not sure you're making your point. Maybe "to get realistic training, Young in the Command Module simulator, and Stafford and Cernan in the Lunar Module simulator, were linked with each other and with mission control." That's probably not perfect, but it gets the point across.
  • "Apollo Program manager" Apollo Program Spacecraft manager. The Apollo Program manager was Sam Phillips.
  • "Duke exposed both the primary and backup crews to the German measles, causing Swigert to replace Ken Mattingly, who was not immune to German measles, two days prior to the launch.[10]:88[11]" I would suggest the passive voice, so "causing the replacement of Ken Mattingly by Swigert", as it is it sounds like an usurpation. I might identify Mattingly as the prime crew's CMP.
  • "To prepare for their EVAs, Young and Duke participated in field exercises to prepare for the geological research." I'd avoid the double use of prepare.
  • "Young tripped over the cables to the heat flow sensors, which broke their communication link with Earth.[12]" I'd make it clearer these were the sensors' communication links, not the astronauts.
  • Check capitalization of "crater" for consistency.
  • I suspect you have the wrong Christmas Island. I think you want the one in Kiribati.
  • "SRBs" and these are?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Young and the other three early Space Shuttle astronauts were cited in the award of the Collier Trophy to NASA and others, although they didn't get it themselves.
I've made a fair number of hands on edits. Give it a careful read please. I will do the same once you're done with this.
Thanks for your edits; definitely not surprised but a little embarrassed with how many silly errors I managed to put in this article. I'll address your comments in the coming days; thanks for them! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I will reproduce some text from Moon Bound on the talk page of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 7Edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... the first Apollo crewed mission to enter space, famous at the time but soon overshadowed and almost forgotten today except for the "mutiny" aspect which led to it not only being the last hurrah for Wally Schirra (who had already announced his retirement) but for the other astronauts as well.Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


Is the lead image really the right one? The television aspect is just barely mentioned in the lead. Many readers don't read past the lead and so it seems to me that a more representative image might be something else, such as an image of the rocket. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've used the rocket.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Strongly disagree The most representative image of a space flight is not necessarily the launch rocket, but rather an image of something for which the flight is iconically notable. For instance, Apollo 11 is known for the first human landing on the Moon, and so our lead image of the featured article is the picture of Buzz Aldrin standing on the lunar surface. Apollo 7 is known for being the first crewed Apollo flight after the Apollo 1 fire, and the public at the time probably remembered it for the first live telecast of the astronauts in flight. The rocket just makes the article run-of-the-mill. Please put the TV photo back in the lead. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with JustinTime55. While I do like launch pictures, I think the television photo is a better choice for the lead image. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Balon GreyjoyEdit

  • I think the background section should lead the Crew/Mission Control section. As the article stands, the first part of the body immediately goes into listing the astronauts, and then the subsequent section discusses their selection.
I've merged the sections. I feel you have to introduce the astronauts before you discuss them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "the test that had taken the lives of the Apollo 1 crew" should be rewritten (my take is replace the bold text with "killed") per WP:EUPHEMISM
OK--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "and when he departed the spacecraft area as the pad was evacuated prior to launch, after Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going," Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went."" This doesn't make much sense. If I remember correctly (I think it was Schirra's bio) the joke here is that Wendt was in the capsule until he absolutely had to leave prior to launch, and Cunningham was making it seem like he's actually coming along for the mission. It's a pretty inconsequential detail about the mission, especially since Wendt didn't get trapped in or overstay the time he was supposed to be there, and doesn't need to be included.
The joke is Guenter Wendt/Guenter went sound the same. This is a well known incident (as such things go), though sometimes Schirra is incorrectly given credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Did the Apollo 7 CSM have a name? I can't find any listed, but it's an abrupt end to the paragraph that Schirra wanted to give it the name Phoenix and NASA denied him.
I've filled this out some.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "used on all subsequent Apollo program missions" As stated later in the page, the Saturn 1B was used again on the Apollo-Soyuz mission and the Skylab flights. While it's true that it was never used again on another Apollo program mission, I don't think this is a necessary detail, as it's splitting hairs between Apollo missions and other missions flying almost identical hardware.
OK. I've massaged this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "It differed from its predecessors in carrying less telemetry" As far as I know, telemetry is the data itself, not the machines measuring it. I'm assuming this should be "less telemetry equipment." That being said, it still had an enormous number of sensors that provided flight data, so unless the unmanned missions carried a significant amount more of the equipment, it doesn't seem like a relevant detail.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "the all-important engine that would place Apollo into and out of lunar orbit" remove "all important", as there are plenty of other important components whose failure would have resulted in a mission cancellation, and maybe rephrase it to say "future Apollo CSMs" to eliminate any confusion on what part of Apollo is being discussed, and why they care since they won't be going to the moon on this particular mission.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "had been fired only on a test stand, and although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner, necessitating an early end to the mission" This seems like a bit of a run on sentence. Also, isn't this the case for almost all the engines on a given mission (minus some redundancy in the first stages)?
I think the RCS engines could not get them in a mess the SPS engine could not get them out of, but the reverse was probably not true. Sentence split.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Eisele remembered being startled by the sudden violent jolt they received upon first activating the SPS, leading to Schirra yelling "Yabba dabba doo!" in reference to The Flintstones cartoon." I know it says Eiesele remembered because his book is being referenced and that Schirra yelled because of the jolt, but this currently reads like Schirra yelled "Yabbba dabba doo" because of Eisele remembering something. I would just rephrase it to say that the RCS caused a sudden jolt, which caused Schirra to yell.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "within perhaps 150 feet (46 m) of the S-IVB" I'm guessing it says "within perhaps 150 feet" because that is what the source material says, but I don't think an exact number should be given if the question is also being asked if its accurate. If there is nothing definite about how close they station kept, I would just leave it as "close" and let the picture of the rendezvous demonstrate that they were close by.
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Schirra, a captain in the Navy, liked his coffee" While military people stereotypically drink coffee, I think saying that Schirra was "a captain in the Navy" implies that he only liked it because he was in the Navy, or that non-Navy folks wouldn't be so enthusiastic to drink it. It makes just as much sense to say that "Schirra liked his coffee..."
In this case, Schirra says, 'Oh, no. This is terrible. You're asking a Navy guy to give up coffee. You're crazy.". I think that's something more than "Schirra liked coffee.".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
While I understand the point Schirra was trying to make, I can say from firsthand experience that other service branches also enjoy their coffee and the Navy as an organization doesn't have ownership of coffee drinking. Maybe rephrase it to something along the lines of "Schirra insisted on bringing coffee on the flight, despite..." to highlight that it wasn't just that he enjoyed the occassional cup of joe but that he really wanted to bring it along. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the insisted part but I otherwise went along the lines you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "One difficulty that was encountered was with the sleep schedule, which called for one crew member to remain awake at all times; Eisele was to remain awake while the others slept." I'm assuming there were also times when Cunningham and Schirra were the only crewmember awake? This reads like it all fell on Eisele to be up by himself and everyone else could sleep.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the quotations around "Mutiny" or rephrase it (maybe with "Crew protests") per MOS:QUOTEPOV. I know it's often referred to as the "mutiny in space", but the quotes make it seem like the article is implying doubt on if it was actually a mutiny.
  • "Cunningham heard the rumors and confronted Kraft in early 1969; Kraft denied making the statement "but his reaction wasn't exactly outraged innocence." Kraft commented in his memoirs, "it was like having a ringside seat at the Wally Schirra Bitch Circus." Rephrase "the rumors" as it's not clear to what rumors it is referring to, since the previous sentence just says that by some accounts Kraft spoke to Slayton, and doesn't make it seem like it was a rumor going around. I'm assuming Kraft is calling the mission the "Wally Schirra Bitch Circus," but this reads like that is his name for when Cunningham confronted him, which doesn't make much sense. The quote describing Kraft denying the statement doesn't really have a neutral point of view. It presents both sides of the argument but then makes it seem as if Kraft can't be trusted, when that is really just Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's response, and I don't think the accuser can be seen as a fair judge here.
I've removed the bitch circus. Remember that NPOV can be the result of giving several very partisan points of view. There is no certain truth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not just say that that Cunningham confronted Kraft, but he denied making the statement? It's already a questionable denial, as the previous sentence says that Kraft did say it, according to some account. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say that's incomplete. Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's denial is germane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove "messy" before divorce as that is tough to judge objectively, and also find a way to work in the part about him being the first astronaut to divorce without the use of parentheses, as it is an abrupt statement in the sentence
Yes, I've edited it, but there are several books that indicate that it wasn't just the divorce. The Astronauts Wives Club sympathized with Harriett, and their husbands were uncomfortable with Eisele's new wife Susie, who knew too much about what they got up to in Cocoa Beach. Worden subsequently got a divorce with very little blowback and it wasn't just because Eisele had broken trail for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a better was to describe Eisele's performance as backup CMP? Casual doesn't really state how he acted; maybe "laziness?"
Changed to "indifferent'.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Include when Eisele resigned from the Astronaut Office and military
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To keep the section chronological, move the Exceptional Service Medal paragraph up before the paragraph starting with "None of the Apollo 7 crew members flew in space again"
I've rejigged the paragraphs somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Since the article states that Eiesle and Schirra died before receiving their Distinguished Service Medal, there death years should be put in there, rather than at the end of the section.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Depends on your definition of "at" vs "next to," but I would just state that the Frontiers of Flight Museum is at Love Field, since its parking lot connects to the taxiway.
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm very biased here, but I like the photo of the command module
I will let the reviewers settle it. I don't have a strong view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I was kidding to some degree (but I am glad to see it in the article). I took that photo a few years ago at the museum! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I know in my previous reviews of your nominations I have been critical of the use of direct quotations. The direct quotes that I address below are ones that I believe should be paraphrased, most of which aren't direct quotes from primary sources. I understand the importance of quoting first hand descriptions and communications, but I don't believe that secondary sources should be directly quoted, as the quoted material is itself a paraphrase and rewriting of what occurred.

Many of these touch on the mutiny and can't adequately be dealt with using primary sources such as the Mission Report and the voice log. There is no real mention of it in the Mission Report, other than veiled references in the pilots' report. There are some things that can be gotten from the voice log, but we're going to have to be guided by the secondary sources there to tell us what is significant. A lot of this is how it was perceived, both by the astronauts and by those on the ground. Quotes from the participants (astronauts, Kraft, others) tells us how they perceived this, and the secondary sources tell us how historians have viewed what is, after all, what Apollo 7, to the extent it is remembered, is remembered for. Maybe it's me as a lawyer, but I tend to view letting the sources speak for themselves as superior to me paraphrasing and possibly misinterpreting or losing nuance, to say nothing of the potential POV pitfalls of speaking in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that these opinions are important and that its important to use secondary sources to get a historical viewpoint, I maintain that some of the quotes should be paraphrased. I understand it's up for interpretation on what should and shouldn't be rewritten, but using MOS:QUOTATIONS as a guide makes me think there should be more paraphrasing, and direct quotes should only be used from the participants themselves. While I understand the threat of your own POV when rewriting it, I think any editor's POV is going to come through in what they do and do not chose to include, including quotes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I've paraphrased some but not all. I get it, you would do it otherwise, I've read several of yours. But there are multiple paths to the same object, and I don't see policy or MOS against having quotes from secondary sources. Indeed, it seems routinely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "to confirm the livability and safety of the redesigned command module over the length of a lunar mission, prove the reliability of the module's big rocket engine needed for entering and leaving lunar orbit, test the navigation and guidance system's ability to direct an orbital rendezvous, and execute a precise reentry and splashdown" As far as I can tell from the Tom Jones article, these objectives aren't directly quoted from any official document for the mission. This should either be put into new words or quoted from the source material.
I've paraphrased this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Schirra stating it was "riding like a dream"" I think this is unnecessary, as it's not an opposing view from Schirra, just his term to describe the smooth ride
I cut this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Eisele called it "a real boot in the rear"" Similar to the previous quote, this is just an additional quote supporting the previous sentence, but it doesn't add to it. It's just Eiesele using a euphemism to describe the sudden jolt.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "according to authors Francis French and Colin Burgess, "The redesigned Apollo spacecraft was better than anyone had dared to hope."" This secondary source material should be paraphrased or removed. If how it performed is going to be compared to the expectations, those should be compared (did they do extra tests, did expect backups not need to be used, etc.)
I think this is something that requires interpretation, and cannot be gotten from the primary source materials, these are experts in the field of Apollo, and their opinion is worth telling the reader about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as later in the article there is discussion from primary sources (Gen Phillips, Kraft, etc.) that the mission conducted everything it should and outperformed expectations, I think this is redundant, as those quoted individuals down below are likely the "anyone" that French and Burgess are discussing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
This is more as a way of discussing the extensive testing that went on without having to catalogue it all, by way of a summary. I think it is better done as a quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "I was not the happiest guy in town ... I was angry, and with good reason. The mission pushed us to the wall in terms of risk." While I like this quote's message, I think it should be rewritten per WP:EUPHEMISM, as phrases like "not the happiest guy in town" and "pushed us to the wall" are figures of speech.
I don't take the position that the guideline applies to quotations. I feel that the participants should be allowed to speak for themselves, in the terms they use, and the reader can judge for themselves. By the time Schirra wrote this, he knew the mutiny was a blotch on his record, and I'd rather not paraphrase away his defense to history.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that MOS guidelines don't necessarily apply to quotations, I think readers unfamiliar with American figures of speech might be left asking what it means to be pushed to the wall, and not understand what town Schirra is currently in. Why not just say that "Schirra later acknowledged that he had been angry during the mission because he felt they were accepting unnecessary risk." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I've shortened the quotation. I think the remaining idiom is clear from context and from the discussion of the launch and Schirra's concern. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Jones noted, "This prelaunch dispute was the prelude to a tug of war over command decisions for the rest of the mission."" This Jones quote is directly lifted from the 2018 article, not any document or source from the mission itself.
It is a useful means of putting in context what the conflict was to be about, who was to call the shots. I don't think any primary source would really serve here. Schirra discusses it some in his book, but I think a more balanced approach is to quote a neutral party.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would either use the Schirra or Eisele quote to describe their frustration during the mutiny, but not both, as they share a message. My pick would be the Eiesele quote.
The Schirra quote is what he said from space. I think the reader should judge for themselves its appropriateness. Eisele's was written later and is more retrospective. They serve two different purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The French/Burgess quote that starts with "When this point is considered..." says similar things to the previous Eisele and Schirra quotes. It should be paraphrased if its left in, but it's seems excessive since it says the same thing as the previous sentences about the crews frustration over perceived misprioritization by the ground personnel.
The quote provides a historical viewpoint, showing the reader how the incident has been judged by historians of the Apollo Program.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although Slayton gave in to Schirra, "flight controllers were startled by Schirra’s abruptness."" I would just remove this quote, as it's a non-sequitur, stating that Slayton gave in and immediately jumping to flight controllers being surprised. If the info is left in, it should be paraphrased as it is not a quote from one of the flight controllers.
I've paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The Eisele quote right after the splashdown info is unnecessary, as there is already a description earlier in the text about the success of the mission, and there is a lot in the subsequent section. As it is Eisele's description of the mission after the fact, not something he said at the time, it's out of place recapping the mission right after the landing is described.
Good point. I've moved it to assessment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Paraphrase the McQuiston quote; it's a secondary source that describes the mission in Eisele's obituary
It seems more or less the same either way and McQuiston is probably not a space expert, so I've done this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's really good info in the Jones quote that starts with "Three weeks after..." but it should be paraphrased rather than directly quoted, as it is a secondary source.
Assessment sections are to show how the subject of the article has been judged, and quotations are routinely used. In this case, the quote carries some factual information as well. I think I've made reasonable use of it. We are of course a tertiary source and secondary sources are freely made use of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph starting with Gen Philips is made up entirely of quotes that all, more or less, describe Apollo 7 as being a success. The Phillips quote belongs in the previous paragraph describing the mission as a success. As much as Lovell benefited from the success of Apollo 7, his quote is out of place, as he just talks about it being a success without any mention of how its success allow Apollo 8 to conduct its ambitious mission. The Kranz quote should either be later in the article, as it is his retrospective on the entire mission, or removed. I can't tell from the referenced article when Kraft made his statement; if it was at the time it should be grouped with the Phillips quote, but if it is from his memoirs it should be later on in the section. It doesn't make sense to have quotes about Kraft and Kranz praising the crew years later and then jump straight to how they got in a lot of trouble with Kraft right after the mission.
I've rearranged this some and removed the "bitch circus" comment. I can dig deeper into Kraft's and Kranz's books if desired, but I think the reader should have the gist of the dispute as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Nice work on this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and kind words. I will keep your concerns in mind for the next Apollo article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. I'll do the image review.

In their respective Commons pages, the Source link for the following images seem to be dead. Is it possible to track down whether some of the source images may have been moved, or maybe some are available in Internet archives?

  • The Apollo 7 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001160
  • Apollo 7 Launch - GPN-2000-001171
  • As7-3-1545
  • Apollo 7 and 8 Crew in the White House. - GPN-2000-001686
  • Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641)
  • Saturn IB Second Stage with open LM adapter
  • Apollo 7 Florida
All done except the last, which I've swapped for another image.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The Commons page for the following image doesn't use the Description/Date/Source/Author template that the rest of the images have. (I'm not sure whether this is an FAC requirement, but it would be nice to be consistent.)

  • As7-3-1545
That's done. That's everything I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

All the image captions look good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for the changes. Wow, Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641) is an especially impressive shot. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. They did good work back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aza24Edit

  • Will get to this in the next few days or so. Just glancing through the review thus far, I would agree that the TV picture is preferable to the rocket – otherwise such an argument could lead to every Apollo article with a rocket as the lead image, which is surely not ideal. Aza24 (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, been getting distracted, comments below:
  • You have some dup links, including Launch Complex 34 which is not marked by the link checker because of a redirect
I think I've caught them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Added to lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead image caption and lead itself mention how it's the first crewed American spacecraft broadcast – just checking, can this be changed to "crewed spacecraft" or did the Russians do this first or something?
The Russians had done it on Voskhod 2 in 1965, the mission that Leonov spacewalked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there something "Block II" can link to?
I don't see anything. The Apollo command and service module discusses all this but not with a separate section.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Confused by calling Cunningham "a civilian" – does this just mean he didn't have prior astronaut experience? If so, having it before his birthdate is odd placement, almost makes it seem like he was a civilian when he was born, and well, everyone is
Clarified. He was not on active duty in the military like most astronauts of his group.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the triple apposition in "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, another of the Mercury Seven, who had been grounded for medical reasons, planned..." really works, or flows well. I would say that maybe something like "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, former Mercury Seven astronaut and Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, planned" (is the "grounded for medical reasons" even necessary?) Happy to discuss this further
I've cleaned that up some. Introducing him as the astronauts' supervisor is needed to explain his discussions with Schirra in flight. I would keep the medical. I'd rather explain stuff to the reader than leave it unexplained.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I see that include the middle name or a middle initial for everyone but Ed Givens?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to gloss Tom Jones
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure what "water egress training" is, is there something this can link to? Although I'm guessing it is some underwater simulation akin to pressure in space or something
I've explained it, finding no obvious link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Pad Leader" vs "pad leader" – not sure which is correct but both are used at the moment
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Would think that the specialty of fiberglass may warrant linking
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • "Schirra wanted to name his ship "Phoenix". However, NASA refused him permission." seems redundant since you just said that NASA forbade this, perhaps rephrase? This may just be me so feel free to disagree
I've massaged that a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Assuming you want to link "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station" in the text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • missing a word in "would work, were concerned it might fire "?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Instead, I've converted into miles as well as km.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the logic in using GMT for the landing but EST/UTC for take off? Would link GMT like the others as well
Changed to UTC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Kranz can have just their last name used the second mention
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks good, a very enjoyable read! Aza24 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy to help. And thank you for your great work here (as always). Support - Aza24 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AjpolinoEdit

Hi Wehwalt, I have no particular knowledge of the American space program – or indeed anyone's space program – so I'll be playing the part of "uneducated reader" and reviewing prose. With that in mind, thanks for the interesting read! Feel free to disregard some suggestions as uneducated:

  • Lead - "Determined there would be no repetition of the fire, the crew spent long periods of time monitoring the construction of their Apollo command and service modules (CSM)" - this sentence hits my ear odd, and I had to read it twice to understand your meaning. I might rephrase to "Fearing a repeat of the Apollo 1 fire, the crew..." or "Determined to prevent a repeat of the fire,...".
Done the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead - "mission was a complete technical success" → "mission was a technical success" (I don't think readers will doubt the success' completeness)
The problem with that is the connotation of "technical" alone. For example, saying it was technically a success argues it really wasn't much of a success.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead - "In part because of... after the flight." has a lot of ideas in it and slows me down. I'd omit "which broke out in irritable words from the astronauts." Folks will get that information later.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - I think there's a bit too much information on the astronauts' backgrounds here. Is it relevant to Apollo 7 that Schirra was born in Hackensack in March? I'd trim out the birth and hometown stuff (interested readers can find that at the astronauts' articles) and just mention their experience that was relevant to selection.
I've cut out the hometowns but I think the dates of birth are relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - "Cunningham, a civilian... joined the U.S. Navy in 1951..." - pardon my ignorance. I thought "civilian" meant not part of the armed forces? Is there a different meaning intended here? If so perhaps that should be clarified...
This was altered per Aza24's comments to make it clearer that he was a civilian at the time of Apollo 7. I did not think it was worth mentioning he was the second civilian in space, after Neil Armstrong, as that seemed name-dropping with no good reason for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - "He learned later that... if he gained medical clearance" - this is another choppy sentence that is challenging to parse. Perhaps you could cut the "He learned later that the astronaut's supervisor" part and just say "Deke Slayton, Directory of Flight Crew Operations and another of the Mercury Seven, planned, with Schirra's support, to command the mission if he gained medical clearance."
This has also been altered per Aza24's comments. I do consider it important to establish Slayton as the supervisor given his role in the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - "The mission would... the lunar missions." it's a bit weird to read "mission" twice in one sentence. Can you reword one?
Reworded.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - "to reduce and eliminate..." seems redundant?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - Seems there's no need for a paragraph break between "prime crew of Apollo 10" and "Ronald E. Evans, John...".
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background and personnel - I don't know what "Block II" means. Perhaps there's a wikilink you could add?
Aza24 made a similar comment so I've added some info.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • Preparation - "Schirra had originally had" → "Schirra originally had"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "Once the simulators... 12 or 14 hours a day" - long sentence leaves it unclear if the support crews or the original crews are the ones working 12 or 14 hours a day. Perhaps you could split it into two sentences? Second sentence: "Even with the help of..., they often worked 12 to 14 hours a day."?
I've split it a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "They often had to... spacecraft testing" the last clause reads a bit choppy. Perhaps flip to "They often had to remain through the weekend to participate in training and spacecraft testing, rather than returning to their Houston homes"?
Again, done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "... 2018 article on Apollo 7, Schirra..." → "... 2018 article, Schirra..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "One of the reasons the... this was one of the thing changed..." → "One reason the... this was changed..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "Fires were set aboard... pre-launch procedures." Can you split this into two sentences. I'd suggest "... within the CM at launch. This would be..."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "Guenter Wendt had been leader of the... → "Guenter Wendt had led..."
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Preparation - "Wendt remained... Guenter went'" - could this be split into several sentences as well? It's a bit confusing. Perhaps "Wendt remained... Apollo program. When he departed... launch, Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going." Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went." Also I'll admit I wouldn't have caught the joke if I didn't read it above. Nobody likes an explained punchline, but I think you'd be forgiven if you pointed it out in a footnote. Your choice, of course.
Split and footnoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hardware - Could you move the wikilink for S-IVB up to the first (non-infobox) use? I had to scroll down to figure out it's a rocket stage (I think).
OK. I have, but I've kept the existing link since the new link is before the S-IVB has really been described to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hardware - Could we get another wikilink for Saturn IB at the first use in the article (there's currently just one in the infobox)? By the time I got to this section, I wanted to know what it was without scrolling back up...
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hardware - "The Saturn IB was used after the close of the Apollo Program to bring crews to Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project." sounds like a factoid unrelated to Apollo 7? Or I'm totally misunderstanding it. Could you clarify or remove?
Since Skylab and the ASTP used the Apollo CSM, I think it's relevant enough to include. We aren't really discussing the 1B a lot so I think it's not trying the reader's patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - SPS is used in the first sentence, but defined about six paragraphs later.
Massaged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - no need to wikilink Launch Complex 34 again, you just told me about it 1.5 paragraphs above.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - "Apollo 7 was still equipped..." → "Apollo 7 was equipped"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - "enter space, and, as it proved, the only astronaut..." → "enter space, and the only astronaut..."
I prefer the existing phrasing because your suggestion makes it unclear if Schirra was the only one ever, or the only one as of Apollo7.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - "Although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner," - looks like there's a "they" missing in there?
That has been changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - you define the acronym "RCS" but then don't use it again.
Now used again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - Is there any more context you can give on what led to the day 8 complaints ("On Day 8, Eisele radioed...")? Did a test fail? Did this relate to too many things being scheduled (as the quote above hints)?
I've explained a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mission highlights - same with the following day. Do we know what went wrong with the test to prompt Schirra's outburst?
Here too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. All-in-all, an interesting read. After a bit of prose cleanup, I hope to see it with a shiny bronze star. Ajpolino (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer LjubljanaEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about another Yugoslav destroyer with a very short career. Commissioned in December 1939, just after the outbreak of WWII, she was being repaired after an accident when she was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and was refitted and put into service under the Italian flag as a convoy escort on the North Africa supply run. She was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss. Her sister Beograd and the class article have already been through FAC and her sister Zagreb is just about to emerge from FAC, so if this one is promoted the whole class will be FA. I think I've integrated comments made during those FACs into the current article, so hopefully most of the wrinkles will have been ironed out. The promotion of this article will result in the 36-article Good Topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy being promoted to Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks as always, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog FarmEdit

On quarantine, so I'll have time to get to this pretty soon. Hog Farm Bacon 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  • " Ljubljana entered since in December 1939" - Something feels off here
typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Indicate the exact number of Parsons steam turbines in the infobox
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know if the torpedo tubes were mounted above or below the waterline?
No, presumably on deck, as I can't see any in the bow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Put laid down and launched in the infobox?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know where she was stationed after commissioning?
No, at the time WWII broke out, her sisters were based at the Bay of Kotor, so presumably there, but not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Her searchlight was removed" - First mention of a searchlight we've gotten. Worth mentioning in the characteristics section?
Yep, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That's about all from me. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm, all done as best I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I looked at this at ACR, and I don't suppose that I will find much more to pick at.

  • "Ljubljana entered since in December 1939".
Typo, fixed above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "and some of the crew swam to safety while others were taken aboard fishing vessels." Optional: put this in a separate sentence.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "She was towed to the Bay of Kotor then Rijeka for refitting and repair." Maybe 'then to Rijeka' as I completely misread that first time round.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And that's it. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking a look, Gog! All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


  • ???? Ljubljana entered since in December 1939, was armed with a main battery of four ... ???
Fixed the typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I got completely mixed up in here and had to re-read and re-read to figure out which country did what ...
  • In 1940, she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik. Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs. She was still under repair when Yugoslavia entered World War II when the German-led Axis powers invaded in April 1941. Ljubljana was captured by the Italians, and after repairs were completed, saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana, ... could it be changed to ...
  • In 1940, she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik; badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs. Yugoslavia entered World War II after the German-led Axis powers invaded in April 1941, and Ljubljana—still under repair—was captured by the Italians. After repairs were completed, she saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana, ... or something like that ...
Did something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Stronger punctuation break here ?
  • The KM decided to build three such flotilla leaders, ships that could reach high speeds and would have long endurance.
    • The KM decided to build three such flotilla leaders—ships that could reach high speeds and would have long endurance.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice improvement from last time :) The ship was powered by a pair of Parsons steam turbines driving two propellers,
  • There is a lot of "removed" in the Career section; could you think of a word variant for one of them? Dismantled? Disassembled? Elimiinated? Or just ... Her searchlight was removed and replaced with
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, trusting you will address these, Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this one, SG! All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • captured by the Italians. After repairs were completed, she saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana In this sentence the Royal Italian Navy is linked twice one of them could be replaced by piping Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you split both the "Background" and one the biggest paragraph of "Description and construction" sections?
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In the "Description and construction" section I see a lot of "she"s next to each other. Per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS replace some of them with "the ship" or her name.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Her fire-control system was provided by the Dutch firm Hazemeyer Does Hazemeyer have a wrong link?
No, Hazemeyer was a subsidiary of Siemens & Halske. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Between December 1939 and 24 January 1940 what was she doing?
Great question. probably working up, but sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • On 24 January 1940, Ljubljana ran into a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik What was she doing here before she ran into a reef? Patrolling?
The sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Like above I see a lot of "she"s and "her"s in the "Career" section.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana in October,[16][13] Re-order the refs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • troop transport convoys for the German and Italian armies in North Africa Maybe repipe "Italian" to the ""North Africa" division" in the "Royal Italian Army during World War II" article?
I don't think that is a good target. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Brescia states she was stranded off Cap Bon on the Tunisian coast After reading so many articles about the Punic Wars by Gog I already know what the Cap Bon is. Maybe add "peninsula"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13 ISBN codes?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs Maybe add an article before "port"?
Unneeded, it is fine as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "tonnes" --> "t" in the infobox since it's strange that metres is abbreviated but tonnes is not?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Hopefully I got everything? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

  • Spotchecks not done
  • I wonder if sectioning Books and journals and newspapers really does much more than create a larger TOC? Perhaps just bold the sections instead?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliability looks fine, consistent formatting, identifiers, locations etc.
  • Pass for source review, as the second point is not anything required. Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, Aza24! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: this has come together quickly, and includes a support from a non-Milhist member, SandyGeorgia. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PendrightEdit

Greetings PM - a few minor suggestions/comments. Pendright (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Lead

  • She was designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik.
Consider a less passie voice by moving the phrase "to be" -> She was designed [and] to be deployed [to be] as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik.
  • Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs.
Was she taken to "a" port. or taken to "the" port of Šibenik?
  • She was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss.
To be consistent with the body -> start the sentence with: It is believed that she ... - or The sources differ on whehether she ...


  • The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean, where they would be able to operate alongside French and British warships.
"the ships" -> does this refer to ships that have been built, or ships to be built?


  • The ship was towed to the Bay of Kotor then to Rijeka for refitting and repair.
Consider adding "and" between Kotor & then?
  • Her funnel tops were also cut to a more raked angle.
Is funnel worthy of a link?

Finished - Pendright (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Pendright, thanks for having a look, all done I reckon. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Regards! Pendright (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Support by WehwaltEdit

  • Support Short but sweet, I imagine. Just one comment:
  • "Sources differ as to whether she was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss." Some slight rephrasing or punctuation could make it clearer that in either alternative she was declared a total loss because of what happened on 1 April.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: now that I only have this one in the queue, and this one already has five supports, image and source reviews, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Sure, go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

George Vincent (painter)Edit

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British artist George Vincent, who was born and educated in Norwich, but lived during most of his adult life in London. He his friend James Stark were the 'star' pupils of the artist John Crome. He died young under mysterious circumstances, but not before producing oil paintings that perhaps made him one of the most talented British painters of the 1820s.

The article has had a peer review, with input from @SandyGeorgia: @Aza24: and @Lizzy150:: I believe the article is now ready to be brought up to FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support (Comments) by JohnbodEdit

  • Link to the peer review here please.
  • The lead just says "was an English landscape artist." with no mention of media. The article so far seems only to mention oils & etchings, but no watercolours - perhaps rather unusually for an English landscapist. The lead needs something.
The only information I can find on George Vincent's watercolours is from Clifford's Watercolours of the Norwich School, where he says he has seen a few pictures, including The Needles (1830), a work that was Vincent's sole watercolour in an 1852 exhibition of loaned pictures. Clifford notes that unusually for the Norwich School artists, Vincent regularly sketched away from Norfolk and often in Scotland, and suggests that there are unattributed and unsigned watercolours by Vincent made during these sketching tours.
I've added a couple of watercolours to the gallery, including The Needles, and amended the lead slightly, but otherwise I don't think much more needs to be added about his watercolours. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "a grand house in the capital" - the one in Camden Town. Perhaps overstating things. "Expensive" might be better.
Agreed, done.
  • "His father was a worsted weaver who manufactured shawls" - judging by the context, probably more than a self-employed guy with a loom in the living room. Do we know?
Nothing more is said of his father as far as I know. He lived at a time when the weaving industry in Norwich was changing from individuals using handlooms in their homes to companies who employed factories workers in their thousands. It's not clear which kind of worker James Vincent was, but he was possibly the former, as he married into a respectable family. I'll see if the sources mention him any more, but I doubt they will. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The old DNB says "James Vincent, a weaver, afterwards a manufacturer, ..." and later " In April 1833 his father died, after heavy losses in business, and left about 800l. to each of his children." The new ODNB says "worsted weaver and shawl manufacturer". Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I've mentioned the money left in James Vincent's will (which might be interesting to read); nothing certain about the nature of his weaving work or his in later life business has come up, but I'm still looking. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The will is nowhere to be found, and I've not been able to find out notable information on his father that isn't already included. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Granted, but Moore (1965) and Day (1979) say Camden Town, so I'd rather keep it as it is. There's only a few yards difference, according to this map, but I can try to pin down the house/street to see which side of the canal he lived on. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Images. There are a number of image issues. For a start, one should not have to go 5 screens (on my m/c) into an article on an artist before reaching a work by him. Nor should that image be of this deplorable quality. Really that's too poor to use, even in the gallery. You aren't using the Yale Windsor pic anywhere, with a really good resolution. The quality of the Art UK images varies considerably - some are just too poor, while others are ok. Unfortunately the Norfolk Museums seem to release at a pretty low res. There are stretches with no images, then boxed multiple images, which really should be discouraged, unless there is a particular point to them. No image at the "works" section.
@Johnbod: Looking at this now, but can I have a url for the Yale Windsor pic? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
File:George Vincent - A View of Thames Street, Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Image added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
'Background' section now has a Vincent work. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at MOS:SANDWICHING, I'm unclear why you mention that multiple images are not be encouraged; it hasn't previously been brought up by others. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I've amended the article to include images where they are appropriate and available. let me know if I need to do more. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Etchings. "and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works, now in the British Museum" - sourced to the old DNB (by Campbell Dodgson, long head of prints & drawings at the BM), which says: "Vincent produced a number of skilful etchings from his own pictures or sketches. Few impressions were taken, and they are now scarce. The British Museum collection contains nineteen, many of which are in several different states." Looking at their page now, it contains many more, there seem to be more than 12 compositions, and at least 3 are called 'by Vincent, after Crome". Does Searle actually list them, or say that they were "published" after his death? The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would. You ref "none were published during his lifetime", but I wonder what "published" would mean for etchings from the 1820s. Apart from these points, I don't like "now in the British Museum" as it encourages readers to think these are unique objects rather than "multiples"; many readers are very vague about anything to do with prints. Dodgson only says they are "scarce", & if the BM knew any to be "unique impressions" they would say so - I didn't see any mentions.
  • Searle largely ignores Vincent's etchings, stating that "none of them were published" without going into any details, and touching on the lack of agreement amongst sources about the number in the BM. He describes his prints as lacking Stark's refinement (not sure what this actually means) and concludes that they tend to "descend into pictorial convention". I've included much of this aleady. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with your 'now in the British Museum'; phrase removed. Working through your other points. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The statement 'and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works' is clearly incorrect, as 23 individual works can be seen online using the line you provided (and a few others can be found elsewhere). I've removed that information from the sentence. It looks as if more needs to said about his etchings; I'll do some work on this shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Text added to emphasise why etchings were not always published during this period.Amitchell125 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would. - did you want me to add this with a citation (I looked for one but couldn't find anything), or was it just a comment? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The BM also claims some drawings (4), with a further number "Drawn by: Samuel David Colkett, Formerly attributed to: George Vincent". Worth a quick mention.
Sentence added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Has there been no sight of his "masterpiece", Greenwich Hospital from the River since 1877?
Apparently not. I was wondering if an exhibition catalogue might have something, but haven't seen anything yet. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Can it be made more clear that it's lost in the text? Also, as a reader, the fact that his supposed masterpiece is missing seems like something that might be interesting in the lead, could just be me though. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Since various of the sources mention prices, I think it would be appropriate to have a short section on this - even today they are strikingly uneven.
@Johnbod: I'm unclear which sources you have in mind, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Some of the sources you use have information on older prices, then there are the auction houses for modern ones. I think you've seen some of those. The art press will have more, and cover general trends. I've looked at Reitlinger, Gerald; The Economics of Taste, Vol I: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices 1760–1960, 1961, Barrie and Rockliffe, London., and Vol. III on the 1960s, but while they cover Crome and Stark, Vincent is not mentioned. There was a big drop in English landscape prices after 1929, & they've never really recovered. But the recent Christie's price (St Pauls etc), over double estimate for a painting put into the interior decorator's sale, is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I’ve had a look for information that discuss the sale of Vincent’s works, and I’ve only come up with auction results, which, according to WP:NOTCATALOG need to be alongside coverage by secondary sources. Looking at the other FA on artists, there’s little discussion in them of the value of their works: Etty;s works apparently fetched huge sums after his death; the article on Van Gogh only gives a few examples of works that sold for millions; Henry Moore's article mentions the price of a stolen piece, and that he was the world's most successful living artist at auction. It also says in 1982 he was the second most expensive 20th-century British artist; Ruisdael’s works sell occasionally, such as one in 2014.; Thomson - little more than the record of CAD$2,749,500 for one of his works is unlikely to be broken, and there are forgeries on the market.
I’ll what I can about Vincent, but there’s little of interest. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally seems close. It's pity there aren't more modern sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Ok, happy to Support now, points sorted ok. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • Images are out of copyright. Normally galleries are discouraged, but I think they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
No, User:buidhe, galleries are NOT normally discouraged - read the policy more carefully. Actually there are many issues with the images, which I will come on to in my review. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As the guideline states, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." Also, it says that a gallery is only appropriate "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." In most cases, this means that a gallery should not be used. (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What has the first bit got to do with it? The 2nd bit certainly applies to visual subjects such as this. In fact it would be very difficult to get an FA for a painter without galleries, unless there were few or no images available. I repeat, please don't misquote policy. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of "misquot[ing] policy" when I did not even quote any policy in the comment you disagree with. I stand by my comment. According to the usual interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines, the vast majority of articles should not have galleries (and they don't); this article may be an exception. There is no need to bludgeon someone because you disagree with their interpretation. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I will continue to call out the repetition of this misleading myth (which was sort of true until about 2008, or whenever it was, when a different sort of gallery was common). It you'd been on FAC longer, you'd have a better idea of what is "usual". For a long time the policy included "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged", but that is the only use of the word it has ever contained afaik. Yet a few people continue to trot out that they are generally discouraged, or smugly pretend they are making some sort of magnanimous gesture by allowing them in this case. When I see it I point out the mistake, and will continue to do so. If nothing else, I hope I can convince you that the uncertainty you claim to have as to whether "they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter" is unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod and Buidhe, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Vincent (painter)/archive1 is a red link. Please take extended disagreements there, so as not to prejudice the candidacy. (I encourage you to move the discussion beginning at 03:16 there and leave this link back to that page for other readers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, would would leave it here for reference in case similar nonsense is raised on other VA FACs. John has experience and knowledge and makes a strong argument; newer participants might take the "recommendations/guidelines" or whatever they are, at face value and misguidedly concede, at a cost to the expectations of people who read these type of articles. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by NikkimariaEdit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The title of the noted 1827 work in the infobox differs from that in the text - which is correct?
I'm unclear what you mean, as the date follows the painting's name in italics, as intended. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The infobox gives the title as View of Greenwich Hospital from the River; the text omits "View of". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the caption content warrants citing
@SandyGeorgia: Could you specify the captions you have in mind? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
For example dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Note 2: the title given for Dickes' work here doesn't match that in the references list
  • FN22: the DNB volume in which this entry was published does have a specific publication date, which should be used, and the volume should also be included
  • FNs 23 and 24 are to the same website but are formatted differently, and then FN44 is cited another different way - check for consistency throughout
  • How are you deciding what goes in Bibliography and what directly in ReferencesAmitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Moved Dodgson 1899 into Sources, References now only contain {{sfn}} and {{cite web/news/journal}}.
  • Organizations like Burlington should use |publisher= not a work title parameter
  • How are you deciding when to include publication location?
Sources checked to include locations throughout.
This still is not consistent. For example The Times specifies London, but The Spectator does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How are you deciding when to include publisher for periodicals?
@SandyGeorgia: Please clarify which refs are an issue, as I couldn't find a problem you identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Amitchell125, I think you meant to @Nikkimaria: here (twice) rather than me :) I shall be along to review once I catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a periodical, but FN93 includes "Norwich Museums" and FN97 to the same site does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Search pages generally are not appropriate sources
Ancestry search page removed.
  • FN89 is malformatted
  • FN94: volume should be a separate parameter, but the link appears to go to a different volume?
There are no volume numbers for the Gazette, so I've amended the reference. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN97 is a broken link
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
All such works listed chronologically.
  • Why spell out HMSO for the second Moore work but not the first?
  • Mottram: publisher doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aza24Edit

  • I had a thorough read through at peer review and found all my issues addressed. My only hesitation was John's comments above, but changes seem to be progressing rather nicely so I'm happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from CeoilEdit

  • You rather malign John Sell Cotman based on one source...maybe a few more so its just not one person's opinion.
Can you point me to where you mean—Cotman should never be maligned :) Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
In comparison with John Sell Cotman, who began etching with the aim of gaining financial security Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Still reading through Ceoil (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Not forgotten. am I? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no...I didn't find much to complain about since last posted here. Will look again later this evening, and close out. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Norwich had more locally born artists than any other similar city - I find this hard to believe. Maybe "successful artists", or some other qualification
Hemingway says, "Certainly, Norwich certainly produced more significant painters than any other provincial city, ..." (p. 9), without saying where he got the information from; text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • and arose from the need for a group of Norfolk artists to teach each other and their pupils....need? Later you say that later local artists did not benefit from wealthy merchants and landed gentry, so "need" may be viewed more of a matter of support or commission.
I've expanded the sentence, replacing the text above. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Following the ending of exhibitions by the Norwich Society of Artists in 1833, the standard of art from the city went into decline - Following implies causality. Re the rest, your hidden note re "no professional artists of a similar calibre remained in Norwich" is better.
Agreed, sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Until 1831 he exhibited annually with the Norwich Society of Artists, showing 106 pictures, including 75 landscapes, 6 seascapes and 16 "architectural works".[62] He exhibited in London, Manchester and Glasgow during his career.[22] He showed 9 paintings at the Royal Academy,[63] 12 at Suffolk Street.[64] and 41 at the British Institution, exhibiting annually from 1815 to 1831 (apart from in 1816 and 1828).[24] - Chronology a bit off here. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: all sorted out now. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of a MusicianEdit

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is article is about Leonardo da Vinci's only known male portrait, and the first of his three famous black-background portraits. After many months of leaving and coming back to this I am confident I have created a comprehensive and well written article. If passed this will be my first FA and the first Leonardo da Vinci related FA – hopefully the first of many. I've long been fascinated with Leonardo's works, and this one caught my eye to the point where I felt I had no choice but to improve its article. A big thanks to CaroleHenson who gave a thorough GA review and Ceoil, whose continuous suggestions, copy edits and encouragement was invaluable. Leonardo holds a special place in the art world, not just for his immense fame and prestige, but for the endless heated debates over attribution, dating, intent and subject matter – more so than arguably any other artist. I've worked hard to go through a lot of scholarly sources and neutrally but accurately summarize the modern consensus for these issues. Any and all comments, suggestions or criticisms would be much appreciated! Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "is an unfinished oil[n 2] on walnut panel portrait painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487.[n 1]" I might move "portrait panel" a bit earlier to avoid the slightly opaque "walnut panel portrait painting". Possibly "... is an unfinished portrait panting in oil on walnut panel".
  • Rephrased Aza24 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius was the most convincing suggestion throughout the 20th century and in the 21st century scholarly opinion shifted towards Atalante Migliorotti. " Maybe "but" for "and"?
  • Agreed, done Aza24 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Footnotes should be in numerical order if multiples are used, except if you are saying that the first footnote is the main source for the passage.
  • Yes, per Indopug's comment below I've opted to remove them from the lead. Aza24 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • For example, "Collaboration or not, most scholars agree that if Leonardo did not create the entire painting, then he at least painted the face.[28][8]".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I've gone through this now.
I've been doing some copyediting, feel free to revert any you don't like.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Modern scholars, including as Syson and Marani, have observed that it could have not been completed much later than 1487." But it wasn't completed. Maybe "composed"?
  • " It is possible that it may have been given to the Ambrosiana in 1637 by Galeazzo Arconati [it], but this is unconfirmed.[8]" the last four words seem unneeded.
  • "and it may be that the subject was anonymous.[36]" What does this mean? If there was a subject, surely he had a name?
  • "and the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in his mid thirties at the time.[43][44]" Perhaps not tactfully phrased. Some may consider the mid thirties to be young. Perhaps "in the first years of adulthood".
  • "Additionally, in a 1482 inventory from the Codex Atlanticus[n 8] Leonardo listed "a portrait of Atalante with his face raised".[18][n 9]" Codex Atlanticus probably doesn't have to be linked again, and likely needs a comma.
  • " self proclaimed ideology " likely a hyphen is needed here. Please check for similar usages.
  • "This theory suggests that the sadness in the young man's eyes is due to this proposed idea that music simply disappears after a performance.[52]" "proposed" probably isn't needed.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
All done, except the anonymous line. I'm not sure what the solution here since the source is equally as unclear: "Some think the subject is simply anonymous...". I would guess that this is either referencing the possibility that Leonardo drew someone from his imagination, or went out in the Milan and drew a random person he – as he so often did – but then turned the sketch into a painting, which would be more unlikely. Perhaps I should just take it out? I didn't see any other scholars consider this, even though Pooler says "Some think..." Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
A direct quote is a possibility if you think it's worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support on prose. Reads well, but art is not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I've changed to a direct quote, many thanks for your review! Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Driveby by IndopugEdit

Driveby comment the three notes in the very first sentence of the article are jarring and distracting, especially since they happen to display in reverse order (first n3 then n2 then n1). I don't believe either the materials note or the dates note need to exist in either the lead sentence or even the infobox, since you have a discuss it more in detail in the article body. I also think "unfinished oil on walnut panel portrait painting" is a bit confusing for the lay reader; maybe hyphenate it "oil-on-walnut-panel" or remove some of the descriptors.—indopug (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Indopug fair points, I've opted to remove the notes and I rephrased the first sentence - best Aza24 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

  • Images are out of copyright. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your review. Aza24 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "it is his only known male portrait" - don't see this in the article text, what's the source for this claim?
    • Done – Added this in the second paragraph of Background section, it's nothing controversial anyways, he only has around 20 surviving works.
  • "The portrait's intimacy indicates a private commission, or by a personal friend" - I see the text supporting the personal friend claim, but not the private commission?
    • Done – Added this to the second paragraph of background as well
  • "praised for its ... ephemeral atmosphere" - don't see this in the text
    • Done – Yes this was a little editorial of me, altered to support some stuff in the description
  • Check for consistency in publication locations
    • Done – should all be added now
      • Okay, but also looking for them to be consistent in presentation. For example, you've got "New York, New York" but also "New York City, New York" and also "London, England". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I'm confused Nikkimaria, what's the issue with "London, England" – should it just be "London"? New York should be good now though Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Why do "city, state" for one country but "city, country" for another? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is Kemp in Sources when other Grove publications, even ones cited multiple times, are in References alone?
    • Done – Not sure why it was like this...
  • FN47: don't see that author credit at the source?
    • The site is maintained by them, you can see it on the about us page should I still remove?
      • The site is directed by them - do we know that they wrote or edited all the content? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fn48: title here doesn't match that at source
    • Done
  • Pedretti 1982: link provided doesn't match source details shown. Ditto Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Done – Yes I must be using different editions (mine are print), removed them.
  • Nikkimaria, thanks for your review. I seem to have taken some liberties with the lead, likely because it doesn't have citations, but I believe ever thing is cleared up now. Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry Nikkimaria I seem to have forgotten about our last outstanding point here. I've gone with "City, Country" for all locations except the US where I've done "City, State, US" since I feel like a lot of the city names don't mean much in the US without the state, does this solution work? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That's fine. Looks like there's also an outstanding question on FN47 (now 50). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Nikkimaria (sorry to keep pinging you) I would think they write the content, but I suppose there's no way of knowing for sure. To this end I've opted to alter the citation to say that the site is "Maintained by them" – as it says in the about us page. Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


Aza24 as this is your first FAC, would like do do some spot checks re backing up claims on the refs, close paraphrasing, etc. Although my involvement is noted in the nom, it was more moral support and gentle pushing - have not added any content, and anyway this review will be a pass/oppose rather than a support/oppose exercise.

If you still have access to the books, can you pls scan and email the following pages, or post here links to online repros....

  • Clark 1961, p. 55
  • Fagnart 2019, p. 73
  • Syson et al. 2011, p. 8
  • Pooler 2014, p. 31
  • Marani 2003, p. 161 Ceoil (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up Ceoil

  • Fagnart is here and if that link doesn't work you can download it here
  • Syson – Which one were you referring to? There's no page 8, I can email though
  • Pooler is here
  • Marani – Will email Aza24 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Working through...

  • Clark 1961, p. 55 checks out in each of the 5 instances it is used.
  • Marian 161 - ok.
  • Fagnart 2019, p. 73 - ok in both instances.
  • Syson et al. 2011- Re above clarified requested via email ....p.86 which checks out...and is very interesting re a flat black background as per Early Netherlandish artists.
  • Pooler 2014, p. 31 - ok in both instances.

Passing this on basis that references provided back claims, & no evidence of close paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Support)Edit

A very fine start, glad to see you here! Not an artist, so please overlook my dumbness :)

  • We usually refer to people by their last names after the first occurrerence; why do we refer to him as Leonardo rather than da Vinci?
    • Yes, you're not the first person who has mentioned this to me, so its a common misonception. "Leonardo" is the academic standard and as such the one that all my sources used, as well as our WP article on him (which even has a little notice at the top). Essentially a) referring to him as "da Vici" is the equivalent to referring to Joan of Arc as "of Arc" b) its part of the longstanding tradition of referring to the Italian old masters by their first names, "Raphael", not "da Urbino" :) Aza24 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Silly me, I knew that (lived in Milan) ... was thinking in Wikipedia speak rather than Italian :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Fwiw, it's not just an Italian thing, but a feature of the jerky medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern transition to everyone having surnames, common to most European countries, certainly including England. Raphael, a generation later, is rather different - like Michelangelo he had a perfectly good surname, which his father used, but he ended up being branded by his first name. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I suspect that you lined up the image in the "Background" section with da Vinci facing off the screen to match the lead image, which you can't move to the left. If that is not the case, would you be able to juggle the images so that the Background image is not looking off the screen, or are you wanting to intentionally line it up on the right to compare to the lead? Images looking off the screen still cause me to go eeeeeeek!
  • Would rather keep it there for the parallelity to the lead that you mention. It is a little eerie but I suspect that there's a similar effect when looking at it in person, as I'm sure the man is eyeing down some unsuspecting painting on his right in the Amborsiana...! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can the images in the multiple image at section Identity of the sitter be reversed so they face each other rather than one facing off the page?
    • Sure, also nicer to have the Leonardo one "first"/on the left now
  • See MOS:DATERANGE, I interpret it as saying that this should be two digits: Portrait of a Musician before it's 1904–5 --> 1904–05. I could be wrong :)
    • And in the article text, you usually use 1904–05, but here you use all four digits ... Art historians have assumed the sitter to be a musician since its 1904–1905 restoration ... consistency throughout needed.
      • Good point, switched them all to the full years.
  • Why is da Vinci relinked in the image caption at the Identity of the sitter section?
    • Good question... removed
  • Must you use "small" in the image caption at the Atalante Migliorotti section? Very hard on old eyes :)
    • Removed
  • THANK you for the interlanguage links ... getting editors to use those in FAs has been a long time coming :)
    • I absolutely cherish ill links. The German, Italian and Chinese WPs have so many articles we're missing; if I'm not going to make them I should at least give others who are a link to build off of!
  • Punctuation issue here: Alternatively translated as: "a portrait of Atalante with his upturned face". or "a head portrayed from Atalante who raises his face".
    • Fixed
  • I suspect the section "Musical score" is underusing italics on MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Sample, Latin for "angelic song"; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for "angelic singer". --> Latin for angelic song; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for angelic singer. Interpreting "words as words" is often tricky, though, and I could be wrong. Also, proper nouns in non-English language are not italicized (just a note ... have not yet seen this article doing that).
    • I checked out that link, and found another, MOS:SINGLE, as such I opted to put in language templates for the Latin/Italian (which italicized the words), and changed the english translation to single quotes... I think this is what MOS wants?
  • Just a personal preference ... the use of the "respectively" construct always causes the reader to have to read backwards to see which refers to which ... Attribution is based on stylistic and technical similarities to other works, notably the face of the angel and St. Jerome from Virgin of the Rocks and Saint Jerome in the Wilderness respectively.[2][9][16][n 4] ... And then to wonder which source refers to which piece. Can this be split to avoid the respectively, and attach the specific citations to each piece. In fact, I am not sure what is "respectively" here at all ...
    • I agree and definitely see an unnecessary lack of continuity now that you mention it. Changed.
  • I have always wondered why the French can't call the man by his name ... and the 2020 Louvre exhibition, "Léonard de Vinci" ... but not your problem :)
    • Have wondered this as well... the French pretend he was French just because they have so many of his paintings :(
      • Which they stole according to Italians :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Refs in ascending order, sample, check throughout ... This is thought to have been a study or an early attempt to create Portrait of a Musician.[19][18]
    • These should be good now
  • The writing is just beautiful ... these art history articles are always one of the great pleasures of participating at FAC. That said, Mike Christie's essay at WP:RECEPTION might be helpful in terms of things like "mixed" and "praise".
    • Thanks for the essay; (thankfully) Syson says that critics have offered "mixed opinions" so no risk of OR in this case...

I look forward to supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and comments! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful. I am still uncertain on the "words as words", but I always am, and that is a MOS problem, not ours. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CeoilEdit

Final quibbles having followed this page's dev for months and read several times;

  • The first certain identification was in 1672; "Certain" isn't right as you say nobody still knows. Maybe "claim"
    • Changed to "The work is first securely documented in 1672..." – does this work? I just wanted to make it clear that the first two years are uncertain while the 1672 is when it was the earliest it was for sure known to be at the Ambrosiana
I would drop "securely"...either there are records or there are not. Its attribution is a different thing. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed... removed Aza24 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You seem to mix up half profile, three-quarter profile and frontal in places.
    • I don't see any mention of half profile or frontal...? Three quarter is used twice, I checked the sources and they seem to use it as well
      • non-profile portraits in Venice and Sicily...could be more precise. Three quarters and frontal are very different things....there is a reason the Romans used profile. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Specified to "three-quarter-view portraits in Venice..." Aza24 (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's implies that Northern Renaissance painters "came up with" flat dark backgrounds. Was not one of van Eyck's major innovations that he moved beyond this. Although Francis Bacon would be pleased.
    • I think they did? The earliest ones at least – I can't imagine who else would have. van Eyck seemed to have slowly departed but still has 5 or 6 black background portraits himself
      • Yes but they were his early of his innovations was moving beyond. Will look back at sources shortly. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
        • There is a world of difference between this and this. Did Leonardo previously have detailed backgrounds? Would would remove, or tone down, the claim. Ceoil (talk)
          • Leonardo only has Ginevra de' Benci before the Musician but I've seen no direct connections/anaylsis between the two other than noting their similar hair! I've specified to "predated by Netherlandish artists, who often set their portraits..." since I agree that surely many paintings were not set as such, but portraits alone seem to be regularly against black backgrounds, all of van Eyck's portraits for example. Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I see now its rephrased as "predated by Netherlandish artists" Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I think that may have been you lol
  • the subject's face is not raised as in the 1482 note - "mentioned" rather than "raised"...otherwise "not raised as described in the 1482..."
    • Went with the latter
  • Dont like "Therefore, since"
    • Agreed, kept it as just "Since..."
  • Cant parse this as written, though I know what you are getting at a major difference lies in the figure not facing the viewer, opposite of not only almost all of Messina's portraits,[34] but Leonardo's other portraits as well - change 'opposite' to maybe in contrast to, drop 'as well', and rephrase 'major' and 'lies'.
    • Changed to "While art historian Daniel Arasse [fr] suggests that while Portrait of a Musician is the most similar of Leonardo's portraits to Messina, the figure is facing the viewer, in contrast to not only most of Messina's portraits, but Leonardo's other portraits." – which I think works now?
  • I have no doubts as to the quality and breath of the sources its comprehensive and meets 1.b of the criteria[16]
    • My amazon account would agree, heh
      • I hear you. My x-mass wish list from liz and parents is booked until 2024 Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Confident of 1.d given the diligence and stewardship of this disputed and contentious work (mention as is a first time nominator)
  • Leaning support on 1.a if above are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Have addressed the above Ceoil, although unsure about the 2nd point. Aza24 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, all resolved now. Moving to Support Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Query from nominatorEdit

So I've been thinking and I was wondering what the reviewers think about this idea: (pinging Wehwalt, SandyGeorgia and Ceoil) I'm consider adding some extra images (in a mini gallery) to the background section, in order to appropriately give the visual context of the work. It would look more or less like this. I think that such an addition helps the reader understand the work's inspiration and place in art history but I don't want to go overkill here; insight would be appreciated. I could also add an Early Netherlandish portrait (say Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) or Léal Souvenir) to give the full background, but that, in my mind, is unnecessary. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In favour of adding this, yes defiantly. For another thing, have though for a while that you are missing a trick by bunching all the images into a composite. Not so sure re the ENA paintings; would they add much Ceoil (talk)
I also think the sandbox sizing of widths="220px" heights="180px" is about right. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I stole those sizes from Honan :) Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I've always felt that the reader is well served by showing them. If there is a wealth of images available, use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
OK – I've added them. Sandy hasn't said anything, but if she has any further insight, it is welcome of course. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Ham IIEdit

Fantastic to see this, and I can appreciate how much work has gone into condensing all the sources. I've got copies of Clark 1961 (and a 1993 edition of the same), Syson et al. 2011 and Zöllner 2019 (as well as loads of other books on Leonardo not in the bibliography), and have been checking the article against these. I've also done some copyediting work on the article over the last two days, so please let me know if you disagree with any of my choices there, Aza24.

  • "Sometimes known as Portrait of Young Man" – presumably Portrait of a Young Man?
    • Done – good catch
  • "in oil-on-walnut panel" – pace Indopug, there shouldn't be hyphens here, because "oil on walnut" isn't a compound modifier describing the painting's support. This also slightly contradicts the statements elsewhere that the medium might be oil and tempera, but I appreciate that adding "(and perhaps tempera)" would overstuff the sentence. I'd suggest leaving the medium out of the opening sentence (as well as the statement that it's a portrait, which should be obvious – see WP:POSA) and instead simply calling it "an unfinished painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487."
    • Done – normally I would disagree but the chance of confusion in that it might have tempera seems like a good reason to take it out of the lead. I had listed "portrait" to link to "portrait painting" but I can alter just "painting" to link to that
  • "Stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, especially in the sitter's face, have secured at least a partial attribution." – worth adding "to the master" at the end of this sentence, to clarify that an attribution to Leonardo is what is meant?
    • Surely, especially since I'll take every opportunity to call Leonardo a "master" :)
  • "Inspired by Antonello da Messina" – is this proven? Later on you've got "Leonardo was likely influenced by Antonello's style".
    • Changed the first to "likely" – both Syson and Marani don't seem to present it as a certainty, merely a likely influence
  • "such as Virgin of the Rocks and Lady with an Ermine" – in the literature definite articles are usually added, thus: "such as the Virgin of the Rocks and the Lady with an Ermine". Similarly, "but Portrait of a Musician [...]" should be "but the Portrait of a Musician [...]". Arguably, the article should begin "The Portrait of a Musician [...]".
    • I checked some sources and I would agree... changed all the instances I could find
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius" – All the sources I've got refer to him as "Franchino Gaffurio". I can see, though, that his entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and his English Wikipedia article are titled "Franchinus Gaffurius", so there must be one convention for the musicologists and another for the art historians! What are your thoughts on this? I can see the argument for being internally consistent with our own article titles, but also for following the sources discussing the painting, not the composer.
    • Hmm while I don't think there's an obvious reason for one over the other, I think I'll stick with the current, since I suspect that the art historians are using a more Italian spelling and the musicologists an English spelling. That and the fact that he's a music theorist/composer so it may be better to stick with the musicologists on this one
  • "the most convincing suggestion" – possibly "the most favored candidate"? Rephrasing would prevent the following sentence's "suggestions" from being a repetition.
    • Done – good call
  • "detailed face" → "the high level of detail in the subject's face". The current phrasing is a bit too vague IMO and could be misread as referring to the surface of the painting.
    • Yes, definitely
  • "a small 44.7 cm × 32 cm (17.6 in × 12.6 in) walnut wood panel" – I can't say I'm a fan of measurements appearing in prose like this; it seems like the kind of thing infoboxes are made for. I haven't checked whether this is ever done in art-historical writing, but it seems unlikely.
    • Would rather keep it, it's nice to have a measurement to go a long with the "small" characterization
      • @Aza24: OK; it's not doing any harm. Could there be a comma after "small", though? Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure
  • "The museum which has held the painting since at least 1672, the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana,[4]" is an unnecessary detail for a note discussing the medium; simplify it to "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", linking to the webpage with the relevant information. The text that follows this would read better if the instances of {{Harvnb}} were changed to {{Harvtxt}}.
    • Well the point I was trying to make is that the musuem would have had plenty of time to analyze the painting, perhaps I should simplify to something like "The painting's current location"? I changed to harvtext, looks a lot better. I'm hesitant about using the external link, mainly because the risk of the page needing to be archived.
      • @Aza24: I don't see how the length of time the Ambrosiana has owned the painting would give it a head start on understanding the materials – surely the most reliable scientific analysis would be the most recent? (Which has reminded to check the 2014 Leonardo da Vinci's Technical Practice edited by Michel Menu; turns out it's got a chapter on the Musician.)
        • Hmm I'll remove the year then. And please, I'm all ears if that book has further insight into this inconsistency. Aza24 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I would also add that apart from this being an unnecessary detail, it makes it look as if the citation is for the portrait's having been at the Ambrosiana since 1672, a date which doesn't appear in the source. (The citation for that date comes later, in the "Attribution" section.) I see your point about the external link in my suggested text "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", so I'd now suggest "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana[5]" instead.
  • Is "Chiesa" the right surname for Angela Ottino (d/D)ella Chiesa? There seems to be a preference for "Ottino Della Chiesa, Angela" here.
    • I wasn't sure about this, so I'm glad you could do some research, I've changed to what you recognized as the most prominent.
  • "Latin for 'angelic song'; although art historian Martin Kemp notes [...]" – should the semicolon be a comma?
    • Probably comma
  • "Angela Ottino Della Chiesa identified eleven scholars who supported an attribution to Leonardo; eight attributions to Ambrogio de Predis; two undecided and one to another student of Leonardo, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio." – again, semicolons or commas?
    • Sticking with semi colon, since it's interchangeable here and better separates from the comma before Boltraffio, if that makes sense
  • Should "A Venturi" be "Venturi", or does he need to be distinguished from someone else? If the latter, "A. Venturi" follows MOS:INITIALS. Tooltips might be a good idea for the remaining art historians' names without links in this note, i.e. {{tooltip|Carotti|Giulio Carotti}} and {{tooltip|Castelfranco|Giorgio Castelfranco}}.
    • Done – great point. For Venturi I followed what Ottino Della Chiesa did, which I'm assuming is to avoid confusion with Lionello Venturi.
  • "the face of the angel in Virgin of the Rocks [...] and St. Jerome's face from Saint Jerome in the Wilderness" – the angel's face looks different in the two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks. I assume this is a reference to the Louvre version? I'd suggest "the face of the angel in the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks [...] and that of the titular figure in Saint Jerome in the Wilderness".
    • Changed – I would agree your phrasing is better/clearer

More is to come. Ham II (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far Ham – just glancing at them you seem to have provided some extremely useful insights and critiques. Unfortunately my schedule is getting rather busy but I'll be sure to get to them in the next day or so and look forward to your future comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Ham II just to keep you updated, I've addressed all of your comments thus far. Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Sorry for the delay; here are some more comments from me:

  • The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this filename and our article on Greek love are all under the impression that the portrait is of Marsilio Ficino. Is there any evidence to suggest that art historians have ever seriously thought he was the subject?
    • Have not seen this anywhere. From the outset it seems rather dubious; I suspect it some level of citogenesis
      • @Aza24: I thought as much. I've now changed the filename and the pic at Greek love. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Thank you!
  • The two sets of numbered footnotes would be more distinct from each other if the explanatory footnotes used letters instead of numbers; "[n 1]" presumably stands for "note 1", but isn't "[1]" also "note 1"?
    • Not really following; this seems to be a common system on other articles.
      • @Aza24: I wasn't aware of the classical music featured articles using this. It's not my favourite style for the reason I gave (and to clarify, by "letters" I meant a, b, c, etc., as opposed to n preceding numbers), but it's clearly an acceptable style. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "many Italian musicians and politicians have been proposed as the sitter" – is "politicians" the best way to describe Ludovico and Gian Galeazzo Sforza? What about "noblemen"?
    • Ah good point
  • "the music is not by him" → "the musical notes are not by his hand", for the avoidance of ambiguity.
    • That seems to change the meaning, since the musical notes are certainly by his hand, by the composition is not. I changed to the "this musical composition" although I'm not sure if this is better
      • @Aza24: In that case I misunderstood; the previous sentence reads as if it's about the visual appearance of the notes. I've looked at the Bambach article and would now suggest changing the paragraph's final two sentences to the following: "Leonardo's surviving drawings of rebuses with musical notation do not resemble the score in the painting. It is therefore unlikely that he composed the music, meaning that its composer and significance are unknown." Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes John was having some issue with the phrasing as well, yours is much better. Changed. Aza24 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "a counterpart to the Portrait of a Lady – worth adding "in the Ambrosiana" after this as the title is such a generic one? I'd also suggest "pendant" instead of "counterpart".
    • Both done
  • "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci" → "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci"
    • Oops yes...
  • "the musician's pupils" → "the pupils of the musician's eyes", again to avoid ambiguity.
    • Done
  • "suggesting their collaboration" – Suggesting the collaboration of either Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono with Leonardo, or both artists with Leonardo, or both artists with each other?
    • Uhhh both artists separately, I believe it's clearer now
  • "Leonardo's First Milanese period" – why the capital F? Later, in a footnote, you've got "first Milanese period".
    • Good question... changed
  • "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s." – This point seems a bit underdeveloped. Looking at the source (Syson et al. 2011, p. 95), the argument there seems to be that in the Musician the attention to detail is all at surface level, and doesn't yet show an understanding of the structure of the skull.
    • Well yes, by "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s" I mean like 1488–1490, which is part of the reason the detail in this one isn't up to par, since it's from 1483–1437. Not sure how I can make this clearer in the text but further insight would be appreciated
      • @Aza24: I've tried rephrasing the previous sentence so that its relation to this one is a bit clearer. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Much better
  • I'd combine [n 6] and [n 7] – and why does [n 7] appear first in the article body?
    • I've removed those notes here, probably unnecessary
  • "The Portrait of a Young Man (c. 1490–1491)" – add "in the Pinacoteca di Brera"? (Again because of the generic title.)
    • Agreed
  • "black overpaint", "a layer of black paint" and "layers of black paint" – Judging from the pre-restoration photo, it looks as if it wasn't just black paint that was removed, but also paint the colour of the stole.
    • Yes I suspect this is part of the larger restoration as a whole. No sources have specified this, from what I've seen, so there seems to be little we can do here...
      • @Aza24: I see that "a layer of black paint" is accurately quoting Fagnart, although the visual evidence suggests otherwise. What if that were changed to "a layer of overpaint", which to my mind is still an acceptable paraphrase of the source? Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Certainly
  • "The man may have appeared in other works" – add "by Leonardo and his studio"?
    • Done
  • "He was known to have befriended Leonardo" – "is" not "was"?
    • Yes...
  • "the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood." – These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
    • Changed
  • "ideology of the superiority of painting over other art forms" – Worth working in a link to Paragone somehow?
    • Added... I think it works?
  • Looking at my own 1961 edition of Clark, Penguin Books was then based in Harmondsworth, so is "City of Westminster" right?
    • Certainly
  • The style "London, UK" (etc.) appears throughout the "Sources" section, but the footnotes in the "References" section have "London, England". Ham II (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Oops yes, changed.
      • Thanks again Ham II, I believe I have addressed all of these. Aza24 (talk)
        • @Aza24: I think I might have a few more points to raise, I'm afraid. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ham II, do you have more to come on this, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

A very interesting read, especially as it's not long ago that I did my own first painting FA. This has been well picked over by others, so the following are really just suggestions

  • male portrait x 2—portrait of a male?
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case it may be better to use "male portrait" since "portrait of a male" sounds weirdly similar to Portrait of a Musician I think
  • but is in good condition overall with—comma after "overall"?
    • Definitely
  • Author Walter IsaacsonHis biographer Walter Isaacson would be more helpful
    • Agreed
  • The light dilates both eyes x 2—surely pupils of both eyes?
    • Done
  • author Angela Ottino Della Chiesa—again, "author" gives us no hint why her views matter, also it’s normally lc “della”
    • Changed this, and lowercased all around
  • Leonardo would engage in a study of human anatomyengaged does the same job
    • Done – good catch
  • catalogued—is this correct for AE? I thought that "catalog" was the AE version of our catalogue
    • Yes... lol
Otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for you time and comments Jimfbleak, I believe I've addressed the points above. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with all the above, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Support - Comments from JohnbodEdit

Just a few quickish points. I haven't read everything above.

  • First sentences. You can't leave essential details to the infobox. On my settings the text there isn't even visible in the first screen. The most basic details should be in the first sentences, including location, size and technique/support (I see there was some argy-bargy over the last above). On my screen the location only comes in line 14 of text. Btw, MOS:VA deprecates "housed in", though at least it doesn't say "currently". After argy bargy you have " [[portrait painting|painting]] in the first line - avoiding the Easter egg & just having [[portrait painting]] would be better, even if rather stating the bleeding obvious.
    • Ok, I've changed the portrait painting link. I don't see the "housed in" as one of the specific deprecated phrases but I assume it falls under the "similar phrases" category, I've removed it accordingly. I've added the technique/support in the second sentence, I would prefer to keep the museum later in the lead since it flows well where it is but am happy to discuss further.
  • I'd be inclined to split the current 3rd para at "Over the centuries", and move "Until the 20th century it was thought to show Ludovico Sforza, a Duke of Milan and employer of Leonardo." to the start of the new para. It's been a long time since anyone believed this.
    • Good point, have done this. I'm worried others will object to the 4 paragraph lead but each one is so short individually I think the seperation for continuity makes sense.
  • "... have secured at least a partial attribution to the master. The hesitation for a full attribution is due to the stiff ...." reads lumpily, and doesn't convey to me a summary of the good section on this below. Wouldn't "partial attribution" suggest LdV did some of the work, but somebody else the rest? This seems a somewhat minority view. Is "The hesitation for a full attribution" grammatical? I'd be inclined to go for something like: "Based on stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, most current scholarship attributes at least the sitter's face to him. Uncertainty over the rest of the painting is due to the stiff ....". Or something.
    • Yes Ceoil made a comment about this a long time ago but I wasn't sure how to adjust, your solution works nicely.
  • "The sitter has curly shoulder-length hair, wears a red hat..." Do any of the sources give a name to the hat style? I think "cap" is the more usual term for these (and other brimless styles) . They were especially associated with Florence, especially a few decades earlier, & we could do with an article on the style.
    • Yes Syson says Cap; I think my ignorance changed it to use varied wording without realizing that they are different things :)
  • "and therefore likely representative of polyphonic music". Is "and therefore probably show polyphonic music" better? I think so.
    • Definitely
  • "Drawings from the Royal Library of Windsor " a made-up name. In fact we have Print Room, Windsor, which is where they actually are.
    • Thanks, the mistake was from Bambach, have linked to the appropriate place now. Aza24 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "containing Leonardo's music notational style" confusing - reword
    • Rephrased although I'm not sure how successful I was
  • "Doubts on ascribing the work to Leonardo" - reword - "about"?
    • Done
  • "While its first appearance in a catalog in 1672 listed it as by Leonardo,[26] a 1686 inventory attributed it to Bernardino Luini,[8] which was quickly crossed out and changed to "or rather by Leonardo".[5] Again in 1798 it was attributed to the "school of Luini" but was soon relisted as by Leonardo.[5] " - doesn't read smoothly, & you should make it clear all these are Ambrosiana listings, which hasn't yet been covered.
    • Rephrased
  • " X-ray testing" - there a link for this re paintings somewhere.
  • "The sitter's three-quarter profile was predated by.." reword to lose "predated"
    • Changed to precedented, although I don't really see an issue with "predated"
  • "by the cardinal Federico Borromeo" - should be "by Cardinal Federico Borromeo" - you might mention he founded the Ambrosiana.
    • Certainly
  • Galeazzo Arconati - you might mention the two LdV codices he owned (including the Codex Atlanticus you mention twice).
    • Added with a ref
  • I'd split the "Background" to create a "Provenance" section. You might call the remaining "Background" "Portrait style" or something.
    • Split into "Historical context" and "Provenance" – this is similar to what it used to be actually. The only issue is that the restoration is discussed in Provenance, is this ok or should it be changed to "History"?
  • "Likely inspired by Antonello da Messina and reminiscent of Early Netherlandish painting," - is this better: "Perhaps influenced by Antonello da Messina's introduction of the portrait style of Early Netherlandish painting to Italy...". Inspired seems over the top, & we don't know how many actual EN portraits were around in Milan for LdV to see.
    • Changed, I suppose it is a subtle line between "likely inspired" and "perhaps influenced" – it is hard to gauge the precise exposure Leonardo would have had to Antonello but I'd like to think it is very likely, scholars seem to be far less certain though
  • The 2nd pic of the portrait should be on the left, to face into the page (we don't normally do this for lead images)
    • Was suggested by Sandy above, I disagreed but with a second suggestion it seems worthwhile
  • "The work is first documented in 1672 when it was catalogued by Pietro Paolo Bosca into the Ambrosiana" - just "in the Ambrosiana" ? I'd put that at the start of the para myself.
    • Done – agree with both
  • The recent exhibition history should be its own para, & maybe a sub-section.
    • Done
  • "According to historian Richard Shaw Pooler, "some think the subject is simply anonymous".[37]" - What does this even mean? Never intended as an actual portrait, but some kind of genre painting? Seems pretty unlikely. Is Pooler really an RS - do any of your other sources support this?
    • Have removed this and all Pooler refs. Had some doubts about him before but looking into it further even if it is reliable I wouldn't call it "high quality" as the FAC guidelines ask
  • Giving dates to the various contenders would be useful for readers.
    • Agreed, added
  • "This theory has since been disproven as the iconographic evidence does not match Gaffurius to the sitter.[30] Kemp notes that the letters "Cant" and "Ang" could just as easily be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for 'angelic singer'.[2] Also, the subject of the painting was not depicted in a clerical robe, which would have properly identified him as a priest, and the subject of the painting is a young man (Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood)." A bit of a rewrite needed? "disproved". The cap is also non-clerical , and perhaps the hair. The age bit is just confusing - distinguish between "young man" and "in the first years of adulthood" more clearly.
    • Rephrased this I think. Would be hesitant to add on the cap and hair since the sources don't specify them
  • The "Critical opinion" is mildly disappointing, after the depth of coverage of the various straw-grasping identifications. Is there more in sources?
    • Not much more although I added some. This is probably due to the overlapping of critiscm/praise between scholars, they mainly talk about the same things, pose, stare and lighting. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For once, a good use of a multiple image, which I normally don't like at all.
    • Yeah I was happy with how it turned out as well.
  • Don't any of the sources say that the dress is rather too middle-class for a portrait of a Sforza?
    • Not that I've seen, I guess scholars focused more on the attribution than sitter before the 20th century.
  • That seems to it for now. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your immensely helpful comments Johnbod, I believe I have addressed everything, although I'm happy to discuss any of these, or other points, further. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ok, thanks, all these sorted, except I like "precedented" even less than "predated". Can't you just say "already common/usual in... " (which it was)? Perhaps not the moment, but if it was me I'd take the opportunity of Portrait of a Musician (Pontormo) to move this to Portrait of a Musician (Leonardo), with a disam page. Not important though. Nice work! Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I see what you're saying, have adjusted the "precedented/predated" kerfuffle appropriately. Aza24 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild, your "ping" here was less than ideal... but I saw it on my watchlist :) My irl schedule just died down so now I can get to this, thanks for the reminder. Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CR4ZEEdit

Although I'm late to the party, I did offer to give some input if needed here. I just took a run through the prose and, if it's okay with the coords, I'd have a couple of comments. I'm running off irl now but I will have something to you within the next 12 hours. — CR4ZE (TC) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Cr4ze, looking forward to any comments. I'll be sure to have a look at your article soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's a brief list, but here it is:

  • Very thoughtfully-written descriptor of the work opens this article well. I kept flicking back to the image as the intricacies of the work were discussed. As a casual reader, I was fully engaged with the text here, so well done. My only query (and it is merely that): isn't it his right pupil that is notably more dilated, not the left? (We're looking at him so our orientation is reversed.)
      • Butting in, this is where proper right (or left) are useful. I must say I hadn't realized how lo-res the main image is. The much better close-up detail one here should be in the article somewhere, perhaps near the description. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes thank you for catching that. I checked the source, and you are of course correct, not sure how I missed it! Also thanks John for the link/term, have included it. Added the image as well, looks much nicer. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The stiffly folded piece of paper" shouldn't this be hyphenated?
    • Certainly
  • "hypothesizing as to what" could you lose "as to"?
    • Agreed yes
  • Would the introductory clauses "In 1798 the Ambrosiana" and "When first listed in 1672" need a comma? (Further down: "The work is first documented in 1672".)
    • Hmm I'm not sure about the first one but I would think so for the second.
  • "In the mid-20th century, Leonardo specialist ... another of Leonardo's students" just clarifying here as I may be misunderstanding: eleven scholars agreed the work was Leonardo's, but two were undecided and one thought it was someone else? Would "and one proponent of" read better as "and one a proponent of"?
    • Yes and eight to Ambrogio de Predis. Good point with the "a", makes more sense that way
  • "Other characteristics typical of Leonardo's style ..." Just on grammar, are semicolons needed to list these off or would commas serve better? Could "which seems to have just closed or is about to open" be separated from the main clause with parentheses or em-dashes?
    • Agreed, have adjusted
  • "the most cited frequently candidates" should "cited" and "frequently" be flipped?
    • Oops, definitely
  • "No record of a commission exists" you've already said as much in the second para of Attribution. Perhaps this does need to be restated here? Just checking.
    • Good point, have removed
  • Can the single-sentence paragraph be avoided at all?
    • I hate it too ugh. But in this case I think it's too awkward to have events 200 years apart be right next to each other Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Franchinus Gaffurious
  • "aquatinted" huh? Typo?
        • Fixed I hope, to "acquainted" - but I suppose aquatinted is a word, but not the one wanted here. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Had no idea aquatinted was even a word...
Critical opinion
  • "Zöllner says it the pose is" typo?
    • One would hope so :)
  • "Syson say it is dramatic and compelling; while Isaacson criticizes the shadowing but lauds the lighting of the eyes" seems a little fragmented. Is the semicolon needed or would a comma be better?
  • My apologies, I re-read this and realise it's listing off different critical opinions (either commas or semicolons work here, up to you). In either case, there is a typo here. It should read: "Syson says".CR4ZE (TC) 23:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "A number believe" a bit indiscriminate. What about just "some believe"?
    • Sure yeah
  • "Leonardo famously declared" seems dubious: Leonardo famously said many things.
    • Have changed to "boldly" though perhaps that is too editorial
  • "The painting has also been seen to be" a little clunky
    • Rephrased this
General remarks
  • "to be" can usually be replaced with "was" or "as"; "also" is usually needless; "that" is sometimes needless, particularly if followed by "the", "it" or "this". Just for consideration.
    • Have gone through these, although didn't remove that many "thats" Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall, this is a fine piece of work and a wonderful prospective addition to WPVA's best articles. I enjoyed the reading here and I've learnt something about a work I was hitherto unfamiliar with. Not much else to note. I recognise that some of this is nit-picky, so feel free to push back if you disagree with anything. Thanks! — CR4ZE (TC) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • CR4ZE, nit-picky is exactly what's needed, so thank you! Your time is much appreciated – I believe I have addressed all the above. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane WalakaEdit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Walaka, a Category 5 hurricane that destroyed East Island, Hawaii. While it didn't really affect populated regions, it did destroy an island with its storm surge. NoahTalk 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Support from HurricanehinkEdit

Support Opposefor now, but that's only because the article is short and I have a few nitpicks. It shouldn't be too hard to address these.

  • Where is the source for the first two sentences?
  • While Hurdat supports this, I have removed any mention of this as it seems trivial in retrospect to mention the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.. Where does it end? Especially considering CPHC didn't mention it. I have changed this to mention the powerful storm surge (and the high surf you highlight below). NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The nineteenth named storm, twelfth hurricane, eighth major hurricane, and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season" - It isn't custom to have refs in the lead. Could you put the ref from the 3rd sentence somewhere in the body of the article? Also, that's a lot to have as a clause beginning a sentence. It would be better to have 'Walaka was the nineteenth..."
  • Split the sentences, but I would have to mention all of that info again and cite it in the body if I were to remove the ref from the lead. I don't know if that is worth mentioning all of that outside of an introduction. NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Walaka originated from an area of low pressure that formed over a thousand miles south-southeast of Hawaii on September 24" - could you reword it without mentioning miles for our metric friends worldwide? Also, link LPA
  • Linked and mentioned specific distances to avoid anything subjective. NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it worth linking major hurricane somewhere in the lead?
  • Done. NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecasted that a low-pressure area would form around 130–140° west on September 22, 2018" - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the past tense of "forecast" is still "forecast". Also, did the NHC make the forecast on 9/22, or is that when the LPA was forecast to form?
  • Forecast and forecasted are both technically correct, but I changed it to forecast as MLA and APA decided to oppose forecasted being used. I moved the date to the beginning to avoid confusion. NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder, is mentioning the temperature of the convection a bit too much detail? There isn't a lot of context for why it's important, and it could come across as jargon to non-mets.
  • Removed any value mentioning. NoahTalk 18:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Given how short the article is, I'm wondering if you need the image of Walaka as a C1, since it adds some whitespace to the article.
  • Removed it. NoahTalk 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you mention the storm's proximity to Johnston Atoll in the MH? Also, were there any effects there? It might be better separating Johnston Atoll from the NW Hawaiian Island impacts, since the landmasses are pretty distinct.
  • I can separate them if you think it is important. I couldn't find anything beyond the threat/evacuations. One source mentioned some kind of impact, but didn't give much detail and looked unreliable. NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Walaka made landfall as a high-end Category 3 hurricane approximately 35 mi (55 km) west-northwest of French Frigate Shoals at 06:20 UTC on October 4." - could you link landfall? Also, how can it make landfall west of a landmass? Did it actually strike land?
  • @Hurricanehink: Should I ignore the CPHC on their calling this a landfall as it is grossly inaccurate or add a note about their definition that applies solely to this TCR? NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll note that the CPHC puts "landfall" in quotations. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will change it to avoid the landfall. NoahTalk 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What turned Walaka back to the northeast after its NW turn?
  • Mentioned the upper-level trough. NoahTalk 19:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't link Hawaiian monk seals twice
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't mention any impacts in the state of Hawaii, but given how large it was, I'm sure there was. Here is a story about high surf and lifeguard rescues. NCDC has more about the high surf.
  • Mentioned the surf from NCDC, but it doesn't appear much impact occurred in Hawaii. I checked through several pages of sources, but found very little for Hawaii's main islands. That's likely due to Walaka being nearly or over 1000 miles away from them. NoahTalk 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I added a sentence in for that. I would have mentioned the reefs too, but it doesn't appear the article directly links the algae to Walaka. NoahTalk 20:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Some questions for you... Should I mention the season relation in the met and move the ref there? Past articles have left the ref in the lead. Also, should the Johnston Atoll be separated since it was just evacuations? NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with it in the lead, but see if anyone else has any strong feelings. And since there were no impacts in Johnston, you can leave it where it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: In addition to the questions I listed directly above, is there anything else you feel should be adjusted or added? NoahTalk 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

Images are freely licensed, no other issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Support from DestroyeraaEdit

After some tidbits that Noah did, and some clarification, I support the promotion of this article. Good work Hurricane Noah. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Link storm surge in the first sentence of the lede
  • Linked. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 2018 PHS seems to be hyperactive. You should reflect that in the second sentence if you want.
  • I'm going to avoid doing this as it isn't really important to this storm individually. The season article highlights the overall excessive activity. The relation of the storm to the season is mentioned. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Itthe storm
  • Changed, but I did tropical cyclone instead. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Later in the dayLater that day
  • Changed. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The cyclone took a more northward track - compared to what?
  • The westward track mentioned earlier in the lead. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • though it remained a powerful storm for the next day or so - this is vague. How powerful and for how long?
  • Gave a better description. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • How can an island be destroyed?
  • The storm surge swept all the sand away. It wasn't a large island. More detail is in the body. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll review the rest later. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • entered the Central Pacific Ocean unofficial, should be something like "entered the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC)'s area of jurisdiction."
  • CPHC has used "Central Pacific" numerous times over the years. It isn't really unofficial to say "Central Pacific Ocean" or "Central Pacific Basin". NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest changing "Ocean" to "Basin."~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. NoahTalk 03:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Link changed. NoahTalk 03:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What's a stint of rapid intensification?
  • The word stint means "a period of" in this case. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Walaka's peak intensity made it the second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season → "This made Walaka the second Category 5 hurricane of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season"
  • Declining this suggestion as the current sentence is more clear in that it explains what "this" is. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A strengthening low-pressure system located north of Walaka - was this an upper level low?
  • Hurricane Walaka maintained its peak intensity for six hours → we know it was a hurricane already.
  • Removed. NoahTalk 03:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The cyclone continued to track northward under the influence of a Pacific upper-level low - mention this before in the "low pressure system" part, remove "Pacific".
  • Did both of them. NoahTalk 03:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnston Island → Johnston Atoll
  • Not the only island in the Atoll. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • After completing the eyewall cycle, Walaka reintensified slightly, reaching a secondary peak of 145 mph (230 km/h) around 12:00 UTC on October 3. - Pressure?
  • I don't think the pressure is really that important in this case. We usually don't report pressures other than the peak unless there is a landfall in a populated area. I just don't see what the addition would add context-wise. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Give us another image of Walaka in the MH
  • Added the image back. NoahTalk 03:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I will address the rest of these tomorrow. NoahTalk 03:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • sought an emergency evacuation on October 1. Was this a mandatory evacuation?
  • Since the article says "evacuation request", I would say it wasn't mandatory. NoahTalk 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So Walaka had mostly an ecological effect. What about human effects?
  • It didn't actually hit any populated islands. All the scientists left before the storm. The surf and rescues for the main islands are discussed further down in the section. NoahTalk 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia (Support)Edit

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) tracked the disturbance for another day or so before it moved into the Central Pacific Basin. This sentence feels odd for reasons I can't put a finger on. Surely they tracked it throughout its history? This feels like a sentence put here to work in a link to the NHC (those darn wikilinks often determine our writing). Is the idea to tell us that one hurricane center tracked it until they passed it off to another? Can that be made more clear? And does it belong in the lead? (These are all questions :) :)
  • I do state later on in the lead that the storm was named by the CPHC. I can remove all the mention of warning centers from the lead. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Rid thy writing of the unnecessary "then" ... but were then evacuated before the storm hit. Walaka then neared ... or find a better word :) For example:
    • Four scientists intended to ride out the storm on the island, but were evacuated before the storm hit. A considerably weakened Walaka next approached the far Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
  • I just axed them all as I don't believe they add anything of substance. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed them all ass well. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Please ! No ass welling in here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • LOL... the key must have stuck for that one. I axed a bunch of things I felt weren't essential to the writing. I don't see anything else that should be removed. NoahTalk 23:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Necessitating, ugh! The storm brought high surf to the main Hawaiian Islands, necessitating the rescue of several dozen people off the southern shore of Oahu. --> Several dozen people had to be rescued off the southern shore of Oahu as the storm brought high surf to the main Hawaiian Islands. Why use big words if you don't have to ?
  • Sorry... I guess I like using big and complicated words... I recently used tumultuous in a paper title. I linked Oahu as it wasn't linked before. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Skipping down ... (didn't read the middle ... but watch for similar ... )

  • In data heavy articles, using "respectively" just gives the reader more to deal with. a hurricane watch and warning were issued for the Johnston Atoll on September 30 and October 1, respectively. --> A hurricane watch was issued for Johnston Atoll on September 30 and was upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1.
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Throw-away sentence ... always the case ... Over the next couple of days, the watches and warnings were gradually discontinued.
  • Removed that sentence. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • evacuate the personnel on the next day. ... on the next day, or the next day ?
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment for myself: Add non-breakings in areas. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Did this. NoahTalk 23:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is this italicized in the infobox? Highest winds 1-minute sustained:
  • Changed the template. NoahTalk 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The first para in the lead presents as somewhat of an offputting wall of text full of numbers; might you split the first para in to two, like this?
Hurricane Walaka was a Category 5 hurricane that brought high surf and a powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands. The tropical cyclone was the nineteenth named storm, twelfth hurricane, eighth major hurricane, and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season.
Walaka originated from an area of low pressure that formed around 1,600 mi (2,575 km) south-southeast of Hawaii on September 24. ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Split. NoahTalk 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, all my concerns resolved, looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments From SurenGrig07Edit

I would primarily like to provide various comments concerning the prose of the article, within an attempt to hone my skills in this area; if this would not remain excessively inconvenient, I shall place them here and all commentaries remain open to debate or criticism:

  • "and powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands" ==> "and a powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands"; absent article.
  • Indeed it should be "a storm surge". NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "track under the influence of a low-pressure" ==> Am I not correct within stating that a comma remains appropriate between "track" and "under"?
  • I haven't seen it written that way in writing before. NoahTalk 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "hurricane with winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a pressure of 921 mbar (27.20 inHg) early on October 2" ==> Perhaps the insertion of a comma between "hurricane" and "width", in addition to the millibar measurement and "early", would assist sentence structure.
  • Added commas. NoahTalk 11:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "banding feature – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds –" and " – an elongated region of low atmospheric pressure – " ==> I would suggest the replacement of the dashes within the sentence as an assisting factor within its structure; though this opinion may remain excessively subjective for the nominator and may not comply with the Manual of Style, I regard these as disruptive to sentence structure.
  • It is normal to use dashes to set aside additional material, especially in the case of the former. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The system became Tropical Depression One-C around 12:00 UTC on September 29" ==> "On September 29, at approximately 12:00 UTC, the system became Tropical Depression One-C."
  • You shouldn't break up sentences with unneeded pauses as it chops off the flow of the prose. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Walaka peaked as a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 921 mbar (27.20 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on October 2" ==> "Walaka peaked as a Category 5 hurricane on October 2, with maximum sustained winds of..."
  • Added commas in the one as well. NoahTalk 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Walaka made its closest approach to the French Frigate Shoals around 06:20 UTC on October 4" ==> "On October 4, at approximately 6:20 UTC, Walaka..."
  • Same thing with pauses here. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "a hurricane watch was issued for Johnston Atoll on September 30 and was upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1." ==> "On September 30, a hurricane watch, upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1, was issued for Johnson Atoll."
  • I found this to be confusing to read. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Charles Littnan – director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's protected species division –" ==> This prompts a similar issue statement with regards to the utilisation of dashes.
  • See above on dashes. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "6–12 ft (1.8–3.7 m) high surf" ==> Would it remain incorrect to alter this to "a 6-12 ft..."?
  • It is correct as written. It's standard to use en dashes between ranges of numbers. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I commented concerning the absence of the article; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Added it in. NoahTalk 04:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "that affected the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, as a tropical storm" ==> "that, while a tropical storm, affected..."
  • I just removed the comma here as it wasn't needed. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

These primarily remain suggestions and compliance remains, as with all Wikipedia discussions, at the discretion of the author; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@SurenGrig07: Are there any other issues in the article or is it fine now? NoahTalk 19:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi SurenGrig07, will be there be more to come, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of this section primarily remained the provision of comments concerning issues within the article and I shall not provide support or opposition; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Source ReviewEdit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: source credits Birchard as "Thomas"; is there a reason to use "Tom"?
  • Changed. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Jelsema's first name John or Jon? You've got both
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Check that publication names like Newsweek are italicized throughout
  • Why "The" for NYT but "the" for Guardian?
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN25: don't see that author credit at the source?
  • Check the archived version which is the same as it was seen in 2018. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FN27 should have url status marked as dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinatorsEdit

@Gog the Mild: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article? NoahTalk 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: It certainly would. Go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Movie WorldEdit

Nominator(s): — CR4ZE (TC) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Movie World. Hollywood on the Gold Coast, with a distinctive Aussie lilt. The only place on Earth where you can blast ray guns at 3D Starros in a Cyborg simulation, drop backwards into stark-black from a Scrappy-Doo huff, and catapult out of the Metropolis tunnels on a Superman punch, all in a single day. Over a near-thirty year tenure since its star-studded 1991 opening, Movie World has grown into one of Australia's premier theme parks and most popular tourist attractions. Those old enough will recall the good ol' days when "experiences" that captured the magic of cinema were sought over high-octane scream machines. Five year old me still revels in awe at the studio backlots along the tram tour, and screams in garish delight as I plummet down the Wild West Falls and zip through the veins of Gotham on Batman Adventure. Throughout the 2000s, the park's status as a thrill-seeker's playground burgeoned. Today, its skyline is dominated by arguably Australia's strongest coaster lineup, including the crown jewel, DC Rivals HyperCoaster. The menacing 60 m near-vertical drop in the backwards-facing final row should be on every enthusiast's bucket list, and one I can't wait to experience again (when us south of the border are allowed across it).

Spurred on by a number of visits over recent years, I decided this article deserved an overhaul from the ground up. Save for a couple of cleanup edits in early 2019, I first started work in May this year and I'd like to think I've taken it a lot further than before I started. My work was conducted with almost no FA's to model on, as no modern theme park article has yet reached this standard. I'm relieved to finally be at a point where I can take this no further on my own. A quick note on sources: many news stories were accessed via archives and eLibrary databases hosted on ProQuest. Please Wikimail me if I can assist with spot-checks. Another note on images: there are hundreds available in the commons, so please note I am flexible with adding to or replacing the current selection. It would be an honour to have written Wikipedia's first Featured Article on a large, modern theme park. Thank you in advance and I greatly look forward to a spirited FAC commentary. — CR4ZE (TC) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SpicyEdit

A couple passing comments:

  • It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007 and was the third highest attended theme park in Australia, behind Sea World and Dreamworld. - Why are we citing 13-year-old figures in the lead? I thought at first this might be the peak of its popularity, or the most recent figures available; but this isn't the case since we later learn that in 2013 it "recorded more than 2 million visitors for the first time in its history".
  • The word various appears 12 times in this article. Most, if not all, of these uses are unnecessary and could be removed - e.g. Various costumed characters regularly roam the park -> "Costumed characters regularly roam the park"; It was variously described as the world's first "movie-based theme park" built outside the United States[26] and the first "American-style" theme park -> "It was described as"...
  • Warner moreover recognised the value proposition in the theme park than in the studio. - seems like there is a "greater" or similar missing here? or should that be "recognised the value proposition moreso in the theme park than in the studio"?
  • Between 400 and 500 new jobs were created upon its opening.[25][18] - check that ref numbers are in order
  • Opening attractions at Movie World focused on education about and involvement with the behind the scenes of filmmaking - I find this sentence very awkward, primarily because of "education about and involvement with" and the use of "behind the scenes" as a noun... perhaps this could be rephrased to something like "focused on educating guests about the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking" etc
  • Linking "tour" to "tour guide" seems odd, and I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK
  • In 2003, the Harry Potter attraction closed and was in September by The Official Matrix Exhibit - missing word?
  • Hollywood Stunt Driver closed and was replaced by its sequel on 20 February 2014, a revamped show that featured Showtime FMX motocross riders who perform more thrilling stunts than before. - tense shift
  • The Roxy Theatre off Main Street screens Yogi Bear 4-D Experience. - does it only screen this one film? I find the sentence structure in this paragraph a bit repetitive - every sentence except the final one opens with "[Attraction] [verb]s..."
  • Guests use RFID wristbands to help the villains destroy the area - how does this work exactly? I would think RFID wristbands would be used for tracking purposes
  • Superman Escape catapults from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2 seconds up a top hat - I know it's linked, but you might want to explain in the prose that a top hat is a roller coaster element because it gives a very weird mental image to someone who is not up to speed on rollercoaster terminology!
  • with sales of about 2.6 million units of stock across its 25 outlets generation $17 million in revenue - generating?
  • By 2000, about one third of park tickets were sold via the "Super Pass" deal, although a 20% decline in attendance that year was attributed to Y2K hysteria - not sure the the use of "although" is appropriate here. An overall decline in attendance doesn't necessarily contradict the fact that a different method of ticket purchase became more popular
  • The only notable incident at Movie World occurred on 15 March 2015 - do the sources state that it was the only notable incident?

Overall the article seems quite comprehensive and easy to read. Nice job. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, two reviews in less than 24 hrs! Didn't expect a niche topic to pick up commentary that early, so thank you! I've actioned per above. Some follow-up:
  • 2007 was the first and only instance in which exact attendance numbers were published specifically by Village Roadshow. They otherwise combine figures across all properties in their Theme Parks division. We have figures from other years either coming from RS or being cited by park executives. Just to clarify why 2007 was being given. The last specific yearly number given was 2 million in 2014 (which is so far the apex), but there was an "average" figure of 1.4 million given by Gold Coast Bulletin in 2016. Which figure do you think would be the most relevant to cite in the lead/infobox?
  • I think the most recent figures would be most relevant. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see that "various" is being over-used per se, however I've struck 7 examples. Let me know if you think more could go.
  • reopened on 15 July at 50% guest capacity with various social distancing and sanitisation policies, DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed displays various DC supervillain statues amid criminal acts. what purpose does the word "various" serve here? Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It used to say "moreso", however this is not considered a standard English word, so later on I substituted with "moreover". I checked Merriam-Webster and, that I can see, the grammar was correct here. However, I've recast and hopefully this is clearer.
  • Fair enough on "moreso". The revised version sounds much better. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You have no idea how many times I've spot-checked to make sure refs were in chronological order.   Text/cites have been moved around many times throughout editing, so I must have missed this. If you find any more, please let me know.
  • I previously tried different syntax structures for the "behind the scenes of filmmaking". I've reworked per your suggestion.
  • I'm still bothered by the use of "behind-the-scenes" as a noun. This seems informal at best; I've only ever heard it used as an adjective.
  • Yes, this is the only current screening at the Roxy. Afraid I'll have to differ with you on the prose throughout here. I've opted for great economy of words and think the prose flows well. The attraction-verb structure negates artificial connection from one attraction to another, and alternating per your comment may cause confusion. If you insist, I could introduce more variation, but am still concerned we'd be losing concision and flow as a result.
  • OK, we can agree to disagree on this. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Haven't used the RFID interactive feature myself, so am only 90% sure. From what I know having watched other patrons use the wristbands (and from reading the source) it's an upcharge experience where the statues are activated by wristbands and "come alive". There's one statue (I think it's Killer Croc) that sprays patrons with water. I can furnish this as an example if it helps to clarify however, in having said this, I kind of like the ambiguity in the text here.
  • Thanks for explaining, this is a pretty minor detail so maybe not worth including. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the "weird mental picture" (again, I think the ambiguity piques reader interest), but I added "element" at the end so perhaps it's clearer. If you want me to go further, let me know.
  • Seems better. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't know how it ended up as "generation". I blame auto-correct! (That's a cop-out, I fixed it!  )
  • Here's the direct quote from the Amusement Business article: "Warner Village Theme Parks is having good luck selling its three Gold Coast, Australia, theme parks in package deals, despite this year's 20% decline in attendance attributed to Y2K concerns. About a third of park passes sold to Australians are under a "3 Park Super Pass" deal that includes a ticket for Warner Bros. Movie World, Sea World and Wet'n Wild Water World, plus an extra ticket that can be used for a fourth day at any one of the parks". They're sort of making this connection, however I've tried to rephrase accordingly. Let me know what you think.
  • The source does not state that it was the only notable incident, however it was the only notable one (so far—touch wood). Everything else was just ride stoppages that were sensationalised by journalists as being more serious. However, I've rephrased accordingly to keep attribution with the sources.
  • I still find it a bit clumsy to call it "notable" - the fact that we've chosen to include it in the article already implies that it is notable. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Really appreciate your insight on sources and the last four should be easy:
  • RCDB has been vetted, is highly valued by WP:APARKS for its accuracy and has been cited in multiple FA's and GA's (see SheiKra, Millennium Force, Steel Vengeance, El Toro etc). They've been highly scrupulous with maintaining an accurate coaster database for the past 20 years.
  • Theme Park Review is only being used for coaster POVs to verify ride experiences. Further, the site is run by highly notable enthusiast Robb Alvey and has also been used similarly on FA's and GA's before (ie Millennium Force above). Can't speak to TPR articles, but again they're not being cited here.
  • OK; I'll leave the verdict on these two up to users who are more familiar with theme park articles as I'm not really equipped to evaluate them. Spicy (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You can read my case for at a related discussion here, but to reiterate, they have stated editorial oversight, content policies etc, and Chris Stead is a veteran journalist who has written for multiple RS.
  • Ok, fair enough. Spicy (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The TCI article being cited is an academic journal published by the college itself, not by students, and is clearly written as such. If you'd like to check yourself, please Wikimail me and I'll help with access. No author is credited for the article.
My apologies—authors were credited. They were buried in the blurb. Added just now.CR4ZE (TC) 00:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have access to ProQuest and have looked this up. First I'd like to say that not all journals are created equal and I'd be extremely skeptical of an academic journal published by a for-profit technical college. However this isn't listed as an academic journal in ProQuest but as a trade journal - which is actually a good thing since IMO a trade journal is an adequate source for this sort of information...
  • My next question is, how did you determine that this journal is published by the TCI College of Technology? The name of the journal is TCI but if I look at the scan of the front cover (available on ProQuest) it indicates that TCI stands for Theatre Crafts International, not Technical Career Institutes (and the article is marked as "Copyright Theatre Crafts Aug 1994")... Spicy (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, this was an oversight on my part. When I added the source, I didn't check the front cover as you did. First, I looked up the ISSN, which was unclear as it didn't give a publication name, then searched for TCI New York. TCI College of Technology was the top result and the logos appeared to match. Really appreciate your clarification here and I've corrected the reference. — CR4ZE (TC) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that's the easy ones. Now it's a little trickier. I'll do my best.
  • Had a feeling Parkz would be questioned. I opened discussion about Parkz at RSN some months ago, which didn't really build much consensus as there was only one respondent. If you have the time, I ask that you please read through the relevant discussion here to avoid me restating a case for it again. However, what I have already done across multiple revisions is reduced Parkz citations to a bare minimum and used them mainly for opening/closing dates. Locating replacements for these dates was exceptionally difficult: Gold Coast Bulletin aren't exactly going to publish a news story every time a kids' ride moves or closes. I'll state for the record that if you have a hardline case against Parkz, I will concede and replace them wherever possible. However, replacing all will not be possible, and there will inevitably be gaps in the article about opening/closing dates that cannot be filled.
  • So, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page stating The content of this website is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or currency of the content on this site at any time. This doesn't speak well to the site's reliability. Similarly the page on their editorial policy (which says that they accept user-generated submissions, but fact-check them before publication) says we make no guarantee that the information in the database is up to date and/or correct. If the site is not even willing to describe itself as a reliable source, I unfortunately don't think we can use it on Wikipedia, let alone in a FA which should use not just reliable sources but high-quality reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ReviewTyme was also broached in the discussion linked above. Admittedly, I can't see myself building a strong case here but the critical commentary about the park was quite valuable to the article. I believe ATT would be the relevant policy here as opinions are being cited, not facts. Naturally, if you think ReviewTyme needs to go, again I will concede, but the article will be losing something as a result.
  • Sure, it's an opinion and not a fact, but per WP:DUE we should not include just anyone's opinion. According to their about page the website founders' qualifications are that one of them runs a popular Youtube channel and the other worked at Disney World for a year... I don't think this is the sort of expert knowledge indicated by the guidelines at WP:SPS. In that discussion you mention their sizeable audience and quality of their YouTube content but that doesn't really relate to any of the WP:RS criteria - by analogy, the reception sections for, say, video game articles stick to reviews from established outlets with strong editorial control; they don't include what someone like Pewdiepie has to say about it, even though he has a huge audience and makes (according to some) quality videos. Spicy (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The rationale here seems fair. I've removed the ReviewTyme source in question. If you happen to find any critical commentary from RS about the park, please do let me know, as this was one thing I wish the article had more of. (I've exhausted various databases, journals, search engines etc.) — CR4ZE (TC) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful commentary, please keep it coming! — CR4ZE (TC) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Spicy, following up here as inline comments can get convoluted. Pleased to confirm that I've actioned on all of your recent commentary. Your assessment of Parkz is understood and appreciated. Though it wasn't easy, I've struck every Parkz reference from the article (by extension, had to cut some info about openings/closings etc as well). Added a pinch to the lead as well. Let me know what you think of my changes! — CR4ZE (TC) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy, I was wondering if you have formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgiaEdit

  • MOS:ALLCAPS ... "DC Rivals Roller Coaster REAL Front Seat & BACKWARDS POV! Warner Bros Movie World Australia"
  • Concerned about reliability of sources as covered by Spicy.
  • There are items in See also that are already linked in the article hatnotes.
  • MOS:CAPTIONS, sentence fragments have no final punctuations, full sentences do. Hollywood Stunt Driver relaunched in 2014. sent fragment.
    • I added a period to that one actually. Is that not a full sentence? It has a subject and a verb... Spicy (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
      • It's hard to tell ... it could be better written :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You can use these scripts to fix dates and dashes yourself.[17]
  • In 2020, Fright Nights was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions,[168] however White Christmas is scheduled to go ahead.[169] ... was scheduled to go ahead as of <date>
  • Redundancy, see among other properties all operated by Village Roadshow. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
  • Why is the lead telling us about attendance in 2007? It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007
  • WIkilinking: Warner Bros. is not linked on first occurrence in the lead.

I haven't read further because it doesn't appear the prose is yet FAC ready, and I am concerned about the reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful commentary. To follow-up:
  • Didn't realise per MOS that journal headlines needed to be rewritten in title case, but I've happily done so. Let me know if you spot any others (I found one you hadn't mentioned).
  • Journal headlines don't need to be rewritten in title case; they do need to be consistent. I was pointing out that you need to reduce ALLCAPS to either sentence case or title case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mean I could remove the See also section? Happy to do so. There were more article links in previous revisions although their relevancy was questioned at GAN.
  • Articles that are already linked in the body of the article don't need to be re-linked at See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, linking to a WPian essay isn't giving me much to action on. If you find specific examples of prose that raise a concern, please do let me know.
  • The point of linking you to essays and writing exercises is so that YOU can search for prose redundancies etc rather than having others do it; that is, I am more interested in teaching you to fish than cooking dinner for you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead was reshuffled during GAN and I must've forgotten to move wikilink.
  • Other comments covered in response to Spicy as above.
  • Concerned about your understanding of WP:SPS and reliable sources. It is irrelevant how many articles use a source and how many FAs use a source, and what a WikiProject says about a source. You need to demonstrate that the source is reliable per SPS, that is, by demonstrating that this is met: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We need to see a list of reliable independent publications that have published the work of these SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume you're referring to RCDB, so here's several RS that have quoted its work.[18][19][20][21][22] Please let me know if you have further insight on anything else in the article. — CR4ZE (TC) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In addition, RCDB is a notable topic with its own article. There are quite a few sources you can check there as well that would support its reliability as a source. Also List of roller coaster rankings is an FL that heavily banks on RCDB for its information, and as such, has been vetted once before in this discussion. That discussion may not be enough in and of itself, but it should weigh in to some degree here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, appreciate the time you've put in to leave feedback. Please keep the comments coming! — CR4ZE (TC) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, me again. I note that you seem to have some qualms about this nomination. It has recently passed a source review and I was wondering if that helps you to move towards a formal position re promotion. Fine if not, this is just a heads up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild, both Sandy and Spicy were pinged at the latter's talk here some time ago. Spicy suggested that input from members of projects relevant to the topic would be helpful here. I have already asked at AWNB and APARKS for feedback, with little success. — CR4ZE (TC) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I seem to be constitutionally incapable of tracking pings, and need to be bugged on my talk page if you really want me to revisit :)
I'm not comfortable with the prose.
  • Italian-American film producer Dino De Laurentiis visited the country in 1986, aware of industry buzz over the film Crocodile Dundee and having worked with industry alumni in recent years.
What industry alumni and how do they related to Australia? --> After working with X, de Laurentis became aware of industry buzz and visited the country ? More straightforward? I can't get the point of this sentence.
The next sentence is again less than straightforwrd:
  • With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL) and aided by a AU$12 million Queensland Government investment,[b][3] he commissioned and constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
He obtained a AU$12 million investment from the Queensland Government (give the details here rather than in a footnote). With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL), he constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
Similar in next sentence:
  • However, amid financial jeopardy caused in part by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987, production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.
After the company's finances were jeopardized by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987. Production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.
This is perhaps an Australian English thing ... should who be which?
  • Village Roadshow, who had an established partnership with Warner Bros.
Skipping to the next section:
  • Opening attractions at Movie World focused on educating guests about the processes behind filmmaking.
How do attractions focus? I don't know what this says/means. The first attractions focused on educating guests about filmmaking? I dunno ...
Why are Reception and Incidents grouped in one section-- what is the relationship?
A subsequent investigation revealed a design flaw ... the investigation could not have been anything other than subsequent, a redundancy.

These are samples only, bouncing around. I don't think the prose is ready yet, and think an independent set of eyes could be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia (do you want me to continue pinging?) and, certainly, a fresh set of eyes is always helpful.
  • Yes, some of your commentary is predicated on AmE vs. AuE differences. We use plural relative pronouns in the Australian nomenclature, similar to BrE (ie the Beatles were an English rock band, not was). Note spelling as well: (jeopardise).
  • I've flipped around a couple of sentences per your suggestion. Industry alumni refers to Australian film industry alumni... the Australian industry is literally stated in the sentence prior so I can't see how readers would be confused. Your suggestion doesn't quite match the procession of events according to the source. Nonetheless, tweaked a little.
  • Couldn't see the issue with the QLD Government bit, but I opted instead to roll this into the footnote instead.
  • The source describes the box office bombs as the main factors contributing to DEL going under, but not the only ones (hence the "in part"), but I'm comfortable with your wording.
  • Suppose you're right that reception and incidents don't tie together so well, so I've flipped to level-twos for now. This leaves the incidents section quite small; if you prefer, I could integrate the two notable ones into the history prose.
Keep it coming. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (TC) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I will circle back as I have time, but I intended those as samples only ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I get that, but it gives the implication that I haven't done the work to prepare for FAC, which is untrue. Across multiple revisions both prior to and during, I've made improvements that weren't even brought up here. Please let me know when you have time to continue your review. — CR4ZE (TC) 03:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Several of the alt texts are quite similar to the captions - either improve the description or just refer to caption
  • File:Bugs,_Daffy_%26_Yosemite_-_Movie_World.jpg: given the details at commons:COM:DW, I'm not convinced images like this would be free by Commons' standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Please see diff provided in response to Spicy above. I've commented out the image in contention for now and raised this at commons. As noted above, there are plenty of possible replacements—do you like any of these (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)? Admittedly, the alt text was sloppy but I've made an effort to improve it across all images. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (TC) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Doing now, btw you have a few dup links. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Standardize your ISBNS to ISBN 13 in refs 5 and 6 (use the converter)
  • You're inconsistent with retrieval dates. Really all web/news refs should have one (SMH and Proquest probably don't need them) and at the moment only a few do, with seemingly random consistency
  • I'm unsure why there's sometimes a red lock vs the text "subscription required" – one should be chosen and standardized. And the "registration required" should follow accordingly (the words vs the grey lock)
  • the reliability script I'm using is marking "Theme Park Review" in refs 117 and 121 as generally unreliable. Would think for an FAC they should substituted for higher-quality, reliable sources.
  • Formatting and reliability looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Aza24, thanks for taking the time to do a source review. Just some follow-up:
  • I'm satisfied retrieval date usage is within policy but happy to listen if you could explain otherwise. To quote {{Cite web}} documentation for |accessdate= parameters: "Access dates are not required for links to [...] news articles with publication dates". That's why they're not being used on almost all refs (in fact, they used to be but I removed them manually). The archiving on all online refs should cover the functionality of accessdates, as we have an exact date and time to verify the text back to. Hence why even non-news refs don't have the parameters. In essence, all the reasons for using access parameters are redundant if the refs are archived. As for the 18 instances where accessdates are given, this was done because the sites couldn't be archived (ie GCB articles are paywalled) and are used simply as a courtesy. If it's consistency you're needing here, I could remove those parameters altogether, although I don't see the necessity.
  • The red/grey locks occurs when |url-access= is being used. It was my understanding from reading the documentation that this would be the correct parameter to use for url links. The Proquest articles don't use url paramaters, so that's why their access notice is given as a text, not icon. Happy to substitute url-access for {{pay}} if you'd prefer.
  • Where is this script by the way? I'd be keen to use that in my own editing, if you'd care to share. To speak specifically to "Theme Park Review", sure, I could find replacements if you'd like. However, as outlined above, if not a high-quality RS, TPR at least meets WP:SPS and is being merely used for ride POV videos. To my mind, linking to a notable channel's video of the ride itself would actually be better verification-wise than a news article describing the ride. Happy to replace though, if you do insist.
Really appreciate you taking the time, again. Please let me know your thoughts re the above. If you'd like to conduct some spot-checks and need help with access to any refs, please do let me know or shoot me a Wikimail. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (TC) 09:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes well the main thing I'm getting at here is consistency – I don't want you to think that I'm nitpicking based on my personal preferences :) Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the exception for news sources, I suppose I assumed otherwise because it seemed to be common practice to include them, but no issues there. However, I would think that web (but non-news) sources such as the Roll Coaster database would require them per "Access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date"
  • Once again here, I'm looking for consistency. The issue I see is having "subscription required" template but in other places the red lock, which means the same thing. I'm looking closer now and it looks like the "subscription required" is generated by the SMH template so (I think?) the only solution here is using the {{pay}} template for all as you suggested
  • The script is User:Headbomb/unreliable – a very well made tool. I'm looking closer at the information that the Theme Park refs actually cite (which I should have done before) and I would agree that in this case there doesn't seem to be an issue here.
  • Spotchecks are probably unnecessary since you have a couple of FAs under your belt, but would be happy to if you would insist, or the coords requested them. Do let me know - Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not at all, and any insight based on your preferences would be welcomed as well.   Yes, it's common practice to use them but I don't mind colouring outside the lines. Just to reiterate, I can't see that access dates serve a purpose that archiving cannot, even for sites that don't have publication dates (ie RCDB). The purpose behind it is to say when the information was verified to be true, but if we provide a permanent snapshot that will never rot, that's even better. I can put access parameters back on those non-dated sites if it's a contention. Though I wonder (going outside this FAC) if this is a good point for debate at WT:CS1, as I would argue that the documentation should be updated to the effect of: "accessdate are redundant if refs have been archived". Yes, I've got some FA's hanging on my wall, but I'm human and we can make mistakes. I recently reviewed a GA submission for this year's WikiCup winner and did have a couple of small gripes over some spotchecks. I'll leave the verdict as to whether any are needed here up to you and/or the coords. I've substituted the url-access parameters per your suggestion; it was misbehaving but I worked it out. Thanks again! — CR4ZE (TC) 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
As I was pinged, my opinion on access-dates is that is when it was verified. Archives are often not quite the same as that of what was viewed, and could theoretically be destroyed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
But if the text can be verified from the archived snapshot provided, how is that different? Anyway, that's a rhetorical. This wouldn't be the right forum for a debate over the minutiae. I've added access parameters to the non-dated refs per above. If I've missed any, please let me know. — CR4ZE (TC) 11:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good work here, pass for source review. No promises but I will attempt to come back and leave some comments on the prose. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
No expectations here, just gratitude for your commentary on sources. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (TC) 08:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey again Aza24, wanted to ask if you'd be able to take a run at the prose. Any further commentary would be greatly appreciated, especially as this is now in urgents and running out of time. (Good-faith offer of qpq if needed as well—always happy to repay debt for considered review. If more is needed here, I could take a look). Thanks! — CR4ZE (TC) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you for pinging, my schedule has recently cleared up so I'd be glad to help out. Give me a day or two. The Leonardo is nearly there so don't worry about qpq (just waiting for one user to finish his comments, then I think Gog will promote it), unless of course, you stumble across something terribly wrong with it. :) Aza24 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24Edit

  • I wanted to start my comments before I addressed yours that you so kindly brought to my FAC:
  • Oxenford, Queensland in the infobox but just Queensland in the text? Imo Oxenford, Queensland would make sense for both as Queensland by itself is a huge place. Oops now I'm coming back to see and seeing that it's actually Gold Coast in Queensland vs Oxenford, Queensland?
  • Seems weird to have both italics and quotes for the slogan (in the infobox), but I'm not sure what the standard is
  • I love the use of "annum" but I feel that its not worth the (likely) possibility of confusion for our readers – "year" may be a safer bet here. Alternatively, you could link to the wikitionary article on it, not sure how but there is a way to do it without an external link I believe
  • Would think that the action film link should be action film
  • Gosh this place sounds so cool
  • Whats with the redirect in Batman Adventure – The Ride?
  • Why is the Young Einstein Gravity Homestead... to the end of that paragraph before the Marvin the Martian in 3D opened in December 1997... several new rides. part? It is a little odd to mention the 3d movies that began in 1997, go back in time, and then go back to the 3D movies imo.
  • Got to the Park layout section couldn't find anything else before then. I'll get to the rest later today or maybe tomorrow. The prose reads beautifully... I'm not a huge fan of theme/amusement parks but this one is certainly sounding appealing Aza24 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This nomination is approaching four weeks old and has not yet attracted any supports. I have added it to Urgents, but it needs to attract several substantive reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just wondering if there's anything else I can do on my end. Is there another forum that I could ask at to attract interest in review? I've already tried the relevant WikiProjects to no avail. Would be a shame to see this archived because of minimal input (even opposing commentary would at least give me something to work on). — CR4ZE (TC) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest pinging anyone who has previously reviewed or commented on the article to see if you can get a review out of them. Plus calling in any Wiki-favours you can. And try a polite request on the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I already did the first thing a while ago (happy to try the other ideas later, too). Good news though, just today someone from APARKS has kindly gotten back to me and plans to leave some commentary within the next couple of days. Thanks! — CR4ZE (TC) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Charing Cross tube stationEdit

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the history of Charing Cross Underground station a station with an interesting developmental history including be combined from two separate stations and the introduction and later withdrawal of platforms for the Jubilee line. DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee VilenskiEdit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Can we remove the tooltips usage throughout the article? We generally just use acronyms explained on first usage (which you already do). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • We can, but there are so many acronyms, many of which are similar, that I thought it would be useful to save readers have to scroll back up to see which is which. What do others think?--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there an argument the article should be at Charing Cross (tube station)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No need to explain acronyms if they are not used again in the lede, such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (CCE&HR). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • OK. I see I've defined it further down when it is first used in the body.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The station was served by the Jubilee line between 1979 and 1999, acting as the southern terminus of the line during that period. The two earlier stations were connected together and given the current name when the Jubilee line opened. - as a non-rail fan, I don't think this explains when Charing Cross became the station it is now, did this happen in 1999? I think this needs better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It was in 1979. The two earlier stations were connected below ground with a new passageway and the Jubilee line had escalators which when up to new intermediate concourses.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Planning is uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a simple introductory paragraph that leads into all of the following which are cited. I think those individual citations demonstrate this.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • South Eastern Railway's pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I started writing this a long time ago and someone moved the page in the interim.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There's an odd paragraphing structure in this article, quite a few one or two sentence paragraphs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I've tried to avoid referring to too many railway companies in a single paragraph to help keep them distinct from one another so there are a few ocassions where the paragraphs are quite short. The alternative led to some very dense long paragraphs which were difficult to follow.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Waterloo station, City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge, Aldwych are duplicate links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge dealt with. I can only find one link to Waterloo station, and one to Aldwych in the text, though Aldwych is linked in the succession box and Aldwych and Waterloo are linked in the navigation boxes.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Note "o" is uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There are over 30 notes in this article, are they all necessary? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • There are quite a few, but I use notes for supplementary information that is not directly needed to tell the history of the station, but which is, nevertheless, still important to explain. It keeps the body text tight without deviation. This is the sort of subject that has a lot of secondary information--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we change the reflist to not change the column widths, {{reflist}} is very clever, and can do this on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • OK for the notes list, but the short format citation style leaves a lot of white space between the columns without a specified width. A width of 20em means that they fit more compactly together.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the external links is a bit ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • How so? The links to the London Transport Museum provide a lot of interesting historic photographs of the station throughout it's history that are not readily available by other means. I think these provide a valuable addition to the article. Although old, many of these are previously unpublished so not out of copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia directly.The Abandoned stations site shows the now closed Jubilee line platforms in operation. The Square wheels site provides a nice illustrative progression of the changing names for the station and the others that changes along with it.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Use in media needs some work, why is it important that they have had things shot there? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Given their prominence on the London street scene, an "In the media" section is not uncommon on London Underground articles. Particularly where the station is used in films and TV. The closed parks of Green Park and Aldwych tube station both appear regularly as other Underground stations.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The bit about the music video for cry is uncited. I'm also not sure why it gets more WP:WEIGHT than movies being shot there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Not deliberately given more weight, just that the previous set are all films and television. I could merge this into a single list of film, television and other media. The best way to cite this would be to link to the video on Youtube or Vimeo, but the two versions on Youtube and the version on Vimeo do not appear to be officially sanctioned and we're not allowed to link to them in that case. She left the music business and does not seem to have any official site, but fresh digging did find a citation. Which I have added.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lee, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've taken a look through the article, and it seems suitable to me. Great job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lee.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

SG commentsEdit

This is odd; how do we determine who the publisher is, and should there not be an accessdate? "Out of Station Interchanges" (XLS). Transport for London. 19 February 2019.

  • As the Jubilee line platforms and track are still maintained by TfL AS OF DATE NEEDED for operational reasons, they can also be used by film and television makers requiring a modern Underground station location.
  • This section heading is odd since it's not new, it's old ... Proposal for new connection Maybe, 2005 proposal for connection?
    • "New" in the sense that it would be a "new connection" rather than a "new proposal" Changed to "Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway".--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Recent developments could be improved to avoid MOS:CURRENT problem as it becomes dated.
    • Section retitled and information updated now planning decision has been granted.--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry for the delay; for some reason, I still can't grok the pingie thingie and lose track of pings.
I am not comfortable with the prose here. There is a lot of WP:PROSELINE; subsequent paragraphs starting with "On date X, Y happened".
  • Not a train person, but there are too many statements that I don't know what they mean, eg, "Tunnelling under the mainline station was done in compressed air to prevent any damage from ground movements."
There are examples were the prose could be more straightforward and less passive voice, such as:
  • In 2016 and 2017, the two ticket halls were separately closed for refurbishment with interior finishes and lighting being replaced and new ticket barriers being installed. --?
  • The two ticket halls were closed on two occasions: in 2016 to replace interior finishes and lighting and in 2017 to install new ticket barriers.
Awkward way to start a sentence: 1884 saw the proposal of two cut-and-cover lines to link Charing Cross with one of the northern terminals.
The construction of sentences is often awkward: As had the opening of the C&SLR ten years earlier, the successful opening of the CLR in 1900 spurred another set of proposals for new lines with routes criss-crossing London.
I can't find anything worthy of an oppose, but neither can I find the prose warrants a Support, and think independent eyes for a copyedit might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Seeing some sandwiching between the images and infobox
    • Running at 100% zoom in the Vector skin, it only seems to be a minor problem at around 1400 pixels wide and then there's only two or three lines where the text is sandwiched between the two and then there are around 50 to 60 characters. Wider than that and narrower, then that the problem goes away.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Why use div align in captions?
    • When the images were added the caption_align=center parameter did not work properly and the only way I could centre align them was use the div method. It seems to work as intended now. Removed as they are working as planned.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Several of the maps would benefit from being scaled up
    • I'd be happy for them to be bigger, but I didn't want to overwhelm the text with them. What width do you think. They should all be the same size. --DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Would suggest |upright=1.2. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Ok. Done for the maps in the planning section. I have had to increase the size of the map in the multi-image box in the 1860s-1870s box manual by multiplying it be 1.2 as the upright function does not work in that template.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:An_iron_tube_for_the_Waterloo_and_Whitehall_Pnumatic_Railway.png: image description states the image is from an "issue of Scientific American" - what issue, or what date? It also has a tag stating the image is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago - who is the author and what was their date of death?
    • I've traced the image to the front page of the edition from 16 March 1867 (Volume 16, Issue 11) (Interestingly Scientific American wants to charge $7.99 for a copy when it's available for free from on the Internet Archive). Our version is sharper than that in the Internet Archive version. There are two inscriptions, one bottom left which looks like "Seitz Del". This could be the same as an "L. Seitz, Del" that appears on another engraving in Scientific American in 1869 and this also from 1869. I can't find any indication who this might be. The second inscription is something like "E.N.Y" in the bottom middle. Again, can't find anything on this. Nevertheless, the correct copyright notice should be {{PD-US-expired}} because it was published before 1925. I have detailed this in the image description.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:The_Street_railway_journal_(1906)_(14760781405).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, please add a more specific copyright tag
  • File:David_Gentleman_Charing_Cross_2.jpg: what's the copyright status of the mural?
    • The artwork will be copyright, but "freedom of panorama" will apply to this.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Freedom of panorama in the UK does not cover 2D graphic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Would this one be better? It's a wider view focused less on the mural.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
          • No, I would say the mural is still the primary focus of that image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
            • Arguably, this is part of "a building" of which photographs are permitted. Alternatively, a fair use argument could be made for inclusion of one of these on the basis that it is a small portion of a much larger work (up to 100 m long) used to provide readers with an understanding of the character of the work.--DavidCane (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
              • I don't think the building argument holds water, but you're welcome to try for a fair-use argument if you don't think the character of the larger work can be demonstrated using a portion that is not copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
                • I don't see how a portion might not be copyrighted.--DavidCane (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
                  • For example the motif from the following example is out of copyright. If you mean you want to demonstrate only this particular mural, then yes, fair use would be the only potential avenue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
                    • The group of three images are included to show the stylistic differences of the decoration use for the three lines, so I'll add a fair use argument.--DavidCane (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Charing_Cross_tube_stn_Bakerloo_platform_motif.JPG should include a tag for the original artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, have you formed a view on this one yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The only issue still outstanding is the mural, which now has a fair-use rationale but a CC tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I left this in place as the image was originally released on that basis. Should the CC tag be removed because of the copyright of the part of the image that is the mural?--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You can keep the CC tag for the photo, but you'll need a fair-use tag for the mural. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
fair use tags for this article and the artist's article are in place, though the bot's seem to getting confused by these and the simultaneous CC tag.--DavidCane (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref one says "XLS" ref 2 says "XLSX" – assuming they should be the same?
    • I've fixed the citation template for the first.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • retrieval date for ref 1 missing.
    • citation template updated to include this.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ref 141 really isn't a reliable source (same with 160 – the same site), it's a blog and seems to be self published.
    • 141: It is a blog, but about three quarters of the way down the page you will see the copyright notice for the maps and the link to the Freedom of Information Request and Answer page where TfL has posted the originals. These, link to PDF or HTML versions (first plan in each set) which the author of IanVisits has rotated and cleaned-up. Therefore, I think the plan is verifiable and the source can be ascertained. The link to the equivalent map for Green Park was accepted when that article went through the FAC process in 2018.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • 160: As indicated above, this is included primarily for the photographs of the subway areas. Ref 161 links to the Westminster City Council Planning page with the specifics of the approval, including drawings.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Your justification seems sound here. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Retrieval dates missing in refs 155, 163, 167
    • 155 and 163: Done. I've used 8 May, which is the date the article was transferred from my sandbox.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    • 167: Done. citation template amended.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ISBNs that don't begin with "978" are ISBN 10s and should be updated to their appropriate ISBN 13 equivalents. (use the converter)
  • Not ref related but you have some double links: London Waterloo station, City of London, Aldwych tube station and Bank and Monument stations
    • Done for London Waterloo, Aldwych and Bank and Monument. The second link for City of London is against "the City" which is linked to clarify that this is distinct from "the city" in a generic sense. This was to address a comment on the talk page.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks not done – can be done if requested by coords
  • Reliability looks fine other than refs 141/160 Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Alright thanks for your work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This nomination is four weeks old and has only attracted one support. I put it on Urgents a few days ago, but it needs to attract several further reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

I'm making some minor copyedits as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The BS&WR and CCE&HR are mentioned in the 1890s section as two of the numerous proposals of the late 19th century. Once we say they were approved the article moves on to other proposals, and the reader has no way to know that these will ultimately be the first to be constructed. I'd suggest signposting this a bit, e.g. with "The BS&WR and the CCE&HR would become the first two lines through Charing Cross to be completed, though it was several years before construction began on either line" at the end of the second paragraph of the 1890s section.
  • How much of the material in this article would re-appear in articles about some of the other stations -- e.g Leicester Square, or Piccadilly, or Embankment? I'm wondering if it would be better to organize some of the planning discussions in a more summary-style way. A reader looking for information about the history of the station needs to see the history of planning, but a reader interested in reading about the history of half-a-dozen stations doesn't expect to see half the article repeated in each case. What's your guideline for deciding what to include in this article and what can be left to articles such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway.
  • work on the Fleet line's stages 2 and 3 did not proceed: we haven't said what these stages were planned to include.

Generally this is in good shape. Two of the points above are minor, but the organizational question seems like a bigger issue. I'd like to be convinced that the content of the article will not have to be extensively duplicated in other articles before I support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry DivisionEdit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier this year, this article was nominated for FA-Status and not approved due to its length and some flaws in the coverage of the First World War period. Since then, the article has been split. This article covers the division's history between 1920–1945. The article has also been reassessed, and recently passed a new A-Class review. During the inter-war years, the West Lancashire Division was transformed from a three-brigade infantry division into a two-brigade motor division. As the Second World War loomed, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division. Then, during the war, the 55th was assigned to home defence duties and remained in the UK. While it was raised to the higher establishment in 1944, indicating potential combat duties, it was stripped of its assets for use in other formations. The division was maintained as a deception formation, assisting Operation Fortitude, before being demobilized at the end of the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I reviewed the original article at GAN and Milhist ACR, but haven't looked at it in its current reduced form. I have a few comments:

  • I suggest the following tweak to reduce the confusion with the two different articles and the bolding/hatnote:

    The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army's Territorial Army (TA) that did not see combat during the Second World War. It was initially raised in 1908 as the West Lancashire Division, part of the British Army's Territorial Force (TF). It fought in the First World War, as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division, and demobilised following the fighting. In 1920, when the TF was reconstituted as the TA, the division was reformed as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division.

I don't think the WWI "55th (West Lancashire) Division" should be bolded, as it is not a significant alternative name for this formation. Bold the final one as it is a significant alternative name for this division. I know, pedantry, but still. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The was part→This was part, and drop the comma after change
  • I don't think "broken-up" is right, shouldn't it be "broken up"?
  • suggest "fought during the Battles of the Somme, Passchendaele, and Estaires, and took part in the Hundred Days Offensive."
  • "the 164th (North Lancashire), the 165th (Liverpool), and the 166th (South Lancashire and Cheshire) Infantry Brigades" as they are proper nouns, and drop the brigade link here and move it to the next instance
  • for reviewed link military parade
  • suggest "During the interwar period, TA formations and units were only permitted to recruit up to 60 per cent of their established strength"
  • move the division link to first mention in the first section
  • suggest "The reform started the process of removing infantry and artillery elements from the division"→"This resulted in the removal of infantry and artillery elements from the division"
  • "around which the new divisions could be expanded"
  • "The 55th provided cadres to create thea second line "duplicate" formation"

Down to Second World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy down to here except for the lead bolding tweak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It isn't clear to me on what basis the division raised the 164th Brigade prior to the war when it was supposed to be a two-brigade motor division and it already had the 165th and 166th. What was it going to do with it? Transfer it to a new or existing division?
    The sources outline the duplication process going from division down to battalion level i.e. the 55th helped form the 59th; the 166th Bde cast off a cadre that became the 177th Bde etc. The process was supposed to start when the TA was officially expanded, but differed by division. The early 1939 Army Lists show the 164th Bde disappearing from the OOB, and not being there right through the August 39 security edition. Joslen states the 166th was used to form a cadre for the 59th's new brigade, and was then was then transferred itself to give the 59th its second brigade (it was a motor division too). The 55th apparently keeping the newly raised 164th, which Joslen does not state anything about. An additional note under the 176th and 177th is that they were administered by the 55th, until the 59th was able to function as a separate formation. I wasn't able to find the 164th's Bde CO in the London Gazette to state when he took command (and implied reformation of the bde), although he is not the same as the one who held the command when the brigade disappeared from the OOB in early 1939. Prior to the outbreak of the war, per the August '39 security list, he was the GSO1 for the 5th division.
    With all that said and done, any advise on how to best word this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
So, can I ask, when does the 164th Brigade reappear on the Army List? Because if it wasn't in the August edition, that calls into question Joslen's contention that it was raised before the outbreak of war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Royal Air Force Handley Page Hampdens bombers"
  • link General (United Kingdom)
  • "providing mobile detachments to hunt downrespond to any German airborne landings"
  • "This freed up the 199th Infantry Brigade and an artillery regiment to be transferred to the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division" unless its name had already changed, and if so, please insert this name change in the appropriate spot
    199th Bde was with the 66th Division, until it was broken up. The bde did not change its name to the 166th div until 15 August 1944. There is a brief mention of this in the wind-down section. Would you suggest being more specific in the latter section, with a date?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no I mean that at the time the 199th Bde was transferred the name of the division was presumably still the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division, not just the 55th Division. And on what date did it change name to the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • link Military reserve for reserve formation
  • drop the comma after "The intention of this deployment"
  • rather than link to Belgian Army, what about Free Belgian forces#Belgian Army in the United Kingdom
  • "The division remained within the United Kingdom and was drained of manpower to a point that it was all but disbanded"
  • for deception formation link Military deception#World War II
  • I'm finding it hard to follow the deployment of the division as part of Operation Fortitude. When did the division move from North to South?
    I have made some tweaks to that section, and added a little extra info. Do these changes make things more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • should it be West Lancashire in the final sentence?
  • in Footnote h, "Infantry Divisions" not "infantry divisions"

That's me done. I haven't checked the sources or spotchecked the content, I'll leave that to the source reviewer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your review. I have attempted to address all of the majority of your points above. I have left three small notes as reminders for myself; those points, I will attempt to tackle later. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, just a couple of additional outstanding comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24Edit

Should be able to review later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Honan ChapelEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the columniation of a few years work that hopefully conveys the Honan Chapel and its art collection's reputation as a Celtic-Romanesque jewel. The page has been peer reviewed, and was the subject of independent heavy duty reviews by Venicescapes, KJP1, and EEng. My interest is primarily in the Harry Clarke stained glass windows and Imogen Stuart carvings; I am totally a fan, but as ever with Irish and especially Cork related articles, Guliolopez, who wrote the early drafts of the article and established most of the sources, has been watching content and tone, with years, and hopefully neutrality is maintained. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to say that my religious beliefs make it impossible for me to participate in the FA process, but I wish you all the luck in the world. EEng 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sissy. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

SG comments (Support)Edit

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:SANDWICH abounds :)
    Images reduced and moved about. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    I am still getting all kinds of sandwiched text on both my iPad and my laptop (not home to check desktop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Let me know where, and will make a call. Have already reduced the images to 0.8 which for an art article is already too small. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    On laptop, in Architecture section. And all the sections below in iPad.
    Hmm; thinking. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    On iPad, in An Tur Gloine section. And Finnbarr and Ita section. And Brendan, Decaln and Bobnait section.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)':Hmmm
  • Check your ps and pps, sample: Teehan & Heckett 2005, pp. 201.
    Think ok now Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Why italics on Fineen's church? The plain, round bell tower is based on the 12th-century Irish round tower on Teampull Finghin (Fineen's church) in Clonmacnoise, County Offaly.
  • Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Harv ref warning: Ryan, Fergus (2019). "Iconography of the Honan Chapel: symphony of a single idea?". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature. 119C. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRyan2019.
  • Hidden Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Somewhere in the citations there is a missing periodical, because the error category, CS1 errors: missing periodical, is populated. I wish I knew how to find these for you.
  • " It was positioned on a five-legged table, each leg of which was embedded with an Irish crucifix[44]" ... doesn't a crucifix contain the figure of Christ? Should this mention just a cross? Did it have a figure of Christ?
  • Should three-ringed by hyphenated? " ... brightly coloured altar decorated with three ringed crosses"
  • yup, and done. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Fifteen pages is a broad range to have to search through: Teehan & Heckett 2005, pp. 210–225.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have it next to me, now trimmed to pp. 210–212 Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • On two of three different browsers/computers I have checked, MOS:SANDWICH is now resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The external link Youtube of Notre Dame at the Honan Chapel is not warming my heart :) The quality is not great and it is not increasing my appreciation for the Chapel.
  • Quality not great, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Did something change? MOS:SANDWICH is back in the "Brendan, Declan and Gobnait" section. Can we just not have a gallery of the windows, to put them all in one place? Lots of images of stained glass windows, but nothing of the chancel and altar ... some industrious Irishman should go take one :)
  • Looking good ... are you able to find another location for either the Detail of Clarke's original modello, 1914 image or the Detail of the Gobnait window, 1916 image, which are causing the sandwich? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Its a long and troubled saga. Went over there (only 6 miles) a few times in the late summer for more pics, but they were always closed down to the public...cathcing up on the wedding backlog. We are again in lock down with last few weeks, so may be december before get there again. Longer term plan is to have a gallery for each window section, with at least one pic per Clarke window. The current format is a holding position. Meanwhile, yes will do do something re Gobnait; imo the modello is better than the final image so would hate to loose...hold on. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And...that sect converted now. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ... who provided large donations towards the construction of the chapel --> made significant donations ... generously donated ... ?
  • yeah, went with significant which is better. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't start paragraph with "she", name her? She wears royal blue clothes and her facial features are based on ...
  • Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we combine this somewhere or say something more about it ... don't most altars have candlesticks? The altar also has candlesticks.
  • Removed Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Article says ... dedicated to Saint Finbarr, patron saint of Cork and of the Diocese of Cork ... but never explicitly tells us the Chapel is part of the Diocese of Cork.
    Now added to the infobox, with link to the diocese's website. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am ready to support, but want to see the sandwiching resolved. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sandwiching per WP:SANDWICH. There are images on opposite sides of the article but not starting at the same level which is what SANDWICH is aiming to avoid. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
On my laptop I don't see any – I checked a desktop and there is some (I suspect the difference in media is the cause of the discrepancy above) with the "Moulding a the chapel's entrance", St Declan, St Ita and to a lesser extant the sea creature. Ceoil, I would recommend a multi image like the drawings in Portrait of a Musician#Identity of the sitter for St Ita (combining with St Finbarr – would work out nicely with the section name there too); for St Declan perhaps move it to the right and then remove the "{{clear}}" at the bottom of that section? Unsure about what to do about the moulding one, which is probably the most extreme sandwich, Sea creature seems OK to me but maybe Sandy disagrees Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Aza24 she means in the Brendan, Declan and Gobnait sect only...will hopefully but not defiantly be past lock down early December, so can get there there and take new pics, and switch to a full gallery format. Meanwhile, the half assed and incomplete left/right and 1 gallery format, given I have only a few pics to play with, will have to do. On it. Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, looking forward to more awesome images after lockdown ends! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch for all the suggestions and help. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Honan Hostel.jpg: what is the pre-1925 published source?
Added...1916 source. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Harry Clarke (photo).jpg Needs pre-1925 publication to be PD-US
  • Other images OK for copyright
  • Sandwiching in the "Architecture" and "stained glass windows" sections should be resolved per MOS:IMAGELOC (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Buidhe, IMAGELOC, I see you and EE have done some work here and it looks better. I may switch some of the windows section to a stacked gallery format. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    You know you've arrived when you're referred to without context by just two characteres. But my real aspiration is to become a single character, and then (with hard work and luck) no characters at all. EEng 23:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Giving credit where credit is due " ". Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "A further eight" Would "The other eight" be better? Since you are now accounting for all 19.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " In 1911, the Queen's Colleges ceased as legal entities and Catholics were thereafter eligible to attend." Would it be better to say that the charters were voided or some such? The colleges apparently continued so existed in some form.
  • "and was acquainted with several members of the Irish Arts and Crafts and Celtic revival movements." Isn't this implied if not explicitly stated in the previous sentence?
  • Removed this Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "which had overseen the construction of the Eye, Ear & Throat hospital." Should hospital be capped?
  • Yes. Done Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " on grounds believed to be close to an early Christian monastic site founded by the saint.[34]" and "on a site once thought to contain one of Finbarr's original churches.[27]" seem mildly inconsistent.
  • Check consistency between "St." and "St". Similarly, "molding" and "moulding".
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "It contained silver ornaments fitted by the Dublin gold and silversmith Edmond Johnson and William Egan and Sons of St Patrick's Street, Cork.[43]' Should the second "and" be "of"?
  • No, but have tried to clarify via punctuation. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The western doorway's moldings were carved from lozenge and pellets.[35]" Looking at the links here, they define lozenge as a geometric shape. I understand pellets as particles, but were these carved from a geometric shape?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt; working through these now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain what your linking practice is for the saints in "Patrick, Brigid and Columcille" subsection.#
  • Now standardized. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Following the Easter Rising that year" probably deserves a link.
  • Added. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "in praise of God; Clarke depicts this in the depictions of birds on the window's borders.[71]" depicts/depictions.
  • Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " In the upper panel, the victims of a plague fled to her for sanctuary and protection." Possibly "flee" for "fled"? You use present tense for the other windows.
  • Got it. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ita is sometimes known as the "The Brigid of Munster",[116] her window is dominated by shades of blue, a colour usually associated with Brigid.[118]" The first comma likely should be a semicolon.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Clarke left notes on the window frame how "in the border and wherever possible emblems are introduced symbolising Ita's great devotion to the Holy Trinity."[118]" is there a missing word before "how"?
  • Have rewritten this. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you're consistent in hyphenating "stained glass", even when used as an adjective.
  • All hymphens removed for this construct. Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In the footnotes, sometimes you use conventional reference footnotes, but once it's "See Rogers (1997), p. 209" Is there a reason?
  • No, have reformatted this. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That's all. I've done some minor copyediting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Interesting. If I ever get back to Cork I'll make a point of going there.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1Edit

Great to see this here, Ceoil. I shall certainly comment but am currently away so it will be next week. KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - work's been a nightmare. I missed the PR, but took a look at the article post-PR. It was looking good then, and has only improved since, through the comments here, and through another very detailed post-PR review. A few further observations below KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Background and construction
  • "acquired the site of St. Anthony's Hall (also known as Berkley Hall)" - the UCC Conservation Plan, p.21, has "Berkeley Hall" which looks right.
  • "the Honan Chapel's architectural style is Celtic-Romanesque revival" - the infobox lists the architectural type as Romanesque Revival, and the architectural styles as Arts & Crafts and Art Nouveau. Does the infobox need to reference the particularly "Celtic Revival" flavour of the building which, as the article shows, is perhaps the chapel's most notable feature?
  • "The chapel is located on a hillside overlooking the valley of the River Lee, near a site once thought to contain one of Finbarr's original churches" - this is also referenced at the end of the previous para. The "once thought" leads me to ask - do historians/archaeologists no longer think that it was the site of an early church?
  • "The western doorway's mouldings were carved from lozenge and pellets" - this reads just a little oddly to me. And being super-picky, Keohane also lists chevrons. Perhaps, "The western doorway's mouldings were carved as lozenges, pellets and chevrons"? Related, the chevron you've linked under Altar below, goes to Chevron (geology) whereas I think Chevron (insignia) is more appropriate. That said, you won't need the link if you make the amendment suggested above.
  • "and shows the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus crucified, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove" - perhaps, "and shows the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus crucified, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove"?
Stained glass windows
  • Footnote D - I'm puzzled by this. If there was fighting in the vicinity of the chapel, surely Purser's windows were as much under threat as Clarke's? I'm assuming that the Republicans didn't take a particular dislike to Clarke's on aesthetic grounds? Does the source explain? And another super-picky point. Footnotes D and I follow the references, whereas A, B, C, E and H precede them. Does the MoS call for consistency on this point? Ignore me if it doesn't.
  • The trouble was in Dublin rather than Cork, was very localised, and was before the glass was moved - will make this clearer. Ceoil (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Harry Clarke
  • "Clarke's windows are all single-light (that have just one opening, or verticle panel)" - is this a Gaelic variant of "vertical"?
  • "in particular the darker, fin de siècle works of Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Egon Schiele. In particular, his blending of bold and dark colours has been praised" - the proximity of the two "in particular"s jars a little. Perhaps, "in particular the darker, fin de siècle works of Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Egon Schiel. His blending of bold and dark colours has been especially praised.."
Brendan, Declan and Gobnait
  • "Brendan's sore-tired contemporaries" - Just checking that "sore-tired" isn't a typo, "sore-tried" would seem to make more sense?
  • "The upper panels details his return to Ireland from Wales" - either panels or details needs to lose its "s".
Finnbarr and Ita
  • "he is said to have worn continuously since the day he is said to have met with Christ" - you could lose the second "he is said".
Our Lord (Child)
  • "He is set off from the other saints by the window's tone frame the splendour of his crown," - not quite getting this. Is there a missing comma after "frame"? And is it, "by the colour tone of the window's frame, the splendour..."?
Administration and liturgical services
  • "The Honan is a separate legal identity from the university" - "entity" rather than "identity"?

It's a great article, beautifully illustrated, and I look forward to supporting when you've had a chance to review the above comments. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you KJP1 for your time and insight. As this is more in your area than mine, and the article is in part based on, in format and style, earlier FACs by you, especially appreciate. Addressing points now. Ceoil (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
All sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking very good and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

  • Some random (very minor) comments first Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Unsure about including this but is there a reason for the "Population growth and migration" that could be briefly mentioned?
There may be different theory's, some thorny, and not sure its in scope. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing "early 20th century" to "early 20th century Ireland" as to not make the reader think that you're referring to Ireland's part in some global event
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you give meters in parenthesis when using feet earlier, you may want to do this with centimeters when you use inches
    added Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • May want to take a second look at the link to Wales... :)
    Eek. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe add a "further reading" to Saint Gobnait (Clarke) under the Brendan, Declan and Gobnait section?
    Added. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Bit confused about some of the image captions, "St. Fachtna" vs St. Ita vs simply the name of the saint
    Standardised now.. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I made some minor (fussy) edits – mostly linking and formatting things Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 missing retrieval date
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like you have the wrong year for Fennessy, and are missing the "Repercussions of Reform" part of the title – you could probably add the publisher here too since you have it later
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Would add retrieval date for Wendy Good ref since you have them for the other online refs
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • O'Connell could use an OCLC too (should be on the page)
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Any identifier for Wilson 2013? (JSTOR or DOI?)
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Assuming Wincott Heckett should be marked as a PDF as well
  • Not sure how to do this; hold on... Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact I dont know how to do this - the link does not have .pdf in the address, even though it it is a pdf. Help needed. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Found no doubts about reliability while I was looking through sources – spot checks not done, although if the coords need/want them for some reason I would be able to. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks Aza, working through...Ceoil (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
All addressed now, I think. Thank you for this most helpful review Aza. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Happy to help. I added a "format=PDF" which doesn't have the little icon but I think it's the best we can get if the url doesn't have ".pdf" at the end of it. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and sound. Ceoil (talk)

Support Comments from TRMEdit

Adding a section for me to add some inane thoughts: definitely not an SME but hope that means my comments might be taken in good faith and be helpful to the wider community. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • The lead calls it a "small" church. I'm always at odds with this (it's never called "small" again) as one man's small is another man's XXL. Is it really needed?
  • No, Removed. Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "wealthy Cork family," don't think you linked Cork itself yet.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "the build of the" feels very modern to call it a "build", perhaps "construction"?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a thought: there are a handful of sentences in the lead with inline references. Is that really needed? Just on a personal level I aim to have nothing in the lead referenced as I know it'll be included and expanded upon in the main part of the article.
  • Have trimmed a few, and more can go...hang on.... Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (It was particularly jarring when I got to "... internationally known[7] for its ...")
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Eleven were designed and installed by Harry Clarke.[9] The other eight..." I would merge with a "while" or something here, avoiding that short sentence.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "the Celtic-Romanesque revival style " is a sea of blue (I didn't realise either side of the hyphen linked to different articles) plus the infobox says it's actually "Romanesque Revival architecture" (no mention of Celtic- and upper case Revival).
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent with linking, you have Cork (city) and Cork City, for instance.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Queens College Cork" should that be "Queen's College Cork"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "A few years previously": "a few" always jars with me for an encyclopedia.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "she left £40,000 to the" it may seem vulgar to some but I've always valued an inflation-related conversion to see what this really meant contextually.
  • Added £4.85M in todays money, translated from a cpi website. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You redlink O'Connell in the main body but not the lead, is that an approved approach?
    Need to do an article on him, but link removed for now. Ceoil (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " at UCC[20] and" personal thing, I loathe mid-stream refs especially if not after punctuation, any chance of moving this?
    Yup, moved for your pleasure Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "O'Connell was assisted in..." aesthically and flow-wise, this mini-para jars a little, any chance of flowing it into the other paras?
  • Merged with a later para Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "to Donovans road," I can't see the ref but can you confirm it's not "Donovans Road" or even "Donovan's Road"?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I always get this stuff wrong but should "the mid 20th century" be "mid-20th"?
  • Fixed a few of these. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "O'Connell, who in 1929, after ..." I lost count of the run-ons in this sentence.
  • Chopped up. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "which had overseen the construction of the Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital" this appears to be non-notable (i.e. not linked) so it needs context, like why is it relevant to mention it?
  • Gone Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " principal builder[29] and completed the work at a cost of £8,000.[B][31] The foundation stone, laid on 18 May 1915 ..." feels like we jumped a bit here, the completion didn't happen until 1916 and the next sentence jumps back to the foundation stone.
    Reworded this Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "of the Diocese of Cork;[12][33] on grounds " not sure why that's a semi-colon and not just a comma.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Chapel's architectural style is Celtic-Romanesque revival." see above.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The site is located on a hillside overlooking the valley of the River Lee, near a site..." the site ... near a site... repetitive.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Would Listed building be an appropriate link for "The building is listed as a protected structure " for those readers who have no idea what a listed building means?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The chapel's interior is given a simple layout," why "is given a" rather than "has"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would link "nave" (first time).
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And "chancel" and "nunnery".
  • Both linked Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "relatively simple[27][29] " this is repetitive.
  • Section is rewritted. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " in response to the changed liturgical requirements," this is a complete mystery to me, what does it mean?
  • Clarified and linked. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " the Adoration of the Lamb, with " do you mean this to link to the Ghent artwork?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "and have been described as the best" by Teehan? Or in general?
  • Clarified as per Teehan. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The mosaic flooring was designed and installed by the UK-based mosaic artist" a shame to repeat mosaic so quickly.
  • Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "is part serpent" hyphenated? etc.
  • Done, though I struggle with hyphenation in general Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure you need to (redirectly) link "planets" to "Solar system".
  • No, Removed. Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "the imagery more restrained. The imagery depicts " quickly repetitive.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the "g" of "garden of Eden" usually capitalised as it's a kind of "formal" name?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Four windows depict female saints, each in a deep royal blue colour scheme." seems unreferenced.
    This is noted by a number of sources...hold on...Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "[78][E][69][79] " it's perhaps a personal thing but I tend to keep refs and footnotes separate.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " a "distinct advance on anything which has been heretofore done in Ireland in stained glass.[40] " missing a closing quote mark.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "are all single light" forgive my ignorance, I have no idea what this means.
    It means the number of horizontal frames. Will clarify. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Brigid, Patrick and Columcille," all overlinked.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "in the late summer and autumn " I think we're advised to avoid seasons as they differ per WP:SEASON.
  • Clarified now as August to October Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " a grotesque, claw-limbed Judas Iscariot[40] appears " according to whom and again, disliking that awkward ref placement. I'm sure our readers can wait until the end of the sentence.
  • Ref moved and attributed to Lucy Costigan. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Declán of Ardmore" appears to have a diacritic.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "described as the "most remarkable" of " by whom?
  • Now attributed to "curator and writer Audrey Whitty" Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure we don't need to link Bee.
  • Jesus. Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • crozier or crosier? Pick one and link it once only.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "dedicated to Finbarr, patron saint of Cor" Finbarr is overlinked.
  • Sorted Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "is located on the north wall of " aren't windows normally "in" walls?
  • Windows are on walls where I come from. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " met with Christ, who" you link Christ here but I think you've mentioned Jesus beforehand?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "ascetic St. Ita was born " St Ita overlinked.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "sixth-century" -> "6th century" for internal consistency.
  • Done
  • "She is sometimes " and " Ita is sometimes" in consecutive sentences, a little bit repetitive.
  • reconfigured Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "a halo. The upper register shows Mary enthroned " halo and Mary overlinked.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "with Ita, a halo.[118] which according to " grammar fail.
  • Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "symbolizes" not sure on this one, this is clearly written in USEng but the rest of the article is in BritEng, but it's a quote. Just querying.
  • Left as is as its a quote...think [sic]. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • " the Trinity" the doesn't need to be part of the link.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " little known eighth century" ->"little-known eighth-century"
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "and is located on the chapel's" on or in again.
  • See above Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " depict Mary and " Mary is overlinked.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "openening" typo.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "to depict Our Lady of Sorrows.[124] " overlinked.
  • sorted Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it "single light" or "single-light"?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "O'Kelly writes that" surely "wrote"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Her "St. John" window in the only in the" doesn't make sense.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Link "register" first time round.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "following Vatican II meant" again this is intractable to me, perhaps some explanation is needed.
  • No, Removed. Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Celtic Revival or Celtic revival again...
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Caveat: I haven't taken a single look at references yet, that's still to come.

That's my first quick pass. Hope some of it is useful, feel free to disregard any stupidity. I am aware that a certain user has started to "review my review" (on a previous FAC) which I find very uncomfortable so if that particular individual gets involved here, I will not engage in this review at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sound. Am about half ways through resolving, agree with nearly all, these are a huge help. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I nether know nor care who that other editor is, but to say I have found your help here most beneficial, actually very much so, by the time we are finished addressing, the article will be far stronger. In other words, you are very much welcome here. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man...all adressed now I think. Phew! Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
As noted, I'm far from an SME on this subject, but I enjoyed the article and I'm pleased that my concerns have been addressed so I'm happy to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments and support from GerdaEdit

I watched the article grow, after a beautiful invitation, until peer review, and will look as if I never did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Why is Jesus linked, but Mary not?
  • "by A. E. Child, Catherine O'Brien and Ethel Rhind of An Túr Gloine ("The Glass Tower") cooperative studio." - I suggest to have sooner that it's a studio, - it comes as a surprise after the brackets.
  • Both done. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


  • I wonder if all the image caption needs to be there, vs. in the body.
  • I am no friend of a note and 4 refs after one fact. Also perhaps observe ascending ref order.
  • Both done. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • first completed. then foundation stone? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Gerda....all sorted. Thanks for comments here and at earlier PR. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


  • "architectural historian and conservationist Frank Keohane as "a little too commonplace and formulaic"" - I'd like to see a hint at when he said so, without clicking to the ref. (Coming from an article where a view 100 years old is presented as if relevant.)
  • Added Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure that the listing belongs in Architecture at all, but certainly not between the site and entering ;)
  • It is a bit acquard to place. If left in the sect, but put it as the last claim. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The chapel's interior has a simple layout" is no surprise after the Keohane comment ;) - topped by "The oblong nave is relatively simple"
  • Trimmed Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How about the tower sooner, when still "outside"?
    All good ideas...working through. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


  • What do you think of making this and the next headers level 3 under architecture.
  • Yeah, went with that Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The chapel has had two altars." Many chapels have many altars. How about saying one after the other and why in the first sentence?
  • Addressed Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "lozenge and saltire", dots and chevrons, - only one has a link but I don't know if geology is what we want there?
    Now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


  • I don't see God the Father, - may be just me.

Mosaic floor

  • Psalm 148 will be expanded, promised, - just working on a hymn based on it.
  • as said, "saltire" should have a link the first time.

That's it for tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Stained glass

  • production - produce (too close in first sentence, no?)
  • Yes. Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the long list of windows, with saints and artists, wouldn't be better in a table. I had forgotten that Child was a surname. Linking at present is inconsistent, and in a table, I'd just link all saints. Child appears now without given name and link first, and has initials and a link later.
    Have considered this, but in the end it would be too intrusive (19 rows) in an article that's already, arguabaly, too heavily weighted towards the windows, vs eg the furnishings. Also, have been involved recently in a discussion on the table in this article which leaves me cold re long tables in non-list pages. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


  • ref order + number
  • Sorted Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "single-light", what's that? - ignore if just me
  • Its not just you. Its basically the number of vertical panels, ie the number of openings in the window grouping. Clarified now in the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • now Mary is linked?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • delink folklore?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


  • 3 saints, - treat all equal, all with "Saint" or none, or explain
  • connection of the Judas image to this section?
  • Have regiged this. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


  • delink Christ?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Chance's"?

In the end, I'd think it would be good idea to name saints ("Saint" or "St." or "St" or nothing) consistently. Once a name is established, the person could appear with just the name. I confess that for Irish names, I often don't know if man or woman, and some pronoun following a name soon would help. - You gave me a video from a concert there: any information about events? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah re Irish names & man or woman; can be confusing with all those vowels etc. Will address that shortly and drop in pro-nouns to guide the reader. Re st., st, or saint, am aiming to just call them by first name after first mention. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Re events, there arnt that many performances / concerts - the venue is very small, though with excellent acoustics, and they seem to be preoccupied with weddings for ex alumni, alas. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, per Sandy above, have removed the ext link to the Fauré requiem[23]. Alas its hand held and very shaky, and only of value to nerds (or something!) like us. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I see that, but think it's worth mentioning that the chapel is used for performing music in concert - if it is, and give the dates of that one as an example of the scope. Thank you for all the fixes, - out now, and busy today anyway, don't expect much more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to dress up something that isn't there. The chapel's admin dept is mostly preoccupied with making ends meet, ie through weddings. Ceoil (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Understand. I think the present use - even weddings - deserved a little mention, but also understand that this is firstly a cultural heritage. Ready to support, and already looking at the next, which - as the last - I recommend to review.
Article says "It hosts an average of 150 wedding services per year for graduates, which are a funding source for the chapel.[146]
yes, I also have Kaikhosru on my to do list. And thanks for review. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JohnbodEdit

Clearly pretty much there, but:

  • "is a small Catholic collegiate church..." - is it in fact? "a collegiate church is a church where the daily office of worship is maintained by a college of canons..." - I think this is just a university church. It's owned by a trust, as you know.
  • There are various expressions of the style. The NIAH uses "Hiberno-Romanesque style" for the architecture, which isn't used, but probably should be. I've fiddled a bit with some of these, but not adding H-R.
  • " and interior statuettes, floor, furniture and liturgical collection" - repeated just after
  • " in a traditionally Irish style"
  • "Population growth and migration in " - "urbanization" better? In Ireland "migration" usually means away from the island completely, no?
  • " O'Kelly suggests they evoke "the spirit of the ancient Celt"" - iffy link?
  • more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks John. Working through these now. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Done to here except Hiberno-Romanesque style - will address shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Addressed, and the Hiberno aspect is discussed later in the page, mostly around O'Connell and his influences and aspirations. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Johnbod, I would like to move this one along. Any chance of your further comments over the next few days? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Resuming:
  • There are loads of "St"s and "St."s, which for the actual saints are not usually liked - I won't even look to see what MOS:SAINT has to say.
  • " While a number of the early Honan windows were completed by assistants working from his designs, Clarke solely designed the cartoon, transferred it to glass, and oversaw its installation in Cork." - reword "solely". Not sure what " transferred it to glass" involved. Nor the bit below. Can we have a fuller explanation of the process?
  • more later. I've done bits myself, which I hope are ok. Nearly there now (down to Finbarr). Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry RegimentEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This unit was formed in late 1864 during Price's Raid, fought throughout the raid, and then just kinda existed until the Confederate surrender in mid-1864. This passed a GA review in July, and a MILHIST A-Class review in August. As recently as a couple days ago, I had no intentions of bringing this to FAC, but I recently had a sourcing breakthrough that allowed me to fill in a few missing details. Because the lawyer-turned-soldier who commanded the regiment didn't write official reports, unit strengths and some exact dates are a little fuzzy, and casualties are completely unknown, but I think I've collected what's possibly the single most comprehensive register of this unit's story still in existence. Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SG (Support)Edit

MOS and prose nitpicks resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:ACCIM, images after article links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @SandyGeorgia: - I'm not sure that I understand what needs done here; it's not clear which part of WP:ACCIM the article is in violation of. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
      • If you only knew how much it took me to coerce my iPad into cooperating!. Point 8 at ACCIM says “after the heading and after any links to other articles“ ... has to do with how screenreaders process the page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh, okay. So the image should have been below the {{main}}. I'll watch for that in the future. Hog Farm Bacon 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Whole lotta clauses here: By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave incumbent president Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States Presidential Election over George B. McClellan, who promoted ending the war. Could it be split to:
    In the 1864 United States Presidential Election, incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war. By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan.
  • However, this proved to be impossible, ... "however" not needed here (implied)?? See overuse of however.
    Removed this instance, as well as another up in the background section that wasn't really necessary
  • That night, Slayback sent a note to ... Slayback's unit was then positioned north of the fort in order to detect any potential Union movement.[19] That night, the Union garrison retreated without being detected That night twice in para, vary wording?
    Rephrased the first one
  • Slayback's battalion then retreated 2 miles ... what does "then" add?
    Removed the offending word. I speak a rural form of South Midland English, which adds words like "then" and "yet" in sentences where they don't really belong. In RL, I probably end sentences with "yet" as much as I do any other word.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @SandyGeorgia: - Thanks for these first points. I've got these prelimenary ones replied to. Hog Farm Bacon 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking good ... a few more (my time is divided these days :)

  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; it later participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. On October 22, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. Slayback's unit then saw action at the Battle of Westport on October 23, the Battle of Marmiton River on October 25, and the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28. Do we need to burden those readers who only look at leads (which according to some WMF people are most of them) will this long string of dates? How about:
  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; later that month, it participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. In October, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. The unit then saw action that month at the Battle of Westport, the Battle of Marmiton River, and the Second Battle of Newtonia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Went with something similar (I rephrased the battles with piped links, so the word "battle" was only used once.
  • The militia were sent to the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, where Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon dispersed the group using Union Army troops in the Camp Jackson affair on May 10. OK, now I'm going backwards on what I said above wrt dates, because in the body of the article, I think we can provide more detail. Since not all readers will know in what MONTH of 1861 the war started (per the previous sentence), it would be helpful to add the 1861 to the May 10 here. That is, IF the war had started say, in November, the May 10 date would have been the next year ... we can spell out the exact date here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added to clarify that the war began in April 1861; does that make it clear enough that adding the 1861 to May isn't necessary?
  • The words "pro-secession" are used three times in the first paragraph of Background. Perhaps you can find a way to vary the prose ... maybe use "secessionist" ... or find a way to re-cast the sentences to avoid the repetition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    I've rephrased the middle instance
  • John Newman Edwards, an adjutant serving with Shelby, claimed that a stop ... it is not clear here why we are using an WTA, "claimed".
    Worded as "Stated" instead. Edwards isn't a particularly reliable eyewitnesses, but probably best stated with neutral attribution
  • the regiment contained ten companies --> the regiment comprised ten companies ???
  • incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war --> incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending it (my bad :)
  • At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of winning the war. ... I am not fond of the "at this point", but don't know how to fix it. Also, because we use the word "war" a lot here, how about "very little chance of victory" to vary the wording?
    Done the second. I'm not sure how to fix the first one. IMO, something like that is necessary, as the Confederates had a decent chance to win in early 1863
  • preventing a large scale crossing ... hyphen on large-scale ??
    Think so. Done.
  • would be an effective offensive; Smith approved the plan and appointed Price to command the offensive. Price expected that the offensive ... need to vary wording ... perhaps use other terms like operation, attack, or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Rephrased two of the three instances

Everything resolved. I know nothing of the sources, trusting the MILHIST A-class review, but will look in again later to make sure no one has pooped on your sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, just checking if that was an offer to do a source review - which is needed - before I post it at Requests. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: I see very few online sources ... Hog Farm, is there anything you can email me if I undertake the source review? Even if only some scans of book pages, I would be willing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
OOps, never mind ... saved by the Harrias bell! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with approved sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I looked at this at ACR. Let's see what else I can find to pick at.

  • "Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson supported secession". Maybe 'secession from the United States'? So non-North Americans know what you are talking about.
    • Done
  • "At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of victory." Optional: 'By this point'.
    • Previous sentence starts with "by", so I'll probably leave this as is for now
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force". Consider "to be" → 'as'.
    • Done. Thought I'd already done this, but it was at the Marais des Cygnes ACR. I've done too many Price's Raid articles.
  • "On September 27, 1864, Slayback's unit made a minor assault against the defenses of Fort Davidson during the Battle of Pilot Knob; the unit suffered light casualties" Can we avoid "unit" twice in the sentence?
    • Sure. Done.
  • "suggesting that Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre if the fort fell, as Price might not be able to restrain his soldiers from starting a massacre" "massacred" and "massacre". I suggest deleting "from starting a massacre." It is clear from context anyway.
    • Done
  • "overinflated" → 'inflated'.
    • Done
  • "to give up on taking the city and head west." Optional: Use more encyclopedic language.
  • *Done
  • "to scout the approach of this force" → 'to scout for the approach of this force.'
    • Done
  • "The unit next fought at the Battle of Marmiton River later that day" Could we be reminded which day?
    • Done
  • Final paragraph: mention the war ending.
    • I've added a brief bit; check if its enough

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have, this is a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this at GAN and Milhist ACR, so I may be too familiar with the material to see the wood for the trees, but I'll give it the once over. BTW, I'm glad you've brought this here, I am a strong believer that any article on a truly notable subject can reach FA if it is truly comprehensive.

  • in the lead, the phrase "were stationed at different points" implies they were still on duty and under orders, which clashes with the concept that the unit had actually disbanded. Perhaps "were located at different points"?
    • Done
  • "At the outset of the American Civil War in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state" to avoid repetition of "state"
    • Removed
  • "commission as a major general" link officer (armed forces) to commission
    • Done
  • say who John Newman Edwards was
    • Glossed
  • say Lincoln was the incumbent president
    • Done
  • "Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department" as it isn't clear what side we are talking about
    • Done. I sometimes forget that while Smith and the Trans-Mississippi Department are familiar to me, they're completely unfamiliar to somewhere around 98% of the English-speaking population
  • Given Fox has been introduced as the governor of Missouri, some sort of introduction to Reynolds is needed "new Confederate Governor..."? When did he become governor?
    • Done, but I relegated the date to a footnote
  • suggest "suggesting that if the fort fell, Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre." But this is unclear, was Slayback threatening that he and others would do this, or warning Ewing so he would hold on? This has implications for the outcome, given Slayback's troops didn't detect the Union departure.
    • Slayback didn't think Price could keep his army from massacring everyone. I've added this, is this better for understanding?
  • "On October 2, while stationed at Union" Union, Missouri? Or is this a typo?
    • Union, Missouri. It was linked above, but I've duplinked, which I think is acceptable, given the ambiguity of "Union" in this article.
  • "Meanwhile, the Confederates were moving steadily westwards towards Kansas City", do you mean the Confederate main body?
    • Done. I also realized that I neglected to mention that Thompson had rejoined the main column.
  • "hittingattacking Colonel Charles R. Jennison's brigade in the flank"
    • Done
  • Because Rector has religious and academic meanings, "Rector Johnson" is confusing unless you add his rank. My quick search indicates he was a major, which makes sense given he commanded a battalion
    • Added the rank of Major. I'm Baptist, and we don't have rectors as a title, so I never thought of that possible confusion
  • It isn't clear prior to "Shelby then ordered Thompson's brigade to charge" that Slayback's battalion was part of his brigade
    • Added, as it was part of Thompson's brigade at this point, although the sources imply that Slayback operated independently from Thompson at Second Newtonia
  • link rearguard
    • Linked
  • "each briefly holding up the Union pursuit" if that is what is meant? if so, then perhaps "then falling back some distance in turn"
    • Yes, done. Appears to have been a common tactic of Shelby's, as he also used it in the 1862 Battle of Cane Hill
  • "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke Major General James F. Fagan" what is a Marmaduke Major General? Or do you mean "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke and Major General James F. Fagan, and..."?
    • Missing an "and", which I've added.

That's all I could find. Great job on this, it has improved quite a lot since I first reviewed it at GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

    • @Peacemaker67: - All replied to above. I've also tweaked the final sentence to better reflect the sources. I personally think that a claim that the unit was issued lances in lieu of firearms has been accepted by at least Sellmeyer is indicative of the entire level ad hoc that Price's Raid existed in. Hog Farm Bacon 19:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Aza24Edit

Non-Milhist reviewer here Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  • what do you mean by "raised as", the meaning here seems somewhat ambiguous, raised as in "trained" or "formed"? Perhaps just remove "raised as" and keep "Originally" (using "Formerly" could also work to)
    • Replaced "raised" with "formed", as the latter word is going to make more sense to a non-MILHIST person
  • Since the riot is in between the dates May 10 and May 12 it seemed to have happen quickly after May 10, maybe change to "A pro-secession riot in St. Louis soon/quickly followed"? Just a random idea
    • Riot actually started later on May 10, so I've clarified there
  • Another minor thing, you link the armies of the Confederacy/Union and the Confederacy itself, but not the Union (Union (American Civil War)) perhaps add to "retreated in the face of Union reinforcements"?
    • Done
  • Union, Missouri is double linked
    • Fixed
  • Shouldn't regiment be linked earlier – as you can see, am I struggling to find things to comments on, lol...
    • It should be, corrected
  • Surely Lincoln and George B. McClellan should have links? Probably garrison as well
    • Thought I'd linked them. Done
  • Would also like to see some kind of identifier for George B. McClellan, like how Lincoln has "president"
    • Glossed that he was a former Union general
  • Since McGee is introduced a sentence earlier, his second mention can simply be "...although McGhee considers that claim..."
    • Done. I forgot to update this when I added the earlier mention of McGhee during the pre-FAC tuneup.
  • "considers that claim to likely be inaccurate" seems kind of redundant with both "considers" and "likely", although maybe it's just me
    • Rephrased
  • Really not much to say about the prose, especially in the Service history section, a very engaging read! Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Aza24 - Thanks for taking a look at this, I've replied to all of your comments above. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Great, happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review: passEdit

Consistency and formatting

  • Rather than "" as the work title and "Missouri State Archives" as the publisher, it would seem to make more sense to me to have "Missouri State Archives" as the work title and "Missouri Office of the Secretary of State" as the publisher.
    • Done
  • Otherwise sources seem to be consistently and appropriately formatted.

Been called away, but will check quality, coverage and accuracy later. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Harrias - I can email you some scans of Kennedy or Sinisi (although I used a borrowed edition of Sinisi than the one I own, so pagination will be different). Probably a week before I can get copies of the right pages of McGhee, Busch, or Monnett. Hog Farm Bacon 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Quality and coverage

  • The sources used all appear to be reliable and of good quality. The 1893 Official Records, a primary source, are used sparingly and mostly for attributed opinions of those present. There is one usage, ref #41a, where a quote "melted away" is used without inline attribution; please add that.
  • Various searches reveal no obvious missing source literature.

Accuracy: spotchecks

  • Ref #4 checks out fine.
  • Ref #12a checks out fine.
  • Ref #17 checks out fine.
  • Ref #31 check out fine.

One minor attribution fix I would appreciate, but otherwise this is all fine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Harrias - I've attributed the "melting away" quote. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • All good then. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Raymond Pace AlexanderEdit

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Raymond Pace Alexander, a civil rights lawyer, politician, and state court judge from Pennsylvania. I wrote most of it in 2017 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2018. After adding a few sources and facts, I think it is ready for promotion to FA. Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SG (Support)Edit

  • In The Death and legacy section, it appears that Leon Sullivan may have been buried alive ;) ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A non-US reader might wonder who Jim Crow is. Although it is linked, a few words of explanation would help. “ ... escape from the violence that accompanied Jim Crow.“ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • “ ... he was not yet barred” ... odd colloquialism ... not yet licensed to practice? Not yet admitted to the bar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Sandy, thanks for catching these. My corrections are here. Please let me know if you find any others. -Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Very good (I will do a more thorough read through if I find time, but the usual ... competent writing, worthy nom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "The ploy was successful" has a pejorative tone ... switch to " his plan succeeded"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, I made some minor copyedits, mostly to vary some redundant wording and fix MOS:LQ; please revert anything you disagree with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Those edits look good to me, thanks for them and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:RaymondPaceAlexander1943.jpg: any idea what the original source of this was? Given the date it's possible the copyright has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The details at the University of Pennsylvania archives say the photographer was G. Marshall Wilson, who died in 1998. I assumed it was still copyrighted, but if it isn't I could use a higher-resolution version of it. How could I find out? Should I e-mail Penn? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      • You could try that, but the image description says this is a publicity photo and I don't see that on the Penn site - where did that info come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Good question. Likely my own error in 2017 when I uploaded it. I changed it to "Portrait photograph," which is what the Penn site says. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: I've still heard nothing from Penn's archives about the photo. How should I proceed? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
          • In that case we'll need to keep it as non-free for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
            • OK. I'll update it if it becomes possible to do so. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • I don't know if it helps you or hurts your non-free rationale, but Alexander is pictured in the Penn yearbook for 1920 (page 18), out of copyright, here, which has some details on his address and activities. The 1943 image has the look of a shot taken for a university publication, by the way. You might want to poke around some online for Penn publications of that era, likely from the Law School or maybe Wharton. If it was, it probably wasn't copyrighted. As you suggest above, the University Archives might have information.
  • Probably hurts, if anything, but I'll add that photo somewhere in the article and see what else I can dig up. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • " As he was not yet barred, Alexander hired an attorney to represent him." That doesn't seem a complete answer as he could have represented himself, I assume? (leaving aside the question of the wisdom of that course)
  • Yeah, that puzzled me, too. His biographer doesn't say why he hired a lawyer, I presume because he thought his education wasn't complete enough to do it himself? Not sure what I'll do about that sentence. Might be best to cut the whole thing. I'll think on it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ultimately, he took a position in the law office of John R.K. Scott, a white Republican former Congressman with a small office in the city.[17]" probably you should lower-case Congressman.
  • Done.
  • "After she was convicted and sentenced to death, Alexander secured her a new trial at which she was found not guilty, a first in Pennsylvania legal history.[18]" What first was this?
  • His biographer actually calls it a "landmark," which I took to mean "a first", but maybe it wasn't? I changed to more closely summarize the original language. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thurgood Marshall was, I think, chief counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, not the NAACP itself?
  • The sources conflate the two, but you're right, so I made the clarification. Thanks for catching that.
That's it. Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. My corrections are here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

  • I notice that you combine refs for ref 41 – assuming you should do this with 76 and 77 as well
    • Done.
  • Chuck Stone has a link, I believe this is the correct person
    • Done, thanks for finding that.
  • ISBN for Petshek should be ISBN 13 not 10 (use the converter)
    • Done. I didn't know that was even an option.
  • Newspapers aren't in alphabetical order, unless you meant to do chronological? although this would be inconsistent with what you do for books & journals
    • I do newspapers chronologically based on someone telling me to in a previous FAC. I think it makes sense because many early newspaper stories don't have named authors (only one such story in this article, though).
      • Ah I see, fair point.
  • Miller (1959) should be "pp." not "p."
    • Done
  • This is optional but there's a Template:Cite interview that you could use for "Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Oral History" – so as to include the interviewer and subjects names clearly
    • Done. I didn't know about that template, but I'll add it to other articles I've written that reference the Philips interviews.
  • Everything else looks good – formatting wise. The only thing I would say is that you link Fund for the Republic but not the other publishers, not an outstanding issue though of course. Found no issues with reliability. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I did this only because it was unusual and I though most people wouldn't have heard of it (I hadn't, myself).
      • Makes sense to me.
    • Thanks for the review and the suggestions. My changes are here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Spotchecks - PassEdit

Will do some soon Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref 4 - kind of? I don't see anything about the "western part" – unsure but it may also be worth adding that Du Bois seemed to classify this as a more comfortable part of the ward
    • 24th street is the western part of the ward, but the sentence was too complicated so I took it out and added the part about DuBois.
      • Great
  • No page number given for ref 5
    • Fixed this.
  • Canton 2010: refs 6 (a&b), 18, 35, 45, 63, 70, 71, 80 all good
  • Checked some for Canton 2008 but I forgot to record which ones, they were all fine though... Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the checks! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pass for spotchecks Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Jr8825Edit

A very interesting read on a worthy topic, thanks for your work.

  • Alexander also entered the political realm, unsuccessfully running for judge several times – is being a judge considered a political role in the US? (To a Brit like myself this sounds strange, but it may simply be we have different systems.) I noticed that the section below is called "Political and judicial career". Are they two separate, concurrent things? (In which case it could be written as "entered the political realm, and unsuccessfully ran for judge several times" to separate the clauses more clearly.)
    • In Pennsylvania, it is an elected, partisan position. I agree that it's weird, but it's how we do it.
  • lived in the western part of the Seventh Ward in what is called Center City Philadelphia today – I found this a bit uneven and you need a comma after Center City. Perhaps you can tweak the wording a bit?
    • I tweaked the language there.
  • gave horseback riding lessons to wealthy white people in Philadelphia and on the Main Line – how about "in Philadelphia and the affluent suburbs along/within the Main Line"? I initially read this as 'they gave horseback riding lessons along the railway tracks'. I also think the next sentence would be better joined into this one with a comma: "the Main Line, but by 1915, the emergence..."
    • Makes sense. I made the change.
  • Alexander and others credited Schnader's conversion to his recognition of – I had to read this a couple of times to follow it correctly (although I am quite tired)! Could it be spelt out more explicitly (e.g. conversion to the desegregation cause/newfound support for their campaign)?
    • Yup, done.
  • former Republicans who left their party – is "former Republicans who had left their party" better?
    • Done.
  • with funding an logistical assistance – should "an" be "and"?
    • Yes, thanks for catching that.
  • I noticed there are four redlinks. I know there's nothing inherently wrong about this, but are all 4 individuals definitely notable enough for future articles?
    • I think so, yes. I think all meet the guidelines in WP:POLOUTCOMES other than Maceo W. Hubbard, but I think he's discuss in enough sources that I could justify writing a short article about him.
  • The article alternates between "African American" and "African-American".
    • I changed them all to "African American," to match our article on the subject. The categories are still hyphenated, because they do not conform to the article. Wikipedia seems to be all over the place on this, too.
Cheers, Jr8825Talk 23:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review. My changes are here, let me know if you think more need be done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, all looks good to me. Jr8825Talk 02:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matiasEdit

  • "The Paces were a working-class family as well." This sentence feels out of place as it is, and it may be better merged with the subsequent sentence. For example "The Paces were a working-class family as well, and so with even more mouths to feed, Alexander continued working through grade school and high school to help support himself and his siblings."
    • Done.
  • The article mentions he was the first black graduate of the Wharton school, would that not be something to add to the lead? Seems like a notable thing for Alexander.
    • Good point. Done.
  • It mentions he also studied at Columbia, but did he complete those studies? I don't see anything on that.
    • He did not. Added that to the article.
  • "In a new trial before the same judge, Thomas was found not guilty, which Alexander's biographer described..." You have "Alexander's biographer" noted here, but later in the article refer to him again, but use his name ("Alexander's biographer, David A. Canton, suggests..."). Would be better to use Canton's name in the first instance ("which Alexander's biography David A. Canton described...") and then in later uses can just refer to him as "Canton".
    • Yes, good point. Done.
  • NAACP is never spelled out in the article; for the first instance it should be given the full name.
    • Done.
  • If I understand correctly he was elected to the Court of Common Pleas for a 10-year term in 1959; was he re-elected in 1969? It sounds like he was but I don't see anything about that.
    • This was actually harder to track down than it should have been. His biographer glosses over it, but Alexander was forced to retire in 1969 because of age limits added to the state constitution in 1968. I added a sentence and a citation for that.

Interesting article overall, and well-structured. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Wonder if "Death and legacy" should be a top-level heading? It doesn't really fit in with the "Political and judicial career" section.
    • Done. My changes are here. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done, happy to support. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Powick BridgeEdit

Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk