Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

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

  • 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.



James Humphreys (pornographer)Edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... another commemorative, of a somewhat small town and a fatte calf ...Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Right of abode in Hong KongEdit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Addressed sourcing issues since last FAC and should be good to go on that front. Hoping this nomination will get a bit more traction this time around, and looking forward to feedback on the content. Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

  • There have been no substantial edits since the last nomination, and only some of the sourcing issues have been addressed. I can certainly write a full review, but it doesn't seem to have improved to FA standard in the last two weeks. I also feel like this was GA nominated a while ago but seems to have been removed from there? Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I have to note that there was no feedback on the actual content of the article in the last review, so there couldn't have been anything substantial for me to address. Seems like a leap to say it's not up to spec when that was the only outstanding issue? And yeah, I removed it from GAN because seven months without a review is long enough. Your feedback on the content would be appreciated. Horserice (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, both of those assertions are highly questionable. Some initial content comments:
The lead does not read like a lead, it reads like an introduction. This is just some stylistic phrasing, perhaps a review of leads in similar articles and/or MOS:LEAD could point this to be better.
As a side note, is there any reason that the sidebar is in conflicting shades of green and blue? It's not easy to look at.
Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied could be rephrased to something more easy-to-read.
As with Residents with the right of abode are unconditionally allowed to reside; Those who additionally do not possess the right of abode in foreign countries may stand for office; probably other parts but I would defer to someone more familiar with the ideals of FA prose these pointers.
The background may be too detailed on elements of British nationality that are not really related to right of abode in Hong Kong.
Equally, a bit more detail on complex terms like belonger status, given its relevance, may be useful.
It would be important to distinguish between previous rules on residency and the legally-defined 'right of abode', i.e. why the previous rules are under 'background' and not 'history' (that it's not a different version of the rules, it was a different rule altogether). Unless it is a previous version of the same right of abode law, as Prior to 1997, acquisition of the right of abode... seems to suggest. So this is unclear.
Surely there is conflict and discussion on the acquired residents having and not having certain rights? I'd expect some coverage of legal, policy, public debate history of the 'rights and privileges' and 'restrictions' sections.
The part where it says A limited number of residents with foreign nationality or right of abode in other countries may be elected to functional constituency seats in the legislature does not then suggest who or why. So, who? And, why?
  • I may add more detailed notes, but this came from a quick skim and feels like at least somewhere to start. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry DivisionEdit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) and User:Kges1901

This article is about the British 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, which was raised in 1908 as part of the Territorial Force. On the outbreak of the First World War, the division was drained of resources to reinforce others formations until it ceased to exist. In late 1915, the division was reformed in France. It went on to fight in several of the major battles on the Western Front: the Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai (where the division's retreat resulted in a court of enquiry and a knock to its reputation), Lys/Givenchy, and the Hundred Days Offensive. In the inter-war period, it became part of the Territorial Army (which replaced the Territorial Force), and was transformed into a two-brigade motor division. As a first-line formation, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division on the outbreak of the Second World War. During the war, it remained in the United Kingdom assigned to home defence duties. It had been intended the division would deploy in 1944, but instead it was once again 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. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:55th_(West_Lancashire)_Division_positions_at_Guillemont.jpg and other maps need a US PD tag
  • File:164th_Brigade_WW1_battle_patches.svg and similar do not warrant copyright protection for the uploader - they are simple shapes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ni Nikki. As always, thank you for the review. I have made changes to all reviewed images, which hopefully address your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Parachute JumpEdit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a defunct amusement park ride on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. It was located at the 1939 New York World's Fair before being relocated to Coney Island in 1941, and continued to operate until the 1960s. A long fight for preservation followed, and after over a decade, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, later becoming an official NYC landmark as well. Today it's used for light shows because no one wants to spend money to bring it back to operating status.

Anyway, this was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Baffle gab1978, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas LiberEdit

Ok taking a look....

  • Not a fan of one-sentence paras - one in lead and one in first section. Surely they can be appended onto paras somewhere?
    • @Casliber: Thanks for the initial comment - I have combined these short paras into longer ones. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The tower's wide base gives it stability, but the tower tapers off toward the top,[2]:8 located 250 feet (76 m) above the ground - err, why the "but"? Its' not really contrastive...? A bit clunky this sentence
    • Rearranged so that the first part works with the sentence about the nickname "Eiffel Tower of Brooklyn". epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As initially built....wasn't built more than once was it? Still sounds funny without the "initially" if left in that form - could do with rejigging

I read the rest of it last night before I fell asleep. Looked good. Will have another read-through today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • At least two other jams occurred on the Parachute Jump in its first year; a deputy sheriff and his sister-in-law later in July 1939,[27] and two female friends in September 1939. - after a semicolon you need grammatical sentences. Or make semicolon a colon (which might have been your intention..?
  • When the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939 --> "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939" ?
    • Done.
  • Can the 2-sentence para in Similar amusement rides be appended onto the one before or after (or expanded)

Otherwise I think we're on target for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LingzhiEdit

  • I see absolutely no need for the "Similar amusement rides" section. Superfluous. It does nothing to help anyone understand the amusement ride located on the Riegelmann Boardwalk at Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York City... Suggest deleting. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi2: Done. This appears to have been a holdover from 2007. Not sure if I should move it to the Parachute tower article, since it seems pretty helpful to include somewhere, but I agree, that somewhere isn't in the Parachute Jump article. epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Wow, I'm amazed that you didn't argue. Wait... is this Wikipedia... or is it... Bizarro World? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Nah, that was the one section I had trouble finding sufficient sources for, especially since these aren't related to the Coney Island ride. Now that it's removed, I don't have to worry about it anymore. I just don't see myself being the argumentative type, anyway - I'd prefer collaboration. epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Overall, a very interesting article. I merely have a handful of minor copy-editing points to offer:

  • In the lead I see "Steeplechase amusement park" and "Steeplechase Park", with varying capitalization methods. This should be made consistent throughout; our article on the park capitalizes it, for what that's worth.
  • "and has also been listed on the National Register of Historic Places." "also" isn't needed here and is just redundant in this context.
  • Precursors: Soviet Union is so commonly known that a wikilink doesn't serve much purpose but to district from the other items where links are more helpful to the readers.
  • 1939 World's Fair: A duplicate Soviet Union link here could stand to be removed.
  • Acquisition of site: Minor point, but the hyphen in "no-one" should probably be taken out.
  • Restoration and lighting: Comma needed after "sports stadium" (right before KeySpan Park). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: Thank you for the feedback. I've done all of the above. I was thinking that readers may not know "Steeplechase Park" was an amusement park. Also, I hadn't realized that Soviet Union was linked twice. epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Support – All of my comments have been addressed and I'm confident that this meets FA standards. Nice work compiling all of the far-flung bits of information on the topic into an article that was a pleasure to read. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • " Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat and dropped from the top; the parachute and shock absorbers at the bottom slowed their descent." This may lead to ambiguity about where the riders boarded, perhaps start "Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat, lifted to the top and dropped; the parachute ..."
    • Done.
  • You might want to emphasize at the end of the lede that the ride is not operational.
    • Done.
  • I might split the second lede paragraph after either the third or fourth sentence.
    • Done.
  • "Riegelmann Boardwalk" is linked on the second use in the body, not the first. Consider if you want to change some of the usages of this to the more familiar "Coney Island Boardwalk" or just "Boardwalk".
    • In the body, I linked the boardwalk upon first use. The second usage in the body was changed to simply "Boardwalk". I haven't changed the lead because it would then say "Coney Island Boardwalk in Coney Island". epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would add either a "Coney Island" or "Brooklyn" to the description of the address at the start of "Description".
    • Done.
  • I might lose the comma in "two-person, canvas"
    • Done, but see the next comment. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have two issues with the third paragraph of "Description". First, it is ambiguous whether the parachute was closed during the ascent, as you mention riders boarding beneath the closed parachute but then speak of it being open both on ascent and descent. Also, I'm not sure you're completely consistent in singular/plural.
    • I've changed to plural. When the riders were being loaded into the seat, the parachutes were closed. As the seats started to ascend, the parachutes opened up. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "freefall" I would say "free fall"
    • Done.
  • "as well as in Fort Benning, Georgia." possibly "at" rather than "in".
    • Done.
  • "The Parachute Jump opened on May 27, 1939," If I recall correctly, this is about a month after the Fair opened. Was there a delay, or were they just content to have it open by Decoration Day?
    • Not actually sure, and I can't speculate as to why. The only source that mentions the May 27 opening in detail is the NY Times (which is a pretty reliable source), and even the Times doesn't give a reason for why it only started operating a month after the fair opened. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think per the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (1941), "Decoration Day is always the grand opening date". However, I'm not sure if this applies retroactively to the World's Fair grand opening. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I note that you mention the 250 ft plus 12 feet both in the Description section and the one on the Fair, with the latter phrased as if you hadn't already introduced the subject. Maybe change the sentence to something like : "A 12-foot flagpole was added to the original 250-foot elevation to surpass the height of a statue on the Soviet Pavilion; members of the public had objected to ..." If this made it the tallest structure at the 1939 Fair, that might be worth mentioning in the lede.
    • Both done, but with slightly different wording. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "by New York City mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, who had happened to be at the fair when they got stuck.[28][29] " I might cut the "had".
    • Done.
  • Probably one or both 1939's in the final sentence of that paragraph can be dispensed with.
    • Done.
  • "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939," I assume this ended after the Fair closed for the season, which could be made clearer.
    • Done.
  • Your capitalization of World's Fair seems inconsistent. Also "Fair". Also "Jump".
    • I fixed the one instance of "world's fair" in lowercase. I also capitalized the standalone word "fair". I believe "jump" is only capitalized when it's part of the proper name "Parachute Jump" and lowercase when it's a standalone word; I've fixed the one instance where this wasn't the case. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Parachute Jump reopened in June 1940.[36]" Did it open at the start of the Fair's 1940 season or later? This could be made clear inline.
    • Done - it was later.
  • "Palisades Park, New Jersey". Is Palisades Amusement Park meant? (it was not in Palisades Park).
    • Yes, thanks. I've fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "A ride on the Parachute Jump was included within an admission ticket to Steeplechase Park, which cost 25 cents (equivalent to $4.26 in 2018) at the time of the ride's relocation.[44] " I might say "with" rather than "within". And is it one ride or could someone ride as many times as they liked?
    • I fixed the first point. I'll resolve the second one a little later. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Most riders reached the top of the tower in just under a minute and parachuted downward within 11–15 seconds." Does this mean the fall took 11-15 seconds or that they remained at the top for that period?
    • Fixed - the fall took 11-15 seconds. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Was the ride open year round in the 40s to 60s era?
    • No, the parks were closed during the winters. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the ride could be seen from the ocean 30 miles (48 km) away.[73] " This reads like the ocean is 30 miles away from Coney Island.
    • Added "up to".
  • "The city stabilized the structure in 1993 and painting it in its original colors, although the structure still suffered from rust in the salt air.[86][87] " "Painting" should be "painted"
    • Done.
  • ""an amateur sports arena, such as a minor-league baseball stadium, on the site.[89][90] " Minor league baseball is not amateur.
    • Done - I mixed the two proposals up. At one point, an amateur sports arena was also proposed. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The planned renovation would have cost $20 million, excluding the large amount of insurance that would need to be paid on the ride.[6]" This reads awkwardly. After the comma, I might suggest, "excluding the cost of insurance, that would be high." or similar.
    • Mostly done, though I'd rather not repeat "cost" in such a short time span. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "save for green" Better, "except for green".
    • Done.
  • While Memorial Day may be deemed to have a patriotic theme, is the same true of Labor Day?
    • I meant to say "national holidays" and wasn't sure how to describe these. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "scenarios" An odd term. Is this the same as the six animations?
    • Yes. I didn't want to repeat the word too much. I was thinking "programs" or something similar. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Anti-climbing devices were installed on the Parachute Jump in 2010 after several instances of people climbing the structure,[5] " I might change the second "climbing" to "scaling" to avoid the repetition.
    • Done.
  • You use the term "ride" several times in describing the half century during which no one has ridden it. I might suggest substituting "Jump" or "structure" or even "tower" as appropriate.
    • Done.
  • On images: I do see the one image from the 1939 era, from the Library of Congress. I would strongly suspect that anything published in connection with the Fair, leaflets, guidebooks, postcards, is in the public domain, either through not being copyrighted at the time or though it not being renewed. There may be better photographs out there, not only 1939 but also of Coney Island that are out of copyright for those reasons. I'd like to see at least some search made, if it has not been already.
Let me know when you've done these and I'll take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your extensive comments. I'll address these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Thanks again, I've addressed almost all of these, except for the image related request, which I'm working on right now. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this seems to be the only image for "parachute tower 'world's fair'"]. As for copyright, items typically enter the public domain if they were first published at least 95 years ago (in this case, 1923 or earlier), or without notice in 1924-63 (per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States). I'm going to err on the side of caution here, and wait for the larger image review, since I assume the organizers received a notice and did renew copyright. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I've addressed all your points, just so you're aware. Thanks again for the feedback. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Ergo SumEdit

  • The Life Savers company sponsored the ride - reads a little awkwardly; perhaps "The company Life Savers".
    • I'm not sure about this one. If the company had instead been (for example) Michelin or Hershey's, then it would be "The company Michelin", "The company Hershey". I just said "Life Savers sponsored the ride" instead. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Ergo Sum 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • members of the public had objected to the Soviet... - The way it is phrased, it is not obvious how this statement is supposed to relate to the preceding statement.
    • I added a few words to clarify the relationship to the preceding statement. Basically, people didn't like that the Soviet flag (at 260 feet) was taller than the Parachute Jump. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Parachute Jump was negatively affected - it seems you are referring to its popularity, rather than its actual mechanics.
    • Fixed.
  • During World War II, when much of the city adhered to a blackout - I could be mistaken, but I believe the blackout was ordered by the government, in which case "adhered" would not be the most accurate word. Perhaps "was subject to". Also, military blackout or something similar might be clearer for those unfamiliar.
    • Done both.
  • automotive boom Perhaps link to History of the automobile.
    • Done.
  • The photo in the "Acquisition of Site" section causes the subsequent header to be shifted over. I would recommend right-aligning it and then left-aligning either the previous or subsequent image.
    • Moved this image to the right, and the next one to the left. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • the city started planning to install - "the city began planning" or "planned"
    • Did the first option.
  • You mention the anti-climb devices in two different sections. Is this necessary?
    • In this case, yes. The first mention is within the general description of the Parachute Jump, and the second is within a chronological context (following the news reports of people scaling the tower). However, in the description section, I've removed the year of installation. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ergo Sum 20:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ergo Sum, I'll reply to these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all the above comments. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to go, as far as I'm concerned. Interesting article. Ergo Sum 02:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ultralight BeamEdit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the song by rapper Kanye West. It was released as the opening track to his 2016 album The Life of Pablo. I brought this to GA a while ago and has since been expanded more by multiple editors. It underwent a much-needed copy edit earlier this month and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. This is my first attempt at a FAC (I'm a regular over at FLC) so I'm sorry if it is not up to standards yet, but I'm more than willing to do whatever it takes to improve it. I'm looking forward to reading all of your comments and concerns. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Kanye_West_Ultralight_Beam.ogg: FUR is incomplete and needs to be strengthened. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria I believe I've taken care of it. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. – zmbro (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Better, but think the "purpose" in particular needs some more expansion. What do readers gain by having this sample as opposed to the article simply saying it has elements of gospel? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria Sorry I've been a bit busy irl lately. That better? – zmbro (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 13Edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... the only Apollo mission people remember that isn't Apollo 11. The film cemented people's interest in this one, and they come here to find out what "really happened". Many people, including participants at a well-attended peer review, have aided in this. For the nominators, we think it's worthy of the star.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

This excellent article has obviously been well picked over at PR, I made only a handful of notes, none critical. A few comments for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • combustible Teflon—I think this is a little misleading; although it's strictly true, Teflon is pretty difficult to get to burn except under extreme conditions, which, along with its physical properties, is probably why it was used on Apollo
    • Fair, there needs to be a few qualifiers, which happen later in the article, but which would be a little much for an intro. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Apollo 8 through 12—I might be wrong here, but I thought US usage in this idiom was Apollo 8 through to 12. Ignore if I've misremembered
    • Sounds fine to my American ear. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • But the accident could have damaged the SPS... But Apollo 13...—two consecutive sentences beginning with "But"
    • Converted the second sentence Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • free return trajectory—should it be free-return?

Thanks for your review. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources working, per the checker tool
  • Formats - the usual dreary nitpicks:
  • Ref 1: Who publishes
    Not sure Kees08 (Talk) 16:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems that N2YO is the publisher - its a tracking station for orbiting material. So you're OK on this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 24: pp. range would be clearer if you used the same hyphen-dash-hyphen format used elsewhere, e.g. refs 63, 127 etc
    Yes, fixed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 61: Not clear if this is a range; if so, needs dash not hyphen
    Range. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 100: Same problem
    Think I clarified this. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 179: NYT should be italicized
    It is the wire service in this case, so think it is correct as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In sources, be consistent as between "New York" and "New York NY"; also between state names and abbreviations
    Believe I got all these Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lacking pub. locations: Kranz, and Lovell et al 2000
    Added Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see. Meet FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-DEdit

It's great to see this important article at FAC. However, it seems substantially less developed than other recent Apollo Program FACs. I've read through the first section and, to be really frank, it's simply not up to FA standard as it's needlessly vague and there seems to be a missing 'background' section. An over-arching comment from this section and skimming the later sections is that the article seems to assume that readers are very familiar with the Apollo Program. As such, this is a regretful oppose for now. I'd be pleased to continue the review when the below are addressed, and similar edits are made elsewhere to ensure that the article stands on its own feet.

  • "mission controllers worked feverishly to bring the crew home alive" - I'm not sure that "worked feverishly" is the appropriate term here: the various accounts I've read have emphasised that the work was extremely intensive, but also very well organised (hence why it's often held up as an excellent example of crisis management). This term suggests it was chaotic.
I've cut that word. I'll look through the sources to find a better one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "An investigative review board found fault with the testing of the oxygen tank and the fact that Teflon was placed inside it" - bit vague. Can you tweak this so it says what the review's conclusions where?
    Vague because it is in the introduction, for more detail the reader should read the section on it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    We have severe space constraints in the lede. That is designed to give the reader a quick précis of what happened without having to go through the lengthy chain of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    A formulation which is specific about the review's findings would be much superior (e.g., "An investigative review board concluded that the accident was caused by .... and recommended ... ). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done that. See if it suits you. Really, it's a question of, what can we say in a thumbnail version that will make sense to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The article should start with a background section which puts this mission in context (e.g. what was the Apollo Program? What stage of the program did this mission form part of? What was the program's record for safety/mechanical reliability like, what planning and preparations had been undertaken for the kind of contingency which occurred during this mission? etc). I'm very familiar with Apollo, but found jumping straight into the biographic details of the crew without any background to be disorientating. I note that the other Apollo FAs start with such a section, with Apollo 11#Background probably being a good model.
    I like the Apollo 15#Background section as a model since it bears more similarity than the Apollo 11 mission. The Apollo 11 mission background is highly detailed, and adding that much into this already lengthy article would be a bit much. I do not have the sources with me to write the section but can get to it next week. Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'll be interested in the end result, but given the complexity of this mission more is likely to be needed than a single para. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'm away from home right now but there are ample sources online, and I should get to this within a few days. I'm going to try to make it as short as possible and then we'll see if a little give and take is needed. I am not certain we need to go back to the beginning in the background section. More, "Now that they've landed on the Moon, what are they going to do?"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    I started something so we can begin iterating on it; feel free to change as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    I've added something on the development of Mission Control that I think in general fulfills what Nick is asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • On the topic of mechanical reliability, Chaikin notes various issues with earlier Apollos and records several astronauts noting the emphasis they placed on keeping missions to the shortest possible time to reduce the odds of a major fault cropping up - they were more than willing to take extreme risks (and they and their families prepared for the very real possibility that they would die on each mission), but it seems to have been accepted that there was always a high likelihood of something going seriously wrong and a lot of emphasis was placed on managing this issue which paid off spectacularly well in this mission, as well as in other missions.
I'm not sure what you are asking for here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "held a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aerospace science" - what's a BS and a MS in this context?
    Are there people that don't know what they are? We had a few comments about the article being too long and have been cutting down where we can, and I presume that at least most people know what those are. I don't think a wikilink is needed but added it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The para starting with "According to the standard Apollo crew rotation" is a bit confusing, as it expresses who the crew were in the context of who they weren't (and, again, without any background on Apollo this makes for heavy going). I'd suggest flipping this around.
Let's see how this looks once a background section is in place. I'm trying to clear away a lot of this so we can focus on the larger items like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it doesn't come as much from left field with the background section in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I added a short note on the standard rotation. Kees08 (Talk) 00:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • On that topic, what was the role of the backup crew?
I've dropped a footnote to explain that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The flight directors in Mission Control during Apollo had a one-sentence job description, "The flight director may take any actions necessary for crew safety and mission success." - what was the role of the flight director? Where they the boss of everything during their shift? Did they themselves have bosses during missions, or were they the final decision-maker?
This has been addressed in the Background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This might be covered later in the article, but the flight directors were supported by a large staff, with specialist teams of controllers and (in back rooms and/or on call) teams of subject matter experts also playing key roles. Given that the survival of the Apollo 13 crew was largely due to the excellent system in place to handle problems, this should be explained. From a quick skim, the Training and preparation section doesn't seem to cover how Mission Control also prepared for the mission.
I've added something on this in Background.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "During Projects Mercury and Gemini" - note what these were.
    Would be a little weird to add in there, since we talk about the Gemini missions earlier in that section. Could maybe work in a background section. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " James McDivitt believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed" - who was McDivitt? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo program manager. It did not say in that area of the book so I had not included it, added it now. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Wehwalt: From McDivitt's article (unsourced though) In August 1969, he became Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program and was the program manager for Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Wasn't the expansion of the support crew role decided in that time? I can double check the sources tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 05:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo 9, which McDivitt commanded, had a support crew, and he didn't become Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager until after Apollo 9. It seems to me that a lot of the concerns Nick is expressing re Mission Control background can be addressed through reference to Kranz's book. I think we can get by with a two paragraph background, one dealing with the Apollo Program with focus on the H missions, and one on the evolution of Mission Control.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    You are right; good work and my mistake. Kees08 (Talk) 14:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments thus far, I will go through and respond or address as needed, percolating changes through the article as required. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks also. If you want to act on the assumption that your comments will be addressed, and keep going, it might save time later.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep going (as I am confident the above will be resolved)

  • "The Saturn V used to carry Apollo 13 to the Moon" - note what a Saturn V was
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be worth noting in either the 'Launch vehicle and spacecraft' or the 'background' section that the CM and LM were essentially hand built and their production and testing was very closely supervised, including by the astronauts, due to the need for them to work almost perfectly in extreme conditions for a prolonged period. NASA went to great lengths to ensure they were as safe as they could be. How the bug which led to the disaster slipped through the testing could be noted here.
Isn't that explained in the investigation section? I'm not sure what you want here that wouldn't be a (lengthy) repetition of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "and to spread the Apollo missions over a longer period of time" - why was this done? (for budgetary reasons, or was it a measure to improve safety and planning, or both?)
Looks like budget and I've added a bit there. This could easily be shortened to "budgetary reasons" if you think what I wrote is long.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The first para of the 'Training and preparation' could note that much of the training was devoted to simulating the responses to technical problems, including major malfunctions. It could also be noted here or in the Astronauts section that the three crew were used to solving difficult and dangerous technical problems under pressure given their previous roles as test pilots.
I've added a bit on simulations, which is meant to address the comment immediately below as well. I'm not sure we need to go into what test pilots do to that extent, there is a link, and I'm not sure we have that luxury of space.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As noted above, the training the Mission Command team undertook could also be noted.
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "to setting up the ALSEP scientific instruments" - briefly note what these were
I've added a brief mention that they were to be emplaced and left on the Moon, though I honestly think it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Apollo 13 timeline.svg is excellent, but the details in it don't seem to be sourced anywhere. I'd suggest checking this against the NASA timeline or similar and adding a reference.
I used this reference (Orloff & Harland). There are a number of minor (at most two seconds) discrepancies and the fourth midcourse correction gives a larger discrepancy. I'd hate to lose this image.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The good news is that is this is a SVG file, it's fairly easy to edit with Inkscape or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Mission Report, page 3-2, all the figures hew to that except MCC4. That should read "137:39:52". It looks like the the minute and second figures were copied from the figure immediately on the left. If that could be changed (I do not know how), then the entire thing could be sourced to the mission report.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I've made a request on this at Commons' Graphic Lab, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It's been changed and I've added the source to the image page at Commons. So I think this is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "followed by a normal translunar injection " - not sure about the word 'normal' here given that a translunar injection is pretty unusual! 'Standard' perhaps?
I just cut the word "normal". There weren't any problems, and that really is all "normal" is intended to convey.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning with "After TLI, Swigert" is very long and complex and a single-sentence para. I'd suggest splitting this.
Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What's a "hybrid trajectory"?
I've tried to say why they used it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "including changing the attitude of the craft to facilitate photography of Comet Bennett" - is "altitude" the right word here? (should this be something like "orientation"?)
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Attitude is the correct word but do not feel strongly about it. Should probably remain attitude though. Kees08 (Talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I';ve restored "attitude".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • so did controllers supporting him in the "back room" - this is the first time the "back room" of experts is mentioned, and what it is isn't explained. As noted above, the article should explain this structure given that it was very important to the survival of the crew.
Wehwalt addressed this in the background section. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mission rules required all three fuel cells to be working if a lunar landing was to be attempted" - this has already been noted
Gotten rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As a randomly-placed comment, Chaikin notes that the crews of Apollos 11 and 12 were told by the head of NASA that they would fly the next mission if they had to abort their missions (to encourage them to not take unnecessary risks), but this promise wasn't made to later crews - this might be worth noting.
I'm not certain it needs to be there. It's basically something that didn't happen and we lack space for all the things that did happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the spacecraft slowly drifted off course" - do we know why? (was this due to gasses venting from the damage, etc, or minor inaccuracies with the calculations of gravitational fields?)
It was due to the fact that the LM's sublimator, to cool the equipment, had a very slight propulsive effect that made no real difference in a normal mission, but did when no engine was being used for long periods. I'm not sure this needs to be conveyed to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • urinary tract infection is currently linked the second time it's referred to Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "President Nixon cancelled his appointments, phoned the astronauts' families, and drove to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, where Apollo's tracking and communications were coordinated" - did Nixon devote himself 100% to Apollo 13 as this suggests?
I don't think it suggests he devoted himself full-time to Apollo. He did go to Goddard, which he didn't have to do, he could have been briefed at the WH by Anders and Collins. There's a story here and I've looked at the Presidential Daily Diary here. It looks like he spent at least three hours on Apollo 13 on April 14. I could delete the "his" in "cancelled his appointments" if it helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The rescue received more public attention than most spaceflights to that point, other than the first Moon landing on Apollo 11" - should this be "The rescue received more public attention than any spaceflight other than the first Moon landing"? (the "most" doesn't seem to fit in with the "other than")
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "With both SM oxygen tanks emptying, and with other damage to the SM, the mission had to be aborted" - as a fact, this is the third time this has been stated. However, am I right in thinking that the intent of it being noted in this section is that the review board endorsed the rule and decisions which led to the mission being aborted? If so, I'd suggest tweaking this accordingly.
Change to avoid mentioning the fuel cells.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Did the review or subsequent proceses cover the crisis management and, if so, make any findings on it?
Yes. I've added something there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "It has been repeatedly called, "NASA's finest hour"" - can you say by whom? The three sources given here are all linked to NASA (two from NASA itself and one from Boeing), so attribution is significant.
This seems to be a pretty broadly used term, and was in the 1995 film in modified form. I haven't been able to find anything that really discusses the use of the phrase, and short of that, I don't see what we can do but repeat sources that use it. A google search showed the BBC using it, if it's a help. It doesn't seem exclusive to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Added a citation to Chaikin Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Can more be said on how historians and other experts regard this mission?
I've added something on historian views. Kees08, if you have Chaikin handy, could you add something appropriate from him?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
He did not have a historical view of the mission in his book, but I added a note in about Nixon's advisers. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to adjust the 'Popular culture and media' section to be a thematic discussion of how this mission has been portrayed rather than a listing of portrayals?
We'd have to get that from somewhere or it would be WP:SYNTH. I'm not aware of a source that says how the pop cult depiction of Apollo 13 has been over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Has the management of Apollo 13 been used prominently as a case study of crisis management? The Australian PM recently cited in in a speech as being a good example for the public service to follow ([1]), though he seems to have been referring to the movie!
I see some crisis management simulations (Deloitte) and essays online. I don't see much by way of commentary on them, which I feel should be a prerequisite for use. At least when we mention a film, it's inherently notable and has an article (or in the case of a TV episode, the series does). Not as sure about these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Gene Kranz is linked three times, including twice in the body of the article
    • Only once in body of article now Kees08 (Talk) 17:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As a final comment, I think that the article has too many photos. They run down both sides of the screen at times. All the photos are great, but that's true of all articles on space missions and especially the Apollo Program. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I think we should only cut back by a few. Materials on Apollo are traditionally well-illustrated, whether books or articles. The biggest thing now is the mission control additions. Kees08, can you start a framework and I'll add on to it?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I've pruned the images modestly. I think we've covered or addressed everything to some extent except matters in which we've asked for clarification. Kees08, could you look it over and change anything you feel needs changing before we ask for a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Checked over it, changes look good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A History of the Birds of EuropeEdit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've not been at FAC for some months, but I'm back with a new project. Henry Eeles Dresser was famous in his time, although he's almost forgotten now. This article is about his magnum opus. An FAC on a book is a new departure for me so please be gentle... and you'll find out why he wasn't afraid of being scalped by the Comanche too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit

I enjoyed reading this article, it is well prepared and very clearly written.

  • "The Birds of Europe was published as 84 quarto parts between 1871 and 1896." suggest "...1871 and 1882." According to McGhie p.147 the book (without the supplement) consisted of 84 parts and was published between 1871 and 1882. (the title pages of each volume have 1871-1881)
  • "84 quarto parts between 1871 and 1896.[33][34]" - the two cites are to different pages in the same book. Better to combine in one cite (ie pp. 137, 146–147)
  • Both refs are also used elsewhere, so confusing to combine them here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "When all the parts were published, they were bound into volumes using Morocco leather with gold tooling." faithful to the source - but surely the subscribers had the parts bound privately and thus the binding could vary (although presumably leather with gold lettering was common).
  • As you know, McGhie says no more than that, but perhaps the covers and endpapers were sent to the subscribers for their bookbinders to use? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You could mention that the main book consisted of 8 volumes - with the supplement as volume 9. (McGhie p. 147 - or look at a scan)
  • ("including their failure to use trinomial nomenclature" - I doubt whether other ornithologists were using trinomials in 1871 when Dresser started.)
  • well, there was certainly an active debate by 1878 (McGhie 144, 175), and I don't think Seebohm of all people would have been overly concerned on the exact timing — and Dresser was clearly a conservative on the issue, with little compromise even in subsequent books Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • First quote from Seebohm - I also like the end of the second sentence which you do not quote "though in most cases his bird-stuffer, even if he be only a country barber, will be quite capable of correcting such childish blunders."
  • Second quote from Seebohm - I find very difficult to follow even when I read the original text. Seebohm was clearly a very nasty man.


  • "When he was appointed in 1872 the museum had 35,000 bird specimens ..." to the end of the paragraph seems off topic. The bequests of Hume etc to the BM probably don't belong in this article.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The first sentence of the lead uses the past tense where I would use the present: "A History of the Birds of Europe, ... is a nine-volume ornithological book...". "is a book" - but "it ... was published."

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Aa77zz thanks for your careful review and textual tweaks. That was relatively painless given that you clearly have access to McGhie's book! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more comments:

  • "Seebohm was a much more committed supporter of Darwinism..." This is uncertain. Seebohm believed in the development of new species but not by "natural selection". I have a copy of Stresemann's Ornithology - the history of ornithology from a German perspective. Stresemann doesn't mention Dresser but cites Seebohm (on p. 327) as someone who believed that species changed without selection. He cites a passage written by Seebohm in 1887 here where Seebohm writes: "I agree with him that Natural Selection from Fortuitous Variations will only account to a very limited extent for the evolution of an existing species, and not at all for the differentiation of a new one." and "It is impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that Variation is not accidental, that there is no such thing as Fortuitous Variation, and that Spontaneous Variation, like Spontaneous Generation, is a myth." According to McGhie p.147 Dresser accepted that "birds evolve into localised forms in response to local climates and in isolation." (but as far as I can see Dresser doesn't mention natural selection)
  • Perhaps mention that 20 copies on thinner paper and without the plates were given to contributors. (McGhie p. 138)
  • Perhaps mention that Dresser strictly applied the law of priority using sometimes obscure or foreign language journals which meant that he changed the established Latin names of some species. "causing great consternation among his colleagues." (McGhie p. 143) (In contrast Seebohm believed in et auctorum plurimorum - (cf wiki consensus of RSs) - he inserts these Latin words in bold characters by his preferred binomial name even if not the earliest - ie he valued stability)
  • Is it possible to say something about the taxonomy used by Dresser and the organization into orders, families etc? McGhie just discusses species. Dresser discusses the taxonomy in his introduction.
  • Perhaps mention Dresser's 1881 "A List of European Birds, including all species found in the western palaearctic region" available here. McGhie on p.147 suggests that this book may have been published in response to Sclater's criticism that the History was too large.
  • Perhaps include a cite to McGhie's 2011 analysis of the publication history, pagination etc which can be downloaded (the reference is complicated so I'm including it here):
    • McGhie, Henry A. (2011). "Dresser, H.E. (1871-"1881" = 1871-1882). [Initially Sharpe, R.B. & H.E. Dresser.] A History of the Birds of Europe, including all the species inhabiting the Western Palæarctic Region". In Dickinson, E.C.; Overstreet, L.K.; Dowsett, R.J.; Bruce, M.D. (eds.). Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology: a Directory to the literature and its reviewers. Northampton, UK: Aves Press. pp. 88–89. ISBN 978-0-9568611-1-5.

(Both McGhie 2011 and McGhie 2017 App.2 list the 5 "new" species introduced by Dresser in his History. Of these 4 appear to be now considered as junior synonyms and Octocorys brandti is now Eremophila alpestris brandti - one of the 42 (sic) subspecies of the horned lark - not very notable.)

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, thanks for comments and links, all done I hope. I've also reffed Ohl on the problems with priority Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy with the changes. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources working per checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 39 needs space after "p."
  • Ref 58: lacking year for British Birds Vol 3 issue 9. See e.g. ref 54
  • Seebohm – what are his credentials as a self-published source? Also, add oclc?
  • The title "Selected bibliography" might suggest that these are sources – "Further reading" maybe clearer.
  • Quality/reliabilty: other than mentioned above, no issues. Sources are of appropiate quality and reliability and meet FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thanks for that. I've fixed the two refs. Like Dresser, Seebohm was a wealthy industrialist and, like Dresser, could afford to self-publish. He also wrote several books on birds, and was an influential figure in scientific circles. I've added that he was an ornithologist to the text since that was missing. I don't normally give oclc and his text is linked. What to call the list of books is tricky. Further reading sections tend to be deprecated, and since this section links to major publications relevant to the text, I'd rather leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What about "Selected additional biblography"? (Just a suggestion, not a request) Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably leave as is unless other reviewers raise the issue, which is quite likely! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

Very interesting.

  • "a recent commentator" is an odd attribution. Could you not just name the person? "the historian of science John Smith" or whatever?
  • "Dresser’s old friend Alfred Russel Wallace was predictably unstinting with his praise" This comes across as non-neutral editorialising. I do like it, though - do you have a source you can cite?
  • No, I've toned it down but added a sentence at the end for Wallace recommending the book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Even the anonymous obituarist, though, could not refrain from adding" Again.
  • tweaked as a caveat, which I think is fair comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Need to stop there; please double-check my edits so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, thanks for comments so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need all the details of first editions for sale? I worry it'll go out of date. I'd be more interested to hear about digital versions scanned by museums or universities (if there are any).
  • I think it's normal to give prices of valuable books, coins etc, see The Birds of America#Recent sales for instance. I take your point about updating, but I update my FAs regularly, so I'm doing what I can, while I can. The books are long out of copyright, and I've linked to full texts scanned by the University of California in the Bibliography. There may well be other digital version, but there's little to be gained from listing multiple copies of the same free text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, in volume 1 pp 24-29 he considers four palaearctic species, of which two are still considered full species, so the link is correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, thanks again for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Josh Milburn, I forgot to thank you four the tweaks to the text, all look fine to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Support; I've not looked closely at the sources or images, but I'm happy to support provided nothing else comes up. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Josh Milburn many thanks, somewhat belated since I had to go away at the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Henry_Eeles_Dresser_cph.3b20904.j, pg: when/where was this first published? What is the author's date of death?
  • Published in the US in 1900 according to Library of Congress listing, Published by Maull & Fox, London, presumably in the same year. Author unknown since it's published under the company name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Later... Henry Maull died in 1914 and John Fox died in 1907 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Alfred-Russel-Wallace-c1895.jpg: if this is to be hosted on Commons it will also need a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:RBSharpe.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Added US PD tag and 31 July 1912 as date of Hume's death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The image captions are inconsistent in whether they give full names or only last names.
  • If only Keulemans was the artist, why name him only in the second caption of one of his artworks (the ibis instead of the oriole)?
  • Keulemanns was the main but not sole artist, so attribution needed on both, done Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Should the infobox mention additional artists then? FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Last unanswered point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, sorry, missed that. Although it's often referred to just as Dresser's History, Sharpe contributed to 13 out of 84 parts. Keulemanns produced 590 of 633 plates (93%), so by far the most important contributor, and personally I wouldn't add the minor artists to the infobox. If you disagree, though.I will do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the pictures of people could state their relevance in the captions for context.
  • "Dresser is wearing a wig" Do we really need this information in an article about a bird book? Seems more appropriate for his biography.
  • well, I think it helps to account for his odd appearance, and does no harm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe move the Willughby image to the start of the section, so it doesn't clash with the image below?
  • "such the bird's beak, feet" Such as?
  • "such a Réamur, Brisson, Georges Cuvier and Carl Linnaeus" Such as? Also, why not full names for the first two?
  • "He wished to build on Gould's work to include all" By including all?
  • "so he proposed to Henry Eeles Dresser" Could we get some kind of introduction to Dresser here, what his occupation/affiliation etc. was at this time?
  • "He also had the language skills to translate texts from several European languages" Do we need the first "language"? Or change to linguistic skills, to avoid repetition?
  • The "Preparation" section seems more like a biography of Dresser focused on his relationship with birds up to a certain point, not preparation for the book itself. Could the scope be specified somehow in the title name?
  • Changed to "Dresser and bird collecting" which is more to the point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "and Keulemans was drawing a plate every six days" This is the first time you mention him, so should be linked and introduced.
  • "the different families only coming together in the final binding." Not sure what this means or how it would work.
  • expanded as when the articles and plates were reorganised in the final binding I guess that the parts consisted of loose leaves, so that the could easily be bound, although the source isn't explicit on that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the crude division into bird groups used by earlier writers" Bird groups could mean many things, specify?
  • Well, in this case they really did mean many things. Aldrovani, for example had inter alia, fabled birds and worm-eating birds, and Belon included birds of bushes and birds of fields. Giving lists of examples like these to illustrate seems excessive. I've changed crude to arbitrary though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Sharpe also be mentioned in the infobox?
  • "such a drawing of a skull" Such as?
  • "of two juvenile ornithologists" Where they particularly young when they wrote it? Perhaps worth noting?
  • At the date of completion, Dresser was aged 44 and Sharpe 33, Seebohm was 50. Added as a footnote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "in Ibis. an avian science journal," Should that be a comma after Ibis?
  • When was the supplement published?
  • "were less influential than William Yarrell's A History of British Birds" Could be good to give year for context.
  • "It was mainly written by" Was? Most of the rest uses past tense.
  • "to help readers to identify birds" Is the last to needed?
  • "and the Spanish- and Portuguese-governed" why this extreme detail in the intro summary, which is not even mentioned in the article body?
  • "although a recent commentator" Why not just give date? It won't take more space, and in some years time, 2018 will not be recent.
  • Support - nice article on an interesting and obscure topic. Last point, I wonder whether this was Dresser's first publication (on birds)? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • FunkMonk, many thanks for that. It was his first book about birds, but he was a regular contributor of bird articles to zoological journeys throughout his life. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps worth specifying? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded the first sentence of "Other publications", the existing ref covers the additional material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Washington State Route 504Edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the highway that leads up to Mount St. Helens, which famously erupted on May 18, 1980, in spectacular fashion. Most of the road was destroyed by the lahar deposits, which tumbled down the Toutle River Valley at extreme speeds. Even today, almost 40 years later, the new highway snakes its way through a landscape that still has scars from the eruption. This article was promoted to GA last year and hasn't changed significantly, but I believe it is up to the standard I set with my previous road FAs. SounderBruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I do intend to review the article in the next few days. --Rschen7754 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe a bit nitpicky but you have two sentences starting with "The highway" right next to each other in between the first and second paragraph.
    • Fixed and took the opportunity to expand the second instance.
  • Should The Oregonian have the location indicated since it isn't in the title? Same with The Oregon Daily Journal, The Daily Chronicle, The Columbian, The News Tribune.
    • I would assume that local newspapers wouldn't need location information, as all four are well known in Western Washington. SounderBruce 04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • San Diego Union-Tribune before 1992 was either The San Diego Union or Evening Tribune.
    • Fixed.
  • More later. --Rschen7754 18:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:WA-504_St._Helens_Bridge_after_1980_eruption.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I was unable to recover the original gallery link (as it seems the USGS has completely changed their website again), but did add an alternative link to the same image in a different gallery. SounderBruce 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  Working buidhe 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

David Hillhouse Buel (priest)Edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a President of Georgetown University at the turn of the 20th century who was very unpopular there, left for New England, quit the Jesuits, left the Catholic Church, caused a scandal by marrying, became an Episcopal minister, and died in poverty. Ergo Sum 05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from CoffeeandcrumbsEdit

I will do a full review later but here is what I noticed at first perusal.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "he went to Georgetown University" –– went usually means attended when speaking of a university. I would use a "began teaching at" or "joined the faculty of"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Third sentence in second paragraph of the lead would read easier as: "He instituted uncompromising discipline and curtailed intercollegiate athletics which stoked fierce opposition from students and their parents, resulting in his removal by the Jesuit superiors in 1908."
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "performed pastoral work and teaching for several years" –– shouldn't this be "taught for several" or "returned to teaching for several"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a word, punctuation, or something missing between "Catholic Church" and "was ordained an Episcopal minister"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 20:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • last sentence in the lead runs on for a bit too much
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Watervliet Arsenal is to this day located in West Troy, New York, the distinction you want to make, I think, is that West Troy has since been renamed. The way that footnote a is worded reads like the Watervliet Arsenal was physically moved.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I made an edit myself to resolve this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I believe I've resolved each of your comments. Ergo Sum 20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "His grandfather was a Congregational..." –– Which grandfather is this in reference to? "Charles McDougall"? Charles McDougall's grandfather? or Rev. Buel's grandfather on this father's side? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't know. The source only says his (the article's subject's) grandfather. Ergo Sum 01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • According to Hillhouse 1924, this is his ancestry on his father's side: Captain David Hillhouse BuelSamuel BuelHarriet (Hilhouse) BuelJohn Griswold HillhouseWilliam Hillhouse (b. 1751). William Hillhouse's third child was James Hillhouse (b. 1754). The claim of prominent ancestry is weak without an example. Please confirm that his great great great uncle was James Hillhouse and add James as example of a prominent Connecticut statesman. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe also Oliver H. Prince was his great great uncle. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I'm unclear who you're referring to here. Same as below. Ergo Sum 02:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • It does not appear that the person you wikilink to (Oliver H. Prince) is the same person as Oliver Prince Buel. Different birth and death years. Ergo Sum 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As confirmed above and stated in the source for "his great-great-great-uncle, who graduated in 1773", the name of this ancestor is James Hillhouse. Please state that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of the honorific "Father Michael J. McGivney", state the reverend's pastoral position at the time.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "There," is unnecessary and jarring. Another option is to begin "At St. Mary's Church," --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "rather than unseemly subjects" is POV and should be attributed as McGivney's or Buel's opinion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The way you have Medea (play) linked is not ideal. It is better to state the title Medea: A Travesty and then give a parenthetical relation to the ancient play. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • H4 heading "Conversion to Catholicism" is not necessary. Suggest merging with above and titling "Education and conversion to Catholicism". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Ergo Sum 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to all of them. Ergo Sum 18:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The following articles are duplicate linked in the lead section: Catholic Church and Society of Jesus. The following are duplicate linked in the body: Priesthood in the Catholic Church, Classics, and Hull, Massachusetts. Once the duplicate links are de-linked, you have my support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Removed duplicate links for all except: 1) Society of Jesus because the two times it occurs in the lede are as "Jesuit" and "Society of Jesus", and it's not obvious to those unfamiliar with the subject that those are the same, and 2) Hull, Massachusetts, because it appears once in the text and once in a photo caption. Ergo Sum 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EpicgeniusEdit

@Ergo Sum: At first sight, this looks like a really nice article. Somehow it's on my related changes list, and I don't know why I'm even monitoring this article, but I have seen drastic improvements since September. To me, it looks almost at FA quality.

That said, I have a few preliminary comments:

  • Later in life, he left the Catholic Church, married, and became an Episcopal minister. - Any way this can be incorporated into the previous sentence, or somewhere else? I see that this is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead as well. But chronologically, this doesn't really flow, especially as you mentioned his early life in the following sentence.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Bearing the same name, his father was David Hillhouse Buel - is this necessary? His father bears the same name, so you don't need to mention the father's name again?
    • I mentioned it in order to wikilink it. Ergo Sum 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ergo Sum: I was thinking "His father was also named David Hillhouse Buel". epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Buel's ancestry included a number of prominent and influential families, including the McDougalls, Hansons, Wilmers, and Hillhouses, - "including" is repeated here.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 18:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • His earliest American ancestor, William Buel, arrived in 1630 from England - would you say "had arrived in 1630"?
    • I try to avoid overuse of the pluperfect by restricting it only to instances when it is necessary to distinguish two different past events. Ergo Sum 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • after chapel services at which Yale required attendance of all students - "after the chapel services" ... I'm assuming this is the specific service that Yale is requiring students to attend?
    • Yes. Ergo Sum 22:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • rather than unseemly subjects - This sounds subjective. I wonder if you meant: subjects considered "unseemly" at the time?
    • Oh yeah, Coffeeandcrumbs also mentioned this above. But consider my comment too. epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts - "receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree"? Also, a BA is pretty common nowadays.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He also considered abolishing the football team altogether, which Columbia University, New York University, and Stanford University had already done - "altogether, as ... had already done"
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Failure to abide by this agenda resulted punishment according to a new demerit system - "resulted in punishment
    • Did Buel implement this system? I assume he did, but the article should probably say so directly.
    • I think I've made it clearer. Ergo Sum 22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • with a number of students withdrawing and few matriculating - Do you have any specific figures? It would be interesting to know.
    • The source doesn't have any figures, so I don't know where I would be able to find those. Ergo Sum 22:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
All right, will take a look later. epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything too major, just a few more things:
  • "Allerton Heights, Massachusetts" is a duplicate link; the first instance of this link has the text "Point Allterton, Massachusetts". But they both lead to Hull, Massachusetts, for some reason.
  • Neither Allerton Heights nor Point Allerton are official places, nor do they seem to be colloquialisms used anymore today. As far as I can tell from a bit of research, they're both areas of modern-day Hull, Massachusetts. Ergo Sum 03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Their marriage produced no children - "They did not have children", perhaps? This sounds unwieldy as currently phrased.
  • Depends on the ear, I suppose. It used to be a common expression. I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The source seems to suggest it is the NYC subway, but I'm not positive, so I've just linked to rapid transit. Ergo Sum 03:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Buel lived in poverty, so much so that at one point, he almost starved - I think this can be condensed, e.g. "Buel lived in so much poverty that..." However, it isn't necessary
  • That phrasing strikes me as a little odd. Ergo Sum 03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He was survived by his wife, with whom he had no children - The second part of this sentence seems redundant, given the point I made a few bullets above.
  • I've kept this instance and removed the previous one. Ergo Sum 03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 6 should be limited access, since it's technically in the public domain but limits the number of pre-1923 articles that non-subscribers can view.
  • Corrected. Ergo Sum 03:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks. All addressed. Do you have more forthcoming? Ergo Sum 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I think that's it for now.
Support - I generally think this article is well-written and clear, and can't find anything that really sticks out. If you have time, could you take a quick look at my current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't. epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from CeoilEdit

Overall I feel the article is too couched, and apologetic. To take an example: "his abrupt departure from Georgetown... was sent to Philadelphia"; ie fired you mean. His dismissal is stated clearly in the lead, but glossed in ambig language in the it because of use of different sources? Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Couched? Certainly this was not my intention. I do admit to thinking a lot of writing on Wikipedia is much too inelegant; my writing style is (hopefully) not that. But, if it is ambiguous, that is only because the sources don't state explicitly things that one might reasonably infer. This is actually quite common of formal 19th century American writing. Can you point to any particular instances of sources saying one thing and my writing obscuring the point? If you can provide a few examples, I can try to tighten up the language, but I doubt I could rework my writing style generally. Ergo Sum 02:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Will take a closer look in next few days Ergo. I suppose what I forgot to say is that this is one of the more interesting of your articles that I've read, frankly its pacey, and I read it through quickly without taking notes. I need to put my finger on vague stated impressions, hold on....Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth College, GuernseyEdit

Nominator(s):  Formula One wiki 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Elizabeth College, a single-sex independent school in Guernsey. It is the oldest school in Guernsey, and one of the oldest public schools in the British Isles. I believe an article with such significance to the island should reflect that significance in the article's standard.  Formula One wiki 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Passing comment: "places at Russell Group universities as well as Oxford or Cambridge". Oxford and Cambridge are members of the RG. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @SchroCat, I have replaced 'as well as' with 'including'. — Formula One wiki 22:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Why separate them out at all? The RG is a prestigious group in toto, and Imperial constantly beats one, other or both in rankings tables. Just leave it was RG, with maybe a footnote to list the members. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Done. I think the link to the RG page will suffice without a foonote. — Formula One wiki 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Elizabeth_College_Guernsey_crest.png: the given tag is for governmental seals. Who is believed to be the copyright holder? Same question applies to File:Elizabeth_College_logo.png
    • I believe I uploaded it correctly in accordance with the instructions at WP:WPSCH/AG#IB, so forgive me if it was used inappropriately. Is this to say that guidance is wrong? —Formulaonewiki 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Scratch that last, I've clearly misread the guidance. I've corrected the licence and the supporting rationale/summary information for File:Elizabeth College Guernsey crest.png. As the image I've just mentioned is supposedly being used as the 'primary' means of identification for the school, that probably undermines any justification for having File:Elizabeth_College_logo.png also; perhaps it should be removed and deleted. —Formulaonewiki 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Rambles_Among_the_Channel_Islands_by_a_Naturalist_Jean_Louis_Armand_de_Quatrefages_de_Bréau_dd.jpg: suggest amending the description to reflect the fact that this is not own work. Same with File:Rambles_Among_the_Channel_Islands_by_a_Naturalist_Jean_Louis_Armand_de_Quatrefages_de_Bréau_ee.jpg
  • File:The_Royal_College_of_Elizabeth,_Guernsey,_Channel_Islands._L_Wellcome_V0012715_-_CROPPED.jpg: source provides more information on the image's provenance that should be included in the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood ExtraEdit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is, at least in my opinion, a truly fascinating little film, and an underappreciated one despite its influence on American avant-garde cinema. It's less than 15 minutes long and is available to view on YouTube if you're interested in checking out the movie itself... — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Forrester BrownEdit

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. He was only the second New Zealand recipient of the war. Although not a particularly lengthy article, it comprehensively covers its subject and has been through GAN and a Milhist A-Class review. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:DF_Brown,_VC.jpg: not clear to me whether the given tag is meant to apply to the scan or the image itself, but given this is a pre-1924 publication suggest adding a US PD tag anyways
  • File:Warlencourt_British_Cemetery_-4.JPG: technically since France does not have freedom of panorama this should include an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working. per the checker tool
  • Formatting: all consistent and MoS-compliant
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see.

A clean bill of health. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Washington Heights, ChicagoEdit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Chicago Community Area #73, located on the Far South Side and unrelated to the one in New York. Established where two railroads crossed, it became one of the original community areas in the 1920s. Originally mostly settled by Irish, Germans, and Swedes, it experienced white flight in the 1960s and has been predominately African-American since then. It has mostly retained its middle-class character after the transition but has declined a bit in recent years. It contains the Brainerd Bungalow Historic District and the Carter G. Woodson Regional Library, home to the largest collection of African-American history in the Midwestern United States. I owe it to Mpen320 for looking this over and suggesting additions to the article, which entailed a major expansion of it using the induction info on the Brainerd District and miscellaneous other information; I am unaware of any good major sources outside of what I have included here. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • File:Washington_Heights_OpenStreetMap.png: if this is from OpenStreetMap, why is it tagged as own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I took the screenshot and had a lapse of judgment in that regard. I have since corrected it.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Please be more specific about source(s) for the infobox data
    • All of the stuff in the infobox (except for time zone, which I don't think is likely to be challenged) is cited in the prose with better sources. As such, per WP:INFOBOXCITE I have removed the infobox footnotes.
      • The area shown in the prose is different from the one in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is your source for the inflation calculation in note a?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
    • All inline citations have been templated.
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for publications
    • I have removed all locations from inline citations, but have kept them for bibliography entries when they are available.
  • Be consistent in when you wikilink parts of citations
    • I have removed all inline citation wikilinks.
  • Don't duplicate |work= and |publisher= when they are the same, use only the more appropriate one
    • I don't see any such duplicates, all of the |work=s have a different |publisher=. I have, however, done some miscellaneous parameter improvements.
      • Keeping in mind that |work= has several aliases, I see several such instances - for example, Illinois Policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Done for Illinois policy, as well as the Civic Federation and Kensington Research. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes Rob Paral a high-quality reliable source? ZipMap? Fuder?
    • Paral and Associates is an organization dedicated to providing data for community development; they have had several clients (admittedly their words, but I see no reason to doubt them). The data used is objective enough such that NPOV and CoI issues should be low, and the fact that the data for 1930, 1960, 1990, and 2000 line up with those provided by the Encyclopedia of Chicago indicates that it is an adequate and reliable source. is managed by Graham Garfield; it maintains a bibliography of the sources it uses; while it solicits and encourages user entries, they are submitted through e-mail, providing an opportunity for Garfield to vet them. Given that, I believe it is a sufficient source to verify the claim that 95th/Dan Ryan was the 6th-busiest "L" station in 2012, although if you beg to differ I can try to find another source or remove the claim altogether. Fuder is a prayer booklet, and thus probably not the best source for most of the article, but according to its Introduction it was compiled over several years by several people, largely grad students at the Moody Bible Institute. Its sole use in the article was to verify that Longwood Manor is a neighborhood in Washington Heights, which looking through Google Maps and real estate sites seems WP:TRUE enough but which Zangs does not mention and which upon further reflection isn't found in any other sources and should thus not be mentioned in the article; I have thus removed it and Fuder for the time being. ZipMap was not a reliable source, and I have replaced it with a much better one.
  • FN47 is missing date and authors, the report title should be italicized, and DocDroid should be in |via= or not included at all
    • There are no authors given in that report to the best of my knowledge, but I have attempted to make improvements. I don't think {{cite web}} might be the best template for italicizing the title, perhaps another template may be used.
  • Chicago Tribune should be italicized
    • Done
  • Be consistent in how DNAinfo citations are formatted
    • I have decided to use {{cite news}} with all of them.
  • FN73 returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Archived

Thank you for your feedback, and apologies for the delay in getting to all of them. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by EpicgeniusEdit

@John M Wolfson: In the course of my real-life job (which is not related to editing Wikipedia at all), I had the great pleasure of reading many subjects on Chicago topics, including drawing maps and writing real-estate blurbs for Chicago neighborhoods. I have to say that this is one of the better neighborhood-related pages in the WP:CHICAGO project, as there are only three neighborhood GA's and the Washington Heights article looks like it is at least GA quality.

Anyway, that said, here are some preliminary comments I have.

  • There doesn't seem to be any content at all about fire or health. There is only minimal info about police and crime.
    • I have added some material on crime stats, I'll see whether I can find something about fire and health. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • This is a good start. Would it be appropriate to make a "Police and crime" section/subsection with both the police district and the crime stats?
      • I think "Governance" should similarly be looked-at. This section is currently a single paragraph with, as far as I can tell, three distinct topics: [Governance/courts], [Police], and [Post offices and ZIP codes]. These topics may be better off if they are split up, at least into separate paragraphs, but that's just a suggestion. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Transportation" section can stand to be split up into separate subsections, I think.
    • The first paragraph is more heavily loaded on Metra, but the Chicago "L" and local buses are only mentioned in one sentence each. I like Metra, but still, I think commuter rail is in a different class of public transit than the "L" and buses. And considering that there is more content about Metra than the "L" or buses, Metra should be its own paragraph.
      • AFAIK the "L" itself doesn't actually run through Washington Heights, although the 95th/Dan Ryan stop is explicitly mentioned in NPS as being in Roseland. I'll see whether I can beef up the stuff about Bus lines. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You're right, and the "L" is mentioned in the Roseland article itself. My main point is that Metra and "L"/bus transit should be treated separately, but within a subsection about public transit. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Washington Heights's history has been described as "all about transit" - This history of transit should probably be summarized here as well, in a sentence or two about the different railroad lines that historically took up the area.
    • The second paragraph is about transportation, only insofar as private car usage/ownership is considered. I wouldn't really consider this transportation, but that's just me.
      • I personally would consider it as transportation, although if other reviewers felt differently I could put it in "Demographics". – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Parks and recreation" section:
    • I know the Major Taylor Trail was a rail line before it was a park. Can we expand on this, somewhere in the history or transit section? There's only a passing mention here.
      • The Park District website doesn't specify which railroad it had been, I'll see whether I can find more sources on the matter. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I believe it was Conrail, per Chicago Tribune (subscription required) - but you can apply at WP:TWL for a free subscription. The other sources I saw (which are not reliable) seem to confirm this, but you can look for sources as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Are there really only three parks in Washington Heights? I feel like there are more. Are Oakdale and Euclid Parks not part of the Washington Heights community district?
  • The "Geography" section includes housing stock as well - maybe rename this to "Land use and terrain"?
    • Perhaps, although that might be a less intuitive/common title. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll wait to see if other people point this out as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Subsections: I only see a subsection about Brainerd. What about other subsections? I see a "Washington Heights" subsection is mentioned in the lead, but isn't covered here. Is it substantially different from Brainerd?
      • Reliable sources don't say that much about Washington Heights the neighborhood other than the fact that it exists and where the original settlement was. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Have you checked any newspaper archives? I notice this doesn't contain too many newspaper references. You can ask WP:TWL if you don't already have access to an archive. I feel that more detail on Washington Heights (the sub-neighborhood) would be welcomed here. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, don't start sentences with numbers, e.g. "28.0 percent of units have two vehicles available, compared to a citywide figure of 25.5 percent." MOS:NUMNOTES is the relevant guideline, but this is a general thing to avoid outside Wikipedia as well.
    • I have attempted to fix this somewhat in the "Transportation" section. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments later. Right now I'm seeing a few places where there are a few things to be wondered, content-wise. epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are some places in this article where grammar may need to be touched up. I have made a few edits to the lead, but feel free to remove any parts you don't like. Some of the more common issues I noticed are the lack of commas after prepositional phrases (e.g. "Throughout the 20th century"), repetition of some words (e.g. "it" was repeated four times in the last sentence of the second paragraph), and sentences with unwieldy construction (e.g. The area was the site of the formation of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company). I think this may need a grammatical once-over since there seem to be a lot of these in the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Epicgenius: thank you for your feedback. I will be somewhat busy this weekend, but I have started to address your concerns and hope to do so more in the next upcoming days. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll point out regarding your concerns to that effect that I am a longtime user of (see my work in 1927 Chicago mayoral election, for example), but have been up to this point mostly focused on book sources for this FAC. I think consulting it some more will be a great idea given the subject matter. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Looks good. You may want to look into clipping your articles, and then link to the clipping. Afterward, the clipping is publicly accessible unless you delete it. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter BadcoeEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The most recent instalment in my series on South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients, Peter Badcoe was the most recent South Australian awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry. Badcoe's VC was awarded following three separate acts of extreme bravery over a three month period during the Vietnam War, the last action costing him his life. He was the only commissioned officer to be awarded the VC in Vietnam. This went through Milhist ACR in July, so hopefully the rough edges have been knocked off of it. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noting I'll be largely incommunicado 8-17 December, but will address any comments as soon as I get back from holidays. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Victoria Cross image has two alts, while the others have none. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Removed the double-up and the fixed px size. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Suggest adding alt text to the other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you deciding which awards are listed in the infobox?
Yes, I hadn't really applied any science to that, I've trimmed it to the highest award from each country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The award citation quote is quite long
Unavoidable given he was awarded the VC for three separate actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include states in publication locations; country name is not necessary when state is included
I think I got these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Newspaper formatting generally needs editing for consistency
Not sure what you mean here, can you give an example? Some are hard copy and some are online papers, which may explain the differences? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
For example, Canberra Times has location but not publisher, while Sydney Morning Herald has publisher but not location, and London Gazette has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Fixed these now, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • McNeill & Ekins title should use endash
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Canberra Times issue is 11,968, not 11 and 968
This space seems to be a glitch in the syntax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For reports and news items, if the source provides a specific date that should be included here, rather than just year. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I got all these that are available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this, Nikkimaria, let me know about the formatting issue and anything else I've missed? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • He was also awarded the United States Silver Star --> "He has also awarded the United States Silver Star"
  • Badcoe was advising a RF company --> "Badcoe was advising an RF company"?
  • A Swedish sub-machine gun, his favourite, hung over one shoulder --> "A Swedish submachine gun, his favourite, hungover one shoulder"
  • were advising a RF company operation in the Phu Thu district --> "were advising an RF company operation in the Phu Thu district"
  • that the enemy were dug-in along a small rise --> "that the enemy was dug-in along with a small rise"?
  • --> "killed by a burst of machine gunfire"

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Sahure, second king of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt c. 2460 BC. Sahure's reign represents the political and cultural apex of the Fifth Dynasty (I am quoting a source here!) and possibly of entire Old Kingdom period. His mortuary temple was decorated with an unrivalled 10,000 m2 (110,000 sq ft) of exquisite polychrome reliefs recognised by the ancient Egyptians themselves as the highest form reached by this art, including many representations that are unique to Egyptian history (a pharaoh gardening! bears! and more!). It also featured the first use of palmiform columns--which became almost universally used in subsequent Egyptian temples--and the overall architecture was so innovative that it became the standard template for all following Old Kingdom mortuary temples. A visitor wrote that his temple was still like "Heaven lit by full moon" over 1200 years after Sahure's death.

This article is the fruit of an endless quest for information stemming from 127 sources selected out of nearly 400 JSTOR articles as well as tens of books mentioning Sahure, yielding over 300 inline references. Sahure is the last Fifth Dynasty king not to be FA yet in the series Userkaf (soon to be promoted), Sahure, Neferirkare Kakai, Neferefre, Shepseskare, Nyuserre Ini, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas. Once the article on the Fifth Dynasty itself is brought to FA standards, it will constitute, together with the FA articles on the pyramids of these pharaohs, one of the largest if not the largest all-featured topic of wikipedia! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review—passEdit

  • Baker, Darrell (2008), Breasted, James Henry (1906), Clayton, Peter (1994), Dodson, Aidan; Hilton, Dyan (2004), Wilkinson, Toby (2000) need location
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Gaber, Amr (2003). According to Worldcat, location is Boca Raton.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Huyge, Dirk (2017), Goedicke, Hans (1988), Horváth, Z. (2003), Kaiser, Werner (1956), Katary, Sally (2001), Verner, Miroslav (2012)—can you get any identifiers (isbn, jstor, oclc, etc.) on these publications?
Done, I have added the issn or isbn or oclc depending on what I could find. The Katary entry already had an isbn.
  • Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Some of these have the institution name, some don't. Be consistent.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources all look reliable.
  • Source checks: Wright & Pardee. No problems found. buidhe 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Buidhe I hope this addresses all your concerns.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review—pass

  • Verified that all images are relevant and available under a free license. buidhe 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Of course, some nitpicks to show I've read it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • in Greek as Sephrês, Σϵϕρής—what's the relevance of this? We are millennia before Ptolemaic Egypt, the local language was Egyptian and Ancient Greek as linked didn't exist then. Linear B or Sumerian would be better
Done Well you are right, this is included because traditionally, the name of Ancient Pharaohs have been known to us through Greek historians of the classical period and some of these kings are still frequently known by their Greek names today, e.g. Mykerinos for Menkaura, Kheops for Khufu and Chephren for Khafra. That said, I recognise that this argument is a bit weak for Sahure, as few people know his Greek name anyway. Thus I have removed this from the lede, and left this info in the alternative names of the infobox as well as in the relevant section discussing historial sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • queen Neferhetepes II—capped as Queen?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sahure had a pyramid built for himself in Abusir, thereby abandoning the royal necropolises of Saqqara and Giza, where his predecessors had built their pyramids.—repeated pyramids, perhaps monument or similar for one
Done I replaced the second instance by "monuments" as you suggested.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • officiant priests—Just priest would do?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • link cartouche, stele, torus moulding and cornice at first occurrence
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A unique relief depicts several Syrian brown bears—not clear what is unique about this
Clarified, the relief has no parallel in Egyptian art, that is the only relief depicting bears ever made in Egyptian Egypt is this one. I have changed the sentence to clarify this.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Coloured but honored, harbor
Fixed AmEng here.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Known Officials—just officials, you can't write about unknown officials. Also the caps are incorrect
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Jimfbleak all fixed !Iry-Hor (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Great stuff, happy to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from KhrunerEdit

High–quality article as expected from you. I've just found out about the interesting issue of Sekhmet of Sahure and I thank you about that. I encountered just a few inconsistencies, yet nothing about the content per se:

  • the Ramses/Ramesses issue. Either are fine but let's choose one above the other;
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • similarly, the dynastic naming convention. I noticed, however, that early dynasties here are written alphabetically (i.e. Fifth Dynasty) while the later are written numerically (17th Dynasty), so this may be some kind of English language rule that I'm unaware of.
Fixed Good point, I have decided to write all dynasties explicitly with letters to harmonize the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A missing space after "Sephrês,".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Khruner (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Khruner All fixed ! Thanks for your help reviewing this.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! Khruner (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from Udimu and a few CommentsEdit

Without any doubts a very good article, that gets all my support. I have just a few queries.

Sun templesː once written in two wordsː Sekhet Re, another time in one Nekhenre (needs to be consistent)
At the time, Senusret I's decision represented an abrupt departure from the burial customs of the 11th Dynasty pharaohs

I am not sure about that, already Amenemhat I left Thebes, so he broke with the 11th Dynasty tradition, not Senusret I. I would rephrase.

the official Habauptah -> more likely Khabauptah (but please check, Habauptah does not make sense)
the idea of Khaemwaset as the great restorer and Egyptologist seems slightly outdated. Check Jaromír Málek: A Meeting of the Old and New. Saqqâra during the New Kingdom. In: Alan B. Lloyd (Hrsg.): Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society. In Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (= The Egypt Exploration Society. Occasional Publications. Vol. 8). Egypt Exploration Society, London 1992, ISBN 0-85698-120-6, p. 57–76. Malek argues that Khaemwaset used all old monuments as quarries for his father building's and just place a label on this monuments to ensure a minimal cult.
last pointː I would rephrase the parts on the navy. This ships are well preserved on the reliefs in the king's temple, but we do not know whether he just copied old scenes, as he did with the war scenes. all the best -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence AgreementEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the radioactive trowel is in the Smithsonian. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by PMEdit

I looked at this closely during its Milhist ACR, so only have pretty minor points here:

  • in the lead, suggest "shocked the American public with the launch of Sputnik"
  • in the lead, suggest "for the use by the Royal Air Force"
  • suggest "Many of Britain's top scientists participated in the Manhattan Project" and pipe the article link to "participated in the Manhattan Project"
  • the sentence beginning "By the end of 1947..." doesn't make sense to me. If the uranium was stockpiled in the UK, why is it relevant that the McMahon Act didn't allow it to be exported from the US?
  • "the uranium needed to fuel it over for ten years"
  • "The S5W had a Nnuclear reactor core"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • Some 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium No long tons? Link them both too.
  • and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) between 1960 and 1979 Same as above.
    Linked plutonium. The imperial system uses tons for non-precious metals, troy ounces for precious metals, kilograms for fissile metals. Hence no conversion is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Tonnes vs long tons?
  • Eisenhower and Churchill discussed the possibility Maybe explain here that Churchill was prime minister again because I think non-Britons mightn't know this?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • the Operation Grapple test series at Christmas Island Are we speaking about the Australian Christmas Island or Kiribati's one because the link goes to Kiribati's one?
    The one at Kiribati. Added "in the Pacific" to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • program vs programme?
    Programme. Unfortunately, I cannot change the spelling in the categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • US would pay the UK $30 per gram Link dollar here.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • US in exchange for 6.7 kg of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of HEU between 1960 and 1979. A further 470 kg of plutonium No English units?
  • had a stockpile of 21.86 tonnes of HEU, about 80 years' No English units?
    Imperial system. See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • high-speed cameras, mechanical safeing, liquid and solid explosive Typo here? I couldn't find any dictionary who uses the word safeing?
    It is spelt that way in the source, but probably should be "safing". Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Another thing Suez Canal is a proper noun. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It is indeed but... I can't find it in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

French battleship IénaEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Iéna had a short history after her completion in 1902 as she suffered a magazine explosion while in dry dock in 1907. The ensuing investigations caused a scandal that resulted in the resignation of the navy minister and did not solve the fundamental problem because another magazine explosion occurred in 1911 aboard another battleship to much the same cause. The ship was patched enough to be refloated and used as a target in 1909 before sinking. Her wreck was sold for scrap three years later. The article had a MilHist A-class review several months ago and meets the FAC criteria, I believe. I'd like for reviewers to check for any unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick question: Is Caresse's book the only secondary source for the various reports into the ship's loss? I also take it that the Michel Commission's vague report didn't place blame on Poudre B? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Gille doesn't have much of significance on the explosion and I couldn't find copies of any of the reports on Gallica to read them for myself. The Michel Commission did not, that's correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

The article had a pretty good sources review at its recent A-class nom. I have only a few minor comments:

  • The WorldCat isbn link names the author as "Anthony Preston" (and provides a blurb in Dutch!)
  • Umm, are you sure this review is for this article? 'Cause I don't reference Preston anywhere.
  • I should have been clearer. The ISBN to which I refer is that for the Caresse book. It goes to this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The ISBN is as printed in the book. This English-language link differs by the OCLC # [3] If you want I can replace the ISBN with the OCLC #. Preston is listed as the founding editor with Jordan as the editor. I don't consider the former position to be noteworthy.
  • Suggest leave well alone. The chances of anyone else picking up on this are vanishingly small. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As you give full publisher name for the previous book, maybe for consistency you should do so here (or shorten the earlier one)
  • This refers to the Campbell and Caresse books. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Those are as given in the books. Conway has had a number of different owners that have given it a number of variations on the basic name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've never seen "n°" before – is that what you intended, rather than "no"?
  • That's a French thing. Like superscripting the full abbreviation for première as 1e.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise the sources seem to beet the required FAC criteria for quality and presentation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so only have a couple of comments to add:

  • suggest replacing well-aged with ageing or old in the lead
  • first name for "Rear-Admiral Marquis"?
  • is Torpedo Boat No. 96 likely to be notable?
    • No, she only displaced 53 tonnes and there's little coverage of her in English.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries, a pleasure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Long time no see mate. :)

  • No link for Naval Council?
  • No links for Director of Naval Construction and Jules Thibaudier?
  • Naval historians John Jordan and Philippe Caresse evaluated --> "The naval historians John Jordan and Philippe Caresse evaluated" I think this is an American English thing.
  • No link for shafts?
  • Iéna carried a maximum of 1,165 tonnes (1,147 long tons) of coal which allowed her to steam for 4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km; 5,100 mi) --> "Iéna carried a maximum of 1,165 tonnes (1,147 long tons) of coal, this allowed her to steam for 4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km; 5,100 mi)"
  • Wait a second the magazines stored 45 per gun but later the article says the magazines stored 15,000 shells. How many guns does she even had? Unless I'm blind or forgot something here.
  • 15,000 shells were kept in the magazines This sentence starts with a number.

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey mate I don't want to disturb you but my comments here are already 10 days here just a little reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LlammakeyEdit

  • In Design section, "Charlemange class ship" should be hyphenated
  • Is there a reason why in the fourth paragraph of the Armament section that the millimetres are not abbreviated?
  • Same for the Disposal section.
  • There is a harv error in the Further reading section for Schwerer.

That's all that I can find. Llammakey (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Capture of WakefieldEdit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The capture of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, featured two of the more prominent commanders from the First English Civil War. Sir Thomas Fairfax, after nearly getting himself captured in this engagement, went on to become the commander-in-chief of parliament's New Model Army which effectively won the war. George Goring was taken prisoner at Wakefield, had some success at Marston Moor, but ultimately failed in southwest England, and escaped to France claiming ill-health. The capture of Wakefield itself was significant for the scale of the victory, and the number of prisoners Fairfax was able to take, but territoriality was of little consequence.

The article underwent a GAN in September, and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received; I feel like I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I have no doubt that I will soon discover that comb has some glaring holes in it! Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PMEdit

I looked this over in detail at Milhist ACR so just have a couple of comments:

  • Market Place→marketplace, as it is such a generic term and we know what town it is in, so even if Market Place, Wakefield was ever a proper place name, Market Place seems incongruous here
    Done. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am still left wondering about what more scholarly texts on the Civil War say about this event. There are a few Pen & Sword titles, but not the weightier references I would expect to be referred to, even if their mentions of this event are in passing. Gaunt's The English Civil War: A Military History briefly mentions the capture on pages 127–128, and Wanklyn and Jones' A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642-1649 seems to mention Wakefield a couple of times, although the preview I can access doesn't make it clear if there is anything on this event.
    The mentions in Wanklyn and Jones aren't related to this engagement. I don't have access to Gaunt at the moment, but I should before this review closes. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    No worries, even if Gaunt has similar information as that already in the article, it is worth citing him by way of showing you have looked at all the literature, including the general military histories of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Peacemaker67. Harrias talk 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
As I am away until the 18th, I'm AGF that Gaunt will be examined and cited, and so am supporting on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:George_Goring,_Baron_Goring_after_Sir_Anthony_Van_Dyck.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I have enjoyed reviewing this article. It is short, sharp and doesn't mess about. A few very minor points:

  • As Leeds has a link you might perhaps link Nottingham too.
  • You tell us twice that Sir Thomas was Lord Fairfax's son. Once is enough, I think.
  • "in order to capture sufficient men" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who boggle at "in order to", insisting that a simple "to" will suffice. I don't feel strongly on the matter, but just mention it.
    • I've left it for the moment. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "an exchange was set-up" – you don't want the hyphen here.
    • Thanks, fixed. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing there to prevent my support for the elevation of this excellent article. It seems to me comprehensive, and is well and widely sourced, a splendid read, and nicely illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Tim. Harrias talk 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this at GAN and it seemed pretty good then.

I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.

  • The first sentence gets a bit busy. If you don't wish to split it, could I suggest '... of Wakefield, Yorkshire, which was commanded by George Goring, and ...'? (It is easy to gather that "Wakefield" was the Royalist commander on a first reading.)
    • Blimey, that 'sentence' sure was doing a lot of work. Reworked completely, how's that? Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It now says over 1,400, while the article says roughly.
Good catch, aligned both as "roughly". Harrias talk 15:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "After being defeated at Seacroft Moor, around 800 Parliamentarians had been taken prisoner" It is not clear from the first clause just who was defeated; one has to work it out from the second. Perhaps 'Around 800 Parliamentarians had been taken prisoner, after being defeated at Seacroft Moor' or similar?
    • Reordered as suggested. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: break this sentence after "prisoner". (Ie, start the next with "Fairfax".)
    • I actually think with it swapped around, it flows quite nicely now. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "split it into two to attack from different directions" I am not sure about this, but should that be 'split it in two'?
    • It certainly sounds better than the awkward repetition of 'to two'. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: the date may fit better immediately before "He marched his force"
    • My only reason for avoiding this, is that the date there would be 20 May, whereas I preferred to use the date of the battle, 21 May. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
You are quite right.
  • Optional: break the last sentence of the lead.
    • Split, but clarified. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and declared the Earl of Essex, and by extension Parliament, traitors" Perhaps 'to be traitors'?
    • Yes, that's better. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link "gentry".
  • "South Yorkshire" I am not sure about the upper case S.
    • I think either is fine, but it's no big deal. Changed. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "described that during a game of bowls" The convention is to write 'describes'.
    • Changed, because you're right, but it doesn't make any sense to me, because we used "said" rather than "says". Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Me neither.
  • Is it known who had command of the "three troops of dragoons" during the attack?
  • Footnote. Consider "every" → 'each'.
    • Yes, that's better. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "was defeated on Aldwalton Moor on 30 June 1643" "on" twice in 4 words. Possibly make the first 'at'?
  • "The castle was twice besieged in 1645, surrendering to the Parliamentarians in October 1645" Delete the second "1645".

Splendid stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks, as always, for your insights: I've responded to each point above, mostly in agreement. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Always a pleasure to review such fine quality articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Links all working, formats are consistent and MoS-compliant. In the main, sources appear to be appropriately scholarly and to meet the standards required by the FAC criteria, but I do wonder about the Rochford book. Its blurb via the google link reads: "The escaping bear who'd had enough of being a Victorian showpiece; tragedy narrowly averted over the skies of Wakefield when an aeronaut lost control of his balloon in 1827; secret passages and hidden relics; and dark tales of determined apparitions and boggarts are among many enchanting stories told within the pages of Wakefield Then & Now: Extraordinary Tales from the Merrie City. In this fascinating book about his home city, Michael J. Rochford has gathered dozens of intriguing accounts from the annals of Wakefield folklore..." etc. Sounds fascinating and entertaining, but is this objective history? Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't really put forward an argument against that! Thankfully it isn't doing too much heavy lifting, and I've definitely come across the party in other sources, just without such a delicious quote! I'll have a look around and come back to you, thanks. Harrias talk 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I have replaced Rochford in both places it appeared. Harrias talk 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • The capture of Wakefield occurred during the First English Civil War So the "Capture of Wakefield" is not a proper noun?
    • Style guides vary, but I note that ours does prefer capitals. Changed. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Were they really 3,000 troops and not circa?
  • compared to the 3,000 led by George Goring in Wakefield Add Lord here as his title or wasn't he a lord at the moment?
    • He didn't become Lord Goring until November 1644. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • been defeated by George Goring at the battle of Seacroft Moor Maybe add "Lord of ..."
    • Hmmm? I don't know what you're getting at here? Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This was meant if he was a Lord but he wasn't until 1644.
  • clear enough room for the cavalry to break through Merge break through?
    • My belief is that "breakthrough" is the noun, and "break through" is the verb. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • at the battle of Seacroft Moor on 30 March 1643 Not a proper noun?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks for your review; each point has been addressed. Harrias talk 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments support by PendrightEdit


  • Around 800 Parliamentarians ...
Why isn't it - Around 800 of the ...?
Because that would suggest it was a subset of a group we already knew about, which it isn't. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He marched his force from Leeds, and split it in two to attack from different directions. After around two hours of fighting early in the morning of 21 May 1643, Fairfax broke through into the town.
Info box says leads is a city as does the Leads link?
He broke through into Wakefield, which was a town at the time. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

State of war in Yoorkshire:

  • ... Ferdinando Fairfax, 2nd Lord Fairfax of Cameron, was appointed as [the] commander of [the] parliament's forces in Yorkshire.
Add [the]
Added the first, but not the second, where it isn't required. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


  • After an evening march on 20 May 1643, [the] Parliamentarian forces from Bradford, ...
Add [the]
I'm worried that adding "the" here might imply that it was all of the Parliamentarian forces that were in Bradford, Leeds and Halifax, which would be misleading. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As they were only the width of the road, this evened the battle, ...
No road has been mentioned previously, so would it not be 'a' road?
No, because they were specifically the width of this road, so it requires the definite article. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The defenders had been alerted to the enemy approach by the cavalry which had fled from ...
That, not which, is used when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Changed. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


  • ...claiming that their victory was the "work of God", while ...
Should'nt the "work of God" be in italics?
It doesn't seem to fall into any of the reasons laid out in MOS:ITALICS, so I don't think so? Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Accordingly, [the] parliament declared 28 May a day of thanksgiving for the victory.
Add [the]
I disagree. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ... most of the north of England had been captured by [the] Parliamentarian forces.
Add [the]
Again, this seems unnecessary to me. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The following year Fairfax was appointed as [the] commander-in-chief of [the] parliament's forces, ...
Add [the]
Again, added the first, not the second. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pendright: Thanks for your review. All points addressed above. Harrias talk 07:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: All comments addressed - supporting. Pendright (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of PontvallainEdit

Nominators: Serial Number 54129 (talk) and Gog the Mild (talk)

In 1365 after 28 years of strife England won the Hundred Years' War and France signed a humiliating peace. In 1369 France reopened hostilities, using Fabian tactics and guerilla warfare. The English responded with the tactics of the first phase of the war, and in 1370 cut a wide swathe of fire and plunder across northern France. The French refused to be drawn. With winter coming on the English fell out and divided their forces. After a forced march Bertrand du Guesclin surprised a major part of the English, and wiped it out. With unusual coordination, a subordinate caught another English force the same day, also wiping it out. The English remnants were hounded remorselessly and the English position in France was wrecked.

The late-Medieval dream-team of SN and Gog bring you this gripping installment of the Hundred Years War. SN took it through GAN in February 2018. It has been thoroughly overhauled since then. SN has dug out every available source and provided the structural underpinning. Gog has installed all the twirly, baroque prose bits on the surface. Gog claims that this is a sensible division of labour; SN's opinion is very Medieval. They have both donned their helms and challenge all comers to meet them in fair fight over the merits of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments: Support from HarriasEdit

  • "..was of approximately the same size." "of" is superfluous here.
  • The lead feels a little bit short for the article generally.
We wondered about that. I'll pad it by 2-3 sentences.
I usually get criticised for my over verbose leads. I have expanded the immediate background to the battle(s). What do you think?
  • Specifically, some context for where Pontvallain/Vaas/the Sarthe region are would be useful. (North-west France would be sufficient in the first sentence.)
  • "..large amounts of lost territory ." Rogue space before the full-stop.
Done. (Thanks SN>)
  • Add more location detail into the infobox too.
  • "They also heavily defeated an invading Scottish army in England." This seems superfluous to the context of the battle, especially as it needs an explanatory footnote.
Boiled down to "and against an invading army of Scots in 1346" and the footnote has gone.
  • "...ransom.(approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms[note 2])" There is a lot to break down here. There needs to be a space after the full-stop. The text within the brackets therefore needs to start with a capital letter, and end with a full-stop. The note itself claims to be from 2017, accessed in 2018, and providing data for 2019. Clearly that doesn't add up.
Well it is supposed to self update, but as it is to the nearest £10mn it is still accurate. It will probably tick over to £360mn in about 2050. But updated anyway.
I take your point. {{Inflation}} does say (in bold) "Do not use {{CURRENTYEAR}}", but I guess that given the rounding this could be considered an acceptable exception. For the same reason, it also notes that actually, it is only up-to-date as far as 2018 for the UK.
I always use "current year" and so long as it is at least 100 years BP it seems to work fine. When I updated I used the 2019 version - this one - which does run to 2019. I wasn't trying to fudge that. (Unsurprisingly, it gives the same results to the sigfigs we're using.)
Is there a source for the conversion between three million écus and the 500,000 figure used in the inflation template? Harrias talk 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This was done by SN, but I have done the same for another article. It is past my bedtime here, so it will have to wait until morning. (I suspect that it is Sumption.)
Yes. Sumption: "English government accounts convert francs into sterling at six to the pound. In 1385 a new coinage was issued. The gold franc was replaced by the écu" It was niggling. I am really going to bed now. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..attempted to recapture castles in Normandy[10] Events.." Missing full-stop. Honestly, I'm six paragraphs in, and this article has a lot of minor typographical errors that I would not expect in a Featured article candidate...
  • "Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months[11] while the French made territorial gains in the west, re-occupying the important provincial capital of Poitou and capturing many castles.[12] Men who had fought together[13] in earlier English campaigns, such Hugh Calveley, Robert Knollys and John Chandos, and had already won fortune and fame[14] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands." The chronology and tone feels off here: Chandos is killed in the first sentence. This is used as an example of the war going badly for England. Subsequently, we are told that a number of men are "summoned from their retirements" to fight. The way this is presented makes it feel like a consequence of the war going badly. Except that one of those men is Chandos, who has already died in our narrative.
Good point. Those two sentences seem to have become juxtaposed. Reversed. It now flows chronologically and sense wise. (I assume that we were both so close that we read what we expected to be there, rather than what actually was.)
  • "..andby.." Another typographical error. I'm going to leave the review here, and hope that you can look the whole article over for these before I continue. Harrias talk 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: I have had a run through the whole article. I found plenty to fiddle with - one always does, but some of it you would have rightly picked us up on. I found almost no silly typographical errors - which makes me think that I missed them. I want to have another run through, and to check that I got things like switching all the inflation calculators to 2019 right, but it is past my bedtime. So if you could give us a pause for a short while I will, literally, double check for silly embarrassing errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As always, there's no rush. Just give me a ping when you're happy with it, and I'll crack on. Thanks for all the work so far on this. Harrias talk 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Apologies for the delay, and for the embarrassing errors. I have gone through this until I am boss-eyed, but still suspect that I am about to find out just how many gaps there are in my comb. At any rate, from my point of view it is as good as I can get it and ready for you to restart. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..when a French army under Bertrand du Guesclin, heavily defeated an English force.." No need for the comma after "Guesclin".
  • "With winter coming on the English commanders.." "on" feels unnecessary here?
"Coming on" is an idiomatic expression - see {{wikt:come on}}. Without the "on" it means something slightly different.
  • "The French harried the surviving English into the following year.." I've gone back and forth with this, but I think it should be "Englishmen" rather than "English".
OK. Done. But then "French" four words earlier looks inconsistent to me.
  • Why "small-scale", rather than just "small"?
It looks a little odd to me. But on checking, you are correct, an entirely permissible usage. Changed.
  • Unfortunately, in trimming the article because of my earlier comment, it now doesn't make sense: "The English campaigned frequently on the continent, gaining a long run of military successes against larger forces across France, and against an invading army of Scots in 1346." The invading army of Scots wasn't on the continent, causing minor confusion.
Silly of me. Try it now.
  • "This eventually led to peace being agreed.." This seems an odd way to start a paragraph; personally I'd merge paragraphs two and three together, as I think it would flow better.
Um'ed and ah'ed and have gone with your suggestion. (Something needed to be changed.)
  • In retrospect, I think the whole of "(Approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms.[note 1])" would be better as a note, it doesn't need specifying inline.
I am inclined to disagree over this. If you feel strongly on the point then I will footnote it, if you are not over concerned, can we leave it? If you are somewhere between, I will provide a rationale.) PS I have counted seven FAs of mine and three of SNs which have the same in line parenthetical formulation; there will be more.
  • Charles V is introduced nicely "..Charles V, the son and heir of King John..", whereas two paragraphs earlier, we jumped from reading about King Philip to King John by hearing that the latter had been captured. Perhaps a succinct introduction for John would also be helpful?
It would, it would. Done.
  • "They relied on Fabian tactics, or avoiding pitched battles and using attrition to wear down the English;[16] only attacking dispersed or isolated English forces." I would switch either remove "or", or alternatively switch it to "which", and also change to past tense. Currently, it could read that the relied on Fabian tactics or avoiding pitched battles etc.
Point taken. "or" removed. I have re punctuated, hopefully the tenses read better now.
  • Note 2: "He was following, almost exactly, in the footsteps of King Edward's great chevauchée of 1359." Given it states "almost exactly", I think it needs to change from "in the footsteps of" to simply "the route of".
OK. (Gone with 'the route of'.)
  • "..the French defenders would not leave their positions. He tried to draw them out to fight them in the open, but the French would not take the bait." Nothing major, but I would prefer "did" rather than "would" in both instances here. This is probably just personal preference though.
I see what you are getting at, but that gives it a different meaning. I wouldn't (or didn't) want to change the first; I don't feel so strongly about the second.
  • The "freebooter" link isn't right.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
  • "The English system of shared leadership led to jealousies between their regarding.." Missing a word after "their".
  • "In November 1370 acrimony again broke out.." I would trim "again".
  • "Knolles, as adept as the French were now becoming at guerrilla warfare, was aware that they were closing in." Personal preference, but I'm not keen on the readability of this sentence.
OK. Changed to a more general 'Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed.'
Noted on this below. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • " as to be able to continue to.." An overload of "to"s.
Split into a new sentence: 'This would enable them to be able to continue raiding the surrounding countryside.@
  • "..and they were clearly expected.." "clearly" is something of a peacock term here, I'd cut it.
  • "..their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot." To avoid repetition of "to", flip this around: "..their opportunities to loot and forage for supplies."
Phrased that way to suggest that the foraging was more important than the looting. How would you feel about 'which maximised their opportunities to forage for supplies and to loot'? (Which I have changed it to.)
  • "Minsterworth was probably the first to leave." This speculation requires inline attribution.
  • "Charles considered Guesclin had the.." I would insert "that" before Guesclin, personally.
Ah, the "that wars". There are editors who go round removing or inserting that's, even of FAs, according to their taste. I prefer them in, but have learnt to ignore their absence. Inserted.
  • "..and by 6 November Guesclin was in Caen raising an army. In November Guesclin concentrated.." Saying "by 6 November", and then "In November" seems a little incongruous.
I don't see that, but have changed to 'Guesclin concentrated his forces at Caen during November'. How do you feel about that?
  • "..was formed in Knolles's rear at Châtellerault.." I'm not keen on the use of "in" here; maybe "to" would work better?
Chewing this over, I am not happy with "rear". I don't think that at this stage the English can be said to have had a rear. So I have taken that out. The orientations of the various forces are given in the next sentence.
  • "covering more than thirty miles a day" Is this quote from the same "contemporary chronicler" as the first? If so, move ref #49 to after the second quote. If not, provide inline attribution for the second quote too.
Removed as getting too clunky.

Reviewed to the end of the Prelude, but I'm going to have to break off for the moment. More to follow. Harrias talk 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am always surprised at the number of "errors" (and errors) which can be picked up by a new reader, no matter how many eyes have already been over an article, or how thoroughly. But this is a bit silly. This is my first collaboration and I had anticipated this noticeably improving the copy edit quality. Instead it seems to have done the opposite - I am not sure how. And it has left the unfortunate and hard working reviewers picking up the pieces. I am grateful, but it is not fair on them. I am unsure what lesson to draw from this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Wikipedia is collaborative by design; indeed the GAN, ACR and FAC processes are designed to facilitate that, and get more editors looking at, and helping to improve, articles. It is easy with retrospect to look at this nomination and suggest that it should have gone through PR or ACR before arriving at FAC, but ultimately, it would have just changed the venue that these suggestions were made. On my rare forays as a FAC reviewer, I am particularly picky, but that's not necessarily because I think there are lots of mistakes. Simply that any wording that doesn't sound absolutely perfect to me, I'll mention. Sometimes it's just me, and I'm happy for that to be pointed out, and no change to be made, as you have done. Overall, this is a great piece of work that makes what can be a complex period of warfare accessible to the everyday reader, and both yourself and Serial Number 54129 deserve a lot of credit for that.
I was hoping to complete my review this evening, but unfortunately, I'm too tired for the concentration I need to review, so I will aim to get back to it tomorrow or Wednesday. Harrias talk 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Really sorry; we're understaffed at work because of some illness, and I'm working silly hours at the moment, and by the time I get home, I just don't have the patience or concentration to review. I'm still intending to come back to this, but I'm relatively happy with what I've seen of the changes in response to my points so far. Harrias talk 07:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Don't worry about it. Sounds as if the last thing you need is the nagging feeling of an unmet commitment. Both SN and I appreciate the time and effort you have put in so far. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. So relax - at least about this - and come back to it as and when it feels less onerous. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seconding that Harrias , take your time! ——SN54129 12:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The northeastern army.." and then later "Knolles crossed north-eastern France..". Be consistent, unless there is a grammatical reason for this I'm not aware of.
Hyphenated the two northeasterns as they were in the minority.
  • "..which was nominally commanded by the Black Prince and actually by Sir John Chandos.." Is this the same John Chandos who was killed off in the Background section? If so, it feels weird for him to come back to life six paragraphs later. If not, a clarification would be beneficial.
No, I think that and a ref must've got lost in the mix: it was John of Gaunt, so amended.
  • "Knolles was aware that they were closing in, and of the risk this posed." This change now doesn't specify who 'they' are: maybe "Knolles was aware that the French were closing in, and of the risk this posed."
Good catch, done.
  • "..remarks the medievalist Kenneth Fowler.." and then a bit later "The historian Kenneth Fowler.." The second time, just "Fowler.." would be sufficient, without his first name or the descriptor.
That's Gog's passion for non-false-titles I believe :)
Guilty as charged. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..and the historian Jonathan Sumption speculates.." Again, Sumption was introduced earlier in the article.
As above :) done.
  • "..were among the few survivors. They were taken prisoner by Guesclin." Personally, I'd prefer for this to flow straight through: "..were among the few survivors, and were taken prisoner by Guesclin." But, whatever.
No, you're right, it doesn't make for an excessively long sentence.

Harrias: I am losing track a little here. Could you summarise the outstanding issues at the bottom, or mark them in green or something, so my addled mind can catch them all? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If we have to use "exculpate", and I appreciate that it has a specific meaning which is useful here, I think we need to provide a wikitionary link.
Good idea, done.

Fin. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Harrias, hope you and my Chandos don't mind me fielding these points; I like to keep my hand in :) Hopefully, your suggestions have (all) been addressed here. Much appreciated, cheers! ——SN54129 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cut from above:

  • "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." Is the fact that they fought together relevant enough to mention, or would "Men who had fought together in earlier English campaigns.." suffice?
I'm sure I'm missing somethng, but, Harrias, aren't they the same?
Sigh. Yes. I meant "Men who had fought in earlier English campaigns.." Basically, just removing "together"? Harrias talk 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"LOL" @me for that, I should've realised; yes, no problem, it's not a massively important factoid (it was really just a way of contrasting the experienced men—Chandos, Knolles etc—with those less so, such as Pembroke, who was too young to have fought with anyone on any previous campaign, if you know what I mean). ——SN54129 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. "together" removed.
  • This probably occurs earlier too, but I missed it. Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms such as chevauchée.
I've clarified the language at first use; or does it need to be used on each subsequent occasion?
On each usage; MOS:OTHERLANG explains the rationale. Harrias talk 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not wish to make an issue of this, but on checking, Wiktionary gives both wikt:chevauchée and wikt:chevauchee as English words. If we decide to go with this it means of course that it shouldn't be in italics. (Which is I believe, a holdover from me following a reviewer's request in the FAC of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary may claim that, but none of Cambridge, Chambers, Collins or Oxford online English dictionaries have it listed. Harrias talk 09:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I've found this link for The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages entry. Hanberke (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The link from The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages confirms that it is a French word, so this is still outstanding. Harrias talk 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I still think this is certainly a specific loan word from French. It is represented by an official entry in an Oxford Dictionary all in all, with etymology provided. Hanberke (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
And yet, it does not appear in any of four of the most respected English dictionaries. The point of {{lang}} is to help screen-readers know which language to use to pronounce the word; based on an entry in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, are you convinced that English language screen-readers will know the word? Harrias talk 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias and Hanberke: I am just checking that people are aware that SN made this change at the first mention of Chevauchée on the 27th. It doesn't show up on the article of course, because the word is already Wikilinked to Chevauchée. (Which includes the pronunciation.)

This needs to be enacted for every instance of foreign language terms, including "Chronique des Regnes de Jean II et de Charles V" and "reventions" (assuming that is italicised as a French term?), as well as each time chevauchée is mentioned (including the footnotes). Harrias talk 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Apologies for my slowness of mind on both of these. Both now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Template:Langfr template seems to have a display issue. Hanberke (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It was just a couple of typos. I fixed them. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Great work on this, I am more than happy to give it my support. Harrias talk 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LingzhiEdit

  • The formatting of the references is excellent, of course, but I think the "Prestwich, M." sources should be in chrono order. Either ascending or descending is OK, so long as it's consistent. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Felt like I let you down there, Ling ;) but well spotted, have adjusted. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from HanberkeEdit

  • as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different to the previous one.

as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different from the previous one.

  • and by the late-14th century it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

and by the late-14th century, it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

  • on 2 October, in a direct response to Knolles's campaign.

on 2 October, in direct response to Knolles's campaign.

  • One of the most important of aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

One of the most important aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

  • Notes section
  • "famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who leant the King 40,000 marks,

"famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who lent the King 40,000 marks, Hanberke (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for looking in, Hanberke, the more the merrier as they say :) all good suggestions (and utilised here), but feel free to point out anything else you spot? Cheers, ——SN54129 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thorough reading and a few helpful touches. Glad to add my support. Hanberke (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: from the bibliography:
  • Bell et al 2011: gives pub. location as "Woodbridge", whereas Gribit, and the various Wagners, give "Woodbridge, Suffolk", which I think is better. But in any case you should be consistent
True. "Suffolk" added where missing
  • Burne: maybe "Ware" should have a county, too? (I know where it is, but perhaps non-UK readers won't)
True again. Added.
  • Coulton: "&co" looks a bit ugly. Is that how the publishers style themselves?
It is (well: "& CO"), but company types are not normally given, and so deleted.
  • Neillands: maybe a county for Padstow?
  • Ormrod: what's the Yale University Press doing in Padstow? WorldCat gives the location as New Haven
It does. Obviously a typo somewhere along the line and glazed eyes by the time we had proofread that far. Apologies. I have added "Connecticut" for the sake of consistency. (And for those whose New England geography is shaky.)
  • Perroy: pub. location unclear. WorldCat says it's New York.
Agreed and changed.
  • Rogers 2000 and Rogers 2005: see comments above concerning Woodbridge.
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources meet the required standard per the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for that display of sloppiness Brian. Should be in better shape now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Afternoon Brian. I was wondering if there was anything else for us to do on this, or if you feel able to sign off on it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
(Still morning for me) – Yes, all well now. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. Enjoy your morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

This is looking splendid. A tale well told, along with really excellent (and technically impressive) series of maps that help a lot. Just a handful of minor points from me:

  • You might standardise your possessive apostrophes for names ending in s. At present I see "Knolles's" with the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess and "Knolles'" with the (I believe) AmE ess-apostrophe. By my count BrE is winning by 9:3 at the moment, but a full-time score of 12:0 one way or the other would be a good thing.
I have discovered only this afternoon that this is covered by the MoS - MOS:POSS. Consequently BrE now has a clean sweep.
I didn't know about MOS:POSS and am glad to learn of it: thank you! Tim riley talk 21:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Piping the "Sirs" – consistency wanted here also. Sir John Minsterworth gets his Sir included in the link; Sir John Cresswell doesn't. Nor do most other Sirs. But to my mind is it is much easier on your readers' eyes to include the Sir in the piping: it's more work for the editors, but avoids the jarring bump as the eye travels along the line.
It would never do for readers to suffer a jarring bump, and so the Sirs have been piped.
  • Gog and I have exchanged views before about the linking of what seem to me everyday terms (I'm thinking of cavalry, litter and ambush this time), but I do not press the point. But Paris should most certainly not be linked.
Ah, Tim. You should drop into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Razing of Friesoythe/archive1 where I have just, under protest, linked Rhine, Nazi Germany and USSR. I would argue that few are immediately familiar as a means of transport as you may well be. Paris is delinked with prejudice. For me ambush and cavalry can go too, but I will defer to Serial Number 54129.
  • Was Bertrand du Guesclin appointed Constable of France or constable of France? We have both at the moment.
Well spotted. I struggled to find it hidden away in that caption. Done.
  • "The few English survivors of both battles still at large "scattered in confusion"" – if a verbatim quote is wanted (and I'm not sure it is needed in this case) I think you short-change your readers if you don't say inline whom you are quoting.
I could debate that in terms of the MoS, but will go with your option A and dequote it.
  • "Five hundred years later, when the French lost Alsace-Lorraine to Germany …" – "jingoistically" is a trifle tendentious unless it's a verbatim quote.
"Jingoistic" is the word used by the source.

That, I'm afraid, is all I can come up with by way of quibbles. I shall look in again in the confident expectation of supporting. Tim riley talk 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Mr riley. Did you have a restful break? It is good to see you back in the bracing fresh air of Wikipedia, and many thanks for dropping by this review.
By no means be afraid. The fewer your quibbles, the happier we are. Hopefully I have obliged you with the various changes noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. My compliments to both nominators. Tim riley talk 21:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • They routed an invading army of Scots in 1346. – Without further explanation, the reader wonders why this is relevant to a background section on the prelude of the Battle of Pontvallain? Furthermore, this is an English affair only, giving the slight impression that the section tells the story from an English view point, not a neutral one.
  • Men who had fought together[10] in earlier English campaigns and had already won fortune and fame, such as Hugh Calveley, Robert Knolles and John Chandos,[11] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands.[13] Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months – this again gives the impression of being biased towards the English, as the French commanders are not mentioned.
Denamed apart from the two casualties, where it seems a little perverse not to mention the names.
  • The French were well prepared militarily, and immediately went on the offensive.[15] Charles was well situated in terms of financial and human resources. – Maybe an additional sentence would be helpful here explaining how Charles was able to make this chance, from the very desperate position the French had earlier in the war? Just wondering about this.
Good point. Added. Tried to be succinct, but could expand it almost endlessly if you feel that this is too brief.
  • As a result, he was unable to lead the campaign personally – Now it is all about a specific English campaign, but this campaign was never introduced? This confused me quite a bit while reading for the first time. How does it relate to the last activities mentioned in the "Background" paragraph?
Yes. Good spot. We were too close. I will work on putting together a proper introduction to this.
See next point down.
  • Meanwhile, the English campaign in the west – was also not introduced before.
See immediately above.
Right. Rewritten to explicitly separate out the two separate campaigns, and the two separate command structures. Hopefully clearer now. Thanks for flagging that up.
  • Also in the "Prelude", the French activities are outlined briefly, while the English are discussed in much greater detail.
Well now, there is probably more on the French in the two "movements" sections combined, given that a good part of the English one concerns the French reactions. The "Divisions among the English" is all about the English, and I assume that you are concerned that the article seems biased against them, as they come across as incompetents? But the sources are clear - they did behave incompetently. I am not sure what we can do about that. I would be very reluctant to downplay it or over-summarise it. I am also aware that we heap praise on the French: their innovations; their speed of movement; their ability to coordinate remote forces. Again, the sources are clear on this and I am not sure that it is reasonable to summarise it more than we do.
In terms of length, in military articles one inevitably writes more about the side which makes mistakes. After all, how much is there to say about a force which carries out an activity correctly. (When I wrote Battle of Crecy, when it came to the immediate prelude to the fighting I wrote more about the French: how their baggage train was less behind; how their knights' eagerness disordered them; how the crossbowmen were sent into battle without all of their equipment. And there wasn't a lot to say about the English, as they didn't mess anything up. As I said, that's the way things go with military conflict articles.) So a lot on the English divisions. The French cooperated smoothly; we say so - there isn't really a way to say this at greater length.
  • Longbows were mentioned earlier, but I miss some information how the French avoided them in the battle. The French version of the article appears to have something on it.
Fair enough. Information on this moved down to later in the article, under the battle section.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jens Lallensack, many thanks for stopping by. Some good insightful points above; thanks. I have started work on them and will continue; I'll ping you when I finish. This is just to let you know that I am on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Jens, all done. Your points above addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog, excellent work as usual. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

For some reason the original 14th century illustrator crammed two, completely unconnected events onto one page: the battle and the anointment. I imagine because they both happened in the same month and the chronicler was tackling things chronologically. Which is on Commons as File:Anointing of Pope Gregory XI.jpg. I assume the title is because the original uploader wasn't interested in the battle half. I cropped the image to get just the relevant bit and didn't change the name. (To be honest I was unsure how to and worried that I would break it.)
There is a procedure on commons:Commons:File renaming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I blame SN for that! ;-) Done.

All images are pertinent to the section. If the images are being used to illustrate a specific point (e.g the old map seems to say that after the Bretigny treaty the English held about 1/4-1/5 of France) the ALT text should contain that information.

OK. Done.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, that was swift. Thanks. Your three points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi JJE. I believe that that is everything done. Is there anything else, or are you in a position to support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Support only on images, as I didn't check any other aspect of the article - military campaigns are not my cup of tea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Of course, some nitpicks to show I've read it before I support. Incidentally, until I read this I thought "barding" horses was what you did to help them cook better! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • a forced march followed by a night march—Any chance of avoiding the repeat of march?
How about after a forced march which continued overnight?
  • many castles many towns—why not the exact number?
Unfortunately, neither Fowler 2001 (for towns) nor Neillands 1990 (for castles) provide exact figures.
  • With unusual coordination.—Not sure if that's the right word. It seemed to be quick thinking by Guesclin rather than a cunning plan
Check. Reworded to avoid the implication that Sancerre was as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University; In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, perhaps?
Cheers, Jimfbleak, hopefully, addressed your points here. Thanks very much for looking in!
...and sorry we couldn't slip in any tasty horse recipes at the same time! :) ——SN54129 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to "support" above. I'll let the culinary oversight go! I'd guess the equine casualties in a medieval war probably didn't go to waste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • In a coordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre --> "In a co-ordinated attack, Guesclin's subordinate, Louis de Sancerre"
No. wikt:coordinate is acceptable.
  • Edward claimed the French crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother --> "Edward claimed the French Crown, proclaiming himself the rightful heir through his mother"
  • in which King John II of France, the son and successor of King Philip No reigns?
Ah! *Smacks forehead* Done.
  • estate in France since the reign of Henry II Same as above?
  • Link British pound in note 1.
  • failed to observe the terms of the treaty, Charles V No reign?
  • No reigns for Charles II of Navarre?
He wasn't that sort of ruler/noble. I have removed the "II" to avoid confusion.
  • was appointed constable of France on 2 October --> "was appointed Constable of France on 2 October"
Nope. It is used here as a job title, not a personal title.
  • South west vs south-west.
They look good to me. Hyphenated when used adjectively, and not when not. If you have spotted one that isn't, I can't find it.
  • and amounting to about one quarter of France --> "and amounting to about one-quarter of France"
  • where it was eventually run to ground outside Bressuire Castle Is it me or is this sentence incomplete?
It's you. :) (See these.)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5 See below. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Just when you think that it is nearly done, old Eagle Eyes comes along and picks up all of the bits that you have overlooked. Thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Well you know I want to finish this year with more reviews. I'm just bypassed this one and gave you the results of my review. Anyway I think (even though I have the feeling I have missed something) we're done here so I'll let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @CPA-5: Well you know I want to finish this year with more reviews :) I have just the remedy for your malais! But, thanks for lookng in here though, it's greatly appreciated! All the best! ——SN54129 11:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! (1949 film)Edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! is a 1949 film based on a novel which was based on the sinking of the SS Politician – an article that recently went through a successful FAC. This article went through GA three years ago under one of my nom de plumes, but I've recently expanded it further with new material. Any constructive comments are welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

I mostly had my say at GAC; I think the article looks very strong.

  • "Mr. Farquharson" In British English, the period after titles is non-standard. Unless you have a particular reason to include the period, perhaps it should be removed?
  • "Local inhabitants from the island and from nearby South Uist, heard that the ship was carrying 22,000 cases of whisky" The commas are a bit off here; you either need an additional comma after "island", or you need to lose the one after "Uist".
  • "Mackenzie annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, because of removal of religious divide, opined "Another of my books gone west"" Struggling a bit with this sentence. How about "Mackenzie was annoyed with aspects of the adaptation and, referring to the removal of the religious divide, described the production as "[a]nother of my books gone west"".
  • Yep, much better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the exception of Radford and Greenwood" - They've not really been introduced yet!
  • We have them in the Cast list. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed this, but other actors are introduced in both the cast list and main body of the article. I think there's an argument for introducing them fully from both a reader-clarity and consistency perspective, but I leave it to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point: a little extra added to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not all outsiders to the island are intruders: the other Englishman, Sergeant Odd, "acts as the audiences entry point into the community"" Does your source miss the apostrophe? If so, maybe [sic] would be a good addition?
  • Mea culpa. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "while The Manchester Guardian thought the" I'm generally not keen on this kind of personification. You're quoting an anonymous critic rather than the paper as a whole. (There are other examples.) I leave it to you whether you do anything about this, but note that I prefer the way you do it when you refer to "The reviewer for the Manchester Guardian"
  • It's not my preferred version either, but Tim riley reassures me that it's not a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BB pulled me up, rightly, years ago about my phrase "The Times wrote..." (papers don't write themselves) but that apart the editorial voice is traditionally personified: "we think" etc. The Times thought, said, considered etc are standard forms. This is from a Guardian article: "the Times thought it 'sound' ... The Times said: 'Recreational drug use...'" Also "The Telegraph thought Fleabag's narcissism grew 'wearisome'...". The Guardian has or had a regular feature on paperback books with the recurring subheader: "What the Guardian thought". Tim riley talk 10:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. I await the wrath of Riley, but I know he can be calmed with red wine! - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the studio's first" Plural or singular studio? You previously referred to to the studios plural!
  • Gone with "Ealing's" instead. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd maybe like to hear a little more about the remake and the stage show.
  • There is only a very brief mention of the stage show, so there isn't anything else to say about it. How much do you want on the remake? I didn't add anything more as we have a full article on it, but I'm happy to dig out some more if needed.
  • I'd have thought only a sentence or two; I think it'd be particularly useful to note whether it was a critical/commercial success, and note how it compares to the original film (in terms of plot, but perhaps anything else that you have a source on). No doubt some critics (I note one quoted in Wikipedia's article on the new film, for instance) compared the two films, so you can definitely keep the focus on the original film even while talking about the new one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I've added a couple of contrasting opinions, which pretty much covers the general feeling about the film! - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And on the stage show - perhaps the names of a few people involved (playwright/adapter, director, leading performers) would be helpful. No doubt it's not as notable as the new film, so no need for too much detail. Just a thought - not a demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A good thing I looked for other referneces for more details: it was an adaptation of the book, not the film. I have, however, found a musical based on the film, which I have added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Cheers Josh, much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Trawling through Google Scholar...

  • From the final page of doi:10.5594/J13675: "Among the milestones I am reviewing, mention must be made of the mobile studio unit system, so useful in our vari- able climate when shooting exteriors at a particular location for a number of weeks. Tight Little Island (known in England as Whiskey Galore) was one of the first pictures to utilize this system. When the weather was too bad for ex- teriors, the unit moved into the im- provised film studios and shot small sets, which had been prefabricated and sent from the main studio at Ealing, London." Worth a mention, perhaps?
  • Have you taken a look at McArthur's Scotch Reels? That's apparently about Whiskey Galore and The Maggie.
    • I have. His 2003 work Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide is an updated volume and much better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What about Philip Kemp's Lethal Innocence? From p. 29 of Scotland: Global Cinema: Genres, Modes and Identities: "...the comedic aspect of Forsyth’s fi lms brushed away as though a façade, in favour of ‘uncovering’ the more weighty subject matter that laughing might somehow obscure. This stance on the director is not uncommon. It is apparent, for example, in Philip Kemp’s book-length celebration of director Alexander Mackendrick, in which Kemp defends Whisky Galore! for its use of the baser ‘conventions of comedy’ in relation to the otherwise more weighty considerations of Mackendrick’s oeuvre".
    • I'm stuggling to get hold of this at the moment, and don't have time to go to the BL to have a look at theirs. I've purchased a copy from Amazon, so will go add the relevant parts in a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Got it at last.A couple of nice touches in there. I've added the entirely new information, and I'll go through the rest to see what else can be strengthened or expanded upon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • pp. 46-7 of the same: "A number of British road movies pass through or conclude in Scotland, including The 39 Steps (1935), I Know Where I’m Going! (1945), What a Whopper (1961), Hold Back the Night (1999) and The Last Great Wilderness (2002). This tradition typically sees an English character cross the border into Scotland, and is part of a broader trend of fi lms depicting outsiders (usually English or US characters) either stepping o ff the boat or plane in Scotland. This tradition includes: Whisky Galore! (1949), Laxdale Hall (1952), The Maggie (1954), Brigadoon (1954), Trouble in the Glen (1954), Rockets Galore! (1957), Local Hero (1983), Loch Ness (1996), The Rocket Post (2004) and Made of Honor (2008). In many of these fi lms, in particular the road movie, the outsider is either humiliated or rejuvenated (or both) by their experiences in Scotland. Moreover, their experiences often re fl ect upon the changing relationship between England, Scotland and the USA at di ff erent points in history. 9 However, in the 1990s/2000s things have changed. Coinciding with the increasingly contested issue of Scotland’s cultural and political devolution from the state of Britain (following the failed referendum of 1979) and the impetus towards indigenous expression created by Forsyth in the 1980s, the Scot fi nally emerged as the central character in a road movie in Soft Top, Hard Shoulder (1993)."
    • We cover the main point of this (the outsider being humiliated) in a better work already. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added this anyway: although we cover the humiliation, we don't cover the rejuvenation, which could be applied to Sgt Odd (although the text doesn't make it clear). - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And p. 63 of the same: "Traditionally, in fi lms set in Scotland, from Whisky Galore! (1949) to The Last Great Wilderness (2002), a ceilidh is the place where inhibitions fall way as the alcohol and dancing break down the barriers between locals and guests visiting Scotland. The ceilidh, then, is typically a symbol of Scotland associated with Tartanry that illustrates the curative charms Scotland o ff ers to the tourist or visiting outsider."
    • We have most of this, but the "curative charms" for the outsider is angle we can add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support; a well-researched article, and an engaging read. There's a question mark over an obscure book that may have more, but I know steps are being taken to chase that down, and it's not the end of the world if it's not included anyway. (Though maybe it could be added to a further reading section.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Yep (I know - I always forget the stuff!) now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Compton_Mackenzie.jpg: source link is not working - when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • 1922: Now added, with an archive link to the book it was published in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

I reviewed – and much enjoyed – this article in the summer (offline, for reasons I have forgotten). It looks in v. good shape, but I have a few bijou quibblettes:

  • Lead
    • "The initial cut of the film was considered poor by Michael Balcon, the head of the studio" – not sure why the passive voice is wanted here. Why not just MB thought it poor?
    • "so one of Ealing's directors" – there are fogeys old enough to remember their English masters telling them that "so" is not a conjunction. Perhaps it is now so regarded by the young, but not by me.
    • "was well-received on its release" – hyphen not wanted, I think.
  • Plot
    • "Sergeant Odd returns on leave to court Peggy" – on leave from the army, I imagine, but it might be as well to say so. And as you later say he is an Englishman, it might be helpful to say briefly why he is returning.
    • "The whisky also gives the teetotal Campbell" – "the hitherto/previously teetotal"?
  • Filming
    • "MacPhail re-write it" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "rewrite"
      • Well it bloody well should! - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "Mackenzie was persuaded ...Mackenzie played" – perhaps just "he" the second time?
    • "pre-fabricated in Ealing" – another hyphen the OED doesn't go in for. (We pass lightly over Sir Winston Churchill's comment, "We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready made'?")
    • "the pompous, high-minded attempts of Waggett" – can attempts be pompous? Is this more the high-minded attempts of the pompous Waggett?
  • Post-production
    • "Charles Crichton, added additional footage at Ealing Studios and re-edited the film back to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – if CC added additional footage he surely didn't restore the film back to Mackendrick's version? Something like it, perhaps, but with new bits.
    • "Mackendrick was still not satisfied with the final film and thought it looked like an amateur work. Because of financial pressures on the studio he decided to release it with little promotion. Is Mackendrick the right man? One might expect "Balcon" rather than "Mackendrick" here.
      • The "He" should be Balcon, bu Mackendrick didn't like the film much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Release and reception
    • "In France, the film was retitled Whisky à gogo; the name was later used as that of a discothèque in Paris. It was released into the US." – If we're being really pedantic, grammatically the "it" relates to the name of the discothèque, and you ought to use the name of the film rather than the pronoun. As to the Parisian establishment, I have my doubts that it was a discothèque – more a night club, I'd say, but what I do know about Parisian nightlife? (Answers on a postcard, please.)
      • Discothèque may be correct (it's certainly what the source calls it) and a quick search shows an inclination to the term, although club, night club, hot spot etc are also in the mix. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune, writing in The Observer" – it's rather a revelation of the obvious to tell us that the writer of the review was a reviewer. Similarly for "The critic Bosley Crowther, writing in The New York Times" later.
    • "The reviewer C. A. Lejeune ... the reviewer for The Manchester Guardian ... The Manchester Guardian's reviewer" – a helluva lot of reviewers. See my comments above and consider blitzing the damn things. The papers said it. All right, please yourself!
    • "while the reviewer ... while the lead roles" – too much whiling. Using the word to mean "and" or "although" is never necessary and is, I think (and, more to the point, so does Fowler) better avoided.
  • Legacy
    • "Much of the influence is because of the Kailyard effect used in Whisky Galore!" – this accusation ought, I'd say, to be attributed inline.
    • "McFarlane, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" – why not just "in" rather than "writing for"?

That's my lot. Nothing of great consequence, and I look forward to supporting on my next visit here. – Tim riley talk 22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. All your comments duly attended to here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not mad about "re-edited the film closer to the version Mackendrick had filmed" – the repetition is not pleasing – but such a minor matter does not prevent my adding my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, well researched, a pleasure to read, and as well illustrated as imaginable given WP copyright policy. Tim riley talk 17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. I've tweaked "filmed" for "produced", which should cover things. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

No issues with the sources: all links are working, formats are consistent and MoS-compliant, the sources themselves meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

But: will you please look at your note (c), which equates £2,000 in 1948 with £714,000 in today's money. For £2,000 read £20,000, according to your text.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian. Note c tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CassiantoEdit

  • "The film was produced at the same time as Passport to Pimlico and Kind Hearts and Coronets, and with the studio's directors all working on other products, Danischewsky asked Balcon if Alexander Mackendrick, one of Ealing's production design team, could take the role. -- Three things here: Firstly, is "products" the right word here? "Projects" sounds better and more accurate for a film. Secondly, you say that he could take on the role, but don't actually say what that role was. Sure, you allude to it, but is this enough to say that the film lacked a director and that Mackendrick was scouted for "the role"? Thirdly, "role". Not usually reserved for a director, I think, more for an actor, as the role they play is of someone else. Surely a director is a director and they are themselves while they are directing. All three could be sorted by a simple swap of "role" to "director".
  • "The screenplay was written by Compton Mackenzie and Angus MacPhail, based on Mackenzie's novel; he received £500 for the rights to the book and a further £1,000 because of the film's profitability." -- who's "he"? We mention three men in this sentence.
  • "Alastair Sim was offered the role of Joseph Macroon in the film, but turned it down, to avoid being typecast" -- is the second comma needed here?
  • Is there a reason why you link Barra on its second mention and not on the first, two paragraphs up?
  • Link to Gordon Jackson has been omitted in the last para.

"Martin-Jones—describing the scene as a {{lang|gd|ceilidh]]—" -- is the coding broken?

Support - The rest, all good. It almost makes me want to cheer on Mackendrick who, after reading this, it appears, wasn't well-liked at Ealing and who was professionally kicked into the gutter by Balcon and his money men. Well, I'm pleased that Mackendrick had the last laugh as it is a great film and the critics confirmed this. Not his best effort by a long chalk (this was), but I can see where he got his disdain for the British film industry; no wonder he sodded off back to the states in '55. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I completely agree that Ladykillers was a better film - darker, tighter and much better all round. I'll get round to doing that one at some point soon! - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

Very entertaining, like the film. A few minor nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • based on his 1947 novel Whisky Galore, and Angus MacPhail. The story—based on a true event—Avoid two based ons?
  • an incident in the Second World War, when the cargo ship SS Politician' —why not give 1941 as the year
    • I was trying to stress the war element as the most important part, rather than the year, which 'introduces' the idea before we get to the Home Guard etc. 1941 now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Jonny Murray, the professor of film and visual culture...—slightly odd, either a professor or say where he's a prof perhaps?
    • Tweaked to remove the professor bit.
    • Hi Jim, Many thanks for these; all duly tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOzEdit

  • S.S. Cabinet Minister runs aground - remove dots (per MoS no punc in prefix), (others, SS Cabinet Minister and SS Politician are fine)
  • could take direct the work - remove "take"?
  • Roger Hutchinson - wlink Roger Hutchinson (writer), and authorlink?
  • Keep the Home Guard Turning - wlink
    • Excellent - a new article since I wrote this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything had to be - not really everything?maybe 'Nearly everything'?
  • the feet of one of the islanders - same local just mentioned?
  • the feet of one of the islanders was used - were rather than "was", or even 'were filmed'?
  • dinner at the Savoy Hotel, London. - in London
  • This is true of both Whisky Galore! and Mackenzie's other Scottish-based Ealing comedy, The Maggie. - definitely referring to actor Mackenzie here, not director Mackendrick?
  • McArthur, in his work comparing Whisky Galore to - missing exclamation (ie film not book?)
  • Jeffrey Richards - wlink in prose? (already has authorlink)
  • name was later used as that of a discothèque - 'for a' discothèque instead of 'that of a'? Was it named directly after the movie? There are others, Aus and NY but not related?
  • for the Manchester Guardian considered - cap T and italics on The per others
  • Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel - wlink Rockets Galore (novel)
    • And another new one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Rockets Galore, Mackenzie's sequel to Whisky Galore!, was adapted - remove exclamation mark if this refers to the novel?
  • thought it an "innocuous, unmemorable remake" that there was "little reason for it to exist". - 'and' before that?
  • Newspapers... Muir, Kate - authorlink
  • Ref 16 "Whisky Galore". Sight & Sound. - italics on S&S per others
  • McArthur, Colin (2003). Whisky Galore! and the Maggie: A British Film Guide - 'the' should have cap here?
  • Brown, John (Winter 1983). "The Land Beyond Brigadoon". Sight and Sound. 53 (1): 40–46. - ampersand, ie Sight & Sound?
  • ibox Gerald Gibbs - doesn't appear in prose ie no ref for him
  • water of life - even though within a quote, could wlink Aqua vitae
  • possible category: Films set on the home front during World War II

Thanks for this SchroCat, I look forward to watching the movie! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • All done, JennyOz. Many thanks for your fine eye for detail on this - it is as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This gnome very happy to sign support. Thanks SchroCat for tweaks!. JennyOz (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter van GeersdaeleEdit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It attracted the support of The Rambling Man when nominated before, but few other comments; the nomination thus failed, 1 vote for and 0 against. Hopefully the nomination will attract more attention this second time around, for it is, I believe, featured article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from The Rambling ManEdit

  • Support as noted in the nomination comments. Nothing has changed for me here. And for what it's worth, if the nominator needs any help with addressing any comments to get this over the line, please don't hesitate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by FiamhEdit

  • Try to avoid duplicate refs.
    • Try: After school... 1951.[1][3] all as one unit.
      • Moved.
    • Para that starts: In the early 1950s... is all sourced to the same reference, so it should only have one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • Ditto with Van Geersdaele.. 1993.
    • I generally prefer to cite after every sentence; among other benefits, it maintains clarity when revisions are made and further sources are added.
  • 6. van Geersdaele 1969. Shouldn't this have a page number?
    • The entire article is being cited, since it's the article he wrote about the subject of the sentence.
  • He was remembered by colleagues Should be directly attributed to the one colleague that said it.

Other comments

  • a project in which, as with the Sutton Hoo ship,[10] he was assisted by Nigel Williams,[11][12] This reads really awkwardly. If he was assisted by Williams in a prior project and it's worth mentioning, why not put it back where you're discussing the other project?
  • the Anglo-Saxon burial is widely identified with Rædwald of East Anglia what does this mean?

Image reviewEdit

Thanks for the image review, Fiamh. Looking at the edit description of the file, it appears to have been uploaded by a family member: "Screen capture of image from home movie, shot by Harold John Phillips, of 1939 excavation of Sutton Hoo burial ship. Permission for unlimited use granted by son William Phillips. Uploaded by grandson Jeremy Gilbert". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Anyone can post such a comment claiming to be a family member. Without OTRS permission it's impossible to confirm that this is indeed the case. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from CeoilEdit

Support on prose. Very nicely written. Ceoil (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I have looked at the previous nomination and at the state of the article at the time, and I am sad that not enough reviewers looked in first time round. I hope the same won't happen this time. This seems to me a top-notch article of its kind, and I am happy to add my support. A few thoughts:

  • I could do with a little trimming of the paragraph about the punch-up over the Council Tax (it is really rather yawn-making) but I don't press the point.
  • Yeah, can't really argue that it's a gripping paragraph. Trimmed a bit, and combined two of the sentences. Interestingly, the Daily Telegraph partly copied this paragraph in their obituary of him ("In 2003 he was one of a group of pensioners who protested against a steep hike in council tax by Suffolk County Council, and the following year he was summoned to court for having insisted on paying his tax in 12 monthly instalments, rather than the required 10.").
  • If I'd been writing the list of van Geersdaele's publications I wouldn't have put his name in each entry - it seems unnecessary and over-repetitive - but we all have our own ways of doing these things, and again I don't press the point.
  • This is a bit of personal preference, although given the number of coauthors, it probably would be a bit hard to include a line for repetitive author names, as some others do.
  • But I would definitely suggest changing the heading "Bibliography" in the citations area: to many people a bibliography in a biographical article means a list of the subject's publications rather than a list of cited works. "Sources" is the usual form in WP articles, in my experience.
  • I've changed "Publications" to "Works by van Geersdaele," a subsection of "Bibliography." This also has the advantage of placing it below "References," since a number of the references link to van Geersdaele's publications.
  • I am no doubt showing my ignorance when I ask why the subject is "Van G" (capital V) at the start of a sentence in the main text but "van G" (lower case v) at the start of each line in the list of publications. I merely mention the point, and am happy to go with the nominator's judgment on the matter.
  • That's a good point, and not one that was arrived at by any great deliberation. It looks, however, as if this is actually correct (link 1; link 2).

Nothing of any great import in those few points, and I am happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 20:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Tim riley. I've responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Good. I hope there will be more supports this time. They will be well deserved. Tim riley talk 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from JimEdit

I fixed a typo in the lead (mold). I'm happy to support, just a couple of suggestions that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer the section heading to be just British Museum
  • Good point, done.
  • Done.

Thanks for the comments and support, Jimfbleak. Adopted both of your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Razing of FriesoytheEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware.

The first article I created (26.1.18), my first GA (24.2.18), and my first A class (14.8.18). After which it languished until Nick-D, bless him, added Briddiscombe and so provided the underpinning to tie the article together and, perhaps, hopefully, make it fit to be considered for FA. Given its history I am sure that it is riven with faults and will be grateful to all those who help to point these out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Great to see another battle of WWII.

  • Link WWII.
See below.
  • Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
  • Pipe Canada or Canadese to the Dominion of Canada.
  • the division's commander, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
No it doesn't. Did you click the link? Canadian usage.
  • Do the sources say it without a hyphen? Because I've heard that some Commonwealth countries before and in WWII use those kinds of ranks before they got old fashioned.
It is confused. Vokes doesn't hyphenate it in his autobiography, but the official history does. Let's assume that Vokes didn't know how to spell his own rank and I will hyphenate through out. (Good point.)
  • Link Soviet Union.
  • about the threat of a German resistance movement, and Soviet forces killed Link the German resistance.
I am unable to find an article on German resistance to the Allies. If you could point me to it I would be grateful.
  • Here a German resistance to the allies - Werwolf.
Thanks. Done. (I was typing in werewolf!)
  • 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
See above.
  • Link Rhine.
  • Link Allied/Allies.
  • circumstances as buoyant as it was recognised that British recognised here we should use Canadian English.
Good point. Done.
  • an assault crossing of the Ems river --> "an assault crossing of the Ems River"
No. River Ems; but Ems river. Honest. (Check it, you won't find an "Ems River" usage. You may find "Ems, River", that's different.)
  • I always am confused with both of them.
English, a language deliberately invented to confuse foreigners. It also confuses almost everyone else - as you prove a little below.
  • Primary units metric vs English?
I am not getting your point. Primary units are imperial. As used by Canadians at the time. Is that incorrect?
  • You're not wrong but I mean look at this sentence "The division advanced a further 25 kilometres (16 mi) to Sögel" which is written in metric units.
    • (talk page stalker) There's also "20 miles (32 km) west of Oldenburg", so these should be consistent. If you wish to preserve the source figure in the convert template, you can use |order=flip so that the input is displayed as secondary and the output as primary. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • west of Oldenburg, on the river Soeste --> "west of Oldenburg, on the River Soeste"
Ah! Done.
  • Got you. ;p
Yep. Dead to rights :-( .
  • Several hundred paratroopers from Battalion Raabe of the 7th Parachute Division No link for the Battalion Raabe?
No. An ad hoc battlegroup. It may only have existed for a few days. The article on the division is only 8 lines.
  • repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment Same as above with the Lake Superior Regiment?
Strangely perhaps, no. (The articles on the last of the WWII divisions are still being created. It is probably expecting too much for all of the battalions to have been filled in.)
  • Argylls secured the town by 10:30 am --> "Argylls secured the town by 10:30"
  • headquarters by surprise at around 8:30 am --> "headquarters by surprise at around 08:30"
Both done.
  • the fucking place. Get the people the hell out of their houses first.'"[12][21] Re-order the refs here.
Done. (You do realise that there is no Wikipedia requirement for this?)
  • I do! But most sources use refs in numerical order and because this isn't included in MOS it shouldn't be included.
  • Canadian force was also authorised to burn down the village British authorised.
  • The Canadian army official historian Link Canadian army and capitalise "army".
Army capitalised. See below re link.
  • Be that as it may."[12][11] Re-order the refs here.
  • In the image "File:Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg" "Major General Christopher Vokes" --> "Major-General Christopher Vokes"
See above.
  • was used to fill craters in local roads to make them passable Change the "in" with "on".
Er, why?
  • Sounds better in my ears but if it doesn't to you then I do not mind having "in" instead of "on".
Yeah, craters are in a road. They might be on the moon, but off hand I can't think of another example.
  • forces destroyed German buildings on a number of occasions --> "forces destroyed German buildings on several occasions"
  • The British commanders disapproved of retaliations against civilians --> "The British commanders disapproved of retaliation against civilians"
No. In this case, "retaliations" is the correct usage. (A noun, rather than a verb.)
  • This was accomplished with several truck-loads of dynamite Remove the hyphen here.
  • eight hours and Friesoythe was almost totally destroyed Remove totally.
No. The phrase doesn't make sense then. How I have expressed it is acceptable usage - honest. "Almost destroyed" means something completely different.
  • According to one German assessment, 85–90 per cent of the town was destroyed British per cent.
  • the destruction to be as high as 90 per cent Same as above.
  • Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties --> "Canadian authorities of the damage or civilian casualties"
No. One needs both definite articles for the two nouns.
  • several 17-year-old youths with less than eight weeks military experience --> "several 17-year-old youths with fewer than eight weeks military experience"
No. Fewer is used when the intervals are discrete. And while weeks are, they represent time here, which isn't. So "less" is correct.
  • Strange because I thought fewer is used for countable nouns like weeks and less for uncountable?
Ah. this is a tricky one. So you might say "Should basic training last 12 weeks, or fewer?" meaning that it will always last a number of complete weeks. But "I wish that basic training lasted less than 12 weeks." meaning that this might be one day, 10 days, or any other period of time not related to whole weeks. IMO, the article is using weeks in the latter sense.

That's anything from me. Hopefully, we'll have more WWII battles here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably not - more WWII battles that is.
  • Some of the suggested links above. I know that you have read MOS:OL, so why are you asking for so many links which are "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context"? Eg WWII; USSR, Rhine; which are pretty much specifically included in the categories of things not to link. Am I missing something? I have linked as you suggest where I think that I have missed something, and thanks for catching those. Others I have left, pending discussion here.
  • I understand you wanna stay with unlinking those especially WWII. But the USSR and the Rhine are different. Believe the USSR is indeed really common but most people would say Cold War, Communism, Stalin and Russians. I do not think they know the rest of the former country especially the younger generations who never met the Cold War (like me). And speaking about the Rhine I do believe it is really common among us, Europeans like us, but would Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis or the rest of world know it? It's not the same as the Nile which is one of the important and longest river the world has.
    • (talk page stalker) I tend to favour the more-specific links. In the case of the Allied crossing of the Rhine in Operation Plunder the linking to the more-specific article is probably more useful to the reader, while Rhine is linked in the lead sentence of Operation Plunder so that it is still easy for the reader to get to that article. It's easy to work from a specific article to a general one; the reverse is not always easy or obvious. Linking both diverts attention, etc. "Canadian Army official history" could be pipe-linked on first mention in the lead and body; I wouldn't link only the "Canadian Army" part. Perhaps "Soviet Union's leadership" could be linked to something like State Defense Committee, if that's correct and felt to be useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit clash with Reidgreg. Hi Reidgreg, I wondered if you might be watching this. I had just made the changes suggested by CPA-5, and added this comment here:
  • Done, but I think that you are using your common sense, rather than what it says in MOS:OL: "the following are usually not linked: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries; geographic features; locations... " You are saying that "Canada" doesn't fit into one of those? (I have linked it anyway - see here.) Then again, possibly I overdo the not overlinking malarkey. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Phew. I seem to have given you quite a bit of work to do. Thanks for your usual very thorough review. All of your points addressed above, although I have disagreed with several and queried a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CPA-5. Much appreciated as always. I think that I have covered everything that you have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Good afternoon. All of your points above have been addressed, some with queries or explanations. What do you think? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Good afternoon mate sorry I had a really busy week. Yes all except one are addressed, you missed this one which unit should be primary in the article miles or kilometres? This is the only comment who's not addressed by you. BTW last comment here is it Razing of Friesoythe or Battle of Friesoythe? Because the infobox says something different. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: No worries. real life happens. I knew that you were busy/distracted by some of your delays in getting back to things, but you do a huge amount of reviewing here, so who cares? I am more than grateful for what you do do.
Kms/miles: I am not happy, but the editorial consensus seems to be for km, so all switched. And yes, "Razing". Good spot, not sure how that happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I believe all of my comments are addressed so I reckon I can let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Fiamh—passEdit

  • This article says that reprisals are per se forbidden by the Hague Conventions. According to this article, it's actually disputed amongst legal scholars:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 avoided the issue of reprisals for “fear that express regulation might be interpreted as a legitimation of their use.”54 Some contend, however, that Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations is the first primitive effort to codify the law of belligerent reprisals. That article reads: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise,shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”5

  • The post-war WWII trials tended to follow the position that reprisals were legal if they met certain criteria (p. 99).
  • Rogers, R. L. (1989). and Foster, Tony (2000) appear to be self-published sources, what makes them reliable?
Rogers is printed by the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. It is their official history. I don't see that as "self published".
Foster: I am not sure where you are getting that from. The first edition was published by Methuen and jointly authored by the Mazal Holocaust Collection, which is about as RS as I can imagine. See WorldCat
You might consider listing the regiment as the publisher, as Google Books does, although it's fine either way. Foster is currently listed as published by the vanity press iUniverse but as long as the previous edition was published by a credible publisher it is fine.
D'oh! I have no idea why I didn't do that. Even when you queried it, it didn't occur to me. Over focused I think - been working on this for too long. Done.
The copy I accessed was by iUniverse. I didn't realise that it was dubious - the book itself is so obviously scholarly. No idea how iU ended up printing an edition. I understand your point now, but the actual text is impeccably scholarly and RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Both done.

Other comments

  • Reprisal should be linked in the lede and first occurrence in the body
Reprisal links to "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them ... " That is not what is meant here. I couldn't find an article on reprisal in the Hague Convention sense, which is why it is unlinked. However, spurred by you, I have found collective punishment which more or less fits, and I could link it to there; what do you think?
  • Some German civilians joined the fighting and were believed to have killed several Canadian soldiers. This seems like an important detail. Shouldn't it be in the lede? Currently, if you just read the lede, you'd think that the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians.
That quote is from the "Context" section, sub-section "Battle for Sögel"; which was 4 days before the "Battle for Friesoythe" (new section) and 21 miles away. So it didn't justify the razing of Friesoythe. It was used as a justification for the illegal partial razing of Sogel, which is covered in the lead: "A few days earlier the division had destroyed the centre of Sögel in another reprisal and also used the rubble to make the roads passable." There wasn't even an attempt to use it to justify the razing of Friesoythe, for which, as you say 'the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians'. The Sogel reprisal is mentioned partly as part of the background and leadup to Friesoythe, and partly because it arguably (probably) put the Canadians "in the mood" to believe that they had been attacked by civilians - and perhaps it was easier to raze a town if you had done something similar a few days earlier. But the sources don't explicitly say that, so I am careful not to.
@Fiamh: I do like a reviewer who is rigorous and has a good poke at an article. Thank you. I have covered everything except your first major point about what a reprisal is. I want to save what I have so far, then get my thoughts and sources together for that; so I will be back with the balance of my response shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fiamh: My apologies for the delay on getting back to you on this. RL, my health and WP have all become busy. I am aware of this and should respond soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fiamh. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Right then.

The paper you quote above is discussing "belligerent reprisals", which is something different from "reprisals". Belligerent reprisals are defined by the author as "Effectively, belligerent reprisals allow for derogation from the laws of armed conflict to ensure compliance with those same laws." They also distinguish them from "reprisals": "Belligerent reprisals, therefore, bear many of the characteristics of reprisals in general". To support my use of "reprisals with nothing to explain explain or qualify it I shall quote from some of the sources of the article:

  • Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: "Accordingly, as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sögel were ordered destroyed"
  • The memoirs of the author of the official history: "a result a great part of the town of Friesoythe was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal. This unfortunate episode only came to my notice and thus got into the pages of history because I was in Friesoythe at the time and saw people being turned out of their houses and the houses burned. How painfully easy it is for the business of "reprisals" to get out of hand."
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Vokes ordered the burning and levelling of the town's buildings in reprisal."
  • Briddescombe: "reported that the town had been burned down by American occupiers as a reprisal for persistent sniping."
  • Williams: "The Germans had to be taught a lesson – keep to the rules of war or suffer reprisals."

Another modern, popular source:

  • Atkinson: "When a sniper took a potshot ... Patton ordered German houses burned in retaliation."

Note that Hague IV, Article 23, prohibits acts that "destroy or seize the enemy's property... "

Not sure if I have fully addressed your point here, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fiamh: While you are making your mind up on this can I flag up that in meeting a request by Nick-D I have added an additional source - Atkinson. I don't see that this will cause any problems, but I needed to let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you that the Friesoythe case was not a "belligerent reprisal" because the German side had not actually broken the law of war. However, arguably the Sögel case was, because civilians are unlawful combatants and it could be argued that burning the town was justified because it would discourage similar illegal actions in the future. I can't see the Briddiscombe source to see exactly what he wrote, but it might be an improvement on the current wording ("Vokes was aware that these actions violated the Hague Conventions") to say instead something like, "Vokes believed that these actions violated the Hague Conventions" or simply that he avoided issuing written instructions and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 20:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Biddiscombe does not share your view that destruction of civilian property, outside immediate battle circumstances, ie ever legal. Vokes did this as a policy "even though he knew that this measure violated the Hague rules" (p 258). Brode, in Casual Slaughters and Accidental Judgements: Canadian War Crimes Prosecutions, 1944–1948 (another source in the article) says in passing of Vokes "Strict adherence to the Geneva Convention was not a high priority." (p 105). Google around and there are numerous examples of Vokes attitude. Specifically, I would like to stay with what the source states - "knew". But Peacemaker wants me to dig a bit to find supporting sources on the breach of the Hague Convention front, so that may through up something extra one way or the other. (I thought that I had cracked it "Vokes admitted that he had acted outside of the rules of war", but it relates to Friesoythe. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review—passEdit

@Fiamh: Thanks for taking this on. My responses below.
  • Quotebox. It doesn't on any of the six screens I have just checked it on. (And no one else has mentioned this.) So it is difficult for me to be sure if I have fixed it, but I have tweaked the dimensions and would be grateful if you could check if it resolves the problem.
  • Yes, one would have thought so. But, strictly, one doesn't. The images are from the Library and Archives Canada which state that the copyright has expired. I wrote to them and got the following response:
Your request for copyright permission for material from our collections has been received by Copyright Services of Library and Archives Canada.

Because the photos are Crown images that were published for over 50 years, the material is now in the public domain. Which means that the copyright protection has expired and there are no other restrictions applicable to this material. Therefore, it may be used freely without seeking permission or paying royalties. We would ask that you kindly acknowledge the source as follows:

Photo: Personnel of The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor) with a captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a167250

Photo: Brigadier R.W. Moncel (left) and Major-General Christopher Vokes, General Officer Commanding 4th Canadian Armoured Division,observing a German counter-attack, Sogel, Germany, 10 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a159242

Please note that identifying our institution “Library and Archives Canada” in the credits will be sufficient when material is being used in video/film format.


Eric Mineault

Spécialiste des droits et des licenses, Direction générale des services au public

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

The ACR image reviewer commented "I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear." So I wrote again, asking for a precise publication date and was told, a little tartly:

As these photographs which were taken by Alex Stirton while enlisted in the Canadian Army, they are Government of Canada material. While we don’t know the exact date the photo was published, they generally would have been published (most likely around the date they were created) in Canada to inform the population of the activities of the Canadian forces in Europe.

Canadian Military Photographers:

Government of Canada photos can be used if the Government of Canada approves of the intended use. Government of Canada material does not fall under copyright restrictions of any other country (e.g. the 70 rule of the U.S. and Europe) as the copyright belongs to the Government of Canada.

Therefore, we consider these photos as © Expired (Crown material published for more than 50 years) and, because they are Crown photos, they are expired no matter where they are used. In fact, Wikipedia is full of expired Government of Canada material.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions with this request.


Eric Mineault

Services des droits d'auteur

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

That seems definitive to me. If you would like a copy of the original email thread, drop me an email and I'll copy it to you.

Seperately, I note that what is actually required for the image to be PD in Canada is that it be created prior to the end of 1948. Which these were. (10 and 16 April 1945.) And that they are PD in the US if if they were in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on 1 January 1996, which these were. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-DEdit

As noted in the nomination statement, I've added a para or two worth of material to this article and just copy edited it, so I won't vote. I'd like to make the following suggestions though:

  • The sentence starting with "However, SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla" is a bit over-long and over-complex
Removed tangential material to simplify. Better?
  • The "context" section would probably benefit from material about attitudes by this stage of the war. The Allied troops were fed up by the irrational German resistance to inevitable defeat, especially when it led to casualties in the closing weeks of the war. The Germans had also committed retaliatory actions and other war crimes targeted at civilians on a vast scale across Europe. This led to there being very little sympathy for them.
I'll see what I can find.
I'll also try to dig some stuff up here. The last period of the war on the western front was much more brutal than is often recognised. If German troops and towns surrendered, as they usually did, the troops treated them pretty well. If they put up a fight or were associated with concentration or death camps the Allied troops were ruthless. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The quote from Vokes in the 'Aftermath' section looks a bit NPOV. The Canadian troops did in fact conduct themselves very well, on the whole.
Well yes. As Vokes says. I am not sure that I see a POV issue in flagging up that Vokes praised the generally good behaviour of his troops and acknowledged Friesoythe and felt, forty years after the event, "[a] feeling of no great remorse over the elimination of Friesoythe." It seems to accurately reflect his views. We may consider them contradictory, but I don't think that I editorialise that in.
Although you and he may have got an argument on your POVs from the 1945 inhabitants of Sogel, Friesoythe and Garrel.
  • " Vokes heard the appeal against his death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" - should 'his' be 'the' here? It would be odd for Vokes to handle an appeal against a sentence he handed down.
You are correct, and changed. In my defence, Vokes heard the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence. Later, in the bureaucratically different position of the senior Canadian officer (remaining) in theatre, he heard the final appeal and overruled his earlier decision[!] So technically/pedantically he was hearing the appeal against his earlier decision. Which is where "his" crept in from. But a reader doesn't need to know all that.

Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D. thanks for the copy edit. Your points above addressed. I agree re point two and will have a search around. German units had also committed well-publicised massacres of Canadian prisoners in Normandy less than a year before, and I don't suppose that helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: New section inserted as discussed. It could probably do with a fairly hard look over. Let me know what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick: Thanks once again for your help all along with this article. Any more suggestions or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I looked at this at Milhist ACR, and have reviewed the changes since then. I have a few comments:

  • suggest "attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe" also, as they are advancing into north-west Germany, "German" town of Friesoythe is redundant
True. Done.
  • "the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) captured the town" also in the body when first introducing the battalion
  • suggest "Forty years afterwardslater"
  • in the infobox, "Photograph A Stirton, Library and Archives Canada" isn't required in the caption, it just needs to be on the image description page for attribution, same with the later photo
That wasn't how I read it, but so long as you're sure. (You need to tell that to all of the reviewers who insist that I add "from an illuminated manuscript by Froissart" to images from the 14th C.) Done.
  • in the infobox, given this involves the destruction of the town, a result of "Canadian victory" seems incongruous, perhaps "Destruction of the town" would be better?
I'm going for both. OK by you?
  • "Over the following six months they overran much of western Germany"
Done. Although that was deliberate. Surely they overran all of western Germany? (Or near enough. Plus parts of southern and central Germany.)
  • for "although this was in breach of the Hague Conventions" I would expect a more specialised source than Briddiscombe on the legality of reprisals under the law of armed conflict as it applied at the time. Briddiscombe is fine for the description of the manual, but the legal issue needs a legal source
I will see what I can find and get back to you.
  • "than any other Canadian unitformation" in the Commonwealth context a corps, division or brigade is a formation, a battalion is a unit
  • in general, I think there is an over-reliance on Briddiscombe for discussion of laws of armed conflict issues in the context section, these matters should be cited to specialist law of armed conflict literature, in preference to a book on the Nazi resistance to invasion, regardless of its obviously academic status
Biddiscombe seems a reliable enough source to me - [4] - and this work was his PhD thesis at LSE - [5] - so it will have received a good kicking.
I'm not saying it is unreliable, just that a better source would be preferred on the laws of armed conflict issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Umm. Well I will dig into the sources Biddiscombe uses to support this and see what I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The big advantage of Biddiscombe is that he is explicitly discussing the laws of armed conflict as they applied to this and similar incidents. It's fairly difficult to apply more general sources here, given that the laws of armed conflict as they applied in World War II were complex and not always at all sensible (for instance, it appears to have perfectly legal to area bomb cities directly targeting civilians as long as the city was protected by any anti-aircraft defences - this wasn't outlawed until after the war). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I've done a bit of a search for sources, and haven't been able to find anything comprehensive on the state of play in WWII, so I'm dropping this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)→1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)
  • "The paratroopers repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment"→"The paratroopers repelled an attack by the 1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)"
  • resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders→resumption of the attack by the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)


  • "Vokes' executive officer" generally this would mean his GSO1 (head of the operations staff), I assume we are talking about whomever "Mac" was?
That was my assumption, but I am using the nomenclature of the source.
It's just a bit odd, because XOs weren't a thing in Commonwealth armies (I think they were in the US Army). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict. I have rephrased and resourced. Hopefully it is now both more accurate and easier to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Algonquin Regiment→1st Battalion, The Algonquin Regiment, also, were these battalions all part of the same brigade, if so, which one?
I believe so. I will check. Why? Because that should be mentioned if so?
Yes, if they were all part of the one brigade I would say so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It turns out that they weren't, but I have included details of the main divisional components, largely via footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • who is Mark Zuehlk? historian/author?
Oops. Added
  • "the appeal against histhe death sentence"
Done. (But see above under similar point from Nick.
  • there are a couple of 13-digit ISBNs with missing hyphens
Replaced with what it actually says in the books.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks, that is great. More sloppiness than usual from me, so thanks for being patient with it. All points addressed; a couple I need to research and come back on. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I've looked for sources on the one outstanding point, and haven't been able to find anything much, so I'm moving to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ReidgregEdit

A little copy edit from a fresh set of eyes:

Done. Always something new to learn from the MoS.
There's a lot of style variance on that in English; sometimes the final s is written and not pronounced, sometimes it's pronounced and not written. MOS includes it for consistency.
  • Other soldiers fanned out down side streets, throwing phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers into buildings. Could "made from petrol containers" be parentheisized or struck? Or would it work any better as: throwing phosophorous grenades or petrol containers, improvised into Molotov cocktails, into buildings. Come to think of it, that should probably be and rather than or if the soldiers collectively threw both kinds of devices.
What is the objection? Striking it loses the information that what was being thrown was very considerably nastier than a "standard" Molotov cocktail. Your rephrasing, forgive me, to my eye reads clunkily. Happy to rephrase some other way, but it would be nice to know why. "or" changed to 'and'. Although I and a little unsure that "other soldiers" is collective.
Would 'In the side streets, Canadian soldiers threw petrol containers into buildings and ignited them with phosphorus grenades.' work?
I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with it, I just felt that it might be a bit much to digest and thought there might be potential to make it simpler or clearer. The object of the dependent clause phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers is a bit long and creates a lot of separation between throwing and into buildings, and some readers might pause at its construction. The alternative you suggested is much better (I might strike Canadian as assumed). From the original phrasing, I'd thought that the petrol containers had their own improvised ignition device and acted on their own as Molotov cocktails; the new phrasing is clearer and makes more sense. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reidgreg Apologies if I am getting touchy. Now that you point it out, even a slow-wit such as myself can see the over long dependent clause. And I was certainly assuming more knowledge of the mechanics of mid-century military arson in a reader than was reasonable. Thanks for poking at it. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
No need; it is my obligation to explain why a change would be an improvement. I had a laugh at mechanics of mid-century military arson (nice alliteration). Hope you are feeling better.
Thanks Reidgreg. You should see my actual poetry. I am, I think, fairly phlegmatic about the ACR/FAC process; but as the first article I wrote I suspect that I am overprotective about this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Brockhaus Enzyklopaedie, estimates the destruction to be as high as 90 percent. Lose the comma and change: be → have been.
Grr. Thank you. Done.

That's all I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned, above. Thanks again for this great article! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg. As you know, I always feel happier when you have looked over an article. Your points above addressed, with a query against the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFireEdit

This isn't a full review, just two quick grammar nits.

"In the event the village was spared."

Probably caught up in editing, but this is a sentence fragment that got cut off somewhere.

  • No. It has always been like that, and looks fine to me. However, I have changed the preceding full stop to a semi colon. Does that address your concern?
No, it doesn't, but I'm not sure what the sense of the sentence is, so I'm afraid to fix it myself. A semicolon is equivalent to a full stop, so this is still a fragment. This sets up a hypothetical situation but doesn't resolve it (Conditional sentence). It's like saying "If I went to the laundry." It's unfinished; it needs to be something like "If I went to the laundry, I would retrieve my clothes." So - what happened? Was Garrel spared? If so, I would rephrase along the lines of
... the battalion commander, Wigle's brother-in-law, ordered that "every building which did not show a white flag be fired". Regardless, the village was ultimately spared.
"In the event" replaced with 'Regardless,'.
(talk page stalker) FYI, my dictionary says "in the event" is chiefly British in use. I can see someone misreading that as "In the event that the village was spared" and expect more to follow. North Americans might say "as it turned out", which has the potential to be confusing as well. Is "as it transpired/occurred/happened" any better? "Regardless" works but might seem a little dismissive. My initial reading was that, while perhaps not every building showed a white flag (the record being unspecific on this), that no broad punitive action was taken; also, that the soldiers were put on high alert but didn't meet opposition. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg, I was puzzled as to why SnowFire wanted me to change the sentence in a way which didn't seem to change its meaning but seemed to me to be clumsier. As Canadian English is not my strong suit I made the change, but now I understand why. The original is unambiguous in British English, but clearly doesn't travel well. How about 'Before it could be carried out the order was countermanded and the village was spared.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, if that's what the sources say that happened, then yes. I'd hope most Canadians would have understood the original, but for an international readership some would probably have a minor stumble at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It is. I was trying to be succinct, but as you say there is an international audience, so it needs spelling out. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
There was no investigation by Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties. In 2010, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists."

This isn't responsive to the previous sentence. "Didn't bother to investigate" is different from "investigated, but then buried or modified the report." Needs clarification for what Zuehlke was responding to, or else a comment from a historian on the general lack of interest in investigating, or else actual claims a cover-up happened. SnowFire (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Again I am afraid that I am missing your point. The second sentence you quote isn't especially meant to be responsive to the first; no more does the first sentence you quote respond to the one preceding it. I am aware that the two you quote are communicating different things. I could add to the Zuehlke sentence 'In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists.' but I don't want to as I consider it to be clearly implied. Apologies if I am being slow, but could you elaborate your concern?
  • Nothing in the article even raises the possibility of a cover-up, so it's jarring to see a historian saying there's no evidence of one. Who was alleging this to begin with? What is this responding to in the article? It's as if the sentence was:
In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence that the 4th Canadian Armoured was actually the British Guards Armoured Division wearing Canadian uniforms exists."
Wait, what? Were we supposed to think that was a possibility in the first place? Zuehlke needs some clarification here - either add in who alleged a cover-up, or clarify what Zuehlke meant. (That there was no malice in not investigating the matter, I suppose?) . SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. Understood. (I think.) It is a couple of years since I wrote that, but rereading Zuehlke he is responding directly to the official history's summary. (Much as you had surmised might be the case.) So I have reworded it and moved it to immediately after this in the article. Better?
  • Hi SnowFire. Thanks for dropping by and for the comments. Both responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Further responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from AnythingyouwantEdit

  • The lead says, "During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier and it was rumoured that he had been killed by a civilian" (emphasis added). Should this "and" be a "but"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Weell. I could argue it both ways, but frankly, I am not sure it is that important. I have changed to "but", and added "incorrectly".
  • The lead says the town was "substantially destroyed." Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed. This is a key point, so the lead ought to be and could be explicit about it without saying much at all. For example, the town's buildings were substantially destroyed leaving X former inhabitants as refugees. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this can be, reasonably, misread. The text reads "it was substantially destroyed"; why might a reader think that that involved any loss of life? If it weren't clear enough, it is in the context of "ordered that the town be razed ... and it was substantially destroyed" which to my reading makes it even clearer. Could you elaborate on how you think "Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed"?
Well, if you raze a house, it's kind of significant whether anyone was inside. Hiroshima and Dresden were razed, and a lot of people got killed as a result. The body of this article says, "During the fighting around Friesoythe and its aftermath, ten civilians from the town" were killed. Presumably that includes both the fight to take the town plus the subsequent action to raze it. This sort of info would be very relevant in the lead regardless of whether it was clearing up any misimpression, in order to help put this incident in proper perspective, and/but I do think it also clears up a potential misimpression because if Godzilla were to step on just about any town in the world, a lot of people would be killed, whereas a lot of people were not killed during this razing (perhaps because the houses were cleared before they were razed or because most inhabitants had already evacuated, or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: OK. Adding something on civilian losses to the lead seems reasonable. But bear in mind that it is not known how any of them died. They could have been killed in the first attack; during the second; during the razing; some or all may have been executed by the German paratroopers; some may have died of natural causes. I have tweaked the lead. And tweaked the paragraphing while I was there. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead says, "There has been no investigation by Canadian authorities of the event." Normally, a lead should avoid saying what has not happened, or what has not been done, or what has not been said, because such things are always infinitely numerous and picking them out requires judgment and opinion. It would be much better to say something like, X called for an investigation by Canadian authorities but to no avail. Otherwise, it just sounds like a Wikipedia editor thinks an investigation might be wise, or should have been done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Removed.
  • The lead paragraph is kind of long. I would suggest inserting a new sentence after the first sentence, and then breaking off the rest into a new paragraph. The new sentence could briefly say why the event was (or is) noteworthy, e.g. this was one of only X towns known to have been razed by Canadian (or allied) troops during that year.
It is only seven short to medium length sentences long. However, happy to split it, which I have done. I can't add the text you suggest as it is not in the main article. And it's not there because I don't have a source which says that. If you have one then sharing it would be much appreciated.
This isn’t an area in which I have expertise. However, at the article talk page User:Nick-D said “while it was unusually cold-blooded, similar events occured across Germany....” Something like that would be great in the lead paragraph if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Of course, without a reliable source, it should not go in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: Sorry, missed this. Yes, the article details at least a couple of others. There was Sogel for a start, the Americans were bad for this, especially Patton (mentioned) and the French worse. So I have added a sentence to the lead. And re-tweaked the paragraphs! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Many thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure, cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
My concerns have been persuasively addressed, flaws in the article have been redressed, and the opposite of a dressing-down is appropriate: I support FA status for this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)Edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

Resolved comments
  • I have a question about the lead. Is it necessary to put all of the actors' names in parenthesis by the characters' names? The paragraph is quite dense with names, so I think that removing the actors' names would help to make this part more readable.
Agree, I removed them for conciseness. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have two questions about this sentence: "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which was serialised in the magazine Ananda Vikatan." Do we know when the novel was first serialised in the magazine? If so, would it be helpful/beneficial to include the year in the prose to give the reader a better understanding of the timeline?
Added 1934. It most likely ended serialisation in 1935, but I can't prove it, so didn't that. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order. It may not be required for a featured article, but I always found it to be helpful.
  • I do not think the descriptive phrase "the British writer" is necessary for this part "based on the British writer Ellen Wood's 1860 novel, Danesbury House". It is not used in the lead either so it would be more consistent to remove it here.
I considered doing that, but the article belongs to Category:Films based on British novels. Therefore, describing Ellen Wood as British helps it right? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is that the phrase is not used in the lead so it is a little inconsistent. I would recommend adding it to the lead too. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "at a mock tea party arranged for this purpose", I do not think "arranged for this purpose" is necessary as I think it can be assumed from context that Ramanathan arranged the party for this purpose without explicitly saying it.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: "Krishnamurthy finds a treasure and gives it to his master, who is pleased and adopts him as his son." What is the treasure? How did he find a treasure at a tea estate?
The plot in the pressbook mentions a "treasure trove". Tell me once you read it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I actually forgot while reading the article that this was a lost film so I had erroneously assumed there was more detail about this. Apologies for that. Since there is not any further details about this point available, I think it should be good in its current state. Looking through the pressbook is rather cool so thank you for finding and including it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "When the servant came out Ramanathan picked up", there should be a comma after "out".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since Tamil is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first instance in the body of the article, which would be here: "Pathi Bhakthi was a Tamil play,".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "said that after Bhakta Nandanar's release Tandon asked", there should be a comma after "release".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be helpful to link "copyright violation"?
I pondered over this for long; the words "copyright violation" were there long before I started editing this article, but Sathi Leelavathi was actually involved in a case of plagiarism. Is CV still the right word to use? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I am actually not sure. CV could still be correct as a copyright may be placed on an idea or book during publishing, but that is outside my area of expertise. I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would rephrase this part "including the same name of the female leads (Leelavathi)." to something like "including the female leads having the same name (Leelavathi)". Something about the current wording seems off to me, but it may just be me.
Done as suggested. The earlier phrasing was by the GOCE. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ceylon is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked once on the first appearance.
Done: linked only twice now, the lead and plot sections. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "to deliver the dialogues naturally, with natural acting", I do not think "with natural acting" is needed as that can be assumed/understood from the previous part of the sentence.
Done, but you understood the context right? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I do. That's why I suggested removing that part because I found it unnecessarily repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "According to Dungan, when the actors faced the camera they", I would add a coma after "camera".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers on Ceylon's tea estates", I would link "Tamil Nadu".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For the "Themes" section, I was wondering if either of the sources discuss further about how alcoholism and chastity are represented in the film? I was just curious because the information is rather brief in the section.
Nope, the sources only mention them as themes without elaborating further. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would include a brief sentence about the themes in the lead.
Now I've written "Sathi Leelavathi explores themes such as temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers" in the third para for balance. That good? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me; thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the link to "temperance movement" to this part "Sathi Leelavathi explores the themes of temperance" since that is where temperance is referenced for the first time in the article.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "in one scene Dungan showed the dancing girl as seen by the inebriated protagonist, and in another Dungan", I would add a comma after "scene" and "another".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The article seems to repeat the information about the strict discipline, shooting by schedule, camera mobility, cabaret dances and less-theatrical acting in the "Filming" and "Legacy" section.
I can cut down the wording in "Legacy", is this good? The features that Dungan introduced in the film became staples of Tamil cinema.? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part "M. S. Murugesan as Marwari". Is this referring to this part "A Marwari who lent a large sum to Krishnamurthy to support his lavish lifestyle obtains a repayment warrant" from the "Plot" section? *Is the character referred to as just Marwari in the credits? Just wanted to clarify this.
Murugesan is simply credited as "Marvadi" in the pressbook, and in the plot of the pressbook he is called "A Marvari". But writing "the Marvadi" won't be so harmful will it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If he is credited at just "Marvadi" in the pressbook, then it is probably best to keep that way in the article too. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. Great work with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Aoba47, they are indeed helpful. Since the film is lost, all plot details are taken from the pressbook. The plot is written in both English and Tamil, but the Tamil plot is more comprehensive. Still, you read the English plot only and tell me: is it coherent enough, and does the Wiki plot match the pressbook's English plot? Because I took some details from the Tamil plot at the instigation of GA reviewer Ssven2, who is not currently active. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The plot summary from the article matches the pressbook and does a very good job in presenting a coherent storyline (at least in my opinion). I just have two last comments.
  • In the article, it says "Rangiah receives seven years' imprisonment", but the pressbook says "Inspector Rangia is convicted for 7 years rigorous imprisonment". I think this is referencing something along the lines of penal labour, and I would include it in the prose if that is the correct interpretation.
  • Would it be beneficial to clarify that Ramanathan was sentenced to death by hanging or could that be understood from context?
Once these points and my response to the Ellen Woods comment are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Which file are you referring to? File:Krishnamurthy and family Sathi Leelavathi.jpg or File:M. G. Ramachandran in Sathi Leelavathi (1936).jpg? Or both? What should I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film).jpg: why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see this, and I believe it leads to the answer. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The linked page argues against deletion of images with copyright restored by URAA. However, this image has a tag stating it is PD under URAA, and my question is why that is believed to be the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from YashthepunisherEdit

  • " which was serialised since 1934 in the magazine" Which was serialised in 1934? Or which has been serialised since 1934? It's a bit unclear.
It is unclear whether the novel ended serialisation in 1935, but saying "serialised in 1934" is not misleading in any way is it? Because that's what I wrote now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of actors in the first para who don't have a wiki article, either red link them or remove them.
Some actors like M. K. Mani, P. Nammalvar and M. R. Gnanambal (the female lead) are too important to omit from the lead because of their characters. But red-linking looks like it will do more damage. I don't think these actors will ever have articles because of lack of sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to link 'directorial debut' in the lead?
I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And every woman as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Madras in the second para.
Madras is linked in the first para in "a wealthy Madras-based man". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Can't see any other issue. All the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from DBigXrayEdit

  • Please fill up the "| runtime =" parameter in the infobox. --DBigXray 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Also see if there are others missing parameter in the infobox, that can be added. --DBigXray 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to include that the reel was of length XY ? what is the significance ? what makes it special ? looks like trivia to me. --DBigXray 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot, in the olden days, reel was used to measure runtime. If I remember correctly there was a standard that 1 reel = W Mins. So the best way here would be to mention runtime = X reels (Y mins). --DBigXray 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The runtime parameter is filled, but only in reel length. Can a duration in minutes also be added using the standard durations mentioned at Reel ? --DBigXray 13:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXray 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

1927 FA Cup FinalEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my work on Cardiff City F.C. related articles comes perhaps the biggest success in the club's history. Its only major trophy in the English football system and the only time a team from outside England has claimed the FA Cup in its 100+ year history. This was originally taken to GA in 2016 by Miyagawa who seems to have left the site. So, I have picked this up, done some fine tuning and expanding where possible and believe it has enough to become a featured article. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:FA_Cup_Final_1927_Programme.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi @Nikkimaria:, the image was not my upload and I'm not much use with licencing. What needs to be done to complete it? Kosack (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • First off the parameters that are currently "n.a" should be filled in, and then purpose of use should be expanded. You might find WP:FUR helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've hopefully provided adequate reasoning for the image now, let me know if it needs more. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


  • "the Football Association Challenge Cup better known as the FA Cup" reads oddly to me. This is a situation where putting "better known as the FA Cup" inside parentheses would probably make for a better read than what's there now.
  • Cardiff City: The stray apostrophe in "goalkeeper's" (by the Farquharson penalty save) should be removed.
  • Arsenal: "with was then followed by the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards...". A cleaner version would be "and the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards" or similar. In general, the first five words of this are throwing off the grammar more than anything.
  • Post match: "saying that the superiority of Cardiff's defence that led them to victory." This would read better as "defence had led them to victory."
  • Cardiff captain Keenor later commented his view of the goal". This needs "on" before "his". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BrianboultonEdit

I've only read the lead, and there are quite a few prose issues that need attention. Thus:

  • Opening sentence: "The 1927 FA Cup Final was an association football match between Cardiff City and Arsenal on 23 April 1927 at the original Wembley Stadium (then called Empire Stadium)." Needs a comma after "Arsenal", followed by "which took place". - Done
  • It should read "(then called the Empire Stadium)" - Done
  • "Both teams required a single replay in different rounds to progress, but otherwise won each of their games." Why is this sentence necessary? People who don't know football won't understand the first part, and the second part is a statement of the obvious. - Removed
  • "Both sides played a mixture of home and away games on their route to the final, but Arsenal were not required to play outside London after the initial fourth round match." I'd say this is pretty inconsquential detail, not really ledeworthy. - Removed
  • "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley, and police reinforcements to keep fans at bay who had been sold fake tickets". Incomplete as it stands; perhaps add something like "were deployed" after "police reinforcements". - Done
  • Inconsistent capitalisation, e.g. "FA Cup Final" in the opening lead sentence, and "FA Cup final" and "cup final" later on.
This is in line with the two other FA class cup final articles, 1923 and 1956. I think it's capitalised when using the actual title of the final but not when referring to the final in general. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio" – you've already said this, in the first paragraph.
Removed first use. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "having seen more than 300,000 applications for tickets" is clunky, and grammatically dubious. Suggest replace "having seen" with "from". - Done
  • "Both teams had opportunities to score, but the only goal of the game was credited to Hughie Ferguson after the ball slipped out of the hands of goalkeeper Dan Lewis, and he knocked the ball into the net with his elbow." Suggest preface with "During the match...", replace "both teams" with "each team", and "and he knocked" with "who knocked". Also, for clarity I'd say "Cardiff's Hughie Ferguson" and "Arsenal's goalkeeper". - Done
  • "wool" → "woollen" - Done
  • "Arsenal went on to win the trophy in 1930". Relevance? (Arsenal have won the cup at least a dozen times since 1927) - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Brianboulton:, I've addressed the issues above and added a comment. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the lead reads much better now – I've made a few more tweaks and corrected the odd typo (you can check these out). I see from the article's talk page that the origin of the "square one" phrase is disputed, so you might make your lead statement somewhat more equivocal, by replacing "which has been credited with coining the phrase" with "which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase" (I see you've hedged your bets a bit in the main text). I doubt I'll have time to check out the rest of the prose, but I wish you good luck with this nomination – your dedication to the affairs of Cardiff FC is admirable! Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Brian. I've amended the "back to square one" sentence as per your suggestion also. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matiasEdit

Note that I read it from a Canadian English perspective, so please let me know if any comments made are simply due to language differences.

  • Like the image of the programme included in the infobox, adds a nice touch.
  • " the original Wembley Stadium (then called the Empire Stadium)." This is more personal preference I think, but wouldn't it make more sense to note the contemporary name of the stadium, and then put the later name in brackets: something like "at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium)."
  • "The match was watched by 91,206 in the stadium, from more than 300,000 applications for tickets..." This may be a English variant issue, but it feels odd to me. It would seem more natural to note the larger number first, so for example: "There were more than 300,000 applications for tickets, with 91,206 attending the match in the stadium..."
  • "Afterwards, he blamed his new woollen jersey, saying that it was greasy." This could be improved I think: "Lewis later blamed his new wollen jersey, saying it was greasy."
  • "Newspaper reports indicated that they were the better team..." Little unclear of who was the better team: Cardiff City or Darlington?
  • "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading; with FA Cup semi-finals being held at neutral venues,[10] the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton. Reading had reached the semi-final for the first time in their history." This whole section could be worded better: "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading, who had reached the semi-final for the first time. FA Cup semi-finals were being held at neutral venues, so the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton."

Will add more later. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Kaiser Matias, I've addressed the points above so far. Let me know when you have more. Kosack (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more:

  • "...also meeting First Division opposition with a tie against Sheffield United at Bramall Lane." Could be "also meeting a First Division opponent..." Furthermore, you note it was a tie in the prose, and that each team had 3 goals, but the summary on the side has a score of 3–2 for Arsenal. Am I just reading incorrectly, or is something not adding up?
  • Fixed the first point. In British English, the tie is referring to the match rather than the result. For example, like it's use in this newspaper headline. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The first as the result of a scramble which ended with Jimmy Brain heading the ball into the net for Arsenal." Change: "The first was the result of a scramble..."
  • "...and two years earlier in 1925, they were defeated finalists." Simplify the latter half: "they were defeated in the final."
  • "Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman held a press conference prior to the final on 21 April..." To avoid ambiguitity: "Chapman held a press conference on 21 April, prior to the final..." (it otherwise sounds like the final was on 21 April).
  • "... as well as the officials; the referee William F. Bunnell from Preston, and the linesmen G.E. Watson from Kent and M. Brewitt from Lincoln." I'd switch the semi-colon to a colon.
  • "...acquired the match ball after the game and donated it to the Church." By "the Church" was it any particular physical church, or a specific denomination as a whole? It sounds like the latter, but is a little unclear, and as Farquharson was Irish, it could be one of several different ones.
  • It was likely his denomination but the ref doesn't support that unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "...saying that the wool was greasy and allowed the ball to slip from his grip." Was there any reason why the wool would be greasy? Just from wear and tear of previous matches? Not that this has to go into the article, I'm more curious myself.
  • I'm not entirely sure, perhaps a new Jersey would not initially absorb any moisture leaving it on the surface. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cardiff reached the FA Cup Final once more in 2018; where they lost by one goal to nil against Portsmouth." You can either replace the semi-colon with a comma, or just delete the "where". As it stands it doesn't work grammatically.

Other than that should be good. For someone who isn't too familiar with football, especially the history like this, I found it easy enough to follow along with, so that's a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Thanks again, I've addressed the points above and added comments where necessary. Let me know if there's anymore. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Great, happy with the replies here, and with the way it looks now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Island of stabilityEdit

Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by R8REdit

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC) My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";
Split done.
Done, but I reworded it to avoid having et al. at the end of the sentence.
  • "IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10−14 seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;
  • "Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;
  • "A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.
Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

  • Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
  • Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
  • Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
  • Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages
  • Ref 19: Page no. 14201 is inspecific.

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.
However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have since fixed or specified a few additional instances. ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, congratulations on a well-sourced and well-presented article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Do you have any further comments or questions pertaining to sources? After these initial comments, I rechecked and made small corrections to as many refs as I could find; I now await additional feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources now fine-no further issues. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by HaEr48 (Support)Edit

I reviewed this article at GAR and I'm happy that now it's at FAC after a peer review and a lot of improvements. I want to thank the nominator and authors in advance for working on this topic. My review will be mostly from clarity and comprehensibility to a non-specialist audience. I'm not an expert so feel free to point out of I'm missing something obvious.

  • The first sentence reads "In nuclear physics, the island of stability is a predicted set of superheavy nuclides that may have considerably longer half-lives than known superheavy nuclides": I think "nuclide" is a rather hard word for a lay person - is it possible to explain the concept using a different word, or to gloss a short definition in this sentence.
I substituted it with the more commonly used isotope, but there isn't much more that I can/should do in the lead than linking these terms.
  • Is isotope a synonym for nuclide, or is it interchangeable in the context of the first paragraph?
Almost, but not quite. Nuclide can refer to any combination of protons and neutrons (e.g. superheavy nuclides), whereas isotopes are variants of a predetermined element with different numbers of neutrons (e.g. isotopes of hassium). When originally writing and reviewing, I did my best to ensure that their uses are precise; they should not be blindly interchanged, but they can be if the appropriate
  • the predicted closed neutron shell at N = 184: can something be linked here to improve comprehensibility? "Shell"? "Neutron shell"? "Closed neutron shell"?
Done – I did not originally do this because the link points to nuclear shell model, which is linked directly not much further down.
  • confer additional stability towards fission, while also leading to longer half-lives towards alpha decay: Do "stability" and "longer half-lives" mean different things here? Or could we also more briefly say: "confer additional stability towards fission and alpha decay"?
Done – For the lead, a merge is suitable; I have done that. Later sections deal with the finer points.
  • the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years : can we put a number for "recent years"? Since 2000? Since 2010? To make sure that the article won't be stale 20 years from now.
Not done – I'm open to ideas, but a few wordings I tried were quite clunky. Most discoveries were from the late 1960s onward, though no new element has been synthesized in the last 10 years; years are too precise, decades are clunky, and the "late (latter half of the) 20th century" is inaccurate.
  • "Nevertheless, the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years demonstrates … " I assume the reason these synthesized elements don't count as the "island of stability" is because the lower number of neutrons. Is it possible to mention the maximum range of N that have been synthesized?
Partly done – This is correct, so I added the maximum number of neutrons reached (177), but the nuclide with both Z = 118 and N = 177 has not definitively been synthesized (the two heaviest known are Z = 117, N = 177 and Z = 118, N = 176). Does the current wording present this ambiguity?
How about something like: "the successful synthesis of superheavy nuclides up to atomic number 118 (oganesson) and up to 177 neutrons"? I'll defer to you regarding which is better. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Introduction: Just to start, I want to say I like how the basic terms are laid out here
  • while the approximately 3300 known nuclides: You haven't described what a nuclide is
Done – Added link and parenthetical definition as a (species of) atomic nucleus.
  • with stability generally decreasing in heavier elements: If being "stable" is defined (in the same paragraph) as "never been observed to decay", what does it mean for stability to be "decreasing"? Isn't it just a yes or no attribute? Or if there is a definition of stability outside the yes or no question, please include it in this intro
It's not exactly a boolean quality, so I added a parenthetical definition relating stability to half-lives. I also added another footnote to clarify the meaning of decreasing stability.
  • "The lower the barrier and the masses of the constituents": What "constituents" are we talking about here? The nucleons?
This refers to fragments into which a nucleus can fission. I reworded and linked this.
  • In heavier nuclei, larger numbers of neutrons are needed to reduce repulsion and confer additional stability: Is this because neutrons are also involved in strong force? If so, suggest explicitly mentioning
Partly done – I noted that neutrons are uncharged (thus they do not repel other particles), but explicitly mentioning this here is not really necessary. The links should be sufficient; the strong force indeed affects neutrons just as it affects protons.
  • " an upper limit was estimated around element 104" do we know who estimated this?
Not done – The source describes it as a view of the scientific community at the time, not an individual's or a group's theory.
  • "and later, it seemed that element 108 might be the limit" Do we know the year of this estimate?
Yes, we do – I added from the source: it's around early 1960s, but no exact date is given.

More to come as I am still reading. HaEr48 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I reviewed these first points, and made several changes. I feel that most of this does provide extra context, but a few details are too off-topic, so I believe that short parenthetical definitions combined with links should be sufficient. I await your additional feedback. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The possible existence of superheavy elements with atomic numbers well beyond that of uranium" : why is uranium used as the comparison ? e.g. as opposed to the last element of actinides (according to the definition given in Superheavy element, actinides are the limit of "superheavy elements").
Done – I noted why this is relevant – until 1940, U was the heaviest known element.
  • "In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models by American physicist William Myers and Polish physicist Władysław Świątecki, and by German physicist Heiner Meldner, taking into account Coulomb repulsion, changed the prediction for the next proton magic number from 126 to 114" …
    • why is Myers and Świątecki grouped in one clause but Meldner is mentioned in a different clause? Shouldn't it be "by Myers, Świątecki, and Meldner" in one clause?
    • does "taking into account Coulomb repulsion" belong to the more sophisticated model or to the prediction change?
    • Who proposed the prediction change?
    • Maybe this sentence can be split which would probably clarify my questions above?
The tricky part is introducing Myers and Świątecki who are of different nationalities but were co-authors, and distinguishing their work from Meldner's independent work. Does the rewording answer any of your questions?
  • " led to the emergence of the macroscopic-microscopic method which takes into consideration…" Do we know what the method is for? Is it a modelling method? Prediction method?
Done – It's a nuclear mass model.
  • any nuclei reachable via such fusion-evaporation reactions: but "fusion-evaporation reactions" hasn't been explained before.
Done in response to the point below.
  • I feel like a brief description of the strategy of these experiments should be added in/around the paragraph #2 of "Discoveries", so that readers have context when you explain the problems with these experiments
  • "resulting in the synthesis of only a few short-lived atoms of the heaviest elements in each experiment" if these few short-lived atom could not be detected, how did we know that this was the case?
In the 1970s (the focal period of this paragraph), the decay properties of these elements were not yet known. I changed 'would' to 'might' in previous sentence to emphasize that this was speculative; we now know that they are short-lived but still detectable.
  • "Despite these failures, new superheavy elements were synthesized every few years in various laboratories through light-ion bombardment and cold fusion reactions." I don't understand this. If we're saying the searches failed, how come the superheavy elements did get synthesized? Or, should it start with "eventually" rather than "despite these failures"?
I distinguished unsuccessful searches for long-lived nuclei (far beyond what was then known) and simultaneous discovery of shorter-lived nuclei of elements with lower Z. I hope it is easier to follow now.
  • Link "light-ion bombardment" and "cold fusion reactions"?
Partly done – I found a suitable link for the former, but the only reference for the latter is a disambiguation page entry. As it is distinct from cold fusion (theorized to occur at room temperature), I might have to label this with a note instead of linking. How does this sound?
Addendum: in response to an earlier comment, there is now some more context for cold fusion.
If you could label it with a note it would be great, but given that context was given in the preceding passage I think it's optional now. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Deformed nuclei" section: if heavy nuclei are always deformed, and this shifts the magic numbers, why does the original magic numbers and the island of stability around N=184 still matter?
Done – I explicitly mentioned now that the island of stability is a phenomenon in spherical nuclei; the distinction between spherical and deformed, and their respective roles, should be a bit clearer now.
It is a bit clearer, but I still don't fully understand. Are these heavier nuclei sometimes spherical or sometimes deformed? Does it depend on something? To me, this sentence "superheavy elements do not have perfectly spherical nuclei" seems to imply that they're always deformed, and that would mean the spherical numbers would not matter anymore. But this is not the case, so what am I missing? HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Still more to come. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I still am working on the other comments (fusion-evaporation and a few more historical details); I have to recheck the sources and compile something. Before (or even while) reading the rest of the article, could you please let me know if I have answered your questions, or if some comments need further attention? ComplexRational (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I have addressed all of the above comments; I'm ready to continue. ComplexRational (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Thank you so much for your response. Most of them clarified the questions that I have, for a few of them I just have some follow up comments that I marked in blue. I'll continue with the rest. HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Paragraph #3 of "Predicted decay properties": May I suggest adding one or two introductory sentences about beta decay and what it means to atomic number and number of neutron. I know probably anyone learned it at one point in high school or uni, but IMO a refresher wouldn't hurt here and will help understanding what follows.
  • "at an abundance of 10−12 relative to lead,[53] although [several factors] may inhibit their production in r-process nucleosynthesis: "
    • Does the 10-12 predicted abundance already take into account those inhibiting factors, or does the value need to be adjusted even lower to account for it?
Done – It's explicitly 10−12 in the source, but I rearranged this paragraph to make this less ambiguous.
    • Can we have a sense of how small this abundance is, e.g. can it reach the earth and be detected by experiment?
Done – I noted that the source mentions a possibility of detection in cosmic rays.
  • neutron-induced or beta-delayed fission will become the primary reaction channels: do we have appropriate links for "neutron-induced" and "beta-delayed"? Maybe what a "neutron-induced fission" means can be inferred from what it sounds like, but not sure about beta-delayed. If no link exists, maybe short definition in parenthesis?
Done – No article or section links exist, so I added a short definition.
  • a 2013 experiment, a group of Russian physicists led by Aleksandr Bagulya.. Curious that we know that there are exactly 3 nuclei, but we don't know their atomic numbers. Is there a simple explanation for we know the amount but not the atomic number. If it is simple, suggest adding the explanation in text.
    • how is it possible to know the age of individual nuclei? (but maybe this is outside the scope of the article)
Not done – Not really within the scope of the article; it is partially explained how we know the number (but that too is borderline irrelevant to this article), but not why the other values are so uncertain.
  • it may be useful to describe in "Synthesis problems" briefly what "cross sections" means or what the value imply, e.g. in the first place when you mention "this reaction has low cross sections" you could add something like "therefore lowering the expected yield" (or whatever is more appropriate)
Done – but in an earlier section where the term is first mentioned.
  • What do you think about renaming the "Synthesis problems" section into "Possible syntheses and their problems"? Because the section also describe the possible strategies for synthesis rather than just the problems. I'll defer to you though
Done – I like it better this way actually.
  • may also undergo electron capture in addition to alpha decay: might it be a good idea to add "(turning a proton into a neutron)" after "electron capture"? To explicitly say what it means for neutron:proton ratio.
  • higher neutron flux (~1000 times greater) : 1000 times greater than what?
Done – The comparison was to current reactors.
  • properties of superheavy nuclei near the beta-stability line remain unexplored: what does "unexplored" mean here? Not yet observed?
Done – I rewrote the ending of this paragraph to explicitly state that no such nuclei are known and their properties are not consistently predicted.
  • a shift away from mass equilibrium in the products: Is there a link for "mass equilbrium"?
Not done – No link available; the term is used in RS but I can't find a mention anywhere on WP.
Follow up – What does it mean then? Is it possible to add a short definition or note? HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Done – Not sure if this is ideal, but I expanded the parenthetical content to clarify. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • " weaker proton shell or subshell closures" AFAIK we haven't mentioned subshell before. Is it possible to add a link?
Removed – I don't need to even mention subshells here; the sources mainly describe them as weaker shell closures anyway.
Removed – This wording was not great to begin with, so I rewrote these two sentences.
  • heavier nuclei would lie beyond a fission threshold: is it possible to explain what "fission threshold" mean here? Limit before fission happens too rapidly?
Done – Does the short addition in that sentence explain it? (It is indeed a limit before fission happens too rapidly.)
Yes, that helps, thanks. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • a greater binding energy per baryon: greater than what?
Done – Greater than that of nuclear matter; I added a mention of this, but it is implied in the next clause.
  • Can we include the source of data used in File:Island of Stability.svg? (either in commons or in captions)
Not done – I can't track the source down, and the author is inactive. Would it then be necessary to remove this image from the article?
  • What's the difference between the left and right diagram in File:Next proton shell.svg ?
Partly done – I added a superficial distinction, namely that it depends on the model and energy levels within. A fuller explanation would require careful extraction from the source, and similar captions for the same image (e.g. in unbinilium) use technical terms that would not be understandable to the average reader, even with links.
Follow up – it still isn't obvious why there are two from reading the caption. May I suggest moving the superficial explanation to the first sentence, e.g. "Diagram showing energy levels of known and predicted proton shells (left and right show two different models)" or something like that. We just need to explain why there are two without delving into the detailed explanation. 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Done – This is simple and clear enough, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, I think it's useful to note that no color means short-lived isotopes. Otherwise I don't know what visual shape to look for regarding "Regions of increased stability are visible around ... "

I'm done with reading now. I'll probably still make small suggestions here and there as I re-read it. Thank you so much for your work in this excellent article. HaEr48 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, HaEr48, and thank you again for emphasizing the importance of general readability. I addressed everything I could; this involved rewriting a few sentences and adding a few additional references, and I removed a few weaker bits that were better presentable in another way. Please take another look to ensure that no bits are missing, and that the prose still reads well top-to-bottom after this overhaul. ComplexRational (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments (stuff I forgot to write before, rather than new issues after the overhaul):

  • "Many physicists believe that the half-lives of these nuclei are relatively short, on the order of minutes or days. Some theoretical calculations indicate that their half-lives may be long, on the order of 100 years, or possibly as long as 109 years.": Do we know which one of these opposing predictions are more commonly accepted?
Not really. While most of the more recent sources give values on the order of 100-1000 years, they are not all in agreement and no one is universally accepted. I think it's better (and more neutral) to leave it as is.
  • 30 orders of magnitude greater than those of nuclei unaffected by the shell closure: just for my own understanding, this means 10^30 greater, correct?
Yes, that's correct. To make it clear for everyone, I linked orders of magnitude (time) at its first occurrence further up the page.
  • "For example, the neutron-deficient isotope 284Fl (with N = 170) undergoes fission with a half-life of 2.5 milliseconds, and is thought to be one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects." I don't get which property this is an example of. The previous sentence is about neutron shell closure increasing fission half-lives, but this example seems to be about a nuclide without filled neutron shell and with short half-lives?
It's an example for comparison: in this paragraph, nuclides at the shell closure, moving further away (where half-lives decrease), and finally beyond the point that fission barriers vanish completely. Also note that the cited source makes almost this exact statement; I feel its described implications makes it worthy of inclusion.
  • "one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects": is the stabilization (despite the neutron deficiency) because of the number of protons?
It's mostly the effects of the neutron shell closure (less so the proton shell closure); I made note of this.
I'm still rereading the rest. But so far it looks great. HaEr48 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I made one change to address the last two bullet points; I hope the meaning is more straightforward now. ComplexRational (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC).
  • Support I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is certainly well-written, well-referenced and well-researched. I am not an expert in the area but the explanation appears coherent as well as consistent with the limited things I know about the topic. I have done all I could above to suggest changes that can make the article more accessible without being dumbed down too much, and I am happy with the nominator's responses. Thank you for this amazing work. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)Edit

Nominator(s): Constantine 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s. The article is a bit old, and passed MILHIST's ACR back in 2012, but I have continued working on it, adding some more details. I feel confident that it is as comprehensive as I can get it, but any suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome. Constantine 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Alt text, external links etc are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I checked a diff since I copyedited this at A-class (a long time ago). As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • Haj is duplinked, but permissibly so IMO.
  • "Harun retaliated at once, launching a raid" It is not clear what Harun is retaliating for. From the text Nikephoros had not done anything that needed retaliation. Indeed at this point in the article there has been no mention of any actions at all by him.
  • Good point, it was left rather unclear. Fixed now.
  • "he barely escaped with his own life" Delete "own".
  • Done.
  • "Having settled matters in Khurasan" Do we know what the nature of this settlement was?
  • Clarified the original problem, and rewritten/added some details. Also took the opportunity to re-check and re-order the references to a more fine-grained pattern.
  • "against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus" suggests that Cyprus was Arab occupied; while "admiral Humayd ibn Ma'yuf al-Hajuri was prepared to raid Cyprus" suggests that it wasn't.
  • Clarified.
  • "asked Harun to send him a girl from Herakleia" Suggest something like 'asked Harun to send him a young Byzantine woman who had been taken captive when Herakleia fell'.
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • The related quote shortly after: consider putting it in a block quote per MOS:BQ.
  • Done.
  • "Abbasid efforts was compounded" Either 'efforts were' or 'effort was'.
  • Done.
  • "Influenced by the events of Harun's 782 campaign" Is this a typo? If not, why is in an article on the 806 campaign?
  • What I meant was that the later narratives conflated the two: the 'famous' expedition was that of 806, and Harun's letter to Nikephoros is widely quoted; but in 782, the Arabs had actually come within sight of Constantinople, so the later sources 'tweaked' things a bit, and had Harun advance to Constantinople twice during Nikephoros' reign. I've tried to clarify this.

And that's all I have. Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Gog the Mild. As usual, you also caught (hopefully most of) the stuff I overlooked. Please have a look at my changes and let me know of you have any further comments. Best, Constantine 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes and clarifications are all good. I am happy to support. Although a cite immediately after the block quote may be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BrianboultonEdit

An interesting and engaging article, dealing most informatively in a sphere of history which is entirely new to me. I'm much inclined towards support, but meanwhile have a few issues for discussion or action:

  • The article is quite short, just under 2,000 words ex. lead, of which 680 words deal with background, and 750 with aftermath and impact. That leaves only 550 words on the campaign itself; I just wonder if this constitutes full, comprehensive coverage of the action?
    • A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign.
      On the second issue, although we don't know much detail about the actual campaign, it still is of importance in the historiography of the Arab-Byzantine conflict, as it represents a certain climax, and impacted both sides: Nikephoros turned west instead of east, etc., not to mention the erection of a victory monument by Harun, the echoes in later literature, etc. So this definitely needs to be unpacked somewhere. The first half of the 'Aftermath' section properly belongs to the denouement of the campaign itself either way. Similarly for the 'Background' section, because the interplay between Harun and Nikephoros needs to be explained in order to give sufficient context for the campaign itself. If you think there is anything redundant, feel free to add it to the list below for discussion
  • Prose: a bit of final polishing is necessary:
  • Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
    • I don't know, but "retaliate against the Byzantine successes" reads odd to me; how can you retaliate against a success?
During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is indeed much better, done.
  • Background:
  • I'm not sure of the purpose of "also" in the first line.
  • Leftover from early drafts. Removed.
  • Some pronoun confusion in the first para: we have "when he learned", and in the next line, "he was determined", a different "he". You need to clarify who the different persons are.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • Formulaic phrases like "in addition" should, if possible, be avoided. (It occurs again in the fifth paragraph.)
  • Rephrased, have a look.
  • Now we have "retaliated to"
  • CHanged to "for", see above.
  • I'm not sure that "confronted" is appropriate in the circumstances you describe; exchange of letters doesn't amount to confrontation. Perhaps "faced one another"?
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • Campaign
  • Per MoS, section heading should be just "Campaign", rather than "The campaign"
  • Done.
  • Link "freebooter". The best is probably a pipelink, thus: freebooter
  • Done.
  • "Harun's lieutenant Abdallah ibn Malik al-Khuza'i took Sideropalos, from where Harun's cousin Dawud ibn Isa ibn Musa, with half the Abbasid army, some 70,000 men according to al-Tabari, was sent to devastate Cappadocia." Needs reworking for clarity – too many sub-clauses at present.
  • Rephrased.
  • Impact
  • Third para: I got somewhat lost in the convoluted sentence beginning "Influenced by the events..." There seems some fusion of fact with fiction – needs clarifying
  • Rephrased, please have a look
  • 4th para: Another redundant "also"
  • Removed.
  • I'd replace "due to", another ugly form, with something simple like "left incomplete on Harun's departure..."
  • Done.

Source review follows. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: The archived links in refs 3, 24 and 41 all go to the same place, although the refs cite different chapters. The archived link to Kiapidou in the list of sources isn't working at all.
    • Hmmm, this is troubling, since the original url also appears more often down than not. Google cache still displays at least the text content. Well, there are two options: One, we link to the Google cache and at some point in the future, when the website is again up and running, I will try to archive it again at the Web Archive, although since I can remember and know that the url had been archived, my hunch is that it has been removed by request and therefore is likely to be removed again. Second, I can remove/replace Kiapidou altogether. It was a major source at the inception of this article (as well as its inspiration, TBH), but that is no longer the case; I can simply remove the references and the content would still be more than adequately cited. It would, however, be rather dishonest to do it, for the reasons mentioned before.
  • I think I see a solution to this:
  • The linked source for refs 3, 24 and 41 is this, which has three sections: 1. Historical background; 2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign; 3. Consequences.
  • I assume these sections are the three "chapters" referred to in your refs?
  • Then, all you need do is reformat refs 3, 24 and 41 in harvard short form, and replace the dead link in your sources list with the working link.
  • Would that resolve the matter? Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hah, I feel really stupid, I didn't check that the links in the footnotes were working, I just went with the main source link, which was dead. I've fixed it now: the correct archive url is in the "Sources" section, and the footnote links point to the relevant sections in the archived copy. I also renamed from the apparently unclear "Chapter X" to the actual section headings. Constantine 17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the link in the source works now. However, you don't need to keep the links in the individual refs, and as suggested above these can be replaced with short citations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Formats:
  • Refs 42 and 43 both carry open-ended page ranges, which make verification difficult. Is it possible to be more specific?
  • Certainly, will do this ASAP
  • Done, I reworked and expanded the section somewhat in the process.
  • You could add an oclc number to the 1923 Cambridge medieval history, vol. 4. It is 241580719
  • Done, thanks
  • Quality/reliability: The sources appear to be of a scholarly nature within our FA criteria for quality and reliability. My lack of subject expertise means I can't judge whether they fully cover the topic, but in the absence of any challenge I accept your word that they do.

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Correction! all is not quite well – the link in the Meinecke source is returning "Page not found". Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks.
@Brianboulton: just a heads up, can you please have a look at my edits and replies above and indicate whether any outstanding issues remain? Cheers, Constantine 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No further issues: sources are fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thanks :). What about the general/style comments above? Constantine 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Your responses to my expressed concerns are fine. I intend to read (slowly) through the whole article again, in a few days' time (you can ping me in a week, if I haven't done so by then) before making a final decision on supporting - so far, I've only speed-read it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Take your time and be as nitpicky as you like :). Constantine 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support with a few additional comments/suggestions:

  • Lead: delete "ever" from first line
    • Done
  • Background:
  • Para 2, 4th line: delete "himself"
  • Changed to "in person"
  • Para 4, line 2: "that summer" – specify year
  • Done, with some rewriting around
  • Campaign: since here you state that the number 135,000 is "certainly exaggerated", perhaps you should mention this in the lead, where the number is first mentioned.
    • Good point, done
  • Aftermath: "surprisingly" is perhaps editorial comment?
    • Indeed, removed.
  • Impact: "Nikephoros's efforts would end tragically in the disastrous Battle of Pliska". A bit vague – you could say "would end with his death". And presumably, the story of his being hanged from the Hagia Sophia is fictional – that needs be be made clearer.
    • Good point, I rewrote the section a bit, I think now it is clear.

An impressive article, deserving of FA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and contributions, Brianboulton! Cheers, Constantine 14:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review by PMEdit

All the images are appropriately licensed and have appropriate captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Unlink Arab.
  • men from Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt Maybe pipe Persia to the medieval Persia?
    • Was unaware of the link, done.
  • Despite the sack of Herakleia, which is given prominent treatment in Arab sources Isn't the sack a proper noun?
    • You mean it should be capitalized? No, here it is used descriptively, not as a named event.
  • victory monument about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) west of Raqqa Round the nought here.
    • Done.

That's anything that I found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: your points have been addressed. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine 18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ooops, indeed. Replaced with "Abbasid". Thanks. Constantine 11:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cplakidas: Just a question do we really not know the casualties and/or strength? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @CPA-5: Apart from what is mentioned about the size of the Abbasid army, we know nothing. That is the norm for the period and the kind of sources we have available, I am afraid. Constantine 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That's sad to hear but maybe one day we'll find it out anyway I think I can support now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowlerEdit

After quickly reading the lead and skimming the rest of the article, I feel that the article's prose (which includes, syntax, coherence, and cohesion) is insufficient to meeting the requirements of an FA. Here are just a few examples that make it very difficult for a newcomer.

  • Sentence 1: The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire.
    • The largest? We know nothing about the lesser invasions, at this point.
    • What is an "operation?" Did they overrun or merely infiltrate?
    • The "Byzantine Empire?" The page name makes no mention of the empire, whose geographical extent in 806 CE, in any case, is not a matter of common knowledge.
    • Where is "Asia Minor" in this explication? It doesn't help that Anatolia (to which it redirects) makes no mention of this invasion, incursion, expedition, or military operation.
  • Sentence 2a: The expedition was commanded in person ...
    • "In person," means, "by one's own action or physical presence." What other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period?
  • Sentence 2b: "who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year ..."
    • "the Byzantine successes?" We know nothing about them at this stage. The definite article presumes familiarity.
    • To retaliate means to take revenge for, or to avenge, an injury, harm, insult, etc. to a person, nation, etc. A "success" is too much of a euphemism for that injury, harm, or insult. You have to tell us more precisely which Byzantine action constituted an insult. Note I thought BrianB had suggested an improvement, but I don't see it implemented in the lead.
    • You probably want to say something like, "who wanted to avenge the loss of life, property, and livestock incurred during the Byzantine incursions of the previous year." (I'm making that up, but you get the idea.)
      • Or if you want to use retaliate: "invaded Anatolia to retaliate for the loss of life, property, and livestock incurred during the ..."
    • You probably don't want to mention the "frontier region," at this stage. Where else would an incursion have taken place in medieval times if not at a frontier? You especially don't want to link it to thughur which in turn redirects to al-ʿAwāṣim. Too much recondite information for a second sentence. You could point to direction if you like, e.g. "northeastern region," if that is the case.
  • Sentence 2c: and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811).
    • What does it mean to impress might upon? Are we saying after avenging an insult he wanted to insult, or to display a medieval version of shock and awe, in return? This is all too vague.
  • Sentence 3a: "The huge Abbasid army"
    • Again, "the" presumes we know about this army or about its relative numerical size.
    • Huge is an informal word, like gigantic, or enormous, meaning very numerous. How is a reader to know what constituted "huge" in 806?
  • Sentence 3b: "—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—"
    • m-dashes, unless appearing in fiction, or creative non-fiction, should be replaceable with commas. That is not the case here. The third sentence in the lead is not the place for an off-handed aside.
    • "with exaggeration" generally implies that the exaggeration was a deliberate, or invariant, feature of such estimates. Whether or not that is the case, the reader does not know that.
  • Sentence 3c: "set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806,
    • Here we are using Raqqa the modern name for a medieval city, which is fine, but you should tell us what was Raqqa's significance. Why did the army set out from Raqqa?
    • I think you will be better off saying: "On 11 June 806, a large army, numbering 135,000 by some (optimistic) estimates, set out from the Abbasid capital of Raqqa."
  • These are just the first three sentences. But they point to the kind of issues appearing in many later sentences in the article. Besides, the lead is too short for the article. As BrianB has mentioned, the article is already too short. If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ghostbusters IIEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters II the sequel to the comedy film icon Ghostbusters. The sequel took years to be brought to life and it's creation was both rapid and tumultuous. The resulting film arguably killed the franchise, but damned if it isn't an interesting read! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.

  • There are no copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the poster image in the infobox.
  • The word "hit" sounds too informal to me in this part "Its soundtrack single, "On Our Own" by Bobby Brown, was a hit.". I would either say that it was commercially successful or briefly mention its chart performance to support this assessment instead. I have a similar concern about the use of "hit" in the body of the article.
  • For this part "Repeated attempts to develop a further sequel ended following Ramis's death", I do not think "further" is necessary.
  • Reference 12 seems to be used twice for this sentence: "In April 1987, Puttnam announced that Ghostbusters II would go into production in November that year without having informed Reitman, who had not yet reviewed the unfinished script."
  • For the caption for the "fairy ring" image, I do not believe "fairy" should be capitalized.
  • There are a few instances where I think image captions should have a period since they are complete sentences. These are for the image in the "Cast" section, the Dennis Muren image, the Peter MacNicol image, the Ivan Reitman image, and the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House image. Apologies for being super nitpicky with these image captions.
  • For this part "The Statue of Liberty in New York City was a prominent feature in the film's finale.", I do not think "in New York City" is necessary as I think most people would know where the statue is located.
  • Any reason why the characters are not linked in the "Plot" section? Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe this sentence (After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability although that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project.) is the first time the original film is named in the body of the article. I would recommend wikilinking it.
  • I have two questions about this sentence (The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath large cities as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits.). After reading the "Writing" subsection, I read the message as being more focused on negative human emotions particularly in cities rather than negative human emotions in general. I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that? I also have a question about the "amassing beneath large cities" part. I have not seen this film (I have only seen the original and portions of the reboot, but I would rather forget that one lol), but does this film show supernatural slime amassing under cities other than just New York City? After reading the plot summary, it seems like it was localized to just New York, but I just wanted some clarification. Apologies for the long message on a single sentence.
  • For this sentence (Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by Hip hop group Run-DMC.), I am not sure if the hip hop music wikilink should encompass the entire phrase hip hop group. I think it would be better to limit it to just the hip hop part as the target article is about the musical genre and not about groups in that genre. I also do not think hip needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about the "baby stroller" wikilink in this part (Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used). Since strollers are first mentioned in this part of the "Plot" section (She turns to the Ghostbusters for help after Oscar's stroller rolls), shouldn't the wikilink be moved up there instead?
  • I have a few comments about this sentence: (Brown's song "On Our Own" was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts for one week in early August 1989 before being replaced by Batman's own hit song "Batdance" by Prince.). I do not believe the "Hot 100" should be in italics as I believe it should only be the Billboard part. I would rephrase this part (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts) to (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs music chart) to be more accurate as it was not a number-one hit on the general Billboard Hot 100. I would instead move that wikilink to the next sentence by rephrasing this part ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the top 100 songs) as ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 chart) instead.
  • For this part ( "On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the charts.), I would clarify that you mean on the Billboard Hot 100 chart specifically as those are the citations being used. Given the previous sentence, I think you can specify this just by doing a minor adjustment to say ("On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the chart.). I think it is an important distinction as you are not saying that it spent this amount of time on the Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs chart (at least to the best of my understanding so feel free to correct me if I am wrong here).
  • Would a wikilink to Christmas season be helpful for this part (To take advantage of the Christmas season)?
  • I would add information about how the film was released on DVD. The home media section jumps from VHS directly to Blu-ray without mentioning the DVD release.
  • After doing some Google-ing, I found out that this film was released on LaserDisc. I would include that in the article.
  • I have a question about the Den of Geek sentence in the "Lasting reception" subsection. The article's prose uses Den of Geek while the citation uses Is there any reason for this?
  • I have a question about these two sentences: (Others have defended the film as being as good as or better than Ghostbusters.) and (Some have said the plot of Ghostbusters II is arguably better executed than that of the first film, with multiple threads coming together in a "seamless" third act with a positive ending that works better with modern audiences.). The "Others" and "Some" word choices make me think that multiple reviewers have commented on this aspect of the film's reception, but I only see one citation/critic (i.e. the citation) being used to support this.
  • This part (Discussion about a sequel took place during filming of Ghosbusters II) has a typo in the film's title.

Wonderful work with this article! I am not the best FAC reviewer, but I hope that my comments were at least somewhat helpful. Hats off to you for working on an article about such a well-known work, as I imagine that it is quite tricky/challenging to assemble and balance everything out. I have always worked on far more obscure subject matter (mainly because I am weird and enjoy doing the research on those kinds of things), so I definitely have respect for you for this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are having an excellent day and/or night so far! I will have to check this film out sometime in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review this article Aoba47. To your points:
  1. Done
  2. Done
  3. Done
  4. Done
  5. Done
  6. Done
  7. Done
  8. I didn't link the characters in the plot section because they're then linked in the cast section. I can swap it around if you prefer, I just don't agree with linking in BOTH plot and cast.
  9. Done
  10. I've rewrote the sentence about the slime. Their intent writing the plot was to basically represent negative emotions in places like New York and Los Angeles (which at the time, there's a reason New York was the subject of post apocalyptic stories). The film itself only features slime under New York (though if you play the 2009 video game, it's shown that the slime was specifically in New York for a particular purpose)
  11. Done
  12. Done
  13. Done
  14. Done
  15. Done
  16. NOT DONE YET - The home video stuff is a real struggle. You can google and find mentions of Laserdisc and DVD, but finding a reliable source I can include in the article is another matter. As GBII was not as big as Ghostbusters, it doesnt seem to get as much coverage. Bear with me on this one, I'm trying to find something I can use for the DVD/Laserdisc
  17. Same as above
  18. The is just confusion, every time I bring an article to FA reviewers always have a different standard they want applying to the references (literally, it's always a different thing because on the next article I employ what I was told on the last, and then at FA am told it is wrong). I think I did because there wasn't a specific article at the time, or possible because at the Den of Geek article, the title isn't italicized. It's all very inconsistent, but I've changed it to Den of Geek.
  19. Working, I should be able to find more sources for this.
  20. Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. Ok I've reworded the Legacy section a little and added a few more sources, let me know if that works for you. The Laserdisc version, I've spent about 4 hours on and off googling and I can't find a reliable source with a release date. Wikis are the best I've come across. I don't think this is something I can complete with the available sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses to my comments. Your point about linking only the "Cast" section makes sense to me as it does prevent over-linking. I can understand your confusion about the source consistency as I had similar experiences in the past. I will leave that up to whoever does the source review as I am sure they would be more qualified to discuss that point than myself. It was just something that caught my eye while reading the article so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" subsection, but that should be an easy fix. I have also tried to look for a Laserdisc source, but the closest thing I found was a mention in a LaserDisc ad in an old newspaper so that probably would not work. I should not be surprised since that format was never very successful in comparison to VHS. Once the point about the stray citation is resolved, I will be more than happy to suport this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I did find this WorldCat source (1) about a Laserdisc release for the PAL region, but I am uncertain if it would be usable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that would be of any use as it isn't the American version. I know for definite that it was released in 1989 alongside the VHS and Betamax, but I just can't find any mention of it outside of fan wikis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is what I assumed, but I just wanted to check with you first. Since here does not appear to be any reliable coverage on this particular aspect of its release, then it is understandable why it would be absent from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my super late response. I only have one last comment/concern. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" section. For some reason, I thought I already pointed that out in my review, but it must have been an unsaved edit or got lost in the shuffle somehow. Apologies again for that. I cannot really comment on the coverage/comprehensive issues raised below, but I am focusing primarily on the prose already in the article for my review (as I think that is really the only thing I am qualified to do). Once this point is addressed, I will support this based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I think I took care of the one you meant. Thanks for noticing it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. I support this based on the prose. Again, I cannot really comment about the coverage and sources, but I believe the prose meets the FAC criteria. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Laser brainEdit

A lot of film FAs I've seen have a Themes section—can you explain why this article doesn't have a discussion of Themes? I did a lazy library search just now and found lots of references to this film in academic journals, including writing about the "beneath NYC" theme and its associated influences and cinematography. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine not every film is deep enough to require a thematic analysis. The subtext behind the slime is detailed in the article by the writers. Like the Ghostbusters FAC, if you have direct references you can guide me to I'm happy to read them, but I haven't come across anything on Google. I've done themes sections on films before but they're directly related to interpretations of things in the film, not abstract interpretations unrelated to the film which is all I found with the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, looks like academic work on themes has been done, so it's necessary to explore and include to be comprehensive. Research should be done outside of FAC, with the help of a librarian if need be so you can reference the proper film journals. Googling is complimentary to a library search, but it's not comprehensive. I'm afraid I must oppose on 1b and 1c and recommend withdrawal so the appropriate research can be performed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What about the article do you feel is not well-researched and comprehensive, absent some university thesis on how ghosts can be seen as immigrants, written using the wrong character names? I've expanded this from 1666 words to over 10000 and it uses 173 different sources from the web, magazines and journals. I've done the research, I've done the work. If you want me to write a fluff paragraph about themes, direct me to the sources, because google scholar shows nothing either. Expecting someone to go to a librarian to research an article, when they've already given hours of their time to the project is an unrealistic and unfair expectation and its a moving of goalposts because theme sections are not demanded on every film FAC I've ever put forward. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The snark isn't necessary or constructive. My job as a reviewer isn't to do the research for you. Library research is necessary for any topic on which scholarly work has been done, period. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
So my job is to do all the work, and your job is to do nothing and say I've not done enough. So much for Wikipedia being a collaborative effort. Just withdraw it, I've spent over a month of my time on this article and I won't be able to find those sources and I'm not going library to library looking for random documents on how Tina thinks Slimer represents the bleak chaos inherent to the universe. I've already done more than enough. Thank you for your valuable input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I find a "Themes" section to be the most difficult part of an article to write. I agree that not all film articles require this type of section, simply because some films do not attract this level of academic discourse, but there does seem to be some analysis on this film. For instance, this book has an interesting discussion on how fatherhood is represented in the film. I have never put a film article through the FAC process, but I just wanted to try and help somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with user Laser Brain on this specific point. Ghostbusters received solid scholarly attention, but Ghostbusters II were largely ignored. The reason for that was in the mixed reception of the sequel, which discouraged attention of the scholars. User:Laser brain, if you are aware of a specific reference to this film in academic journals, please, gives us some links or titles here. My google scholar search only gives me hits for the 1st film. Which library did you search? Can you be more specific? Without these specifics, it sounds like you are just inventing flaws and omissions without giving ways or solutions to solve them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I used a search tool provided by my academic institution that searches several databases. Given the responses and bad-faith accusations I've received here, I'm not inclined to participate further. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This seems a particularly spurious objection that I hope does not invalidate this article’s acceptance if the rest of the material is up to snuff. Not every movie is significant thematically and an academic or two happening to discuss a movie does not a thematic section make. If there are well-cited academic theories regarding this movie that are widely disseminated in academia then yeah, that should go in. No one has provided evidence of this. We have a glut of PhD students, post docs, and young professors operating within a “publish or perish” academic culture that demands original thought, so many niche topics end up receiving a study. Does not make any of it important on its face. Indrian (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I've stricken my opposition so it doesn't hold up the nomination. As I said, I found a number of promising academic sources and I'm perfectly capable of filtering out inappropriate or peripheral sources. I'm aware of how to do library research. I can't work in the environment created by the nominator here, so I'm declining further involvement/help. --Laser brain (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7Edit

A great article, with a lot more info about the sequel than I ever found on the Internet. I was surprised that User:Darkwarriorblake managed to find such a wealth of data. All the articles usually focus on the first Ghostbusters film, leaving this sequel in the dark, up until this point. I have no major objection worth mentioning in the article, it is comprehensive, neutral, stable and informative, enough to meet the criteria for a FA, in my humble opinion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 3E1I5S8B9RF7, I actually found the second film more interesting to work on. THe first is a perfect storm of everyone just having fun and refining Aykroyd's wacky ideas but there's no real conflict behind it, it just worked and was a success, while the second film was a perfect storm of the opposite, noone having fun, reshoots and conflicts between the cast and crew. Plus the design behind it has more information available, and it being released in the Summer of Batman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from IndrianEdit

Its an interesting article, but I think it still has a few prose problems. I'll start with the first part of the article through the "development" section. I will add more as these get addressed. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "Set five years after the first film, the Ghostbusters have been sued" - Mismatch between the introductory clause and the subject. The clause refers to the movie, yet the sentence is about the titular characters.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • " The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions in large cities, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath New York City as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits" - This sentence does not really explain how supernatural slime below New York links with the idea of negative emotions. I know we want to keep the lead from getting too complicated, but a tweak may be good here.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • Should Gozer be linked somewhere in the text? He does have an entry on a Ghostbusters characters page.
Good catch, thanks. - DWB
  • "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works as a children's entertainer alongside Winston Zeddemore, Egon Spengler works in a laboratory experimenting with human emotions and Peter Venkman hosts a television show about psychics." - Run-on sentence.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "with her now ex-husband" - I think now is redundant here.
Done, I think I was worried it would be confusing because she has got married and divorced between films, so the marriage didn't exist in the previous film. - DWB
  • "that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project" - I am not sure "conclusive" is really the word you are looking for here. I think you can probably just eliminate the word and go with "had been developed as a stand-alone project."
Done - DWB
  • "was reported to have been removed from his job" - That is a lot of "to be" conjugations in a small space. I think this can be more simply rendered. Also, I think the entire sentence gets lost within itself. Perhaps deal with the Murray and Ovitz issues in their own sentences rather than mashing them together?
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "Puttnam favored smaller films over big-budget blockbusters, greenlighting several foreign-language films by European directors and stating that he was making films for the "world market", and smaller budget films like the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989)." - I think this sentence should be reworked. We talk about smaller films, then European films and the world market, and then go back to smaller films. I am thinking two sentences: "Puttnam favored smaller films such as the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989) over big-budget blockbusters. He also greenlit several foreign-language films by European directors because he preferred making films for the "world market." You don't have to use that language exactly, but it gives an idea of what I see as the issue.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "Reitman later said the delay in development was not Puttnam's fault and that executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him to progress the project" - I guess I am not sure what is going on here. It starts with Reitman saying Puttnam was not the problem, but then goes on to describe how Puttnam's superiors tried to work around him, which implies an issue. So did Reitman say Puttnam was a problem or not? Maybe it should say that Puttnam was not the biggest problem?
The media reported as Puttnam being the problem and he was in part due to the aforementioned opposition to big blockbuster films. Reitman's statement is that other Columbia execs attempted to work around Puttnam because they believed he was the driving issue, but Reitman defended Puttnam by saying there were other issues also in play. The other execs definitely believed that Puttnam was a big issue because he had also upset Murray and Ovitz, but the way I read the source was that even if he hadn't made the relationship with Murray more difficult (as Murray was already difficult to work with), that the film wouldn't have gotten off the ground any earlier. Basically, I might not be summarising it well here but if you think it is still unclear let me know and I can try to rework it more. - DWB
Right, all of that makes sense. I think the problem here is that we are missing a qualifier that explains his superiors were wrong to try to end run him. As written, the article implies that even with the bigger issues, an end run around Puttnam was also necessary, which seems to contradict Reitman's premise. After reading the source, I would perhaps suggest changing some language so it reads something like: "executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him because they thought he was holding up the project, but they discovered they could not get the production moving even after sidelining him." I think that captures what the article is saying.
  • "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, requiring unanimous approval to proceed" - incorrect wording, as "requiring" does not have a concept to latch on to. Perhaps change to "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, and their unanimous approval was required to proceed."
Done - DWB
  • "was replaced as its president by Dawn Steel, the first woman to hold such a high-level role in the industry" - That she was the first woman in the role is interesting, but does her gender have anything to do with the history ofGhostbusters II? If not, this should be removed.
I can see your point and you can read into the gender politics of it since she was positioned and then removed under hostile circumstances about 2 years later (That's not mentioned in the article because while there are sources saying Ghostbusters II might have been to blame for that, it's not as clear cut), I think it's a notable item that one of the most successful women in the industry was tied to getting the film in motion. I think it's worth including as it's only a small piece of text but I'm willing to discuss it. - DWB
Its a topic worthy of discussion for sure, but I am not sure the Ghostbusters II article is the place for it. I am not going to withhold support of the article over something so small and somewhat subjective, but I do feel it comes across as a little random to mention it here.
  • "their most profitable film in 1988, greenlit during the Puttnam regime, had earned only $14 million" - The entire paragraph is about how getting Ghostbusters II into production was an overriding policy goal in 1987, so using a 1988 film as an example in the middle of the paragraph comes across as a non sequiter.
Fair point, this was difficult because it's a good example of what Puttnam was producing, but it's also the only source I could find specifically tying a film to his regime. The issue is he started in 1986 and was fired by 1987, and the films he greenlit, due to production times, didn't start showing up until around 1988. Things like Me and Him and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for example. I think it is important to establish how bad Columbia was doing in what was the dawn of the Blockbuster but I'm going to try and find a source that names a 1987 film so bear with me. -DWB
Actually I just removed the part about the $14 million. It's a nice piece of trivia but I can't make it work there. - DWB
  • "After this, the film was rushed into production for a mid-1989 release, aiming to start filming in Summer 1988." - That last phrase about filming is awkwardly tacked on. Perhaps "After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release."
Done - DWB
Hi Indrian, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed most of your issues at this link here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Indrian, did you receive my ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. Thanks for addressing things. I will continue the review in the very near future. Indrian (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on from where I left off with the writing section:

  • Aykroyd decided he wanted to counter the first film's move skywards, ending atop a skyscraper, by making a subterranean threat." Maybe connect this to material earlier in the paragraph: "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast to the first movie's climax atop a skyscraper by developing a subterranean threat." Its a little subjective, but I think the whole paragraph flows better that way.
  • "while still allowing them to explore beneath the city" - A bit of a quibble, but as written, this wording implies that in the original Scottish draft they were still going to explore underneath New York City specifically as opposed to going underground generally.
  • "As with Ghostbusters, Ramis partnered with Aykroyd to refine the script" - Again, this is really, really quibbly, but since the first draft was written by Aykroyd, would it not be more accurate to state that Aykroyd partnered with Ramis? As written, it implies that Ramis was doing the majority of the writing and Aykroyd was offering suggestions for refinement. If that is actually the way it was, then we need some kind of transition to note that shift.
  • "Ramis had conceived separately from the film a horror film concept about an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. He rejected the horror aspects but it inspired him to create the character Oscar." - These sentences are clunky and a little disjointed. Perhaps instead: "Ramis suggested the story focus on a baby because he had previously developed a horror film concept centered on an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. This inspired him to create the character Oscar."
  • "Ramis wanted to show that the Ghostbusters had not thrived following their victory in the previous film; he considered this to be a more original concept." - A more original concept than what?
Thanks Indrian. I've done all but the last one as I'm a little confused. In the source he just says its a more original concept than their victory having made them into heroes and them staying that way between films. Instead they're failures all doing back up jobs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That is the missing piece then. Add to the end of the sentence "than remaining heroes" or something similar. Just to make the comparison clear without need for inference. Indrian (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Next round:

  • The paragraph on Peter MacNicol feels disjointed. There should be a lead sentence introducing him rather than just moving straight to the accent, and it feels like the next few sentences are in the reverse order of how they should really go. In my mind, first comes the decision to make the character Carpathian despite it not being called for in the script, then comes the inspirations for the specific accent.
  • The last sentence of the last paragraph of the cast and crew section feels tacked on, as the whole paragraph is about other cast members up to that point. Is there anyway to flesh out some info on the crew to allow that to stand as its own paragraph?
  • "Medjuck noted that characters are often seen smoking in Ghostbusters but a societal change in the intervening years meant this was no longer acceptable; Ghostbusters II does not depict any smoking." - This sentence should absolutely stay somewhere as its a fascinating anecdote on changing society, but it just does not fit where it is, as its the only paragraph in the sentence that is not specifically about filming in Los Angeles. It comes across as a non sequitur.
  • "Following test screenings, it was realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed." - Passive voice. Who realized it. The director, the producers, anyone with two brain cells to rub together? Whoever it was, make them the subject.

We're getting there. I appreciate all your hard work. Indrian (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Here is a link to the latest changes. I've tried to move some of the content around per your request, I agree they were non-sequiturs but likewise I struggled to find an appropriate place for them. The test screenings note, I changed to the principal crew. One source is talking to Reitman, one talks to Medjuck who addresses the situation as "we" which could include Michael Gross as well but it doesn't specify, I didn't think it was appropriate to put "Reitman and Medjuck". I'm going to have a look for info on the crew to see if I can expand it but this was a thinner area this time around because they were just returning so there wasn't much interest in it appears. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Indrian, I forgot to ping you but the changes are above. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Eastern green mambaEdit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is was one of the latter ones improved by a person now banned for sockpuppetry. I took a look at sourcing and prose to check for problems and found this in better shape than I expected (feared). So I thought about buffing it for the main page, searched for all the sources I could and here we are. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick sources comment: Ref 4: you seem to have replicated the url into the "publisher=" field of the template, and got an ugly red error message as a consequence. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it with a better reference Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

  • However, Pook and colleagues – with the "however", I thought an opposite view would be presented, but no … maybe the "however" is not ideal.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the species has also been observed – same as above
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • otherwise aroused in some way – "in some way" seems unnecessary.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and east Africa. – capitalize East Africa?
Capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • sit-and-wait behavior – behaviour with different spelling than elsewhere.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in) or around an average of 44 centimetres – abbreviation of cm should be uniform. Also, a dot is missing in this and the also in the next sentence.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The longest living – here I first thought it is continuing talking about body length (as in the preceding sentence). Maybe use "oldest" to avoid this confusion?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A survey in South Africa from 1957 to 1979 recorded 2553 venomous snakebites – really the country South Africa or rather southern Africa? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
the latter...and fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the "Treatment" section has no citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Supporting now. Good work, as usual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:D-angusticeps-range.png: I'd actually suggest focusing in on the southern half of the continent for this map, perhaps with an inset of the whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done one before - will go look at another and see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

your edits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link elapids at first mention in both lead and article.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Link venom.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Symptoms of envenomation by this species include swelling of the bite site, dizziness and nausea, accompanied by difficulty breathing and swallowing, irregular heartbeat and convulsions progressing to respiratory paralysis." Maybe a semi colon after "nausea"?
hmm, I'd then need to convert what comes after into a sentence. I have removed the "from this species", which shortens it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This suggests these two populations could be treated as distinct subspecies or even species." The paper suggests "could", and not 'should'?
it was a preliminary analysis and more investigation was being done, hence the classification was speculative at this stage (which is why I used "could" rather than "should") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks. (Just checking.)
  • "or just simply the green mamba" One of "just" and "simply" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Adult males average around 1.8 metres (5.9 ft) in total length" Imperial measurements are given in feet and inches, not "decimal feet". Try "ftin" in the template instead of "ft".
hah clever. I didn't know that one. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "of its fangs than in the case of other elapids" I have no real objections to this, but 'of its fangs than other elapids' seems simpler.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to include, either in line or as a footnote, what the numbers under "Scalation" represent?
rejigged section a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This species is native to more coastal regions" I get what you are trying to say, but it seems to raise the question, more coastal than what? Is there another way to phrase this?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sudden switch from "the eastern green mamba" to "this species" and back jars a little. Is there a reason? Also consider 'it' or 'they' a little more often - after a full name introduction at the start of each paragraph. Or just skip - random example: "Individuals of this species usually reach adult coloration at ... " "of this species" can happily be deleted without losing any information or creating any possibility of confusion.
rejigged to get rid of a few - paused to see if some biger chunks of text need revisiting and will come back to this later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" is one large paragraph. Split?
duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the researcher found that their activity range areas to be very low" Delete "that"; or replace "to be" with 'are'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Depending on whether" usually precedes two or more options. Possibly 'If'?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Reproduction and lifespan" Another long paragraph.
yeah...but no clear spot to split it...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "after which the female lays anywhere between" Delete "anywhere".
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the summer months of October and November" Surely they are spring months?
bah, a bit wordy. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eggs are usually laid in a hollow tree, among decaying vegetation" I am unclear if these are options, or if you mean among decaying vegetation which is located in a hollow tree.
it means leaf litter in the tree hollow. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13] or around an average of 44 cm (17 in) in length" It is not normal to find an average outside the range!
I just realised a former editor had used the wrong size range and wrong source. fixed now. Also - the second number is from a captive breeding so clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba has a few natural predators" Suggest replacing "a few" with either 'few' or 'several'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hornbills and other snakes tend to prey on juvenile green mambas" I am not sure that "tend to" adds anything.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In "Reproduction and lifespan" it states that egg laying occurs in October and November; in "Venom" it states "breeding season from September to February". I am confused.
Breeding season generally encompasses courtship, mating, the time when the females are incubating, and then caring for young. Hence the egg-laying occurs in the middle of this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is "systemic envenomation"? As opposed to non-systematic envenomation.
it means when the victim becomes generally ill - i.e. has generalised symptoms of a systemic disturbance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The snake tends to bite repeatedly and let go" I think that "and let go" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "is thought to be quite high" What does "quite" mean in this context.
have removed sentence as it doesn't really add anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Another prominent component are the dendrotoxins" Either 'Other prominent components are the dendrotoxins' or 'Another prominent component is the dendrotoxins"; probably the first.
they are thought of as a group, so I did this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A really nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber. Just checking if you are ready for me to have a look at your responses, or are still working on them? I am easy either way. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
you may as well wait a day or two till I finish with the ones below too as there are some fiddly bits (I forget how annoying it is sometimes to get an article already developed and have to fix things....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
okay @Gog the Mild: I think we're there now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Take 2Edit

I forget how annoying it is sometimes to get an article already developed and have to fix things.... Oh yes, I know that one. Because there are so many changes I have been rereading the whole article, and picking up a couple of issues I missed on my previous readings.

  • "German-British zoologist Albert Günther", "Belgian-British zoologist George Albert Boulenger", "South African herpetologist Vivian Fitzsimons", " British biologist Arthur Loveridge". Can I urge that these be prefaced with 'The' or 'the' as appropriate, to avoid false titles. Also, it is not usual to give middle names.
I added "the", though I must confess it doesn't sound any more natural to me. I have looked and I can't find what G.A.Boulenger was called at all ("George" or "Albert") so am reluctant to change until I can find something what says he is called for short Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
OK re Boulenger.
  • "He concluded the differences in build, scalation" → 'He concluded that the differences in build, scalation'.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba is, however, a fairly common species of snake throughout its range" Suggest "The eastern green mamba" → 'It'.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "may pose a possible threat" I think that you need to lose either "may" or "possible".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "B2ab (ii, iii, iv, v)" This could do with explaining, possibly via a footnote.
damn - the pdf isn't downloading for me. Will try later I just removed them as they mean its habitat is highly fragmented and disappearing, which is mentioned straight afterwards. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Optional: split paragraph here: "do not bite each other. Males locate females".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "green mambas prey on any of the seven species of gerbil" Would "any" read better as 'all'?
trimmed to just "the" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern green mamba is the most commonly encountered—though has the least toxic venom—of the three species of green mamba" The section within the dashes reads very oddly there. Possibly rephrase?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Another kunitz-type protein is calcicludine, which blocks high-voltage-activated calcium channels." For clarity perhaps add 'present' after "protein"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That all looks fine. Happy to support, a great article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit


  • link Dendroaspis
"Dendroaspis" redirects to Mamba, which is linked two words previously, which is why I had only one link at mamba. I can link just the genus instead, or both (though that will then show up as a duplicate link..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


  • "and points east." what does this mean?
checked ref - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 3: Smith, Andrew (1849). Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, Reptilia. 4. London: Smith, Elder and Co. p. 70. This isn't a page number but plate 70: at=Plate 70 A link to BHL would be better than a google search: url= I've fixed this myself
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps better to rejig paragraphs of Taxonomy to put in chronological order
it is now I have removed the bit you suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a cite to Günther 1865
thx as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Pook and colleagues analysed the mitochondrial DNA of mamba species in a 2005 paper." This is only a conference abstract and as far as I can determine it wasn't subsequently published and the nucleotide sequences weren't deposited in GenBank (I searched here). I suggest you delete the two sentences unless you can find a better source. (The abstract is on p. 82 of the conference proceedings which are here)
the person who was investigating this subsequently has died sadly. Nothing around so I think the research is gathering mothballs somewhere sadly. Given that, I have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "FitzSimons again split them into separate species" I suggest you include a cite to the article by FitzSimons. The reference is: FitzSimons, V. (1946). "Notes on some south African snakes, including a description of a new subspecies of Xenocalamus". Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 20: 379–393 [392–393]. (you can copy my markup) Scans of back issues of the journal are online here - but unfortunately Vol 20 is missing. I've emailed a scan.
thx - added. I expanded a bit on how he did it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thx - added. I think it helps show the research as robust Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps include a mention of the similar sounding allopatric western green mamba - mitochondrial DNA was sampled by Ainsworth et al 2018 (see Fig 2)) - it is sister to Dendroaspis jamesoni Jameson's mamba.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Suggest reordering to specify the skin colour before the details of the fangs.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 FitzSimons, Vivian F. M. (1970). The 2nd edition is specified - which I think was published in 1974. The ISBN is for the 1974 edition. Which is it?
fixed - removed 2nd ed tag and has 1970 isbn Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The second half of the first paragraph of the description has two cites at the end: Ref. 10 WCH Clinical Toxinology website and Ref. 14 Carl H.; Zug, George R. (1996) Snakes in Question (see pp. 100-102). Neither source supports the detailed description. This is worrying.
Damn, that is a hangover from the GA reviewed version. I will read what I have and remove what I can't cite. On looking at it, some of it is pretty general Removed uncited and rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "This species rarely exceeds lengths of 2.5 metres" - ref 13 Spawls and Branch 1995. The page range should be 46-47. (pp 49-51 is the Black mamba).
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


  • There is a "See also" but why aren't the technical terms linked to the wiki articles? eg Ventral, Dorsal, Subcaudal, Anal etc.
  • I'm surprised at the bold font as it tends to be used very sparingly on wikipedia - see MOS:BOLD
I have prosified it, allowing me to link and debold. Another editor formatted it like this - the other snake articles I have buffed have prose. Looking at it I think the prose works better, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

  • Ref 17 Branch, B. (1988) is a book - page numbers should be specified. The correct title appears to be: "Bill Branch's field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa". The ISBN links to a 1992 edition. I notice that there are various editions - the 3rd published in 1998 has the title "Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa".
Damn I hate this (but agree is necessary) - used snippet view of 1994 edition to determine page...sigh...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


  • The first two sentence repeat some material from the start of the second paragraph of the Distribution and habitat section.
I have reduced repetition - removing bits from both segments Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 18 O'Shea, Mark (12 September 2005) Venomous Snakes of the World is a book - page numbers should be specified. This seems very general - why not use one of the other sources?
this was frustrating. I figured out how to join the library finally and read the book. Neither sentence was in the source but oter interesting material was and has been added. Page number added. Orphaned material alterd and has new refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reproduction and lifespan

  • "When the young emerge from the eggs, they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13]" this is cited to Spawls & Branch who have nothing on breeding or the size of the young. Marais 2004 has "hatchlings measure 30-45 cm"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 Müller et al - perhaps better to use Continuing Medical Education rather than the abbreviation CME.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


  • "which are akin to kunitz-type protease inhibitors that interact with voltage-dependent potassium channels, stimulating acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect" - this is ambiguous as protease inhibitors don't interact with channels and I don't like "akin to". Suggest: "which, although structurally homologous to kunitz-type protease inhibitors, block voltage-dependent potassium channels stimulating the release of acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect." - or similar.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more later. Aa77zz (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is much improved.

  • The phrase "this species" is used to avoid repeating "eastern green mamba" but becomes rather repetitive. I've a culled a few but you may want to remove a few more.
I have removed a few more. I have used the term just to diversify so not to say "the eastern green mamba..." too many times, but realise the person that took this to GA used it alot..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "was observed by William York." Why do we need to know his name? I assume he isn't notable. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Tried to find out something about him but seems nonnotable so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Support - I've reread the article and it seems fine. Taking on an article expanded by another editor can involve more work than one expects. Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

thx, yes please remind me of this if I decide to fix another article....I thought this looked in better shape superficially than black mamba but actually there were a similar amount of issues WRT sourcing problems etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification:
  • No spotschecks carried out
  • Ref 15: needs a page ref
  • Ref 16: should have a specific page ref - source document is 22 pages long
  • Ref 18: needs page refs
  • Ref 19: ditto
  • Ref 27: 20-page range – needs to be more specific
  • Ref 30: and again – 17-page range here. There are several other cases where the range is 10+ pages, a little too wide in my opinion.
I've been moving content so these refs have been muddled up, but will see what I can do I think I got them all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Links: all links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent in inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations
added locations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability
  • Who publishes the Reptile Database?
the Reptarium association. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, no issues. Sources appear appropriately scholarly, and fully meet the FA quality/reliability critera.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


This has been well picked over above, my only minor quibbles are whether envenomation and polyvalent could be replaced by simpler terms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Tricky - both have fairly specific meanings over and above more accessible terms. I changed on 'envenomation' to 'poisoning' in lead, the other is bluelinked. 'polyvalent'....'all-purpose' or 'multipurpose' sounds lame and something you'd buy from a hardware store. Will muse on this..thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse)Edit

Nominator(s): AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional character Felicity Smoak, as she appears in the Arrowverse franchise, broadcast on The CW. Originally featured as a one-off guest in the first season of Arrow, the character went on to become one of the show's principal characters across the series run (2012-2020), as well as featuring in other shows and media in the franchise. The article was reviewed to Good Article status earlier this year, with a very thorough review from User:The Rambling Man. This is my first attempt at promoting an article to Featured Article status and I would greatly appreciate any comments on improving the article. Many thanks in advance. AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KailashEdit

I'll add comments soon, but don't you think it is a bit early to take this to FAC? Though Rickards is no longer a regular on Arrow, she will return for the finale which airs in Feb 2020. So I guess that's the time when more retrospectives, previously unknown facts and articles about Felicity will be published, making this article look incomplete and unstable? If I'm wrong, tell me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I did consider whether or not that would be a concern, but having looked at the criteria (stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.) my own personal conclusion was that a one-off appearance in the final episode of the show would not change the content significantly. I may be wrong in that conclusion, am happy for others to decide. AutumnKing (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from BrianboultonEdit

I have a concern that doesn't reflect on the quality or otherwise of the article, but relates to its length; 9,500 words seems awfully long, for an article about a fictional character in a US soap drama that (as far as I know – I'm not a soap-watcher) hasn't been shown outside the US and can scarcely be said to have global importance. Articles around the 10,000-word mark are usually the preserve of fairly major historical or cultural figures - our recently-departed prime minister Teresa May gets 10,500, and the soon-to-depart (?) Angela Merkel is under 6,000. Alfred Hitchcock just makes the 10,000 mark, and the great Larry David a mere 1,602! Other sitcom figures, better-known internationally than Smoak, have much more modest WP profiles, e.g. Jerry Seinfeld (the character) 2,707, Frazier Crane 3,826 – though maybe that's because they belong to the recent past rather than the present. There is no reason why Smoak shouldn't make it to FA, but is it necessary to inflate the article by including so much detail about the life and relationships of a non-existent person? I'd welcome a little thought being given to this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comment. I wrote much of the article, and in fact shared similar concerns that it may have got away from me a little in terms of length, an issue I did raise at the GA review. I would welcome any suggestions as to which parts could be trimmed. Just to clarify a couple of points from your comments; Arrow, although guilty of falling into soap opera style tropes at times, is an episodic action-drama as opposed to a soap opera. It has also been shown relatively widely outside the US, in the UK and Ireland[6], in Australia[7] and in India[8] among others, and in multiple countries through Netflix[9], including Brazil, Germany, Japan and Russia. As I say, any suggestions for areas where the article could be trimmed would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. ,AutumnKing (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your civilized reply and for putting me right about Arrow's international exposure. My overall concern about length remains, but I don't think I'm the best person to advise on prose trimming, given my obvious ignorance of the topic. Let's see if anyone else shares my concern – if they don't, I won't pursue the issue. Most of my work at FAC now involves source reviewing, and I'm a little daunted by the prospect of having to check out 250+ references! Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding on the discussion. I want to preface this by saying a lot of great work has been put into the article. I do agree with Brianboulton's concerns about the length. This is a popular character from a popular show so it is understandable a large amount of coverage exists. One example of potential length issues is the third paragraph of the "Concept and creation" and the block quote from the same section. To me, there seems to be repetition of the same point (i.e. Felicity being a major component to the show's success). While it is a necessary topic for discussion, I think this part can be trimmed down. For example, I do not see the need for the block quote, and I am wondering if that entire paragraph can be condensed into one or two more concise sentences. I am not a particularly good FAC reviewer so feel free to disregard my message, but I just wanted to hopefully add to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I have adjusted the section slightly, reducing the use length/use of quotations in the body. I have left the quote box for now. Do you think that reads any better? Many thanks AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain about the quote box, but I will leave that up to you and other editors. Apologies, but I am unable to do a full review due to time constraints (plus I am probably not qualified enough to be a reviewer). I just wanted to offer some input about the length. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Have added alt text - not something I was familiar with so not 100% sure it is right. Some are quite similar to caption. Is that a problem? AutumnKing (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
They shouldn't be identical to the caption - think about how you would describe the image to someone who can't see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Have adjusted to be more descriptive. Also adjusted main captions to avoid repetition, and only contain pertinent info. Does this work? AutumnKing (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 IEdit

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about ... another cantata by J. S. Bach, a particular cantata, well beloved: Part one of the Christmas Oratorio. The article was the first attempt to give more attention to the six parts of the oratorio, composed to be performed on six occasions during the Christmas season. It received a detailed GA review by The Rambling Man. - Enjoy! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Alt text should not duplicate caption
  • File:WalterGelobet.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I’m fixing the template tags, the other details may need Gerda to go in, as I don’t have enough German language to adjust. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • For the two images showing music, I really don't know what else to say for an alt text. Suggestions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
      • What do you expect a sighted reader to learn by seeing those images? The alt text should convey the same information, as much as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I know that in general, but for a musical score, even a reader who sees it would have to understand how music is written, and how far would I have to go explaining that? It's so complex on that first page that I feel helpless, and it's a bit described in the prose about the movement. - I found this link, - is that what's needed? I added it to the commons as better than none. Will add it to the article as well, but am busy today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


I expect- hope- to support this article, but have quibbles, to follow shortly. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Shout for joy, exult!; these lyrics should also be in the article body
    done, - I tried to present some variants, but understand. --GA
  • Lead: A choral introduction is..slightly confusing put - a very Germanic construction (have many german relations and do it myself at times :)); remove the opening choral and we have "A introduction", to give a sense of how odd this reads
    Do I get it right that you don't want to use "introduction"? - We could say movement, instead, or is there another word for that the first movement is not yet the story which begins with the first "scene" in the second movement? --GA
  • Lead:scored four vocal parts and a festive Baroque orchestra with trumpets - scored for four voices, don't like "festive"; too modern - themed?
    Which word would you suggest to say that this orchestra is unusually opulent - rich - multicoloured. I don't know any other music by Bach besides the Mass in B minor with so many different instruments. --GA
    I might have a try at this myself. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead: Link timpani
    Fine, but an exception, - normally in these cantata articles, we link instruments in the scoring section to avoid a sea of blue. --GA
    Dont assume that everybody is as absorbed as you. Anyway its not heavily linked already. Yes a blue word please. Ceoil (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Did you see that I linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    ok. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Several movements rely - overstated: several out of 9?
    "three" then? which is a third in numbers, and possibly more than 3/4 in duration, because it concerns th long opening and 2 long arias, - how would you say that? "The extended opening movement and both arias"? --GA
  • Unusually for Bach, it opens with the timpani (kettledrums) alone. As the article is quite technical - "The chorus", rater than "it", as I gather that is why it is unusual
    Rather: the movement. Almost no choral first cantata movement by Bach begins with the chorus, that also would be an exception. But whatever music by Bach: no other begins with the timpani alone. - Our timpanist said he played more than 20 performances, but still has a funny feeling in his stomach before that lone entrance. It's five even-looking notes, but has to be like a spoken sentence, with stressed "syllables" and accent, such as a trill. - Everywhere else in Bach's music, timpani play with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This sequence comes from the secular model - 'Is inspired by', 'borrowed from', or is 'in the tradition of' (all very different things), rather than "comes". What is a secular model
    Let's begin at the end: the secular model for Jauchzet, frohlocket" (rejoice ...), as said a few times, is Tönet, ihr Pauken (Sound, you drums). If you were a composer wanting to express rejoicing, you'd probably not chose timpani alone, or singers singing like timpani, but Bach simply took what he had done in the secular cantata, where it expresses the text. What yould you suggest? "follows" perhaps? --GA
    Follows seems most apt in this case. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am pleased Gerda brought this here Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for a thorough look, very helpful already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I cant parse "Laßt uns den Namen des Herrschers verehren!" (let us revere the name of the sovereign)[1] is set mostly homophonic part with strings and woodwinds. - is set mostly homophonic
    sorry, muddled when changing, please check again --GA
  • Rathey observes how ontemporary listeners may interpret the dominant trumpets as royal instruments announcing the birth of a king; get they might interpret the trumpets as royal; its a stretch that they would be aware of their role in "announcing the birth of a king"
    The idea is that trumpets were used for the sovereign, be it the elector or God, - perhaps you can help wording that, - I tried. Could be even worth a line in the Dresden court section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the soprano sings line by line the sixth stanza - line by line? How is this different from "sings each line", and why are we even saying it. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Help, please, to say, that the lines from the chorale are interrupted/reflected by the recitative, line by line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

sources There are more sources than cites. Suggest you move those not used to "further reading". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Which one do you think of? --GA
Some of the sources are also external links. I would avoid this. Needs trimming, but otherwise all cited material is of the first rank, in that they represent the foremost scholars I would have expected after research today. Not seeing any formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Which? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Will take a look next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Me too. CassiantoTalk 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: still reading through, and editing as I do so. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Emperor's New SchoolEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a television spin-off to the 2000 movie The Emperor's New Groove. It aired for two seasons from 2006 to 2008 on the Disney Channel. In it, Kuzco is required to attend the public high school, Kuzco Academy, before he can become the emperor of the Inca Empire. Episodes use physical comedy and often break the fourth wall. Although the critical response was mixed, the cast did receive awards and nominations for their work. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "In it, Kuzco is required to attend" - this reads too sudden in my opinion. I suggest rewording it to something along the lines of "The show centers on the character Kuzco who is required to attend".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing my above edit for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "disguises herself as the school's principal in an attempt to cause him to fail his classes so she can become empress herself" - by "herself" I assume that they are both competing against each other for the same thing - an emperor (male or female). Is that the case here?
  • I have removed "herself". The word "empress" is always used in connection to the character "Yzma" as opposed to "emperor" with "Kuzco". I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first television series to have a debut across these four platforms; it was" - to avoid "it was... it was" I suggest replacing the second "it" with an "and".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Emperor's New School received a mixed response; Malina's representation was one criticism" - I would like to see what aspects of the show received positive response.
  • There were a few points that received praise (the transition from film to television, the animated backgrounds, the humor, and the voice acting), but I am uncertain about putting these points into the lead because they were made by individual commentators and would not necessarily reflect a consensus from an overall critical commentary. I included the Malina criticism in the lead for instance because it was brought in two reviews. However, I would be more than happy to add something to the lead about the positive response, but I just wanted to explain my perspective first. I could be completely wrong. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jeanne Spreier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, said the show based its humor in one-line jokes" - shouldn't this be based "on"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "According to Disney Channels' Worldwide president Gary Marsh" - this should be Disney Channels Worldwide's president in my opinion.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Walt Disney Company first approached Gannaway about the series "a few years" after" - I am failing to understand the significance of "a few years" being in quotes.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

More to come. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments so far, and apologies for some of the silly mistakes in the article. Hope you had an awesome Halloween and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the article, and don't have anything else to quibble about. This is a nice work. Support. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and the review. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example the credit for Scharlach, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Revised. I believe that everything should be cited now. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the release details remain unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am assuming you are referring to the picture and audio format parts? I just want to double-check first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed those bits of information as I cannot find a third-party citation for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN2: date doesn't match source
  • Are you refraining to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette citation? From what I can see the date in the article (January 26, 2006) already matches the date in the source (January 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Source says January 25. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have checked the source again, and I do not see where it says January 25. Under the byline (at least on my end), it says (JAN 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Very odd - definitely says January 25 under the byline on my side. Perhaps it adjusts based on local time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is very strange. Next to the date, it has the time (12:00 AM) on my end. Does it have a different time for you? What would you recommend that I do for this? Apologies for all the back-and-forth on my part, and thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, it is a time-zone issue - mine gives 11PM. Let's just leave as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I will definitely make sure to remember this for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN5: should include page number, and is this an authorized publication?
  • I believe that Animation Magazine is an authorized and reliable source. I have added the page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the republication on Scribd. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it should be fine, but I have replaced the citation style with the one for journals and took out the url to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN14 should include agency
  • Is there any particular reason why the agency should be cited here? I was just wondering because I do not cite the agency for any of the other newspaper sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If there are other cases where there is an agency, it should also be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am really confused by this. I have never had to cite agencies when using newspaper citations in previous FACs. Is there any particular reason why this is necessary? I hope that I do not sound rude, but I was just curious about this because it was different from my prior FAC experiences. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the case of FN14, the agency credit stands in place of the author credit in providing appropriate attribution. More broadly, technically the documentation for {{cite news}} states it should be included when different from work and publisher, although when there's an author named I tend not to fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me. I have added the publication agency to the citation. Apologies for the confusion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN15 should italicize work title
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: page?
  • In that case suggest including a location parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a location parameter? Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind, the book does not use page numbers, but it does include an index that has the page numbers so I was able to locate it and add it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN19: La is part of the surname, not given name. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: Apologies for the second ping. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I responded to your points. I am only confused by two points (the publication for Reference 2 and the publication agency inclusion). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by KailashEdit

This article is in amazing shape, so I won't have many comments. Here are some for a start:

  • Though I prefer "show" over series, I still think "show" is informal.
  • Just wanted to check before making changes. Would you prefer if I replaced all the instances of "show" with "series"? Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead says the series received mixed reviews, but the "Critical reception" doesn't use the word "mixed". Please maintain consistency.--Kailash29792 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support: I have no further comment. I'm pretty sure there are other guys to do proofreading. Also, please consult with others whether "show" needs to be replaced with "series". It was just my personal view, in the way that "movie" is often discouraged in favour of "film". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. I will go through the article shortly and replace the "show" instances with "series". I do not have a preference either way, but I understand your point and I might as well do it anyway. Let me know if you need any help with any of your projects. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MoiseEdit

Hi Aoba. Overall, there's quite a bit of good content and writing in the article, and is within reach of FA quality. Some comments:

  • "Malina's representation was one criticism". Not sure about use of "criticism" here. Maybe "one thing that was criticized".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to have more variety of sentence structures in the second and especially the third paragraph of the lead. Currently there are a lot of subject-verb-object sentences so it feels a little choppy.
  • I have attempted to fix this, but please let me know if further revision is necessary.
  • "However, episodes focus more on Kuzco learning life lessons". Here I'd suggest something other than "episodes". Maybe "the series" or "the story arc" or such.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The second half of the first paragraph of "Premise and characters" could also benefit from more variety of sentence structure. The last four sentences are all s-v-o and the last two start with "Her".
  • I have attempted to revise this, but please let me know if more works is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite their strained relationship". Maybe this needs to be qualified. How is it strained?
  • I have removed it as I think the "contrasting lifestyles" part covers it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "In one instance, Pacha trains Kuzco for a physical education class". I wasn't sure if this was meant to be an example of "school projects". If so, I'm not sure that a physical education class would normally be considered a school project. But if this is not meant to be an example of a school project, and is just another way that Pacha helps Kuzco, then OK.
  • It was meant to be an example of one of the school projects. I have changed it to "school assignments" to hopefully address that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and is one of the few characters who scolds him about his attitude". Is it clear by this part of the main text how his attitude is bad? (I didn't see it but I may have missed it.) If not, maybe this needs to be clarified for the reader here.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other supporting characters include the Royal Records Keeper and Mr. Moleguaco". The reader can probably imagine to a degree what the role of the Royal Records Keeper might be, but is there anything that would be worthwhile to mention here about Mr. Moleguaco?
  • Clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me". It's not clear to me the relationship between "Although it is a sequel" and "Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality", nor why "it's all about me" is relevant to the question of sequels.
  • That is a good point. I removed the "it's all about me" part. It was a slogan from the first film so it is not important for this article. However, I do think it is beneficial to mention how Kuzco's character development was ignored for the series, and I have tried to revise that part to better address it. I have seen a few people question how the show could be a sequel since it ignores this plot line from the film completely while also making casual references to the film. Continuity-wise, it is very weird. Please let me know what you think though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, the show does include reference to the original film". I'm not sure this works well as is. There's one example before this of the ending of the film being ignored, but I don't think readers are going to assume none of the story points in the film were kept. So it probably goes without saying that there is going to be some coherency between the film and TV series. Maybe you can salvage this last sentence of the paragraph but I'm not sure the exact best angle for it; also, if you do keep it, maybe flesh out what "Kronk's spinach puffs" refers to.
  • To be fair, there are two examples before that sentence (the Yzma being human part as the second one), but I think the main issue is with the transition being too strong. I have tried to revise this pat to be clearer, but please let me know what you think. I think it is beneficial to note what elements/gags were kept in the show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. Apologies for the silly mistakes. I still have a lot to learn about being a better writer, but your reviews always make the articles stronger. Hopefully, I can grow more as a writer in the future. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider shaking up the last two sentences of the lead, which feel a bit stale. This is what I came up with, although I don't know for sure that it's a big improvement (maybe if I had more time I could come up with something better, but unfortunately I don't): "The Emperor's New School received some critical praise, as well as Annie and Daytime Emmy Awards for its cast and crew; negative reviews mentioned elements including sexist objectification of Malina." If you don't like this particular suggestion, maybe at least try to twist the sentences around for a bit of variety in sentence structure. Another option could be to get rid of the last sentence. As it is, we don't find out in the lead whether they were important awards or possibly minor no-name awards. And removing the last sentence would help with the repetitiveness of sentence structure at the end. But if there's a good way to keep mention of the awards (my suggestion above or another way), that could be good too. Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I was also uncertain about that part as I thought the awards/nominations sentence sounded a little too tacked-on. I have used a variation on your suggestion, but clarified that Kitt was the only one to actually win any awards. Let me know what you think, and thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kuzco is often turned into animal by a potion from Yzma's lab so he cannot finish a school assignment." Should it be "animals", "potions", "assignments" in the plural, because it says "often"? Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. This is a running theme for many many episodes so the plural would be more appropriate. That part was a later addition (to give a better context to the secret lab mentioned later) so I admittedly did not review it as much as I should. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kronk is Yzma's henchman, and poses as a student and Kuzco's friends". This means he disguises as multiple friends? It's a bit confusing (I was confused at first). If there's a way to write it so it's clearer, that would be great. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "friends" part was a typo of "friend", but I think it is confusing to add to two descriptives "student" and "friend" so I have consolidated to "Kuzco's classmate", which I think is a more apt description for his paper-thin disguise. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for interrupting your review. I will refrain from editing the article to avoid any potential conflicts and give you the space/time to best review it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It may just be me, but I don't know what a "heritage property" is in terms of a TV show, and I couldn't find an answer with a very quick Google search (maybe with a little bit longer one I could have, but I gave up soon). Can you wiki-link it to anything, or would you consider rewording it, if possible? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "heritage property" phrase just refers to the fact that this was a spin-off of a pre-existing Disney property. I had originally quoted it as I thought it was noteworthy, but upon further reflection, it does seem quite repetitive as I think that information is already well-established in the article elsewhere so I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The series is set in a school to emphasize Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." How about something like "The series is set in a school because the writers/creators felt this environment would provide good opportunities to explore Kuzco's lack of social etiquette." I think this would be clearer than just "emphasize". Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Your suggestion is far better, and I think I was getting too caught up in going for conciseness in that sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "he said the main difference was it is led by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks". Maybe "supporting character" would be more encyclopedic than "sidekicks", but then you would have "character...character". Could you possibly tell me what Gannaway's exact words were for this bit? The sentence is not so bad as it is, but I feel like maybe it could be made slightly tighter. If you could tell me what he says, I might have ideas. Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the full reference. A Scribd user uploaded the entire Animation Magazine issue, and I could access the specific "Out of the Inca Well" article while putting together the article and revising it during the GAN and prior to the FAC. However, I lost access to the entire issue for some reason; I apparently need a Scribd account to view the article. The basic idea of Gannaway's statement was that other animated shows often used supporting characters for the humorous bits while keeping the lead more grounded, and Kuzco was the opposite since he was a comedic character that was the lead. I did struggle a bit with revising this so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. I could request for the article at the Resource Request if necessary so I can provide the exact quote. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "While Gannaway acknowledged viewers might initially dislike Kuzco because of his attitude". Is there any descriptive word you can add before "attitude" to add precision to what kid of attitude it was? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is still referring to the same self-centered/narcisstic aspects discussed earlier. I did not put a descriptor here because I was uncertain if it was getting too repetitive through the article. I have added one though per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "she said singing provided "an added and vital layer" to Yzma". Is there anything more in the source you can add to flesh this point out? It feels a little weak and insubstantial as is.
  • This is the full quote from the source: ("I loved every minute of singing Yzmopolis. Yzma is a wonderful and exciting character. Being able to give her the added dimension of a singing voice gives my character an added and vital layer. May Yzma sing forever and often!") I think it was notable at the time of drafting and revising the article prior to this FAC, but upon further reflection, I would have no issue with removing it completely if necessary. Just wanted to get your point of view on it before removing it though just to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I ended up removing this part altogether, as upon further reflection, it seems rather trivial and not necessary for a reader's understanding of the show as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first series to debut across these four television platforms". I'm not sure precisely what this means. Does it mean the four TV platforms had previously showed lots of old shows, but this was the first new show that any of them aired? Or does it mean it was the first time that there was a show in common across all four platforms? (Or maybe it means something else?) If you can, would it be possible to clarify this in the text? Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The four networks did have original programming prior to this show. I would not be surprised if the networks ran the same shows at one point in time. The difference with this is that The Emperor's New School was pushed on all four networks at a similar time rather than premiering on a single network and later being syndicated or shown on other networks as re-runs. That is the impression that I get from the sources as it is referring more to Disney's promotional strategy for the series to maximize its visibility/exposure or run a "super-saturation" campaign as one outlet put it. However, I revised the "first time" part out as I think it is unnecessarily confusing and just kept to how the show debuted on these four networks on these days instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The series was part of Toon Disney's "Great Toon Weekend" programming block in January 2007." Feels weak and likely removable. But if you'd rather keep it, may I suggest in the previous paragraph just after where the times/days shown are listed.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Please consider whether the order of the points in these two paragraphs could be improved. They seem to jump around a lot. For example, "Each episode runs for 30 minutes[7][9] and carries a "suitable for all ages" TV-G parental rating." feels out of place, as what comes before and after it is about the days/times/dates when it was aired. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. I have attempted to revise the section to flow more cohesively, but let me know if further work needs to be done. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look at the Reception section in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "Although he disliked the series, author David Perlmutter spotlighted Kitt and Warburton for their performances". I'm not sure whether "spotlighted" is correct here, but if you're sure it is, please keep it. (I'm not saying it necessarily isn't okay, just saying I don't know, so just be sure for yourself you're certain it's good.)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "he was also uncertain that the school setting could sustain a series without growing monotonous". This sounds more like a question than a criticism. It sounds like this writer was speculating early in the series that future episodes might not be interesting. I haven't read the source, but depending on what the source says, maybe the nuance can be changed to something conveying that the early episodes were only mildly interesting, and then put what you wrote as kind of an after-point. Again, I don't know if that's what she says (sorry, I don't have time to read the source right now). Or if there's not much to work with on this point in the source, I guess just decide for yourself whether what you currently have for this point is strong enough for the criticism paragraph; I don't have a really strong opinion, and feel it could maybe go either way.
  • Removed. After re-reading the article, it is more speculation on the writer's part as opposed to criticism. Here is the part from the source regarding this: "While the opening episode packs plenty of punch, it will be interesting to see how far Gannaway can stretch the series' rather basic plot about Kuzco's efforts to graduate through numerous episodes without getting stale and repetitive." Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman". Maybe "a focal point of Common Sense Media's Pam Gelman's review" would be better.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Malina's figure-hugging clothing emphasizes her attractiveness over her intelligence". Would it be worthwhile to spell out just a little more explicitly why this is considered bad? I understand what you mean, but maybe if it was a little more explicitly explained, it would be all the clearer.
  • Revised to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've finished my second read-through. I'll try to do a quick third read-through in the next couple of days and address at that time any remaining questions you had in response to my last batch of comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I read MacPherson's review, and it's mostly quite positive. It may be misleading to include her comment about a minor confusing point in the paragraph that begins with "Some critics had a negative response to the series." I hope it doesn't sound like I'm telling you to cut, cut, cut everything, but if it was me, this MacPherson bit is another sentence I would strongly consider cutting.
  • I have removed the sentence. It is best to avoid misrepresenting the source in any way so I agree that removing it is important. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Awards and nominations sections feels a bit repetitive (repetitive sentence order, and the same awards names repeated multiple times). It's all summarized in the table below anyway, so I'd like to suggest you can trim to the prose. How would you feel about combining the two Annie Awards sentences into one, removing unnecessary details (maybe like the specific episodes), and is there a way to get rid of the final "35th Daytime Emmy Awards" in the last sentence? Or (*actually I think this might be an even better idea) another way to condense might be to combine all of Kitt's awards into one sentence at the start (again, hopefully finding unnecessary details to leave out). Then maybe you could find a way to combine Warburton's, Parkins', and DiCicco's nominations into a succinct second sentence. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have cut down on that section. The table was a late addition. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support now. Looks good. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to do this review and for your patience with everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KingsifEdit

  • The lead looks fine, perhaps a little long. It could use more diversity in sentence, but (after one typo correction) seems to be written well.
  • Thank you. I could try to trim the lead down, but I would be uncertain of which parts would be best removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will leave this up to you. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have gone through the lead to cut back somewhat, but I am open to further suggestions by you and other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sentence On his birthday, he learns about this educational requirement of his trust fund and is evicted from the palace. Seems awkward – could this be rephrased?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great, this works well now. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, to prevent him from graduating and become empress is a little strange – it could be “to prevent him from graduating so she can become empress”
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also good :) Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • With the sentence Although it is a sequel, Kuzco retains his narcissistic personality, causing some critics to associate him with the phrase "it's all about me, how are the two parts related? Why would his characterization change in a sequel? Is there more from the source to associate these?
  • I had revised this section based on a reviewer's comments above so I think it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is clear now, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • At the end of which film (New Groove or Kronk) is Yzma turned into a cat? It’s not clear to those who know nothing.
  • Same as the above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, great. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Does Speier at any point relate the American high school setting with the fact it’s sent in Incan times? That would be useful to mention with her initial comments at the bottom of the premise and characters section.
  • She does not; she just says that the show has very American attributes. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's ok, then - we don't want to turn it into OR. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No cast section? Not even an overview with wikilinks to the pages?
  • I honestly see no reason for including a cast section. All of the information about the characters and cast members are already laid out in the "Premise and characters" section and "Production" section, respectively, so I think it would be rather repetitive. I have done a similar approach to my other FACs on television show articles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If it works - and there were only two seasons on a kidcom, so a cast table wouldn't add a lot. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think the word “another” adds any value to …developed The Emperor's New School as "another heritage property" for its television scheduling. I’m not sure quotation marks need to be used at all.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Needs some consistency in tense at the end of the first paragraph in Production – saying the directors “are” vs. the writers “were”; pick one.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Not sure if others will pick up on the present tense when it's definitively over (not still writing/directing; continuous present used for plot), I might ask if it is fine. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a good point that I did not consider. It is always good to ask for a second or third opinion. I actually think past tense would make more sense so I have adjusted it. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In Production, the word ters is used. What is this supposed to be?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Teachers - thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The clause saying …he attributed the main difference to it having a comedic character as the lead rather than a sidekick is bizarre; perhaps it could be more simply “…he described the main difference as being lead by a comedic character, a role usually given to sidekicks.”
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I feel I should expand on why I picked this up: the first part ("attributed the main difference to it having") was grammatically all over the place, and didn't fit with the preceding clause. It could be understood, but stood out and needed re-reading. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The cast notes could get at least their own subsection in Production, as it’s otherwise a bit of a jump.
  • I do not think a subsection is necessary, but I will think about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I like what you've done, breaking the whole article up. I will leave comments on whether headers are apt to others. It helps with flow, and somewhat consolidates casting and characterization (not characters) in one place (rather than spread across all sections). Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Echoing others’ comments, the writing style for the Reception section is quite basic.
  • I am not entirely sure whar you mean. Could you be more specific? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I expanded a bit more below. The sentence structure is simple and repeated, and little has been done to create flow from each to the next. It's more like a list of who has reviewed it and a comment. If style could be improved - changing up structure, use of connectives, expanding the comments to give a description of the review, it would be much better.
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I always had difficulty with these kinds of sections. I will work on that now, and will revisit the sources to see if there is any additional information I can mine from them. I will respond here when I am done with that copy-edit. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think that the Critical reception could use an introduction summarizing the breadth of reviews before the paragraphs (which are split just down positive vs negative)
  • Could you give an example of what you mean? The reviews touch on a lot of different points, and I cannot see a single common theme that could be used as an introductory sentence without WP:SYNTH concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing so much to SYNTH as just a sentence saying "There were several reviews, with critics highlighting both good and bad aspects of the show." Because at the moment, the first sentence in the section reads that it got positive reviews, without indication that it also got negative ones until the reader reaches that paragraph. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. I misread your suggestion. Apologies for that. I will incorporate that suggestion during my copy-edit of that section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m also surprised there’s not more depth to review coverage – do the critics not discuss certain elements, and if there are some common themes (beyond the already-included Malina criticism), could they be important to include? I point to other GA+ television show reception sections for reference, they are generally much more extensive than a list of “X from Y thought it was good and said ‘Z’.” Wikivoice can also be used to discuss what critics say rather than just quote them.
  • Not really. There is not a common theme in the positive reviews. The only common theme that I could see in the negative reviews was that it was inferior to the film. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That could be potentially written into a paragraph. Any other things from individual reviews could be used to expand it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would an awards table be beneficial?
  • I do not think so because everything is addressed in the prose, and I do not think there were enough awards to warrant a table. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As long as the prose reads clear enough to you. Remembering that a table is an added illustration, not a replacement. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Does the doodle image add anything to the article? The only thing I can think of is art style (because doodle on lined paper is quite easy to picture) – at which point it should be moved to the more appropriate section.
  • I think the picture helps the reader understand what is being referenced beyond the prose. While the idea of a doodle on lined paper could be easy to picture, I think it is helpful to include the image to show the art style to the reader. I have included in its present position because it is by the paragraph about these recurring gags. I do not know what you mean by "the more appropriate section"? Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll just remove it altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would have been to move it to the section on the art style; the idea of a schtick where the character doodles is clear, and the image wasn't needed to illustrate that. The art style, yes, and I think that's covered in production. But I also concur that it may have been one image too many for a shorter article. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Without doing a source review, I think there are definitely areas for quite substantial work. Has this had a peer review before? For a Disney, U.S., television show, the article seems to not have as much coverage as I would expect, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I really never use the peer review process because I honestly never get a response. I feel like the peer review process is very hit or miss. This is a Disney show, but it was never a high-profile one in the same way as a Lizzie McGuire or a Hannah Montana. I am pretty positive that I have found a majority (if not all) of the sources that cover this show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well then I can't argue with that; there may be more coverage soon now that the U.S. has got Disney+, but if that's all the sources, that's all the sources! Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will do another search once I get the reception section copy-edit done just to make sure. There may be more coverage given the Disney+ launch, and I will be inventive with my search parameters to make sure I can catch as much as possible in case anything slipped through the cracks. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review so far. I believe that I have commented on everything. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! Comments added above, but most of my original comments had been addressed well. Have a nice weekend, too. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review so far. I have tried to revise the reception section, but let me know if more work is needed. I have also added an awards/nominations table to the article. I could not find any additional reviews while doing another search.
  • I will give it a read later! Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I gave the section a little ce, but it was much better, well done! I now support Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The c/e and support are greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do have a quick question. The show had an official website that had mini-games, photos, videos, downloads, a way to e-mail the characters, and a quiz. I think this information should be included in an article, but I am having trouble accessing the site. Since it is no longer active, I had to user a website archiver; fortunately, the website has been archived quite a bit, but all of the viable links redirect to this page about having the current version of Flash. I was wondering if you had any insight about this, as this is far outside my area of expertise? Here is the link to the original site. Apologies for the super random question. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't know; have details of the website been covered in news or even an official Disney release or blog? If not, you can only really use an archive link as primary source to sat 'this used to exist'... Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe the website was covered by any third-party websites or an official Disney press release. I was thinking of using the link directly as the primary source. Do you think that would be okay? Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added a bit about it to the article. Otherwise, I think I have found all the available sources for the show. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Images are all appropriately licensed, formatted and captioned. FrB.TG (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by BLZEdit

I'm starting a review at Aoba47's request. We've worked together before but, for the record to any other interested parties, I prefer to directly copyedit articles myself and then explain the rationale for some of my changes here, in addition to making recommendations or asking questions. If any edits I make don't seem like improvements, or if my reasoning for a change is mistaken, feel free to let me know here and we can work through it. So far I've looked at the lead, which I'll give another run-through after I've read the rest in-depth:

  • Thank you for the copy-edits so far! I will go through your comments so far individually if that is okay with you just so that all of the changes/edits are saved correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "spin-off of" is the most natural phrasing (better than "from" or "to").
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Tiny change, but the addition of a comma in "January 27, 2006, to November 20, 2008". MOS:DATEFORMAT specifies "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation that replaces the comma"—which personally I think looks odd but that's what it calls for.
  • I have removed the comma. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops, my bad—I think I worded that in a confusing way. I had already made the revision, I was just giving the reason from the MOS because it's a counterintuitive rule imo. The comma is supposed to be there, according to the MOS. The "other punctuation that replaces the comma" would be, for example, a period or semi-colon as part of the natural flow of the sentence, and that's supposed to be the only exception to the rule that the comma always follows the year in a full date. Like I said, I personally think it's a weird rule. It's comma overdose and doesn't scan naturally, but that's apparently the "correct" way. —BLZ · talk 06:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for misreading your comment. I am quite bad at commas so while I agree that it does seem rather odd, it is good to go by the MOS. Thank you for the correction! Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added a mention that it's the second spin-off following Kronk's New Groove.
  • Thank you for catching this. For some reason, I did not think about Kronk's New Groove as a spin-off, but you are correct, and it is note in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added some descriptive language to the summarization of the show's plot, which is supported by the sources and text in the article body, to provide more vivid cues for a reader who may be unfamiliar with the show or its source film. E.g., Kuzco is a "pampered and self-centered teenager", Yzma is "villainous", Kronk is "dim-witted" (a word I've borrowed from the article on Homer Simpson, as I believe it avoids any overly pejorative connotation or suggestions of intellectual disability), etc.
  • Thank you for these additions. Since I am very familiar with the series, I had some difficulty approaching this from an outsider's point of view, and I think these additions are very helpful with that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The phrase "his family" seemed somewhat ambiguous—Pacha's or Kuzco's? So I've come up with "the villager Pacha and his peasant family," which is slightly redundant but helps clarify whose family. There may be other, more graceful ways to execute this clarification.
  • I actually had a similar concern when writing that part so I think your revision improves it. I will try to think of other alternatives, but this seems like the better way of making the information very clear. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As Malina is the show's only major new character and the subject of criticism, I've introduced her as such in a separate sentence rather than listing her in passing with Pacha and fam.
  • Thank you for the edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've explained "temporarily filled" by adding the fact that John Goodman returned for the second season—worth signaling in the lead, given Goodman's level of fame (and actorly excellence).
  • Good idea. I have also changed this in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Malina was also left out of the cast roll-call, so I added a new sentence mentioning her actor plus guest appearances (Miley Cyrus being particularly worth name-dropping given her subsequent super-fame).
  • Whoops. Not sure how I missed that. And thank you for the addition of the guest stars in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've substituted "public high school" with "typical American-style high school". I know the MacPherson article explicitly labels Kuzco Academy a "public high school", but here's why I changed it:
  • First: "American-style" or "American" would normally be self-explanatory and unnecessary as a label for a "high school" within a US-produced show. But given the far-flung setting—a cartoonish fantasy version of pre-Colombian Peru (or thereabouts)—I think it's worth emphasizing that it does indeed reflect the modern, American conception of high school. If "public" is retained, "American-style" would still help emphasize the intended meaning to an international readership; while the UK uses "secondary school" instead of "high school" anyway, "public school" means the exact opposite thing there as it does in the US, and "public" may have other meanings to other non-American readers.
  • Regardless, I'd also argue for removing "public". The real-world distinction between "public" and "private" schools doesn't seem relevant or even applicable to a fantasy comedy cartoon for children. It's a detail that seems too realistic and specific to mention, perhaps even if it were an official part of in-universe "canon" (which is not clear). I don't believe MacPherson intended to draw this distinction, at least not to the extent that she was making an argument that it is definitely public and not private or otherwise, and probably meant something closer to "typical", i.e. the depiction of Kuzco Academy embodies all the stereotypical traits/tropes that would be expected of virtually any (fictional) American high school setting (albeit, of course, kid-friendly and wholesome—this isn't Riverdale). Besides, a "typical" American high school would tend to connote a public high school anyway as the overwhelming majority of students attend public schools.
  • That all makes sense to me. I have added American-style high school to the body of the article to be consistent with the lead, but feel free to remove that if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the sentence about the choice of a high school setting, chiefly because the phrase "was chosen in order to facilitate the exploration of" was clunky. I added a bit about how the setting provided for storylines about everyday challenges of adolescence, derived from this in the body: "Spreier noted the storylines dealt with 'the more common problems of adolescence'". This may fit more gracefully elsewhere in the lead—it comes from critical commentary, not creator statements of intention, and while I don't want to confuse the two I do think it is an important point for summary.
  • I think the current placement in the lead makes sense. It is currently part of the critical commentary, but it is not necessarily part of a critic's praise or critique of the show so I do not think it would fit with the lead's last paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "social ineptitude" – Are we sure this is the phrase and link we want to use? It redirects to social skills, which treats its subject in a quite serious context that discusses e.g. alcoholism, mental illness, the autism spectrum, etc. You later refer to his "lack of social etiquette", which seems closer to the mark imo although perhaps still vague. I haven't made a change here, but I wanted to raise the issue now and consider it further as I go.
  • I actually did not check the linked article so that was my fault. I agree that is far too serious for the show and Kuzco's characterization. I have put "lack of social etiquette" for now, but I will also think of different options. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Other thoughts so far
  • "on the iTunes Store" – I'm a little ambivalent here, but I'm leaning toward thinking it's OK to mention its release via the iTunes Store. I think it's OK to mention Disney+, which is owned and operated by Disney and will presumably carry Emperor's New School and most Disney intellectual property in perpetuity; it's the equivalent of a show being Netflix Original Programming. Ordinarily, though, I wouldn't think it's necessary to name a third-party marketplace—especially in the absence of a known arrangement of exclusivity, as there was with e.g. Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy retailing exclusively through Best Buy. However, it is interesting that Emperor's New School does not seem to be available through any other major platforms; it's "currently unavailable" on Google Play, completely absent from Amazon, etc. The show does not seem to have ever been released on DVD (or any other physical media). It also seems probable that Disney's distribution deal with iTunes will expire at some point, since it's widely known that the company is letting its existing distro deals with other streaming services lapse without renewal to achieve true exclusivity through Disney+. That fact actually makes me more inclined to note that the show was downloadable via iTunes, as it soon may be a historical fact: the only place the show had ever been made available before Disney+.
  • As you had already said above, I included the iTunes store by name in the article because it was the only way that the show could be viewed before Disney's new streaming service as it never got a physical release. It would be a shame if Disney pulled the show from the iTunes store, but people seem to consume television more through streaming now rather than purchasing episodes or seasons. The times have certainly changed and will certainly continue to change. I can understand your concern as I would not want it to come across as advertising. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Relevant to the above point: do you know of any source stating that the show was not released on DVD? I feel like it's worth mentioning because the digital release via iTunes is more significant in light of the absence of a DVD release. This is one of those devilish counterfactual facts that is sometimes hard to find stated outright, but I think if there's any reliable basis to mention this it would be worth doing.
  • That is a good point. For the longest time, I used because it would have entries on television shows without any physical releases and explicitly note that. Unfortunately, that site closed back in 2018, and while a lot of it is available through website archives, I could not find the specific page for this show. I have not been able to find a source about the absence of a DVD release, but as you said, it is more difficult to find a source on the lack of something. I will keep looking though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A May 2017 article in the animation publication Rotoscopers makes an interesting claim about the show: "Tangled: The Series is the first non-preschool program developed from a Disney feature since the 2006 series The Emperor's New School." I think this is noteworthy, given Disney's aggressive focus on video and TV spin-offs since the early 1990s, and helps mark New School's place within the wider historical timeline of Disney production/content strategy. (The Rotoscopers "About Us" page/masthead shows that, although they are a comparatively small operation, the publication has the type of professional structure of editorial oversight that would qualify them as a WP:RS, imo.) —BLZ · talk 01:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the resource. I have added it to the article. Thank you for updating the logo. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to let you know that although I have retired, I will still address your comments and complete this FAC since it has already attracted quite a bit of commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A famous ancient "sea scorpion" once thought to be a giant spider, Megarachne and the previously made FA Jaekelopterus are by far the most visited articles on Eurypterids. The article as it is has gone through a GA review and a peer review and to my knowledge includes all relevant information on the animal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gog the MildEdit

  • "suggest that it dwelled in fresh water and not in marine environments" Suggest "suggest" → 'indicates'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Megarachne was similar to other eurypterids within the Mycteropoidea, a rare group known primarily from South Africa and Scotland that had evolved a specialized method of feeding known as sweep-feeding in which they raked through the substrate of riverbeds in order to capture and eat smaller invertebrates" To my eye you are trying to get too much into this sentence. Consider breaking it.
Split this sentence into three smaller sentences. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life" Consider "throughout" → 'during'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Megarachne also preserves a large and circular second opisthosomal tergite" I am not sure about the use of "preserves"; do you mean 'possessed' or similar?
Yeah, changed to "possessed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "of which the function" → 'the function of which'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the subtrapezoid-shaped heads" Delete "the".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "accessioned" is an odd word. Is there a more accessible word or phrase which could be used?
Changed "accessioned to" to "stored at". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Caption: "Muséum d'Histoire naturelle" → 'Muséum d'histoire naturelle'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "a locality dated to" I am not sure that "locality" is the correct description. And would it not be easier to say 'which has been dated to' or similar?
Changed to "which has been dated to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "what possibly is" → 'what is possibly'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "located between the two eyes in the center of the head" → 'located in the center of the head between the two eyes'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hünicken's identification relied heavily on X-ray microtomography of the holotype and additional hidden structures–such as a sternum and labium, coxae and cheliceral fangs–were also extrapolated from the X-radiographs" Recommend replacing "and" with a semi colon. Or even a full stop.
Went with a full stop. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "far exceeding the goliath birdeater" Delete "far". I don't think that being 12% larger can be characterised as "far".
Done. Also removed the "only" before "around 30 centimetres" as 30 cm is pretty huge for a spider. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The discovery quickly became popular and various exhibits with reconstructions of Megarachne servinei, based on the detailed descriptions, reconstructions, plaster casts and illustrations made by Hünicken, and gigantic spiders were set up in museums around the world." Could you have a relook at this sentence? It seems a little crowded and/or confused to me.
Changed it around a bit, is it better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes.
  • "doubted by some arachnologists such as Shear et al. 1989, who stated" Comma after "arachnologists".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is stated that one reason for the specimen being originally identified as a spider was a "structure in front of the carapace [being] identified as spatulate chelicerae"; later it is stated that "discrepancies in the morphology of the fossil that could not be accommodated with an arachnid identity ... include ... spatulate chelicerae. I am confused.
Yes, that is very strange. Reading the source it appears that Hünicken did identify these spatulate chelicerae in the original description but that he noted then that they were unknown in any other spider. I've removed it from the list of features used to identify the fossil as a spider and noted that this was noted by Hünicken at the second mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "access only to the plaster casts" Is there a reason for the "the"? If not, delete it.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Moved this into a footnote. Not sure if its necessary to link to the compression-impression section of the fossil article since "compression fossil" is already linked, but I can if you consider it necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. That's fine.
  • "and counterpart housed in a private collection" 1. 'and a counterpart'; 2. this is not the appropriate place to cover where the counterpart is currently located.
Done, and removed "housed in a private collection".Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "now accessioned to the Museum of Paleontology at the National University of Cordoba" You have already said this. One of them needs to go.
Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and consisting of" Do you mean 'and also consisting of'?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "but was in fact a large eurypterid" Delete "in fact".
Removed "in fact" and restructured the surrounding text a bit so that it flows better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were concluded to be part of" → 'it was concluded that Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were part of'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "(different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life)" See above.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the sparse mucrones of Megarachne might be because of its age as Megarachne is significantly larger than Woodwardopterus" Comma after "age".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "showcases the relationship" Do you mean 'shows the relationship'?
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The environment in which the fossils of Megarachne have been recovered in was" 2 x "in"; delete the second.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "along the coastal areas" Why "coastal areas" if it was "a freshwater environment"?
Removed the "coastal areas" part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "would have allowed it to sweep-feed to rake through the soft sediment of the rivers" The expression "to sweep-feed to rake through" seems clumsy to the point that I am not sure if it is not a typo.
Yeah, I agree. Changed it to "... to sweep-feed, raking through ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "which covers a timespan from 306.9 to 298.9 million years ago" Delete "a timespan from".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "beginning to completely fuse with the northern continents" I am not sure that the word "completely” is necessary.
Probably not, removed "completely". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "but also more or less developed uniformly" I struggle to understand what this means. (Possibly delete "more or less"?)
Removed "more or less", the source says "The Late Carboniferous flora was described by Archangelsky (1986, 1990) as being of low diversity but uniformly developed across the Gondwanan continent ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Late Carboniferous climate of Gondwana was relatively cold and periglacial at points." Have you not just said this?
Oops, yes. Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A grand article. I enjoyed that. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It was a pleasure researching and writing this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This method involved raking through the substrate" Delete "method".
Done! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for those changes. All good, but with one minor follow up point above. I am supporting nonetheless. Really good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I endorse the comment, above, about the overall quality of the work, but I have a number of sourcing points to raise:

  • No spotchecks carried out, mainly because in many cases the given page ranges are too wide for this to be feasible. See individual comments, below.
  • Links:
  • Ref 1: the link is to the unpaginated online version, published 15 Feb 2005, not to the print version, published 22 March to which the page range applies. You should specify date rather than year, & remove the range. For greater precision you could use section numbers to specify which parts of the source you are citing.
This was one of those auto-generated refs, specified the date and removed the page range. Is it 100 % required to specify which parts are cited? That means I'll have to split up the citations and since this is the most-used source that requires some extra work (not trying to wiggle out of that, just making sure). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 4: Books published in 1955 didn't have ISBNs. The one which you give is for a later edition, but I'm not clear which. WorldCat does not list Størmer among the various authors of this book.
Removed ISBN. Størmer is among the authors (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Formatting
  • Ref 2: A page range of 19–99 is too wide for verification purposes, and should be made more specific for the particular information cited.
  • Ref 5: Page range given "44–8" should, presumably, be "44–48"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: Page ranges again not specific enough
  • Ref 8: The source is 294 pages long, but no page reference supplied.
Added page number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 9: Can you clarify publisher, separate from title, and add retrieval date?
Done (I think). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 10: Again, concern about width of page range.
Shortened page range to the pages from which information is actually cited (461 to 469). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: sources seem to meet the required FA quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton: I have adressed most of the issues above but I no longer have access to the sources used for ref 2 and 7 so I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
With regard to 1. above, splitting the refs is by far the best solution to aid verification, and I can't honestly think of an alternative. I realise it will be a lot of work, but I believe that with an article of this quality, it's worth doing.
Brianboulton I've split the citations of the source by the sections; that should be all the current points addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Re. 2, is it possible to find an alternative source for the information cited, if you can't specify the page in the current range?
I think WP:RX would be the way to go there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I found an alternate source and replaced source 2, just splitting the big source left to do now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Re. 7, I think we can let that go.

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A. ParrotEdit

This seems like a good article that may suffer from lack of reviews. I don't have a lot to add. It doesn't seem that much is known about this species, so I doubt there's anything missing from the article's coverage. I just have two prose points to add to Gog's:

  • "…the fossil had been misidentified as a large prehistoric spider." I think "was" works better here than "had been".
Sure sounds better, yeah. Changed to "was". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "…but as a freshwater predator these would likely not represent prey items for Megarachne." This is a misplaced modifier. I suggest "…but as a freshwater predator Megarachne would probably not have fed on them."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I wonder if Ichthyovenator has seen all the responses? A ping can't hurt. I'll refrain from reviewing because I did the GA review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh my god. I hadn't seen any of these, will get to look over them this weekend! Thanks for the ping! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone TaylorEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Considered the first true superstar in hockey history, Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was a huge name in the early 20th century. At one point making more money per match than any athlete in the world, he commanded a high price wherever he went, and having him around brought legitimacy to various leagues as they were establishing themselves. Outside of hockey he worked as an immigration official, and was involved in one of the most notorious cases in Canadian immigration history. An article I've been looking to bring to FA for years, I finally put the work into it recently and had it pass GA in September. All comments are welcome, and will work to address in a timely manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Images hosted on Commons should include a tag for status in Canada, not just US
  • File:Komogata_Maru_LAC_a034014_1914.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Working on finding a definitive answer for that. If I don't have something by the end of the week will remove it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I was unable to get a definitive answer, so have removed the image. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

(I took this, initially, to be a weather article! Ah, well...)

  • Spotchecks not carried out; however, I notice that the lead says born June 23, 1884, died 9 June 1979 which would be just before his 95th birthday. The Ottawa Citizen of June 11, 1979, states "just before his 94th birthday". Which is right?
As noted there is a discrepancy between his birthdate; most give the 1884 date, though some sources listed 1885. The Ottawa Citizen is apparently using the 1885 source.
  • Links to sources are all working.
  • Formats:
  • Notes: Is there any reason for using a different format to cite the information in "Notes"?
Not particularly, though as the "Notes" are more explanatory I felt it was logical to have a way to differentiate them from actual citations, but I'm certainly not opposed to alternatives
  • Notes g, h and i are unreferenced.
Fixed that.
  • Ref 59, Bowlby, pp. 2–30. Page range rather too wide - can it be broken down to cite more precisely the individual facts in the paragraph?
Clarified more relevant pages.
  • Quality/reliability. I don't see any issues here. Sources used seem appropriate to the subject, comprehensive, and meeting the FA quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the look through, even if it wasn't that weather-related. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Several quick comments

  • Early life: Was "in" meant to be placed inside "losing sudden-death overtime"?
  • I see $1500 in one section and $5,250 in the next. Pick one style (with comma, most likely) and stick with it consistently.
  • Vancouver Millionaires (1912–1922): I'm having trouble understanding this sentence: "He had five goals and one assist in the six games played, and the five games Vancouver played in the Stanley Cup Final against the Senators, recording one assist." Were the six games regular season games, or did they include the five Cup Final games?
  • Note b: "He concludes that the 1884 dates is likely the correct one." "dates" should be "date". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the comments. I've corrected everything here, and if you have anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

  • "which was not a lot to raise five children on", this comes across rather informal and sounds more like opinion than fact. Is there something to compare this to, like average wages at the time or similar?
Added a bit more of a qualifier.
  • "He was given his first pair of skates and taught" > was taught?
  • "to move to Toronto and play for the Toronto Marlboros", I think the first part could be dropped and simply go with "to play for the Toronto Marlboros".
  • Did Hewitt give an actual reason for banning Taylor? It seems unlikely that he could simply ban him for not switching teams, I'm assuming he found a way to justify his actions?
Tried to clarify it a bit. The story has been questioned recently as to how true it is (which the note there suggests), but I've tried to explain a bit of how it would have gone
  • "as the team won the Portage won the 1906 league", doesn't quite make sense.
  • "at the time few players skated this way, let alone score goals while doing so" > scored?
  • "Having moved out West in 1910", West isn't capitalised in previous uses. Should this one be any different? There's a similar usage further on, try to stay consistent throughout the article.
No reason to be capitalized, and all mentions have been fixed.
  • "ten goals and 8 assists", avoid using a mix of numerals and words in similar context.
  • "Vancouver finished second in the league and thus was unable to defend their Stanley Cup title", a singular or plural issue when dealing with team names. I would suggest it should be "defend its Stanley Cup..." when referring to the organisation itself.
  • "He started the season strong" > strongly, perhaps?
  • The Komagata Maru incident could do with more explanation as to why it was a controversial event. Was it because of the reaction when the ship returned home or becuase it was turned away by Canadian authorities? Right now, it sounds like a ship of immigrants illegally attempted to enter a country and were turned away, this doesn't really seem to justify the "terrible affair" quote.
I added a bit more detail, but at it was a quite simple issue: Canada didn't want non-Europeans to enter, and so refused to let anyone off the ship, forcing a standoff for several weeks. If you think it needs a bit more let me know, I'll see what I can do.

Here's what I picked out on a run through, hope this helps. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for going through it, have made the above changes. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support now. Kosack (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1982 Formula One World ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. I had entered this article for FA about a year ago, but received only one comment before it was closed. I am hoping for more activity this time around. I have made some changes, but unfortunately, a nomination at peer review did not yield any involvement, so there was no external input since the last FA nomination failed. I would be glad to read your comments and suggestions to hopefully bring this article to FA status soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Downtown_Detroit_Street_Circuit.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Have added the best source I could find to the image, I hope it is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats: a few issues:
  • Ref 12: spacing
  • Ref 38: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 58: archive date in inconsistent format. This recurs in 62, 66, 74, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 104, 107 and 110 (check for others)
  • Ref 115 lacks an archive date
  • Ref 116: clarify publisher: "Ask Steven" is I believe the name of the feature – the publisher is ESPN
  • Quality/reliability: Generall OK, but:
  • What makes F1 Fanatic a high quality reliable source? (refs 39, 41)
@Brianboulton: This has been discussed multiple times on the WikiProject, always with the consensus that, since the site is run by a professional journalist (who actually added more staff a while back), it is not treated as a blog, but as a reliable news source. Will get to the other points later, for now, thank you for going over the sources! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the sources appear to be of the required quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

@Zwerg Nase: Unfortunately this has fallen into the Older section without any prose review, again. I understand that sports articles usually struggle for reviews, and I don't particularly want to archive this again but I don't have much choice. Have you reached out to folks who have written or reviewed sports-related articles? --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe SSSB, Scjessey, Mclarenfan17, Corvus tristis, and DH85868993 can chip in, considering they are frequent editors on the F1 WikiProject. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I think MWright96 and Tvx1 have more expertise in prose review than me as they had experience with 2015 article. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Userkaf, founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th Century BC. Userkaf's reign heralded a period of ascendancy for the cult of Ra over that of the other Egyptian gods. Epochal, paradigmatic shifts in the conception of kingship that held sway during the previous Fourth Dynasty took place under Userkaf. These changes are perhaps best manifested in the small size of his pyramid as well as the parallel construction of the first Sun Temple. Egypt's military might and trade relations seemed to have flourished at the time.

This is the third nomination for this article, however the previous two failures were not up to the article itself: the first candidacy failed owing to me being unforeseeably absent from wikipedia just after posting it; the second because FAC rules do not allow for two nominations by the same editor at the same time (the other candidacy was that of the promoted Atlanersa). All comments received in these two candidacies were implemented. I am thus looking forward to your reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dank (Support)Edit

  • "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that as a descendant of pharaoh Djedefre marrying a woman from the main royal line—that of Khafre and Menkaure—Userkaf could have unified two rival factions within the royal family and ended possible dynastic struggles.": That would be a little clearer if it started off "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that Userkaf, ...".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Userkaf received from a funerary cult after his death": ?
Fixed it is a mix-up between two formulations "received a funerary cult" and "benefitted from". I chose "received a funerary" because as was pointed out by a reviewer he could hardly have benefitted from it being dead.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "urae": ?
Done I have wikilinked this to the relevant article.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Dank for your review and support !

Support Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

Eventually, when I am able to get around to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In contemporary culture
Egyptian Nobel Prize for Literature-winner Naguib Mahfouz - Nobel prize recipients are laureates, leave winner to sports fans.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Middle Kingdom
... by a block showing the king undertaking a ritual ... - The word undertaking sticks out for me here, perhaps performing would fit better.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
pyramid of Amenemhat I - Wikilink?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Old Kingdom
... as well such resources as fabrics ... - I believe this should read "... as well as such resources as fabrics ..."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Pyramid complex of Neferhetepes
The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid ... - You mean the main and cult pyramid of Userkaf, yes?
Yes. I replaced with "The core of the main and cult pyramids were built with the same technique, consisting of three".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... as compared to those of Userkaf's Fourth Dynasty forebears ... - Forebearers, not forebears.
Are you sure? on Google Dictionnary it says "forebears" designates the ancestors of predecessors of someone, which is what I mean here, whereas forebearers is unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Odd. Merriam-Webster has forebearer but Cambridge does not. Collins lists it as Americanese, so I'll assume I'm wrong here. It just seems very strange to me. You would call someone who gambles a gambler, someone who precedes a predecessor, someone who murders a murderer, but apparently you don't do that with someone who forebears (i.e. forebearer). I didn't know that. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok these subtelties of English are beyond my abilities. I could perhaps just write "predecessors" instead ?
... its roof made of gabled limestone beams ... - I tend to wikilink gabled because I'm never sure if the reader will know the meaning of the term.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex - Usually referred to as the "enclosure wall".
Done you are right!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Ancient Egyptians ... - ancient should not be capitalized as it's adjectival in use, and not part of a proper noun. There is more than one such instance of this.
Fixed everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... social-political tensions - We have a proper term for this, it's socio-political (or sociopolitical for AmEng).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... this being also the name of the queen who owned the pyramid next to Userkaf's - You mean believed to have owned, as you state later in the article, her name was not found in the satellite pyramid complex. I've read something relatively recent on early Fifth Dynasty filiation, which may be relevant, but I'm not sure if it had anything to say about the relationship between Userkaf and Sahure or not. Will check when given the chance. Personally, I'm given to the 'family tree', so to speak, developed by Verner and adopted by Bàrta.
Fixed yes you are right, the attribution of the pyramid is not beyond debate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all I'm able to do for now, will review the lede later. Excellent work, as ever. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thanks for your detailed reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Could you please indicate whether your review is finished or not, and if so if you support or oppose the nomination ? Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the lede as well now, but didn't have any comments to make about it. I do have a question though re ... a location that forced architects to put the associated mortuary temple in an unusual position, to the south of the pyramid. On the one hand, given the location of the pyramid inside Djoser's complex, is it not possible that he intentionally mimicked the north-south axial orientation of the Djoser's architects used? but on the other, why then not place it on the north side, as Djoser's north temple was? I haven't researched these two pyramids in depth, so maybe the answer here is obvious. Otherwise, support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I have no idea, I just wrote what the source says: apparently it was sufficiently important for Userkaf to place his pyramid where it is to force his architects to violate the normal layout of the mortuary temple. Perhaps what you say is true, that they wanted to mimick Djoser's but the source does not say so, thus I guess that an in-depth study of this question show that this is not the case. Or perhaps the source just did not think of this?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Would a wikilink to Ra be helpful for this part (His reign heralded the ascendancy of the cult of Ra)? Would it be helpful to wilink him in the first mention in the body of the article as well?
Done you are right this is important for general readers.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (In doing so he instituted a tradition followed), I believe there should be a comma between "so" and "he".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (were primarily concerned with both Ra's creator function and as his role as father of the king.), I do not think the "as" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the gender symbols next to the children's names in the infobox a common or regular practice for these types of articles? I would not think that they are necessary, but I would like to get your opinion about it.
This is now an established practice, such symbols are present in the following FA articles: Nyuserre Ini, Djedkare Isesi, Unas, Menkauhor Kaiu, Neferefre, Ramesses VI, and Neferirkare Kakai. The idea was to help the reader know at a glance the sons and daughters of a pharaoh. Because I thought without this, given that the names of these people are so different from ours it is really hard to know just from this if they were male or female.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink Fourth Dynasty in this sentence (The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.) as it is the first time the dynasty is mentioned in the body of the article.
Done and as per MOS, I have unlinked the second appearance of 4th Dynasty, which was wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The Egyptologist Miroslav Verner), I do not believe "The" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (and was possibly a full brother to his predecessor and the last king of the), I do not think "was" is needed as it is a continuation of the previous part of the sentence.
Done thanks you are right and this makes the text "lighter" and easier to reader.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Raddjedet (myth)" part of the infobox does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the article and does not have a citation. The same comment applies for this "Thamphthis (possibly known as Djedefptah)" as I only see this mentioned in the infobox without being referenced or cited elsewhere.
Footnote 3 talks about this a bit. The trouble with Thamphthis is that this is a complicated situation (whether or not he existed at all) the debate about which should best be placed in Shepseskaf's article and I would like to avoid going into this here as it is really tangential to Userkaf.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "state-god" is wikilinked in the body of the article, I think it should be wikilinked in the lead as well for consistency.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (According to Coppens, Janák, Lehner, Verner, Vymazalová, Wilkinson and Zemina, Nḫn here might actually refer instead to the town of Nekhen, also known as Hierakonpolis.), I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope my review is helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Of course your review is helpful! Thanks a lot for taing your time to do this for this article. I hope I have adressed all of your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. It was a very interesting and informative read and I look forward to reading more of your nominations in the future. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out.
  • Links: The checker tool does not highlight them, but I was unable to make the links to Verner 1994 and Verner 2000. Please check. No other link problems that I could see.
I don't understand, I clicked on Verner 2000 and all Verner & Zemina 1994 and they all worked both ways (text to ref and ref to source). Perhaps, the issue come from the fact that some of these citations are in a footnote, and the footnote being just above the ref list the screen does not appear to move when you click on it (e.g. for ref 45), yet the light blue highlight shows that it works properly.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats: A number of minor issues:
  • Ref 34: inappropriate mdash
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto 62, 64
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 100: requires pp. and ndash not hyphen in range.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 102: needs space between 2 and 90
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 134: Oddly formatted - is the ampersand in the right place? Where does "1969" come into it? Also, inappropriate mdash.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Edwards out of alphabetical sequence in list of sources.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Language should be stated for Helck
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lepsius – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nuzzolo: the text is in French. Also specify that "Dudley" refers to Dudley MA
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sethe: why are you referencing an uncited Wikipedia article?
Well I thought it nice that there is a Wikipedia article on this book. Should I remove the link from the reference ?
  • Verner 1980a – language?
It is actually in English, it is only the name of the journal which is German.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 1998 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • von Beckerath 1997 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Voẞ – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: The sources are comprehensive and scholarly and I believe meet the requirements of the FAC criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton Thank you for your detailed review! I have addressed everything except for your remark on Sethe, do you want me to remove the wikilink to his book?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


NOTE to the coordinator: On the image review, I wanted to indicate that it had been done for the 2nd FAC of Userkaf on the 5 October 2019, so very fresh. See here.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Brandenburg-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the article that got me started writing on German warships, all the way back in 2007 - the article has come a fair way since then, with multiple rewrites as I've acquired more sources - the most critical have been Nottelmann's Die Brandenburg-Klasse for the technical details and design history and Hildebrand et. al.'s Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe for the ships' service histories. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I looked at during its recent Milhist ACR. I have a few comments from re-reading it:

  • 9,800 long tons→9,800-long-ton
    • Fixed
  • no given name for Chief Constructor Dietrich?
    • Ah, I found him here
  • in parts long tons are used first, elsewhere tons, perhaps be consistent within the article?
    • Fixed
  • "by existing infrastructure" is this referring to dry docks, or the canal as well?
    • The canal didn't exist at that time - work had only begun the previous year - but increases in size required not just larger dry docks, but also construction facilities, deeper channels dredged (and sometimes harbor bottoms)
  • "As Dietrich continued to work on the plans" doesn't make sense to me, in that reducing the number of guns to three from four or six would reduce the weight of fire regardless, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm missing something implied?
    • See if what I added works
  • you could put the draft range in the infobox
    • Done
  • you could put the speed range in the infobox
    • I prefer to use rated speed in the box, not trials, since speed tests were frequently under unrealistic conditions
  • theortically
    • Good catch
  • rounding with the British and German 45 cm TTs, one is 17.7 in and one is 18 in
    • fixed
  • it isn't clear where the 5 June 1894 completion date for Weissenburg comes from. The article says 28 August 1894 or 10 October and its infobox says commissioned 14 October?
    • That date is from Conway's, but I'll opt to go with Hildebrand instead
  • a similar issue for Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm's completion date
    • Ditto
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Westerners
    • De-capped
  • link marines
    • Done
  • Marshal→Generalfeldmarschall and link
    • Done
  • for neutral link Neutral country
    • Good idea
  • "In April, the British and French fleets had launched"
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Sources were checked out at the recent A-class review, but I've taken another look.

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: I imagine the François book is in French?
    • Good catch
  • Quality/reliability: no issues

Subject to the one format query, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  • other officers, including Hans von Koester, August von Thomsen, Hans Sack, Wilhelm Büchsel, Carl Barandon, Conrad von Bodenhausen, Gustav Schmidt, and Curt von Maltzahn No ranks?
    • I didn't think it was worth bogging down the prose any more by including the ranks and translations to the long list of names.
  • replaced by C/01 semi-armor-piercing (SAP) shell Is semi-armor-piercing here an adjective?
    • Yes
  • on 16 February 1894 that killed forty-four men: twenty-five crew members, eighteen shipyard workers --> "on 16 February 1894 that killed 44 men: 25 crew members, 18 shipyard workers, and 1 from the commission"?
    • I generally prefer to spell out numbers
  • Chinese nationalists laid siege to the foreign embassies Pipe Chinese to the Qing dynasty.
    • I think it makes more sense to pipe it to "westerners in China"
  • Link marks.
    • Done
  • Pipe Bulgarian to the Kingdom of Bulgaria.
    • Done
  • Pipe Greek to the Kingdom of Greece.
    • Done
  • Dardanelles fortresses during the Dardanelles campaign --> "Dardanelles fortresses during the Dardanelles Campaign"
    • There was a bit of a stink earlier this year about whether campaign ought to be capitalized (actually, I started it by pointing out that some were capitalized and some weren't, but I didn't particularly care one way or the other), and after much yelling and gnashing of teeth discussion, it was decided that they should not be capitalized.
  • British and French fleets launched the Gallipoli campaign Same as above.
    • As above
  • meaning that it was a naval gun of built-up construction American build-up or is this official in American English?
    • It'd be built-up in either version

That's it I think - sorry for the delay I was really busy with family stuff. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, family stuff is more important! Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great to hear; looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review<