Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your vector.js page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations

Gevninge helmet fragment

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Gevninge helmet fragment, a gilded piece of metal that would fit in the palm of your hand, is seemingly ripped from the charred pages of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf. It was found in Gevninge, a coastal Danish village by Lejre, the contemporary royal capital and thought to be the site of the fabled mead hall Heorot. Beowulf’s trip to the hall takes him by such an outpost, where a “noble warrior”, brandishing a spear, rides down to meet him. If ever there were an artifact that one could imagine as singularly identifiable with a place and a person in Beowulf, the Gevninge helmet fragment is it.

Short and complete, this article covers all the relevant literature, much of which is in Danish. It has been expanded since its recognition as a good article last year, and is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • It's finally here! I'll review soon, and of course, if you have any issues with the Danish, let me know. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Eight centimeters wide and five tall" Give conversions? Also in the infobox.

Short comment from Brianboulton

As an uninformed reader of this topic, I think the specific notability of this artefact needs to be more clearly highlighted in the lead, preferably in the opening paragraph. Is it a question of age? Or because it's the only one of its kind? Or does it have particular historical significance? Or some other reason? Some early clarification would give me better guidance in reading the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

Nominator(s): Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the only rapid transit line on Staten Island. The railway first opened in 1860 to serve the residents of the island. In the 1880s two additional lines were built and the original line was extended to a new terminal at St. George. Since then the two additional branches closed, leaving the original line. Before I started editing the page–unbeknownst to me–it was completely copied out of a book by an abusive user. I did research in the New York Times archives, through books that I own, and through books and documents that could be viewed on Hathitrust or Google Books. I nominated the article to be a Good Article, and it passed. The review was not thorough enough, and statements were copyrighted. I fixed the issues and it was kept as a good article. Because the history section became so long, it got split off into a separate article, History of the Staten Island Railway. Since then I have worked on providing better sources, more accurate information, and additional information. I look forward to hearing everyone's comments in my first Featured Article nomination. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to FAC. Unfortunately at the moment I feel I have to oppose this nomination, as it has significant issues with referencing. I'm noticing quite a number of self-published sources in the reference list, including some Google Docs links that no longer exist. Referencing format is also generally quite inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the Google Docs links do work. This is work conducted by years of research by the foremost Staten Island Railway historian. I don't consider this to be a "SPS." What other SPSs are you referring to? I took time to remove some. Also, I don't know what inconsistencies you are referring to.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've just clicked on the link in FN12, and the page I arrive at states "Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist. Make sure that you have the correct URL and the file exists." Do you have any sources to support that these links meet the requirements outlined at WP:SPS? What about eg. "Gary Owen Land"? Nycsubway.org? As to formatting, similar sources should look similar - compare for example FNs 22 and 108, 102 and 114, 95 and 103, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I removed the article links for the SPSs and standardized the other sources. I will get back to you on Ed Bommer's work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The acknowledgement in this book, which is cited in the article, shows that Ed Bommer, who wrote the sources, is an expert in the field. While he has no published a book himself, his research has been used in books. I hope this is sufficient as an explanation. Once again, thank you for your willingness to comment on my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This nycsubway.org article seems to be a republication of a 1925 article from a railway journal. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I found the journal link and substituted it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the more important dinosaur articles: A large meat-eater with nose horn. It just went through a rigorous GA review, and I feel it is ready now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the comparison diagram, and also elaborating on data sources on the image description page
Agreed, and in progress. User:PaleoGeekSquared kindly offered to create a new one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg: what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg
Added date of death for the CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg. It is however unknown for Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg, or at least I couldn't find any info on the author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's Joseph M. Gleeson, who could also be linked in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
How couldn't I find that, thanks FunkMonk! Resolved now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Limusaurus_runner_(flipped).jpg needs a data source as does File:Aucasaurus_garridoi_by_Paleocolour.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Need help here: I thought indicating that it is the author's own work was sufficient? Where is the issue here exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I think what is meant is a citation for what the image is based on in the Commons description, or what it can be checked up against (such as a skeletal reconstruction). Like the citation I added to the restoration:[1] That said, those images are part of a transcluded template which is not part of this article itself, so I wonder if that issue should be part of this FAC, and not taken up elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, solved now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Usually an article citation is meant (rather than specimen numbers), personally I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm not the reviewer, so... FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I assumed this was OK since Rajasaurus restoration.jpg, which does just that, was not objected. But on a general note, I think we should be very careful with adding sources to life reconstructions of other artists when we cannot be sure that the drawing was indeed based on the source we want to cite. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and made the same point here[2], but it seems to be the only compromise found acceptable by FAC reviewers (when the issue is brought up). To quote one commentator in the linked discussion, which the others seem to have agreed with: "I'm far less worried about what the original artist did, or didn't, put in the image file, and more about ensuring that someone checking the image today has a reliable source to refer back to and verify the depiction against." FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I'm not a dinosaur guy, so please be patient with me for not knowing about one of the more important dinosaur articles. Face-smile.svg Anyway, here is the review.

Lead:

  • The first paragraph of the lead is a little long. Is this normal for dinosaur articles? If not, I think it would be better to split the text after the sentence beginning with, This specimen remains the most complete skeleton, into a new paragraph. Then the sentence can be rephrased like this: "The Garden Park specimen remains the most complete skeleton known from the genus, and only a handful of additional specimens have been described since."
OK, splitted.
  • estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) in length, at around 8.8 m (29 ft) in length - would it be better if you said "estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) long", and "at around 8.8 m (29 ft) long"?
OK, changed.
  • is now found to be unrelated to the latter - This should be either past tense ("was later found..."), or should be "known" if it's kept in present tense ("is now known..."). Usually, "found" is a verb that can apply to one-time event, whereas "known" is a verb that can apply at any time.
Yes, changed!
  • more likely served in display - This is confusing to me, I guess you meant "more likely served an aesthetic function" or "more likely was used solely for display".
Of course you are right, changed.

Description:

  • bauplan - This is not a well known word. To be more clear, you can say "body plan", or explain what a bauplan is.
Some of the weird words introduced from German. Use "body plan" now!
  • estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length by separate authors - This is passive voice that conflicts with the active voice at the beginning of the sentence. How about this: "that separate authors have estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length"
All right, changed.
  • it was estimated at 418 kilograms (922 lb), 524 kg (1,155 lb) and 670 kg (1,480 lb) - Do you mean "or" instead of "and"? After all, these are separate estimations.
Yes, changed.
  • estimated this specimen 7 m (23 ft) in length - missing a few words. I suggest using either "estimated this specimen to be 7 m (23 ft) in length" or "estimated this specimen's length to be 7 m (23 ft)". This also works if you use "at" instead of "to be".
New sentence I added two days ago … repaired!
  • The upwards projecting spinous processes were comparatively large, and, in the dorsal (back) vertebrae, were as tall as the vertebral centra were long. - What is the height?
The exact heights of the neural spines are not explicitly given in the main description of 1920, unfortunately. The relevance of this feature was only noticed in a much later review that is to general to include many measurements (which will change from vertebra to vertebra anyways).
  • In contrast to most more derived theropods, which showed only three digits on each manus, that of Ceratosaurus retained four digits. - (1) I think it should be "most more-derived" since "more" is an adverb that qualifies "derived", rather than being a measure of quantity. (2) "that of Ceratosaurus" is awkward diction compared to the rest of the sentence. 95% of readers will not mind if you say "Ceratosaurus retained four digits". or something like that. Technically this is incorrect sentence structure, and for that reason, you can say "those of Ceratosaurus...". (3) By the way, manus leads to a disambiguation page instead of to the correct link, Manus (anatomy). This appears earlier in the paragraph, though.
all fixed!
  • digits (digits II–IV) - the parentheses is awkward. How about this: "digits, numbered II–IV"?
perfect, changed!
  • Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, directly associated with any vertebrae; their original position on the body thus cannot be inferred from this specimen - This sentence is still pretty long even with the semicolon. A workaround is to use a period instead of a semicolon, or to rephrase like this: "Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not directly associated with any vertebrae, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, and so their original position on the body cannot be inferred from this specimen."
Took your second suggestion, thanks!

More later. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, epicgenius! I really try to remember all these language details, so that I won't repeat the same mistakes next time. And btw, reviews from non-experts are really essential to ensure comprehensibility. Please feel free to simply post sentences which you do not fully understand, I will try my best to make it clearer! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's nice to be of help. Here's the next batch of comments. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Skull:

  • The first paragraph is very long (even factoring in the picture). You should consider splitting it.
Did that!
  • The lacrimal bone does not only form - I suggest "not only forms" or "forms not only".
Yes, much better.
  • This also lead to a broadening of the base - did you mean "leads"?
Put everything in past tense now!
  • What's "rugose"?
I changed to "wrinkled".
  • would have contained blood vessels in life - "when alive"
Changed accordingly.
  • The first eight of these teeth were very long and robust, but from the ninth teeth onward they gradually decrease in size. - This would be "from the ninth tooth onward".
Sure, corrected.
  • which are however poorly preserved - this is an awkward structure as compared to the rest of the sentence. In fact, this seems like a ripe opportunity to use a semicolon. "In the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, each half of the dentary (the tooth-bearing bone of the mandible) was equipped with 15 teeth; however, they are poorly preserved."
Thanks, took your wording!

History of discovery (excluding subheader):

  • The paragraphs in this section are pretty long, specifically the first paragraph.
splitted all longer paragraphs.
  • There are also a lot of parenthetical side notes as well. While I don't object to these side notes, I find that reading them will interrupt the flow of the sentence. For instance, Found in articulation (bones still connected to each other), it was nearly complete, including the skull could be "Found in articulation, with the bones still connected to each other, it was nearly complete, including the skull" or something.
These are solely for explaining the meaning of technical terms. I removed the parentheses for all of these that are longer than three words throughout the article.
  • The timeline jumps back and forth, but I understand the paragraph structure. First paragraph is for the first specimen; second paragraph is for reconstruction; third paragraph is for newer finds; and so on. This has to do with the long paragraphs, though, so maybe these can be separate sections. (Or maybe not, depending on how other dinosaur FA's are structured.)
Added subheadings, it is really better this way, thanks. This also gives me space for another image, which I will add later.
  • The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911 and since was on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History. - This sentence needs punctuation and maybe a bit of rewording. "The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911, and since then, had been on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History."
Took your wording. But are you sure we need the comma in "then, had been on exhibit"?
I think the comma would make it flow better, but feel free to disagree. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A second, articulated specimen including the skull (MWC 1) was discovered by Thor Erikson, the son of paleontologist Lance Erikson, in 1976 near Fruita, Colorado - I think you should put "In 1976" at the beginning of the sentence. Otherwise, the end of the sentence seems like it has too much information.
Changed.
  • Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claim that the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype was in fact a juvenile individual, with the two larger species representing the adult state of a single species.[21] Oliver Rauhut, in 2003, and Matthew Carrano and Scott Sampson, in 2008, consider the anatomical differences cited by Madsen and Welles to support these additional species to represent ontogenetic (age related) or individual variation. - A lot of infighting there, I see. Anyway, two things. (1) I think "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000," should start a new sentence. (2) Also, if you are putting dates like this, then you should use the past tense, e.g. "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claimed that..." Or you can note that these were when the reports were written: "writing in 2000".
Thanks, all done.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much! Looking forward to the next bunch of comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem. This is a long article so it will take some time. Here are my comments for the next section: epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the years 1909 to 1913, German expeditions of the Berlin Museum für Naturkunde brought to light a diverse dinosaur fauna from the Tendaguru Formation in German East Africa, today Tanzania. - 3 things here. (1) "In the years 1909 to 1913" is redundant, and you can just say "From 1909 to 1913". (2) "brought to light" is a little too colloquial for a FA, and so I suggest something like "uncovered" or "popularized" (or a synonym), whichever is more accurate. (3) "German East Africa, today Tanzania" is also awkward. I would think there is some better way to say this, like "German East Africa, now known as Tanzania", "German East Africa, in what is now Tanzania", or something similar.
All changed accordingly.
  • and additionally ascribed several teeth to the genus which had originally been described by Janensch as - Two things. (1) "and additionally" is awkward, because "in addition" is how it's usually phrased. (2) At least in American English, "the genus which had" and "the genus that had" have different connotations, even though they technically mean similar things. "Which" implied that there is only one genus, and requires a comma before it, "the genus, which had". "That" implied that there are more than one genus, so it would be "the genus that had".
Ok, the "which" was referring to the teeth, not to the genus; I hope it is clear this way now.
It is. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Labrosaurus (?) stechowi - I noticed that the question mark is not in italics so it must mean something. What does it mean, though?
Simply that the author was unsure about this assignment. Added "possible species of Labrosaurus".
  • Janensch, however, did in fact not refer this species to Ceratosaurus but to Megalosaurus; this name therefore might be a simple copying error - This is another very convoluted wording, with several things to point out, so instead I will say what I interpreted this sentence as: "However, Janensch referred to this species as Ceratosaurus, not as Megalosaurus; therefore, this name might be a simple copying error".
Thanks, almost! Took your wording with few modifications.
  • not closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus - "neither ... nor" is not usually preceded by a negative, simply because you then have a double negative. So the sentence can be either "...not closely related to either Megalosaurus or Ceratosaurus", or "...closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus".
Oh right, thanks for pointing that out.
  • were exposed since due to progressing cliff erosion - also awkward. I actually thought this was a typo at first, but I think you can just flip two words: "were since exposed due to progressing cliff erosion".
All right, I will remember that.

I will review the other sections later. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you, looking forward to the remaining points! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I just realized this now, but you may want to place alternative text for each of the images in this entire article. This is what the alternative text in this article looks like now. It's helpful for readers who are vision-impaired. Anyway, more comments below: epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Classification:

  • This first paragraph is also very long. Same for the second paragraph of "Ecology and feeding" and the only paragraph of "Brain and senses".
  • Two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were, however, known in from modern-day birds, and, according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs. - This is a comma overload. My father once said that if you need to use that many commas in a sentence, it's either written awkwardly or should be two sentences (unless it's a list). You can cut down the commas: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds, and according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs." Or you can go further and make two sentences: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds. According to Marsh, these clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs."
  • Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and to the Deinodontoidea. - (1) Could you rephrase this: "referred the genus to the Deinodontidae"? Was the genus classified under the Deinodontidae? It seems to be grammatically correct, but this part of the sentence is confusing, which may explain why at first I thought it was incorrect grammar. (2) I think you should also be consistent with the sentence structure here, and remove "to" in "to the Deinodontoidea". I.e.: "Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and the Deinodontoidea."
  • Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria remained to be not widely accepted - In particular, the wording of "remained to be not widely accepted" is convoluted. Would it be better if you said something like this? "Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria were still not widely accepted..."
  • It was not before the establishment of cladistic analysis in the 1980s - would "not before" be "not until"?
  • Gauthier, in 1986, recognized the Coelophysoidea to be closely related to Ceratosaurus, although this clade falls outside of Ceratosauria in most recent analyses. In 1985, the newly discovered South American genus Abelisaurus was found to be closely related to Ceratosaurus - Should this be chronological? Honest question.
  • Oliver Rauhut, in 2004, proposes - if we're still going with past-tense for previous studies, it should be "proposed".

I will return with more comments. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

HIAG

Nominator(s): K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about a Waffen-SS lobby group in post-war Germany. The article passed GA about two years ago and has been stable since. I believe that the article meets FA requirements for scope, sources, etc. It addresses a key group among German World War II veterans' organisations. HIAG is notable for the legacy of its propaganda campaigns, with some off-shoots and publications possibly still existing today. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Kurt_Meyer_and_Paul_Hausser_at_a_HIAG_convention.jpg: the "historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just whatever is pictured, is historic - eg. the Tank Man photo. This needs a different tag and a better FUR
  • File:Der_Freiwillige_1959_cover.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Stein title doesn't match between Notes and Bibliography
  • Fn6: publication title should be italicized
  • Page for FN54? FN27? FN75?
  • Page formatting needs correcting on FN77, 81, 108, 109
  • Be consistent in whether publication titles are or are not abbreviated in footnotes, but in the full ref they should be written out
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Access dates and archive dates should have the same formatting
  • Newspaper articles should include full date and, where available, author name or agency
  • No citations to Wildermuth. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Alodia

Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Medieval Nubian kingdom of Alodia, which lasted from the sixth century to c. 1500. The article covers what is known about its history, geography, government and culture. LeGabrie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Is this your first FAC? You have some serious work to do on your notes & references. Fix as many as you can; ask if you don't know what to do.
  • Zarroug 1991, p. 7-8. P/PP error? p. 7-8.; Hyphen in pg. range;

Fixed.

  • O'Fahey & Spaulding, p. 19. Harv error: link from CITEREFO'FaheySpaulding doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Abu Manga 2009, p. 377. Harv error: link from CITEREFAbu_Manga2009 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • O'Fahey & Spaulding, p. 31. Harv error: link from CITEREFO'FaheySpaulding doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • MacMichael 1922, p. 183. Harv error: link from CITEREFMacMichael1922 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Zarroug 1991, p. 77-79. P/PP error? p. 77-79.; Hyphen in pg. range;

Fixed.

  • Welsby & Daniels, p. 334. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsbyDaniels doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Welsby 1991, p. 307. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsby1991 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Welsby 1991, p. 159. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsby1991 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Danys & Zielinska, p. 183. Harv error: link from CITEREFDanysZielinska doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 16. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 8. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 47. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed.

  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAbu-Manga2009. Sort error, expected: Abir1980; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?

Fixed.

  • Abir, Mordechai (1980). Sort error, expected: Abu-Manga2009;

Fixed.

  • Crawford, O. G. S. (1951). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

Fixed.

  • Danys, Katarzyna; Zielinska, Dobrochna (2017). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);

Fixed

  • Drzewiecki, Mariusz (2016). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Fixed.

  • Edwards, David (2001). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Gonzalez-Ruibal, Alfredo; Falquina, Alvaro (2017). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);

Fixed.

  • (in German) Grajetzki, Wolfram (2009). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Hasan, Yusuf Fadl (1967). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

'Fixed.

  • Hatke, G. (2013). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Fixed.

  • Jakobielski, Stefan (2013). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Fixed

  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMachMichael1922. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

Fixed.

  • Mohamed, Abdelrahman Ali; Bakhiet, Fawzi Hassan; Salih, Muawla Mohamed (2014). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Online source. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Obluski, Artur (2014). Sort error, expected:

?

  • O'FaheySpaulding1974; Missing Publisher; [I'm not sure this sort error is a valid one...]

Nope, it isn't. Publisher has just a funky name.

  • Obluski, Artur (2017). "Alwa". Sort error, expected: Obluski2014; Missing ISBN;

Fixed, I think?

  • Penn, A.E.D. (1934). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Power, Tim (2008). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Fixed.

  • Spaulding, Jay (1974). Sort error, expected: Shinnie1961; Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Shinnie, P. (1961). Excavations at Soba. Sudan Antiquities Service. Sort error, expected: Spaulding2007; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

Fixed.

  • Taha, A. Taha (2012). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • (in German) Török, Laszlo (1974). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Tsakos, Alexandros (2011). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;

Fixed.

  • Tsakos, Alexandros (2016). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Source is a blog. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Tsakos, Alexandros; Kleinitz, Cornelia (forthcoming). Check date values in: |date= (help) Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Year/Date;

Forthcoming book. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Vantini, Giovanni (1975). Missing ISBN;

Tried to find the ISBN, but didn't succeed. Maybe it doesn't even have one?

  • Welsby, Derek; Daniels, C.M. (1991). Soba. Archaeological Research at a Medieval Capital on the Blue Nile. The British Institute in Eastern Africa. ISBN 1872566022. Sort error, expected: Welsby1998;

Fixed.

  • Welsby, Derek (1998). Sort error, expected: Welsby2002;

Fixed.

  • Welsby, Derek (2002). Sort error, expected: WelsbyDaniels1991; Warning: Unexpected result – extra formatting in template? Missing ISBN;

Fixed.

@User:Lingzhi Yes, this is my first FA-nomination, though I had two GA-nominations around a month ago. I fixed most stuff, but I need some help with these archive links, identifiers and proper reference of online sources. LeGabrie (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I fixed two for you: "sort error, Abir goes before Abu-Manga" and "rm unexpected formatting". I think your sorting order is correct in one instance: Oblung does come before O'Fahey, and I need to tweak the script. There are other sort errors lower down the list though, and still several other errors. One error that may seem strange: Power, Tim (2008)." Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;".. this error is because you are using {{cite book}} when you should have used {{cite journal}} instead, so the script thinks it is a book that needs a publisher and an ISBN. Plus you're missing a lot of info: Power, Tim (2008). The Origin and Development of the Sudanese Ports (‘Aydhâb, Bâ/di‘, Sawâkin) in the early Islamic Period. Chroniques yéménites |volume=15 URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cy/1685 ; DOI : 10.4000/cy.1685 |pages=92-110. And so on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Fixed Power and put Welsby&Daniels in correct order. What errors are left which need to be fixed? LeGabrie (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You can, for example, go to worldcat and very often you'll find isbn, oclc or issn info. Other quite useful tools include IABot's Analyze a page for archiving links, User:Citation bot/use, and User talk:GregU/dashes.js for hyphens in your page ranges. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Added the OCLC numbers and archiving links. LeGabrie (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

() Did you add those archive links by hand? I'm sorry I didn't explain there's a little checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Check that & the bot will add whatever it can. I fixed another sort error and let a script fix your hyphens in pg range for you... Well you're missing some publishers. "The rise of Nobadia : social changes in Northern Nubia in late Antiquity" forex is jointly published by 3 or 4 organizations, but WorldCat just grabbed the first one, which is good enough for me: |location=Warsaw, Poland|publisher=University of Warsaw Faculty of Law and Administration, Chair of Roman Law and the Law of Antiquity. And so on, there are more erros or warnings. And if you want to know how I saw all these errors, read User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck carefully. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi Ok I've added all missing publishers. I would like to ask you if you could take care of all that script stuff. Could you perhaps make a new list with all the errors that still need to be fixed, so we can get this references stuff done? LeGabrie (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hah! Take heart, you're 98% done, Only a couple little ones. Also, there are times when you just can't find some info or it just doesn't exist, so of course nothing is ever 100% completely perfect.
  • Mohamed, Abdelrahman Ali; Bakhiet, Fawzi Hassan; Salih, Muawla Mohamed (2014). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Tsakos, Alexandros (2016). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Tsakos, Alexandros; Kleinitz, Cornelia (forthcoming). Check date values in: |date= (help) Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Year/Date;
  • Vantini, Giovanni (1975). Missing ISBN;
  •  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Lucky me, already thought you had discovered yet a ton more errors. Added the OCLC number for Vantini 1975. Tsakos 2016 and Mohamed et al 2016 are online sources not published in any book or journal, and therefore have no ISBN's, publishers etc. Tsakos&Kleinitz hasn't been published yet. How to handle those? LeGabrie (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Hello? LeGabrie (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely busy with my own FAC plus real-world responsibilities. However:
  • Mohamed, Abdelrahman Ali; Bakhiet, Fawzi Hassan (2014). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMohamedBakhiet2014.
  • Mohamed, Bakhiet & Salih 2014, Fig. 112. Harv error: link from CITEREFMohamedBakhietSalih2014 doesn't point to any citation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Fixed that. What do I do concerning Tsakos 2016 and Tsakos&Kleinitz forthcoming? LeGabrie (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Antiochus X Eusebes

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many ambiguous characters appeared during history, and I think that king Antiochus X is one of the most intriguing ones. All we have of him are few coins and short passages in the works of ancient historians; the earliest is the Jewish historian Josephus who lived a 150 years after Antiochus X. Yet, the works of modern historians, linguists and numismatists have greatly expanded our knowledge about this ruler who, at the age of 20 (max) was able to avenge his killed father, face four of his cousins who tried to destroy him, and still have energy and a good judgment to leave the petty dynastic feuds behind to stand against one of the most powerful empires of his time, Parthia. I think I have gathered 98% of all the academic works about this king and it took two months to complete this short but very comprehensive article (taking into account the very little we know about the king). I hope this will be a good and enjoyable read for everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Seven instances of p/pp error e.g., Bouché-Leclercq 1913, p. 641, 643, 416
  • Houghton 1987, p. 79. Harv error: link from CITEREFHoughton1987 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Dobiáš, Josef (1931). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDobiáš1931.
  • Dumitru, Adrian (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Goodman, Martin (2005) [2002]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Hoover, Oliver D. (2011). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Houghton, Arthur (1989). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Kelly, Douglas (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Llewellyn Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Olbrycht, Marek Jan (2009). "Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Scott, Roger (2017) [1989]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  •  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • All is fixed. As for the pagenums of chapters, I intentionally dont add them because I make sure to mention the page in the shortened citations. But since you mentioned it as a problem, I added pages numbers.
      • i didn't know we had a "green" template. that'll be handy in some circumstances. :-) As for page numbers, I very, very seriously doubt anyone would consider failing a FAC over it, but best practice would be to put the page number that the cite refers to in the sfn, and the entire page range of the article or chapter in the cite book/citejournal/whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, it is more professional to go your way tbh :) I had a prof who would deduct a full point (out of ten in an assignment) for not adding those numbers in the bibliography

Comments Support by Constantine

Late Seleucid history is a confusing mess, and I got a headache every time I tried to read about it (one can only keep track of so many people named Antiochus...). User:Attar-Aram syria has a real talent in writing articles about these guys that are both comprehensive and comprehensible, and this is another example of it. I've gone through it making various minor changes for style (feel free to revert if you disagree), but otherwise the article looks fine to me. All significant aspects of the reign, and scholarly debates, are covered, the tone is neutral, high-quality sources have been used throughout (WP:AGF on comprehensive coverage, but from the text it certainly looks that way), the article is well structured. The article reads well, but I recommend making a request at WP:GOCE to polish it further as befits a Featured Article. Other than that, the only missing thing I can see is the lack of WP:ALTTEXT, which should be rectified. Well done once again, I will be glad to support once these couple of things have been done. Constantine 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your words! I added the ALTTEXT and asked the guild for help. I noticed that you corrected the Greek writing of the king's name and I was wondering if you could do the same for the page Philip I Philadelphus (who should be in Greek Philip Epiphanes Philadelphus) and the page Seleucus VI Epiphanes (who sould be Seleucus Epiphanes Nikator). I have re-written Philip but wont nominate it because its too short (though I collected all the info there is about him). I will re-write Seleucus soon but also wont nominate as it will also be short (same reason as Philip's). I do not know Greek so my attempts at writing the names of kings mostly results in mistakes (ofcourse other Greek names throught the article (the names of the people of Laodice for example) are directly copied from the sources themselves so no worries there) Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The file Antioco X Eusebes Filopator, tetradracma.jpg is still missing alt text. Names int he articles you mentioned have been done. IMO, Philip is definitely of a size and quality as to be a viable FA candidate, but that is your choice, of course. Cheers, Constantine 10:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey Constantine. The file have an alt now. The copy edit is over as well. And now thatyou have said so, Im encouraged to nominate Philip after Antiochus. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look at the changes, looks good. Moving to support. Well done, once again :). Constantine 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Your opinion always matter to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not affecting my support vote, but could you perhaps add a map? At least a geographical one with the main cities etc. mentioned in the article? It would help the average reader a lot. Constantine 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes sure, I was thinking about creating a map showing the limits of Antiochus, Philip and Demetrius' domains, so it will depict the situation in 92 BC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great! Constantine 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The "The manner" section could be renamed "manner of death", it makes little sense in itself now.
  • On this note, single sentence sections are discouraged, so I wonder whether the year and manner sections can be merged into one. "Year and manner of death"? "Circumstances of death"?
The year is the topic of its own debate between shcolars. The manner is the same. Thats why I made them seperate. I eleminated the sub-section of the manner section (which I renamed). Now it doesnt look like a one sentence section.
Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "None of those assertions is based on evidence" Are.
  • The infobox image could need a caption?
  • "According to Josephus", "According to Appian", you could add that they were historians.
  • "prostitute in love with Antiochus who saved him" How?
  • "showed the king bearded" Why?
  • "expelled him from of the city." From of?
Typos corrected. I introduced the historians in the lede and added a caption for the image. As for how the prostitute saved him, Appian does not mention. We also dont know why they appeared bearded, its a observation but we have no clue about their internal motives. According to the source used (Lorber & Iossif 2009), it seems that a bearded Seleucid king meant that he wants to take revenge or defeat a usurper. So probably that was a sign that he wont take care of himself until he take his revenge.
  • "two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor." Shouldn't these words be in italics here?
Done
  • Any reason why the "Children" comes before the "End and succession" section? It kind of disrupts the flow; you read about Antiochus life, then suddenly about his children, and then back to his life again. Furthermore, you list the children last in Cleopatra Selene of Syria.
I always wondered why do I have to put the children in an article about a historic figure after the death section. You have your children while alive, they are part of your life not end. In this particular article however, the children came before the death because his son Antiochus XIII will be mentioned a lot in the end section considring the scholarly debate about the mixing between father and son. I saw that its better to introduce the children first before mentioning one of them in practically every paragraph; thus I could avoid introducing Antiochus XIII as the son of Antiochus X twice.
That's a good point with the name confusions. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "This date is hard to accept" To who?
to Hoover. The sentence starts with this: According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is hard to accept.
Ok, but the way it is written now, it reads like Hoover has proposed a date, and that others find it hard to accept: "Hoover proposed the year 89/88 BC for the end of Antiochus X's reign.[note 7][62] This date is hard to accept". I think it could be made clearer that he himself finds it hard to accept. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
In 2007, Hoover estimated the total die usage of Antiochus X and came up with 89 BC. But in 2011, he noted that the king had two series of coins, one when he first took the capital, and another when he took it a second time. Most the dies were used for the first period and a minority for the second period. Thats why Hoover himself raised the point then blamed Philip I's recoinage for the few dies left to us from Antiochus X second series. I made this clear by adding the years in which Hoover made his suggestions.
  • Perhaps the significance of the name Antiochus and whether it related to Antioch could be stated in this and other Antiochus articles? You give a nice explanation of names in the Cleopatra Selene article.
Done
  • Support - there wasn't much to nitpick to begin with, as it is also a pretty short article, but nice that an article this comprehensive can be written about what appears to be an obscure historical figure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Quebec Agreement

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Quebec Agreement, which merged the British (Tube Alloys) and Canadian (Montreal Laboratory) nuclear weapons projects with the American one (Manhattan Project). All of which are now Featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on Commons - is there any merit to the claim made there?
    None whatsover. It was taken by the Office for Emergency Management, a US government agency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Probably shortly after the conference. As a crown copyright photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957 it is in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    The current tags in use require publication, not simply creation - is anything more known about publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, are there other applicable tags given what is known about the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    We know when, where, why and how it was taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal Naval Division War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

After a bit of a delay, I'm back with another war memorial. This article is more substantial than most. The unique nature of the formation it commemorates seems to have generated considerable interest, with several very detailed accounts of its construction and history available independently of each other. The memorial itself has something of an unusual history—it took a long time and a lot of delicate negotiation to come to fruition, only to be dismantled at the start of the Second World War, after which it was reinstalled but in a different location. It wasn't finally reinstalled in its original location until the 21st century. Since then, it seems to have fallen into obscurity as the many colourful characters associated with it have faded into history.

I've been working on the article over the last few months, with help and advice from Another Believer and Ham II, and I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help with research and general advice, as well as to the folks at MilHist for a successful A-class review. As ever, all feedback will be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I reviewed this article at A class and affirm that it is of Featured Article quality. (It also received image a source reviews.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for your help, Dan. How attached are you to this edit? I don't like to revert wholesale but you removed a bit of detail. It's a significant part of the story that the RND began planning a memorial early, even tough it took a long time to come to fruition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • There's a lot in that edit, covering some important FAC prose points. Which month or year did they begin planning? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Not meaning any offence, Dan, but I'm not seeing any fundamental prose issues there and the edit introduced more problems than it solved. The source says "Immediately after the war"; it doesn't give a more precise date but the RND were ahead of the curve. A simple "after the war" doesn't cut it. Then you removed almost the entire sentence about the RND joining the navy's commemorations, which leaves the reader wondering why it's mentioned in the first place and leaves the mention of Trafalgar Square without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Do what you want with the bit about Trafalgar Square. If I understand correctly, you have one source saying "Immediately after the war", but you don't know when it happened and you have no other sources that talk about it. I don't think this is a case where people would object if you want to repeat "Immediately after the war", because that's all the information you have. I also don't think you would be faulted for saying "After the war", if in your judgment it's impossible to know what this particular writer meant by "immediately". It's harder, I think, to justify adding a lot of words to "Immediately after the war", at least at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Okay, I've restored the bit about Trafalgar Square; I'm open to distilling it if you feel it's too wordy but your version was too concise in my opinion. And I've gone with just "immediately"; my previous version was perhaps an abundance of caution on my part. Does that work for you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem

Source review

  • Authors Online, the publisher of Quinlan's British War Memorials, looks to me like a self-publishing house.
    • I'm pretty sure it is, but I'm confident the book is reliable. Quinlan cites his sources and his narratives line up neatly with other sources. He's also cited or recommended by by several other authors (his account of the RND memorial is specifically recommended by Ward-Jackson).
Fair enough. Given that endorsement, and the fact that the source has been checked out OK on at least two successful FACs, I see no reason to make an issue out of this. Factotem (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A random check of statements sourced to the Historic England source, the only one available to me online, did not reveal any concerns with accuracy of sourcing other than the fact that punctuation in the inscription of Rupert Brooke's The Dead is not consistent between article and sources. I would point out, though, that even the two sources available online (IWM and HE) are not consistent with each other.
  • Googling royal naval division war memorial revealed only a page on the website of the architects who handled the memorial's last move missing from the sources used. I don't think that materially affects the article, and I found nothing to suggest that the article isn't a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
    • I'd seen that (I think it's linked on the talk page) but decided not to use it; it's a nice glossy website but it doesn't contain a lot of information.

That Authors Online issue is a bit of a worry, but otherwise the sources check out OK. Factotem (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

image review

Source review

Following the recent discussions about spreading the load, I am essaying my first source review. (I also do source spot-checks from time to time, and will happily go on doing so if asked.) If anyone sees any failings in my source review, please let me know. All the printed sources are properly and consistently cited, and I see no reason to think that any fail the WP:RS standards. The online sources could hardly be more authoritative, the links all work, and the sources say what the article says they say. This seems to me to meet all the sourcing criteria laid down for our guidance, and am I happy to endorse it. I am not aware that doing a source review disqualifies one from supporting or opposing an article's promotion to FAC, and I venture to add my support here. The article seems to me a model of its kind. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. His military career spanned four decades and five wars, beginning with service in the British Indian Army in World War II, and he is one of the most widely acclaimed military commanders in independent India’s history. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Amor Prohibido

Nominator(s): – jona 22:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth and final studio album recorded by American singer Selena before she was shot and killed a year later. The album transitioned Tejano music from a moderately successful regional scene, into a powerhouse genre. Amor Prohibido is a culturally significant album that helped solidify Selena as a leading performer in the Latin music market. Still popular today, it sporadically makes appearances on Billboard's music charts, while its singles remain popular in Hispanic and Latino households. I decided to nominate Amor Prohibido for FA, after receiving positive encouragement from editors to do so, despite a rather lackluster peer review (it didn't generate any interest Confused.png) – jona 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I love Selena and this is probably my favorite album by her. I will try my best to help with this, and it is great to get a chance to work with you again on something. My comments are below:

  • Please look carefully at this sentence (After achieving a fan base EMI Latin was aiming for, company president Jose Behar wanted to take advantage with another studio release.). The opening dependent clause is describing Selena, but the structure connects it to Jose Behar. It should be revised. Also, the “take advantage” part is somewhat awkwardly placed into the sentence. I have a similar issue with a similiar sentence in the “Production and development” section.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (to help with the writing), I think you can just say (to help with writing) as “the” is not really needed.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The recording ended up being a more mature sound with), I think that “having” would be a better word choice than “being”.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about this part “its lyrics speak”. I have been told in the past to not personify lyrics with this particular verb.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (the highest-ranking album by a Hispanic performer), I am not sure about the link to “Women in Latin music”. It is a good article, but I interpreted “Hispanic performer” to mean out of all Hispanic singers, male and female. The link here just feels a tad force to me. I have the same issue with the link in the body of the article.
Fixed. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please link Selena on the first instance you mention her in the body of the article as the lead and the body of the article are treated separately.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (In a 2002 interview he said), add a comma between “interview” and “he”.
Fixed. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This part (Pérez found his behavior nothing out of the ordinary) reads a little awkwardly to me. Maybe (Pérez found that his behavior was nothing out of the ordinary) instead?
Fixed. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Her grandmother was forbidden to formulate a relationship with him), I would just say “form” instead of “formulate”.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Her grandmother was forbidden to formulate a relationship with him because of her social class and described it as "forbidden love”.) seems rather repetetive. You repeat that the relationship was forbidden twice in the same sentence. I would revise the sentence to avoid it.
Can you elaborate where it is written twice that the relationship was forbidden? – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have concerns with the placement of the “Fotos y Recuerdos” audio sample and the Chris Pérez image according to Wikipedia:SANDWICH.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The latter genre is used heavily throughout Amor Prohibido.), I would just say the genre instead of “The latter genre”. You provide so many genres in the previous sentence that I am not sure what you mean by this.
Latter (in this context) means the genre that was immediately just said prior to the opening of a new sentence. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The link for “Tejano” in the “Composition” section should be removed and put in this sentence (for which A.B. later told her it could be included in Selena's next Tejano recording) as it appears in an earlier section.
Done. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would link “mariachi”.
It is in the list of genres in composition. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about the structure of the “Reviews” subsection. I would suggest that you look to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections as a resource for structuring a reception section. The first two paragraphs appear like a rather random assortment of critics and their quotes, while the third paragraph jumps around a lot from listing its legacy/impacy to comparing it to a J-Lo album. There is not enough of a cohesive narrative here, and I would suggest looking over this again for improvement.
I tried my best at this one, took over an hour, but hopefully it flows better. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Would the first sentence of the third paragraph be more appropriate for the “Recognition” section as it more about the album’s legacy?
Not exactly, those reviews were mostly just statements about the album and not how it impacted anything in particular. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that you look at this part (Prior to peaking at number one, A.B.). I understand what you intended, but if you read the part literally, it means that A.B. peaked at number one.
Fixed. – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article as a whole. I have some concerns with the prose as there a few areas where it should be improved to meet the requirements for a featured article. I would also request that you look at the “Reviews” subsection and rewrite it to make a more cohesive narrative. This is what pops out for me during a first read of the article, and I would be more than happy to provide more comments and suggestions once you have addressed everything. I hope that this review helps, and you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! I have gone through your review and hope it now satisfies the FA criteria. Best – jona 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this! I learned a lot from reading through the article. Makes me want to go and listen to a lot of Selena music now lol. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate it. Best – jona 14:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Image review - the images generally look fine, but I can't find any indication that this[3] image should be CC licensed on its source page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have removed the image. Thanks for bringing it up – jona 14:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ooops, scratch that, I see now that the permission was obtained through OTRS, which makes whatever licence the website shows irrelevant. It should be ok to put it back. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Haha, I'll bring it back. Thanks – jona 14:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Simon Hatley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a man who shot an albatross that became famous in literary history. Whether he deserved it or not, I don't know, but it's why he is remembered.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I missed the peer review, so I have a few prose queries:

  • "...and assuring Hatley's literary fame." Hmm, I'm not so sure that many people remember, if they ever knew, that Coleridge's poem was based on the experiences of one Simon Hatley, so "fame" might be overdoing it. Perhaps "...assuring Hatley a place in literary history" or some such modified wording, would be more appropriate?
  • Early life: I'm still unsure about transatlantic comma usage, but to me, the comma after "Mary Herbert" looks superfluous.
  • Same section: "The residence was pulled down and rebuilt in 1704, after he had left home" – needs name, not pronoun
  • "...and third mate was a very junior officer position." A non sequitur where presently stated – this info correctly belongs to the previous sentence.
  • Career: "The first such voyage made by Hatley was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers." The clauses in this sentence seem oddly ordered. Surely the logical order is "The first such voyage made by Hatley, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers, was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides."
  • Voyage with Rogers: first mention of the Duke and the Duchess should explain that these were Rodgers' ships
  • Why the huge manpower? 183 and 151 respectively seems vastly more crew than necessary to sail these ships.
I've made it clearer that these were effectively warships, and so the more men to fight the better.
  • First captivity: "leaving real estate in Woodstock to his son Simon, though with a life estate to his widow." What is a "life estate"? I've heard of a "life interest", but the term "life estate" I've never encountered.
Linked and explained.
  • Shelvocke expedition: "The Speedwell completed her Atlantic passage." Seems like an unnecessary sentence.
  • "In spite of Hatley's attempt..." – what was he "attempting"? Some explanation needs to be added here. You say in the Literary influences section that Hatley shot the bird in the hopes of fairer winds – this information should be brought forward.
I am trying to incorporate Shelvocke's account into the article, though it is too large to blockquote. I'll make it clearer the reader is to look at the blockquote. After all, we have nothing to add to what he wrote.

A most intriguing story, giving body and context to something that I was vaguely aware of, from school probably, but had forgotten completely. You seem to be developing quite a taste for oddball articles – where next? Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done those things. In addition to your school days, you may remember Mr Hatley when he played a small part in the Woodes Rogers article, which I improved nine or so years ago and you reviewed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: My concerns adequately answered. Nine years! Days of wine and roses. Brianboulton (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review and my few (v. minor) points were dealt with then. A rereading confirms the excellence of this article, which I found highly informative as well as a good read. Certainly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 13:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review soon. First an image review, to get that out of the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Image review - the licences and sources are generally fine, but are we sure that this[4] image was published in the US, and not the UK? I'm thinking PD-old should be added as well. As for the second image, could it get a date in the caption? There should also be space between its title and the preceding text.
All done.-Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the references contain notes, aren't they better off moved to the notes section?
  • Perhaps the notes could be sourced.
Both the above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Cape Horn and Coleridge are overlinked.
In both cases, I felt the first link was in an unexpected place, that might leave the reader without a ready link when they get to the real discussion about the cape, and Coleridge.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. But maybe Coleridge's full name should be spelled out at first mention outside the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "According to Simon Hatley's sole biographer, Robert Fowke" Could we get a date? I assumed he was a contemporary, until I looked at the references.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and Hatley purchased a pair of silk hose." How are such specific details known? Perhaps state what sources are available about his life for modern historians?
The account books for the Rogers expedition exist and mention his purchase. What there are are two sets of published journals for each of the two voyages, (Rogers and Cooke for the first, Shelvocke and Betagh for the second, some records in Oxfordshire, the records from Lima, that Fowke reviewed, the records of the Rogers expedition, probably I'm missing a few things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "a Scottish sailor who had been left there" Link or spell out marooning?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Thus, for a time, Hatley, who would inspire Coleridge's albatross-shooting Ancient Mariner, Selkirk, probably the original for Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and Dampier, possibly the inspiration for Jonathan Swift's Lemuel Gulliver (of Gulliver's Travels), shared the same vessel." That is pretty fascinating!
I know. I mean, who would have thought?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "There, a native spotted the ship, and Hatley and his crew were captured" Is the date known?
Late May, Fowke says. Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What did Hatley do between 1713 and 1719? I guess it isn't known?
Other than selling his property, we don't know. He called himself a mariner on the deed, "Mariner, Gent."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Link albatross outside the lead also?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I've got everything. Thank you for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, interesting to read about the everyday lives of "pirates". FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yo ho ho.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ficus macrophylla

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to balance up all the animal FACs with some plants. This is an important article in the public interest. These giant figs are too difficult to grow in most gardens but critically important to wildlife in eastern Australia and should be planted more widely. And they can be weedy elsewhere. Let me know what's wrong and I can fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent about whether locations are included for books and how those are formatted, and if locations are included they should be more specific than country level
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Date for FN2?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Language for FN3?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Edition statements shouldn't be italicized
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Formatting on FN14 doesn't match other sources
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn32, 37: check author formatting
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • FN39 doesn't need website
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn41 has inconsistent date formats
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Further reading should use same page range truncation as the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

With the usual caveat about not being an expert, a few comments on prose:

  • as an epiphyte -> it would be good for the average reader to get a brief description of what this means
this is a tricky one - if I add meaning makes the sentence a little repetitive...need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its aggressive root system allows its use -> as a non-native speaker I would not use "allow" in this way. It seems unwise to put them in small gardens, but "allow" seems too strong. Feel free to ignore me :)
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • although they are more abundant from February to May.[6] Although --> repetition although
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • a native of most of the eastern coast -> of Australia
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moreton Bay fig trees are long lived -> is this long relative to us humans, trees in general or fig trees specifically?
it is fairly long compared with Acacia but not with many other trees. It is subjective so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • living for over 100 years. --> it sounds that there are a few that 150+ years old, would 150 here not be better than 100?
the source says 100 and is talking about natural trees not cultivated ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • but close enough so that their branches would eventually interlock -> and, did this happen? If so, any images available?
I drive around these areas alot - will try and take a photo. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • nineteenth century --> inconsistent with previous notation of 19th and 20th
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the 150 year-old "Tree of Knowledge", -> where is this?
Sydney - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Aoyama Tree -> where is this?
LA - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No map?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Writers mentioned are not presented consistently (nationality, occupation).
I am at a loss how to describe Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Other language Wikipedias call him Dutch, and his father's name Christiaan Daniel Persoon[5] seems Dutch (MWAK may be helpful here). "The Dutch/German biologist"? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
He was born in South Africa, so can be called South African. His father, though born in Pommern, was a vrijburger, (free citizen) of the Cape Colony. His name may have been "dutchified" or reflect the fact that the written language of coastal Lower Saxon areas at the time was much closer to Dutch than to High German.--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
umm..Cape Dutch..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
In any case, I think at least a general occupation should be listed. Biologist/taxonomist? FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
On thinking about it, I went with South African, as if he was born in Australia to English parents we'd call him Australian. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Any diseases?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although edible, the figs are unpalatable and dry." Perhaps more relevant under use than description?
good point - moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The type specimen has been lost but was possibly located in Florence." Did the describer know its provenance?
there is no record of that..other than "New Holland" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps add? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Based on DNA sequences" When?
date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "in the new subsection Malvantherae" Is 2008 new? The problem is maybe that it is written in present tense, maybe something like "was moved to the new subsection" would convey it better.
dispensed with "new" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basal could be linked and explained. Link evergreen tree?
tweaked, and linked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and radiated from 35 million years ago" Radiated from what? Or is "since" meant?
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Any reason why you use the scientific name in the caption under description, but in no other captions?
no/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "has a habit of dropping aerial roots from its branches" Is that what's shown in the adjacent photo? Could be mentioned in the caption then.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Moreton Bay fig is a native of most of the eastern coast," Add "of Australia"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "estimated 50 metres tall" Convert?
  • Does it use any specific trees as hosts?
nope, anything it can get its roots on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "that a F. macrophylla trees" Singular or plural?
oops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "impressive specimen trees" Impressive tree specimens? "specimen tree" sounds like a specific term...
it means a feature tree in (say) a landscape/field/garden. Not sure how specific the term is. It's used alot in horticulture books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't state it specifically, but is there a "tallest specimen" in Australia?
someone had one in the article but I am suspicious it was a hoax as I could find zero collateral info online, which is unusual. It is more of a spreading lateral tree than a tall one. Will have a quick look... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is only one image showing a full tree, but many that just show the stem and branches from below. Perhaps the close up of the Balboa Park tree could be replaced with this full view of the same tree?[6] Or any tree, for that matter.
good point. switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its aggressive root system renders it unsuitable for all but the largest private gardens." Only called aggressive in intro.
In the article body I have used " are highly invasive and can damage piping and disrupt footpaths and roadways" - i.e. these figs are something you never plant near these underground structures.....or you won't have them for long...I assumed "aggressive" and "highly invasive" were synonymous in this context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - that's all I had to say, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

  • The Malvantherae appear to be basal (an early offshoot) to the group. I feel like there should be a citation for this one.
The segment is all cited by FN 12 - rather than multiple tags, I generally do something like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A notable tree in the Sydney suburb of Randwick, the 150-year-old "Tree of Knowledge", was controversially cut down in 2016 to make way for the Light Rail. Which light rail? I'm assuming it's one of the lines that make up light rail in Sydney, but if possible, a wikilink for the specific line would be nice (this is the railfan in me speaking).
It is the CBD and South East Light Rail...now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Often times when portal links are present, a geography-based portal link should be among them. How about the general one for Australia?
sure, why not? done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything else looks great and I can support after these minor things are resolved. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Epic Shakespearean announcer's voice:] BEHOLD! Cleopatra, seventh of her name! The pharaoh of Egypt; descendant of Alexander the Great's companion Ptolemy I Soter; the pious goddess who loves her father; the Living Isis (no, not that ISIS, you pleb); the Queen of Kings and mother of Julius Caesar's child Caesarion and three little rugrats belonging to Mark Antony. This article has recently succeeded in passing the Good Article nomination hurdle. Since the time that I have rewritten it and created the sub-articles "Early life of Cleopatra" and "Reign of Cleopatra" (along with a total rewrite of "Death of Cleopatra", a current GA nominee), the article has seen major improvements thanks to lively talk page discussion, debate, and consensus-building. The prose body of the article is a bit large, but I am still in the process of slightly reducing its overall size, which is roughly the same as my Featured Article on Octavian/Augustus. Given Cleopatra's enormous importance to history and impact on modern popular culture, the queen perhaps deserves a larger article than most; don't you agree? You better. Or it's off to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus with you! Where you will have plenty of time to complain about the article's length while exiled alongside the likes of Arsinoe IV. I eagerly await the image review, because I think I have finally nailed the appropriate licensing thing for each image. If not I'm happy to make any quick, necessary fixes. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

First off, I like the idea of listing the online sources separately. I've not noticed this done before, but it makes reviewing the sources a whole lot easier than sifting through the list of refs for the web-based sourcing.

  • behindthename.com looks like a hobbyist site. What makes it reliable?
  • Page ranges in refs use hyphens. They need to be endashes per MOS:DASH
  • Inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I understand that it's preferred at FAC for all ISBN refs to be consistently formatted.
  • Refs #4, #147, #398 p. -> pp.
  • Ref #400 pp. -> p.
  • The ISBN for Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt refers to the Blackwell (Oxford) edition (219 pages), but the GBooks link you provide takes us to the John Wiley & Sons (New York) edition (240 pages).
  • The ISBN for Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend refers to the 454-page US edition published by Harper (NY), but the GBooks link you provide refers to the 300-page(!?) edition published by Hodder & Staughton in 2009.
  • For Grant's Cleopatra, did you actually use the 1992 B&N edition, or did you use the original, online version as linked in the list of printed resources? If the latter, the publisher and ISBN ref you provide are incorrect - the correct info can be found on the Worldcat listing here. I'm curious, though. B&N appears to be a self-publishing outfit, but I don't believe, based on the year or what little I've found out about Michael Grant, that this can possibly be self-published.
  • The Gbooks link you provide for Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire does not have the same ISBN as the one you provide.
  • An OCLC ref for Lippold's Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums can be found at Worldcat.
  • The Gbooks link you provide for Roller's Cleopatra: a biography has a different ISBN and publication date than those listed.
  • An OCLC ref for Sartain's On the Antique Painting in Encaustic of Cleopatra: Discovered in 1818 can be found at Worldcat.
  • The ISBN you provide for Schiff's Cleopatra: A Life appears to be for the 2010 edition published by Little, Brown and Co (NY). The 2011 Random House edition has the ISBN 9780753539569.
  • There is a doi ref for Skeat's The Last Days of Cleopatra: A Chronological Problem, according to the link to the JSTOR record you provided, which could be added.
  • In the citation for Walker's Cleopatra in Pompeii, you can add the parameter "|jstor=40311128" to add the jstor ref for this publication.

This is just a partial source review for now. I may complete a few more checks in due course. Factotem (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: thanks for the source review! I'll try my best to address these issues by the end of the day. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional

  • Another inconsistency between editions linked to, this time for Royster's Becoming Cleopatra: The Shifting Image of an Icon. The Gbook you link to is for an edition published in 2016 by Springer, which has a different ISBN. This appears to be the correct GBook link for the edition cited. Factotem (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Factotem: I see what's going on here now. It's actually not my fault (or only partially my fault for trusting Google Books to do things correctly). It's the fault of Google Books. If you actually follow the "preview" link in the case of not only Royster but also Hölbl and Roller (the latter of which I own a personal, physical copy), it brings you to the correct edition that I cited. You can clearly see the correct ISBN numbers there in the previewed pages of the books. I'm not sure how to resolve this; you tell me! Because I would rather retain the GB links than get rid of them simply because the folks over at Google Books were too lazy, sleep-deprived, or drunk to care about doing things properly (lol). Should I just provide direct URLs to the previewed pages instead? Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You can usually locate the relevant edition in Gbooks by googling for it. For instance, this search for Roller's Cleopatra: A Biography returns the book as the first result, with a link for More editions. It's then a case of searching through those more editions for the correct GBook listing, in this case the 4th result gets you to the Gbook entry with the correct ISBN ref you provided. I can see that Gbooks does seem to list one edition, but links its preview to a different edition. I would argue that if you are going to provide a Gbook link (and you are not obliged to for FAC), then it should correspond to the edition you actually used. Having said that, I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. I've posted a question on the FAC talk page to seek clarification. Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Cool. In the meantime I have removed the URLs for Royster, Hölbl and Roller, because it is better to have no URL than one to a different edition of the book. I might add appropriate URLs at a later date, but I don't think it's important or necessary, as you suggest. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if you've been keeping up with the discussion on the FAC talk page, but the consensus seems to be that we don't need to be so strict in matching the exact GBook edition to the one used to source the article. The caveats are that the different editions must contain the same number of pages, and the GBook must have a preview. Fundamentally, if the preview can be used to verify the sourcing, it's useful if you want to link it. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I might add the URLs back to the reference section. We'll see. I don't think it's a pressing issue. I'm a bit busy reading and citing Grant (1972) at the moment. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I am happy to announce that I have removed Behindthename.com entirely from the article and replaced it with scholarly sources instead. That Harvard University website for the Center for Hellenic Studies was a real lifesaver here.
    • User:Graham Beards was kind enough to remove hyphens and add dashes to the inline citations and refs! You can check and see if there are any remaining hyphens, but they seem to have all been removed.
    • User:Ssven2 recently changed the refs in the "Further reading" section from "citation" to "cite book" instead. Should I do the same for the main "References" section?
Don't know what the difference between the two is, and the results look fine to me. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the instances where "pp" needed to be "p" and vice versa.
    • I have removed the URL for Fletcher (2008), since I cannot find a suitable online alternative and I used my own physical copy of the book published by Harper. It's better to have no URL than a false one leading to a different edition of the book.
    • I have changed Grant's ref from the 1992 B&N version to the 1972 version by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, which is most certainly not a self-published source.
    • I have added OCLC numbers for Lippold and Sartain as requested.
    • I have changed the ISBN for Schiff (2011).
    • I have added a DOI number for Skeat (1953) and a JSTOR link for Walker (2008).
    • I am still in the process of converting all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead. Give me a little more time on that. I should be able to finish that very soon, most likely before the end of the day. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to announce that I have changed all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead! It didn't take nearly as long as I thought it would, thanks to the handy navigation tool Worldcat. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: as far as citations and sources are concerned, is everything in good standing now? Or do you have further concerns that need to be addressed? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You've addressed all the issues I've identified above. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Glad to hear it. Thank you. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding criteria 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"), I'm no egyptologist and know nothing of the historography, so I googled Cleopatra and found Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt by Joyce Tyldesley. To my uneducated eyes this seems to be a high quality source but does not appear to have been used. Is there any reason for this? Other than that, I did not find anything to suggest that any important source has been neglected. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a good question! To be honest, I wouldn't put Tyldesley's Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt, published by "Profile Books", in the same league as the academic heavyweights cited in the article, those which were published strictly by university presses, museum presses, or scholarly journals. That includes T. C. Skeat's "The Last Days of Cleopatra: a Chronological Problem" (1953) published by The Journal of Roman Studies, Diana Kleiner's Cleopatra and Rome (2005) published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006) published by the University of Oklahoma Press, Susan Walker's "Cleopatra in Pompeii?" (2008) published by the Papers of the British School at Rome, Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography (2010) published by the Oxford University Press, and Margaret M. Miles' Cleopatra: a sphinx revisited (2011) published by the University of California Press.
    • I would instead compare Tyldesley's book to those of Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972) published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Jaynie Anderson's Tiepolo's Cleopatra (2003) published by Macmillan, Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) published by the Greenwood Press, Dodson and Hilton's The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (2004), published by Thames & Hudson, and Joann Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great (2008) published by Harper. These are legitimate book publishing companies that produce WP:Reliable sources, but they perhaps don't have the same amount of academic rigor as the first group that I listed.
    • Then we have book publishing companies that are recognized as purely academic ones, like Routledge, which published Whitehorne's Cleopatras (1994) and Günther Hölbl's History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001), the Cambridge "Polity Press" that published Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic (2007), Oxford's Blackwell that published Sally Ann-Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt (2008), and Bloomsbury Academic that published Knippschild and Morcillo's Seduction and Power: Antiquity in the Visual and Performing Arts (2013). Again, these are to be trusted a bit more than the regular book publishing companies.
    • I wouldn't mind perusing a copy of Tyldesley's book if I had access to it, but I think the currently-cited 35 print sources and 9 online sources sufficiently demonstrate that academic consensus on each issue was investigated and a representative survey of relevant literature was at least attempted. It should be emphasized that having a decent amount of quality sources is better than having as many sources as possible. At this point adding Tyldesley's book to the pile almost seems like overkill, but I will entertain the idea if my university library has a physical copy of it. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with that answer. The Gbooks listing has a preview (at least from here) that might save you a trip to the library. I did scan a few pages and compared what they said with how you covered it in the article. It was only a very cursory review, but I didn't get any sense that you had missed anything by not using Tyldesley's work. So far so good, but I intend at some stage to check a few random refs in the article against the sources. Won't be doing that in the immediate future, though. Factotem (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, I would highly suggest obtaining a copy of Roller's book, which more or less serves as a backbone for much of the article, certainly the biographical part. If not that, then I would suggest looking into Fletcher or Burstein's respective works, which are also heavily cited in the article. They really helped to reinforce Roller's assertions, and I made a conscious effort, as you may see in the footnotes, to blend the ideas of various sources where they may disagree on certain points. For instance, the most glaring disagreement among these sources usually involves dates, even the months in which certain events took place. Please be wary of that, and also cognizant of the fact that the sub-articles also explain these things in greater detail (naturally). Pericles of AthensTalk 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've recently added Michel Chauveau's Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra (2000) to the article. I'll probably cite it a few more times as well. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That checks out OK. I just noticed though that the ISBN formatting is a mix of hyphened and hyphenless. I think it's preferred to be consistent here too. I don't understand the ISBN hyphen rules myself, and tend to just remove all hyphens in articles I edit. The magic link still functions, and someone usually comes along and hyphenates them anyway. I would also ask, is this article really ready for FAC? There seems to be a significant number of edits being made every day since it was submitted. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: Actually, the prose body of the article has been basically static since the FA nomination. I've been adding lots of footnotes and citations lately, but that doesn't change the core nature of the article. It just reinforces the scholarly citations that were already in place. The only other editing I've done lately was tinkering with the lead, to make it a bit shorter and to include a salient point about Cleopatra's multilingualism that is explained more fully in the body of the article. As for ISBNs, I have removed all hyphens as you have suggested, in order to be consistent. If someone wants to add them back they are welcome to do so, so long as they change every one of them and not just a sampling. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to let you know that I've created an article for Duane W. Roller, as a supplement just in case anyone is curious about his credentials. He is perhaps cited more than any one author in this article, so it would be a crime not to make an article for him. If someone complains about not having a GB link to his book I might add it back, but I don't feel the need to do so, especially if it's a slightly different edition than the physical print copy in my possession that I used. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Small side note: is Wikipedia dead? I appreciate all your commentary, Factotem, but you're the only one doing so. What happened to this website? At this point I'd be excited just to get someone opposing my article, let alone supporting it. At least having someone opposing it would be an indication that somebody has read it and gives a damn. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: I would like to think that Wikipedia is not dead. I have been paying some attention to this article as it has progressed in status. I would add feedback, but I know nothing at all about the "Featured Article" process and I am not sure if I fully understand the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing to say that you can't review simply on criteria 1a (well-written), which seems to be the basis of many reviews I've seen. Whether we who are not professional writers can validly assess whether an article is of a professional standard is perhaps a matter of debate, but every one of us can have a valid opinion on whether it is engaging, not to mention the ease with which a fresh pair of eyes can root out infelicitous prose that the main editor is too involved to spot. Factotem (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I am far from being an expert on the period, but I think I am well versed about the Hellenistic era, the late Roman Republic, and the people and events treated here. As such, I found the article overall well written, well researched, and quite comprehensive. There was nothing major that stood out immediately as missing, and in the sources section I see many of the same works that I know or have myself read as the chief scholarly sources about the period and subject. However, as the bibliography about the period is huge, and scholarly debate about Cleopatra's role in it is ongoing, I can only WP:AGF on the coverage. A few relatively minor observations on content and style follow:

  • One thing I would like to see is whether there is any information about her domestic governance; in the article, as in the general historiography, she is mostly treated via her interactions with the Roman world, but how did she govern Egypt? I assume the ancient authors, or at least the papyri, have some indications about this. Also, what were her relations to the native Egyptians? Given that the native population was politically marginalized, and that the main domestic political audience were the Greco-Macedonian colonists, there may not be much there to set her apart from her predecessors, but it would be worth to at least state so explicitly, so far as possible.
  • "Ptolemaic pharaohs spoke Greek and governed Egypt as Hellenistic-Greek monarchs from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, refusing to learn the native Egyptian language" This sentence is over-long and mixes two different things: one, the status of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, and two, that Alexandria was a largely Greek city established by Alexander the Great. I strongly recommend separating these two facts in distinct sentences, per my reverted edit.
  • "with the legal status of friendly and allied monarchs to Rome" to be more techniclaly correct, I would suggest "with the legal status of a 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani), in effect a client king of Rome" or something like that, as that is a specific technical term that the Romans used with a number of client rulers.
  • "Domitius Ahenobarbus, wary of Octavian's propaganda, attempted to persuade Antony to have Cleopatra excluded from the campaign against Octavian." Does this mean that Ahenobarbus had been influenced by Octavian's propaganda, or that he judged Cleopatra's presence as sort of confirming Octavian's slanders? In view of his defection, his motivation is important
  • "Cicero's writings provide an unflattering portrait of Cleopatra, who knew him personally." I would suggest "The writings of Cicero, who knew her personally, provide..."
  • "Hellenistic-Greek", "Ptolemaic-Egyptian", "Macedonian-Greek", etc. I've come across such compounds a few times in the article and I think they are, if not incorrect, then certainly unusual. AFAIK, the common term is without the hyphens. Compounds like "largely-Greek" are definitely wrong and discouraged by MOS:HYPHEN; also "the Classical-style of the painting": either a "Classical-style painting" (like "Renaissance-period painter" that follows), or "the Classical style of the painting".
  • Somewhere in the "Depictions in ancient art" section a link to damnatio memoriae would be fitting
  • "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign include those from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC" somewhat awkward, perhaps "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign includes coins/specimens e from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC"
  • In the "Depictions in ancient art" section there are, IMO, too many images, which break up the continuity of the article to the detriment of reader experience. Four views of the Vatican Cleopatra are definitely too much in any article that is not specifically about that bust. Sincere kudos for finding and uploading so many images of her, but they should accompany the article and illustrate the narrative, not dominate it. We can leave the rest to the Commons category, or articles dedicated to her artistic representations or even individual works of art.
  • When linking to articles in other-language Wikipedias, I strongly suggest using the {{ill}} template rather than including them as external links. This leaves the WP:REDLINK locally for enwiki and makes clear that it is an article in a foreign language
  • "dating back to [[English Renaissance theatre|the Renaissance]]" the Renaissance as a whole is a European phenomenon; if you link specifically to English theatre, make it explicit.
  • "[[Macedonians (Greeks)|Macedonian-Greek]] dynasty of the Ptolemies" I recommend altering the link to Ancient Macedonians, the Macedonians (Greeks) article refers rather to the modern regional identity. Also, as a general rule, since the same term comes further along later ("the Macedonian-Greek founder") with a different link, I caution against linking the same term to two different articles. It is potentially confusing to the uninitiated reader.
  • "whose relatives are described as "honey skinned"" by whom?
  • " Ancient sources also describe Cleopatra as having had a stronger personality" is that only Plutarch, or also found in other authors?
  • A small addition that Egypt was annexed as Augustus' personal domain rather than as a regular province might be useful, as well as Cornelius Gallus' appointment as the first praefectus augustalis, to give a connection to the new political regime of Egypt for any interested reader.

I will go over the article a couple of time over the next few days, to better digest its content and make sure I have not missed something. Otherwise, it is a splendid piece of work and PericlesofAthens deserves great praise for it. Eglerio! Constantine 11:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

    • @Cplakidas: thanks for the review! I am happy to announce that I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions barring the first, where you suggested that I add information about Cleopatra's role as a monarch and administrator (and builder, lawgiver, chief religious authority, etc.). That information can already be found in the sub/split article, Reign of Cleopatra#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra. I placed this link and suggestion in the "See also" section. Is that not enough? The main article is about the person Cleopatra, not about the Ptolemaic kingdom, although the "Reign" article seemed like a good place to elucidate this and provide intricate details about her role within her kingdom. If you want me to add a new section about it in this, the main article, I'd like to see the suggestions of others first, because User:Factotem has already raised concerns about the rather large size of the prose body of this article. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I reverted your edit about the founding of Alexandria (and Greek as the official language of the Ptolemies) due to the fact that you split the sentence in half without connecting the previous statement to the train of inline citations and source information provided in the lengthy footnote that accompanied it. I have since resolved this problem and added yet another footnote to parse this information correctly. I hope you appreciate the enormous headache involved in this, because I had to go back and reread numerous passages throughout four different books to make sure each statement is aligned with the correct pagination of each source. This task was not as simple as just splitting a sentence and being done with it.
      • I have reworded the part about the 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani); thanks for the suggestion and Latin language text for the title!
      • I have clarified the bit regarding Domitius Ahenobarbus being worried about the impact of Octavian's propaganda.
      • I reworded the sentence about the writings of Cicero.
      • I have done a thorough sweep of the article and removed all seemingly unnecessary instances where hyphens have been used. Thanks for pointing this out. This sort of habitual tick of mine is not apparent to me when I'm reading my own work, so I appreciate your efforts in pointing towards specific examples. I have fixed many others that you did not mention.
      • I have added a link to damnatio memoriae where it was most appropriate, in the "Statues" subsection.
      • I reworded the part about coinage and regnal years.
      • Per your suggestion, I have removed four images from the "Ancient depictions of Cleopatra" section. I hope it is to your liking now.
      • I have added the {{ill}} template to links leading to foreign-language Wiki articles.
      • I have placed the link "English Renaissance theatre" in a more appropriate location. It's a shame that there is no general article about Renaissance theatre. If I had all the spare time in the world I would create such an article and flesh it out, but I do not have the time to give it that sort of love and attention, the kind that it deserves.
      • I have removed the link Macedonians (Greeks) and retained the link Ancient Macedonians instead.
      • I have removed the phrase "honey-skinned" for now. This was one of the few statements added to the article by another editor, who cited the biography by Stacy Schiff, although I do not possess a copy of it. Since I cannot validate it or elaborate on which ancient source said this, I have decided to remove it for the time being, until that editor can explain his edit and reintroduce this properly.
      • I have changed "ancient sources" to "Plutarch" as you suggested, since I think he is the only one who explains this. It certainly appears that way after reading the source book from Jones.
      • In this article, I have added a footnote about Cornelius Gallus being the first governor of Egypt, ruled directly by Octavian/Augustus, while placing it prominently (outside of a footnote) in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra.
      • Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be amended, removed, or added to the article! Warm regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I've had a look at the article again, as well as the changes made in the meantime. The changes/additions satisfy most of my points. Outstanding issues and a couple of new ones follow:
        • The request about details on the governance of Egypt under Cleopatra remains. As the main article on the subject, it should at least touch upon and provide a summary of all pertinent aspects, and right now domestic governance is missing almost entirely. For instance, the debasement of the currency and the financial troubles are important, given the ambitious foreign policy she pursued, and the precedent of Auletes; I don't know or remember how far this is touched upon in the literature (of which you clearly have a better and more recent grasp), but if Egyptian finances were precarious, then her position was more unstable than usually assumed by the average reader, who probably has an image of Cleopatra and Egypt shaped more by the ostentatiousness shown in movies than by anything else. Perhaps simply mention this at some opportune point in the narrative? I leave how yo to your discretion how you best accomplish this, as the article is already very complex and information-heavy.
        • I still recommend purging more of the busts and the images of the Portland Vase. They are interesting, but not integral to the article. For example, why is a possible depiction of Mark Antony's legendary ancestor necessary at all? I think WP:SS applies here on the visual material.
        • You write that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim North Africa. Presumably you mean Cyrenaica? Then state this explicitly, because the Ptolemies never actually controlled any part of North Africa in the narrow modern sense (the Maghreb).
        • The article is very much in need of at least an overview map that shows the Eastern Mediterranean and the localities mentioned in it. Two or three maps, judiciously chosen to focus on specific areas and subjects, would be even better.
        • Other than that I could not find any further points of note for improvement content-wise. I have a concern that the article "looks" too complex and will frighten away the average reader, but I fully understand the fine line you have to tread here between providing a historical narrative and scholarly opinions. That said, for me at least the article is very readable and understandable once you get down to actually reading it. Constantine 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

  • @Cplakidas: hello and thank you once again for your thoughtful and refreshingly cerebral review of the article. Your argument for a new small section on Cleopatra's role as an administrator and monarch of her kingdom has persuaded me to establish a small new section at the end of the article, "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch". It contains a main article link to Reign of Cleopatra VII#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra in case our readers would like to know more about the subject in greater detail. I think it neatly and sufficiently wraps up the whole article, which is now better for it.
  • As stated before, User:Factotem has raised concerns on his talk page about the overall prose size of the body of the article. In order to appease his concerns as well as yours, I have also recently moved a large chunk of text in the "paintings" sub-section into a footnote. Hopefully that removal of text will help to balance out the new material that has been added at your request. I can also make further trimmings to some of the sub-sections in the "Legacy" section if it is requested. Quite frankly I think the article is of a reasonable size given the massive scope of materials that have to be summarized. Further details are obviously provided in the sub-articles Early life of Cleopatra, Reign of Cleopatra, and Death of Cleopatra.
  • As you requested, I have decided to remove three more images, all from the "Portland Vase" section, scrapping the gallery but retaining the most relevant image to illustrate the topic. I hope you find this sufficient, because I think the amount of pictures in the "Greco-Roman busts" section is of a reasonable amount after removing four of them previously. I could perhaps remove the British Museum bust image and just retain the Berlin and Vatican busts, but I would rather not do that since the British Museum bust, although disputed, is heavily described in the prose of that sub-section.
  • I actually made no such claim that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim "North Africa" itself. Reflecting the almost exact language of the source material (Roller, 2010), I merely stated in one instance (while discussing learned languages) that she desired to reclaim North African AND West Asian territories (which is preferably terse statement that avoids offering a litany of previous Ptolemaic territories in those areas that she desired to control). Further down I do mention Cyrenaica ("Cyrene") on multiple occasions, including in relation to the Donations of Alexandria, so I don't think our readers are being misled on this issue. Ancient Libya was in fact part of North Africa, which technically encompasses a far greater region than just the Maghreb. Roller's chosen terminology is even backed up here by Michael Grant (classicist) (1972: pp. 7–8), if you would like me to provide a citation from him as well.
  • You raise an excellent point about maps, but unfortunately, I am way ahead of you and have already scoured Wikimedia Commons for a suitable map with proper sourcing. I was unable to locate even ONE suitable map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom during the 1st century BC and particularly during the reign of Cleopatra. You can even check on this yourself: commons:Category:Maps_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt. I'm almost 100% positive I did not overlook anything there. A featured article obviously is held to higher standards than other articles. I simply cannot add a map image to the article that would raise problems in regards to sourcing and accuracy. Unfortunately I am not talented enough to create my own maps based on scholarly sources. If you can locate a Wiki map maker who is competent and capable in that regard, by all means I would gladly add his/her hypothetical map. As it stands, though, this will not be possible with the available map images.
  • If there are any other issues, please feel free to raise them and I will happily tackle them for you. Warm regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I have alerted Constantine about this, but in case anyone else might be interested, I have lodged a formal request with Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for a decent, well-sourced map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom (in the 1st century BC) to be created. Hopefully one of our trusty Wiki map makers will accept the job. If not, not a huge deal, but I agree with Constantine that it would provide a very useful visual aid to the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Векочел

You have worked hard on the article and provided sources. I cannot think of anything negative about the article. This reflects your commitment to Wikipedia.
Векочел (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел: Well that's fantastic! Thank you for the compliment, and for both reading and editing the article. I'm glad you have enjoyed it. I'm assuming this means you "support" the nomination, then? Pericles of AthensTalk 00:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do support the nomination of "Cleopatra" as a featured article. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Векочел: Awesome! Once again, thank you for reviewing the article and providing helpful edits as well. Best wishes, Pericles of AthensTalk 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Septentrionalis

Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?

The problem with any work on Cleopatra is that the ancient evidence conflicts; one example of this is the death of Caesarion, where Cassius Dio (51.15.5) tells a different narrative than Suetonius or Plutarch. We should follow the judgment of secondary sources on which one is right, but one test of the reliability of secondary sources is whether they express doubt. In this case, whether Caesarion succeeded to his mother (whatever that means under the circumstances) is not so certain that it belongs in the lead. More should follow, but doing this properly would take longer than FA's generally permit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

  • "Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?" Yes, some of these terrible, awful, no-good, very bad and just downright evil secondary sources just so happen to thoroughly cite the primary sources at their disposal. The strongest example of that would be Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006), which, as the title implies, is a repository for numerous translated passages from various primary sources relating the events surrounding the life of Cleopatra.
  • Without getting bogged down by providing the input of every ancient historian who ever wrote about the subject, I believe the footnote solution I just made (here as well) is a far more reasonable approach for the likes of Wikipedia. I think Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a biography (2010) passes your proposed "test" for reliability, as expounded in the new footnote. Roller, citing Theodore Cressy Skeat and in a footnote naming the Stromata by Clement of Alexandria as an example source, states the following (p. 149): "With the death of Cleopatra, the kingdom legally passed to Caesarion, who ruled for 18 days as Ptolemy XV. Yet this reign was essentially a fiction created by Egyptian chronographers to close the gap between her death and official Roman control of Egypt (under the new pharaoh, Octavian). Caesarion in fact had been sent away, with ample funding, to Upper Egypt, perhaps with Ethiopia or India as an ultimate destination; making these arrangements for him was one of his mother's last actions."
  • I also provided a quotation from Plutarch, translated by Jones, as an example of what one major primary source has to say about the topic. Should we list every single one that might say something different or contradict the assertion of Clement of Alexandria that Caesarion had his 18 days as a monarch? I'd rather not produce that laundry list, not without a better justification than the one you have provided.
  • I also amended the lead section a bit to emphasize that Caesarion's reign was "nominal", not just "brief", as it was worded before. I think that is sufficient enough for our readers. I honestly hope it is sufficient enough for you, because the sort of verbose exposition about primary source materials that you are suggesting is best left to a footnote instead of the prose body of the article, the latter of which is already too lengthy and wordy as is. Warm regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 05:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You may also notice that the article is currently littered with footnotes that thoroughly explain various instances where either primary sources or even secondary sources disagree with each other. For instance, the date of Cleopatra's death occurring on either 10 August or 12 August 30 BC has a hefty footnote divulging the scholarly sources that support either date. There may come a point, however, when there are perhaps too many footnotes for the average Wikipedia reader to digest. The average reader probably doesn't make it very far past the lead section of the article. Not every contentious issue needs to have a lengthy footnote, especially since there are so many contentious issues among the ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern academic sources about Cleopatra. I'll entertain the idea of tackling important issues if you can spot them, but I believe our readers will have no interest in knowing the minutiae and various problems presented by conflicting reports in the vast corpus of primary sources discussing Cleopatra. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review by A. Parrot

I didn't get to this review as soon as I wanted to, so I'm not finished with it yet, but I can say that all of the sources look reliable. Their general quality level is very high (university presses and so forth) and most are pretty recent. However, I looked specifically for reviews of Roller, because this article leans on it so heavily, and I found one that raises questions. The reviewer says of Roller's account of the Donations of Alexandria, "A reader would not learn how vexatious modern scholars have found interpreting what Plutarch and Dio record." I dug a little deeper and started mulling how scholars evaluate the accuracy of after-the-fact ancient accounts like Plutarch's. I know Pericles has done a lot to address conflicting factual details in the accounts, but authorial biases may be trickier, particularly if all the after-the-fact authors have been influenced by Augustan propaganda. Fortunately I've located a source that discusses this very problem in some detail: the Pelling mentioned in the BMCR review wrote a chapter on it in yet another book on Cleopatra that I should be able to get in a few days. Sorry to drag this out, but the better I understand the state of the scholarship, the more I'll feel able to assess the article fairly. A. Parrot (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: better late than never! Good find! Funnily enough I already cite a British Museum web page by Susan Walker and Peter Higgs, so it would be nice to incorporate material from their Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth (2011). Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography is a solid academic tome and an Oxford University Press publication to boot, but no scholar is infallible and majority consensus, if it can be discerned, is more important to Wikipedia than the input of a single work. Josiah Osgood's review of Roller's book raises interesting points and, like with any book review, the reviewer naturally has to offer some criticism. Otherwise, why write a review? Roller has a small habit of glossing over controversies and/or discrepancies in primary sources, relegating and reducing them to footnotes (for instance, the death date of Cleopatra and the numbering of Ptolemy XII's wife as either Cleopatra VII or V Tryphaena). I would like to think my Wiki article, incorporating the input of many sources (including the recent addition of Pat Southern: 2009), offers a more balanced view of things, but by all means I am all ears on how to improve various parts such as the entry on the Donations of Alexandria. The article does mention at various points the confusion about certain events thanks to Augustan-period propaganda, but this could have potentially affected other accounts of Cleopatra's reign and her relationship with Mark Antony, ones that I may not be aware of. In either case, thanks for initiating a source review. Talk to you again soon! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 12:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, I noticed another salient point made by Osgood in his review. Roller identifies the person in the tax exemption document signed by Cleopatra as Canidius Crassus, but I read recently in Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) that the person was named Quintus Cascellius. I didn't know if this was a typo or Burstein high on the influence of drugs (lol), because the name was so different from the one provided by Roller. Lo and behold the book review by Osgood makes it clear that Klaus Zimmerman (2002) was the first to identify the person in the document as Cascellius. Roller seems to have made no note of this contention. Perhaps he is unaware of it or even disagrees with it, but he provides no indication that it could have possibly been Cascellius. I will therefore provide a footnote from Burstein about this fact and hopefully I can access Zimmerman's work too (although I generally find it more difficult to find German language sources online). Pericles of AthensTalk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I added the footnote using Burstein (2004) as promised: see the edit here. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

André Messager

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

André Messager was a French composer and conductor who became the last major exponent of opéra comique and French operetta. His best-known works today are probably the operetta Véronique and the ballet The Two Pigeons, but several of his other stage works enjoyed international success at the turn of the 20th century. He was also a leading conductor, in charge of Paris's top orchestra and both its major opera houses. He was a prominent musical figure not only in Paris but in London, running the Royal Opera House for six years and supplying the West End stage with a succession of his hits (and occasional misses). The article has had a recent peer review by an all-star team of reviewers, and we think it is now ready for FAC. We look forward to your comments. Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't matter if it became FA, I notice that this article's talk page says that it has passed a Good Article review, but doesn't have the green symbol in the corner of the article! Is there a reason for this? Mojo0306 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There certainly used to be. I wonder if it vanished for some technical reason when the "up for FAC" message appeared on the page. A bit odd if so. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It was inadvertently removed with this edit. Fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, Lord! Was that me? I oughtn't to be let out. Thank you for rescuing me. Tim riley talk 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "Messager's music became known for its melodic and orchestral invention, musical craftsmanship, and characteristically French elegance and grace." I'm not sure how neutral this is.
    • This uncited statement in the lead is backed up in the main text with cited statements. This is how I have habitually interpreted the rules about leads - except for direct quotes, don't usually cite. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • My worry wasn't so much that it was uncited, it was that presenting the claims in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice may not be appropriate. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Josh Milburn, given the material below in the article, can you suggest a more neutral formulation for "characteristically French elegance and grace"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't object to a cited direct quote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
            • The Penguin Opera Guide has this: "Elegance, neatness, tripping melodiousness, orchestral refinement, and a decidedly French grace were the composer's hallmarks". Other quotes are on his "preference for light and airy compositions, on the borderland between comic opera and operetta. His music is always elegant, witty, in the best French style", "Messager’s style is characterized by fine orchestration (evident also in the ballet music), a gift for easy-flowing melody, often in a waltz rhythm, and a skill in writing music of a dance-like character," and "Tuneful it always is; trivial never. Supporting the lilting melodies is some masterly orchestration, rich in design, and typically French, with its emotional use of the woodwind, and its quaintly dramatic modulations". I think our existing sentence encapsulates these pretty faithfully. Tim riley talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "disastrous stock market speculation" Ditto (also, isn't that a compound adjective? Dash needed!)
    • Hyphens, as Sir Ernest Gowers said, will surely drive you mad if you take them seriously. I think you're right here. The text is a verbatim translation of one of the sources "des spéculations boursières désastreuses ruinent la famille Messager". Sources in English concur. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1876 he won the gold medal of the Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique with a symphony, the work being warmly received when performed by the Concerts Colonne at the Théâtre du Châtelet in January 1878." Did this have a name?
    • The symphony? No. Only a key. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We note in the list of Works that it was in A major. At one point in the article we call it his "Symphony in A", and I have added "in A" to another mention. Tim, do you now like the way we refer to it in all 4 instances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm rather in two minds about this, but I can think of examples of a composer's only symphony's being generally referred to by its key – Franck's in D minor, for instance, or Bizet's in C – though I can't really think why. Still if it's good enough for Franck and Bizet it's good enough for Messager. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "cantatas" Link?
  • Are "opéras comique" and "opérette" common enough in English to go unitalicised? It seems our articles on the forms italicise.
    • Tricky. The WP article on the former italicises; the short bit on the latter doesn't. The terms come up a lot in the article, and unless people object to roman I'd rather avoid a sea of italics. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "burlesques motifs" Jargon!
    • I'm surprised at this: both common words, surely, and clear in context?
      • I agree with TR. The use of the word "burlesque" to mean parody is the first meaning given in two dictionaries I just consulted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I understood the meaning, so I suppose it can't be specialist. I retract my worry! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "at Ste Marie-des-Batignolles a small church in the north west of Paris" Are you missing a comma, here? Also, I'd recommend against the piped link to the neighbourhood in place of the church.
    • I agree. Not sure how that happened. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later recalled that he had received by post an unsolicited libretto:" I'm struggling to understand this story. Some unknown person sent him an unfinished work, he finished it, then performed it? Or have I misunderstood?
    • No, that's his story. He found out who wrote it, of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The reason the story is interesting is that, after a series of unsuccessful works, an unsolicited libretto suddenly led to one of Messager's most popular works and the most commercially successful period of his composing career. Any suggestions as to how to make it clearer? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Reading back, I understand this much better now. The problem was clearly at my end. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Madeleine Hope Andrée" You specify the birth/death dates when you mention his first child- why not do that here?
    • Yes, I think we have her d.o.b. and d.o.d. in the sources. Shall add. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "sciatica" Link?
    • Could do. Do you think anyone will click on it? Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd rather no* have people clicking away from our article to explore the unrelated medical topic of sciatica, especially as it did not significantly affect Messager's career and is not mentioned again. If it had been a life-long ailment, I would want to provide a link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Again- I suppose I'm not convinced, but I am happy to concede. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Deburau worth linking? Don't be scared of redlinks! (This may apply to other compositions, but I'll not mention it again.)
    • Worth thinking about. It's a strange hybrid, and the redlink title will need to be carefully judged, esp. with the film and straight stage play of the piece to consider.
      • I would only redlink a work that I thought was likely notable. I think the criteria for linking/notability for theatre works should be a balance of the following factors: (1) Did it have a long and successful run? (2) In a major theatre? (3) Did it have a starry cast and/or creative team? (4) Did it receive significant coverage by the major reviewers? (5) Did it have numerous revivals or popular adaptations? (6) Did anything else of historic significance occur during the run? In this case, I assume that it starred Printemps, but was it otherwise an unremarkable, short-lived, rarely revived work, Tim? Were the film and stage play adaptations based on Messager's work or just other people's adaptations of common source material? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • They all revolved around Guitry. I have been toying with writing a brief article about it, but it isn't top of my list. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but in London the official censor, the Lord Chamberlain, declared it "unfit for the English public", and banned C. B. Cochran's planned production starring Printemps and Guitry" Why?
    • French. Too sexy. The source doesn't specify, but I get the impression that a middle-aged man posing as his own son for amorous reasons (if I have it right) was too much for the Lord Chamberlain.
      • Tim, should we add that the libretto contained adult situations? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I haven't read the libretto, and I found this delightful gem in the archives of the New York Times. The reported facts are as stated in the present text of the article, and to go any further would be speculative. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "His "Eh que ne parliez-vous?", from La Basoche was quoted" Curious comma use, and I think quoted is a little jargony.
    • You can quote a tune as well as a line of prose or verse. Seems the right term to me. Punctuation adjusted. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "commented that from classic opéras comiques, such as" Possibly overlinking?
    • This has come up once before. There has grown up an entirely unofficial, and no doubt ultra vires, practice in musical Life and Works articles that it is helpful to link important terms at first mention in the Works section. The logic, I suppose, is that a Life and Works article is practically two articles in one, and not every reader of one section will want to read both. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Two comments on the list of works: Hélène is incidental music to the play - not any kind of complete operatic work. According to Les Annales 1885 (p355-356) Le Petit Poucet is really a divertisement, with music by Verdi, Offenbach, Audran etc; the 3rd act ballet is original music by Messager - and possibly other bits of incidental music.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Might be worth adding a footnote about Le Petit Poucet; I'll knock one up. I think Hélène is adequately covered under "Stage works (except ballets) ... drame lyrique." Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
PS Sorry another thing - Fortunio is in five acts not four - I think the Erato recording based on the Lyon production is at fault for confusing the issue. You can check the vocal score at IMSLP. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This is rather a mystery. The copy of the libretto (pub. 1907) I am looking at describes the work as "Comedie lyrique en quatre actes et cinq tableux", and a quick flick through the text bears this out. But the vocal score (a better scan than IMSLP's is here), as you say, divides the work into five acts. Logic suggests that the libretto was printed first, and that the vocal score represents the final version. (This certainly applied on this side of la Manche, with the texts and scores of the Savoy Operas.) But this looks like a theatre bill or programme, judging by the header, and has the piece as en quatre actes. I've tried to look at the contemporary reviews via the BNF's online archive, but it's suffering from technical problems today. I'll try again later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This may go some way to solving the mystery. The original version is here said to have 5 acts, and the 1910 revival was in a revised 4-act version. (The four-act vocal score is clearly labelled "2ème édition".) Both versions have been given since. I now think I misinterpreted the bibliographic details of the 4-act libretto: the date 1907 was the copyright date, and not necessarily the publication date. So I think what we need here is a footnote saying that the piece was originally in 5 acts, later revised to 4. Tim riley talk 09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I am not sure I can find any more to comment on at this stage, you will be relieved to read. I am quite interested to find more examples of operatic babies swapped at birth (since I suspect the librettists of the P'tites Michus didn't know much about G&S. There must have known Il trovatore, and possibly others; (Vanloo's memoirs simply go on about them living in adjoining appartments). For now though, with thanks for all your work on this article, I will shut up again. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And merci, notre indispensable Général Boum! Tim riley talk 21:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for a time; a really great read so far. Very engaging, even to someone as ignorant of the topic as I am... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far. Looking forward to more, but no rush of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Josh Milburn! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Continued comments from JM

  • "one of the most poetic, most expressive works that have been written in France in the last twenty years" Is that quote correct? Shouldn't it be has been?
    • The arithmetic wouldn't work if you tried it the way you suggest: it is one of "the works that have been written". One of "the works that has been written" won't do. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I believe that this is a difference between US and Brit English. We would certainly write "has", but I rely on Tim's understanding of Brit usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • You'd write "the works that has been written"? Surely not. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
          • In US usage, it is "one ... that has been written." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
            • After pondering this overnight, I am reversing myself. The clause boils down to: one of [them] that have been written in France." Faure's point is not that it is "one ... that has been written in France", but rather that it is among the most expressive works that have been written. So I think Tim would be right in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
              • As long as the quote's accurate, there's no harm done, I suppose! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto which weighs down the rest of the piece, has remained in the repertory". Shouldn't that be that, rather than which? I wonder how accessible this sentence will be to some readers.
    • I don't mind "that" for "which", here, though the supposed distinction is not supported by Fowler and has been ignored by Dickens et al. I think Americans are keener on the distinction than English writers are: Ssilvers, any comments? Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It should be ", which" to complete the parenthetical phrase. Now fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The decade began well" Perhaps you could specify the decade?
    • Doesn't the heading "1890s" immediately above suffice? I'm surprised. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tim that it is clear from both the heading and the next date given. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't how I'd do it, but I'm happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't close the quote that begins "the influence of Die Meistersinger"
  • "The plot was not strikingly original: critics commented that its story of babies switched at birth was already very familiar from Gilbert and Sullivan operas." It's not clear what your reference for this claim is; is it the references in the footnote? At the moment, they look like references for details about Gilbert and Sullivan operas rather than references for the critical response to Les p'tites Michu.
    • Point taken. Will add a citation for the general comment rather than the particulars. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And now done. Tim riley talk 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I found the description of Les p'tites Michu a little tricky to follow; it feels like it assumes that readers are familiar with the musical.
    • Hmm. I'll need to study this further and come back to you. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We don't attempt to provide plot summaries -- not even for Veronique. So, I think it falls under the heading of, "if you want more info, click on the blue link", doesn't it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Again, happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No action needed, just wanted to comment what a great footnote #20 is!
    • Thank you, but don't get me started on that critic! G W Lyttelton,(Humph's father), once wrote to a friend, "Have you any 'foolometers'—people whose advice you ask, knowing that exactly the opposite to it will be the right course?" Well...
  • "up to the end of his life, too"[155] Like Fauré," Missed full stop?
    • Indeed. Now added. You have a wonderfully eagle eye, and I hope your Wiki-colleagues realise it. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Should the quote beginning "André Messager is the most French of conductors" perhaps be a blockquote?
  • "Some later additions are listed below." I wonder if this should be avoided?
    • Alternative? Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with JM: Let's delete the sentence. I think it is clear enough from context that anything issued after 1991 would be an "addition". Is that ok, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Fine with me: by all means prune. Tim riley talk 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What is a "role creator"?
    • Someone who created the role. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It was clear enough to me, when I first read it, but I wonder if a general reader who is not too familiar with theatre articles would understand. Could write something like "those who first played the roles in the original productions", but that seems so blobby. JM, can you suggest anything clear and elegant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • To me (and I'm not familiar with theatre!) the role would be "created" by the writer, but I confess I can't think of an easy way of framing this. Is it particularly important that they were role creators? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, because it is a recording by the person who actually introduced the song in the original production. The role creator was the first person to have imbued the song with their own performing style and therefore sets a model for how the song may be interpreted by later performers. For a modern example, a recording of "Let it Go (Disney song)" by Idina Menzel should be identified as a recording by the role creator (sometimes called "role originator"), whereas a recording by, say, Katy Perry, would be a cover version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as other contemporaries, Aino Ackté,[177] Emma Eames,[178] and John McCormack,[179] whose recordings have been reissued on compact disc" I wonder whether some dashes could help this sentence?
    • Yes, good. The poor old comma does get a bashing. I have often thought we need a super-comma that would subsume minor ones, but parenthetic dashes will do very well here. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All just suggestions! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And mostly exceptionally useful ones: thank you JM! Back anon to round off, and my co-nom will have responses, too. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent comments. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Smerus

Support, certainly, an excellent article. Two minor niggles on a first reading (I might have further niggles on a further reading)

  • Niedermeyer's school. I've always heard of it as the École Choron or (as it was later known) the École Niedermeyer, on which there is an article in fr.wikipedia. According to that article it took the name "École de musique classique" only in 1880, long after Messager's time, and changed back to École Niedermeyer around 1900.
  • I really must get round to writing an En Wikipedia article, given its importance in the lives of two (and I hope three) composers I have successfully taken through FAC. I'll make sure the nomenclature here is right for its period. (Very well spotted, if I may say so.) Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Later: now attended to. Tim riley talk 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Les p'tites Michu - you mention that he received the libretto without solicitation, but as it was a such a success I think you might reasonably name the librettists.
  • Point taken, though we name all Messager's librettists in the table below. M. Ssilvers, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is potentially a Pandora's Box in 2 ways. First, we do not mention the names of librettists, throughout the article, except in the table at the bottom and in footnote 18. If we mention the names for Michu, should we mention the names of the librettists of Veronique, Beaucaire and the others? Or, should we name the librettists for only the 4, 6 or 8 (or 10?) most popular/successful ones? Second, if we mention the French librettists, then, when we talk about the extraordinary London success of several of the pieces, which were considerably adapted for the London stage, should we name the English librettists? As it is, we appear to discriminate equally against all librettists.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We've subsequently concentrated all the info about librettists and translators in the table in the works section, with mentions in passing in the text only where it seemed particularly apropos. Tim riley talk 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Smerus. And further niggles will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and support! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

  • Support. Another happy camper at PR, further read-throughs show this to have been improved from that high standard. Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting and engaging read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, SchroCat, for input at PR and your support here. Most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Support with a few suggestions for consideration:

  • "the first complete French performance of Così fan tutte". Does this mean the first performance in French, or the first performance in France?
  • The latter, I think, but I'll check and clarify. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Kaminski in his Mille et Un Opéras states that the Théâtre-Italien in Paris performed it from 1809-1862 (there is also a mention of it on this page https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/visits/exhibitions/mozart/mozart-adapted-to-french-taste-1793-1830). In TJ Walsh's Second Empire Opera he describes a Carvalho production which changes the plot to that of Love's Labour Lost by Barbier and Carré (Peines d'amour perdues) - although apparently the music remained intact. The 1920 Cosi at the OC was (naturally) in French according to Kaminski. I hope this helps, perhaps not. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. That's presumably why the source particularly mentions the first complete Così in France. I am tempted to point out that Così didn't make it to America till 1922, but will resist the temptation. Tim riley talk 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK - I imagine we'll never know how complete the Théâtre-Italien production was; let's give AM credit for this one.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " elder contemporaries" → " older contemporaries"?
  • "elder" gets the thumbs-up from Fowler, but I don't feel strongly about it, and would not be desolate if we changed it to "older". Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with BB. Elder in America is now only used for siblings and statesmen. It looks antiquated to me. I'd vote "older contemporaries" if it is also correct in Brit. English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Antiquated? My prose? Unthinkable. You have the casting vote, Ss, so by all means change. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. Not antiquated, I meant "too elegant". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "it failed again, but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto, which weighs down the rest of the piece...etc" Is this a WP judgement, or does the source say it?
  • "may be partly due to the effectiveness of their respective libretti" – I think "the relative" effectiveness of their respective libretti" makes the required point.
  • Recordings section: I would have preferred a brief summary, with a link to a subarticle detailing the various recordings. The present format is unrewarding to the general reader, and rather dense for someone seeking specific information.
  • I wouldn't violently object to that. Ssilvers, what think you? Not a difficult task if we agree with BB's suggestion. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I really don't think the recordings section should get its own article. Someone just added a completely redundant "List of works" sub-article that doesn't help our readers at all and, if anything, will likely introduce a divergence of information about Messager's works that will distract readers in the future. We, the editors of the main article, will not maintain that article, so it may attract errors and cruft in the future. Let's just make sure that the first paragraph of the recordings section is a good summary, and then if people want to skip the next three more detailed paragraphs, let them do so. I've re-organized slightly to make the first paragraph a more "general" paragraph, followed by the details, and having just re-read the section, I don't think it's that much of a slog to get through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ss: let us have a word about this by email rather than taking up space here. I don't see any problem in rejigging to meet BB's point but keeping the details on the main AM page. Tim riley talk 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, a credit to both main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BB, for input at PR and your suggestions and support, above. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, BB, but almost all of the hard work is Tim's! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1

Nothing to add to the, as usually, excellent prose and certainly nothing to contribute to the musical content. Would it help if I attempted a sources review? I've not done one previously but very happy to give it a go, following BB's essay as guidance. My only caveats - it may take a little while, as a consequence of my inexperience and your multiplicity of sources, and someone else may make a better job of it. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As we lack both an image and a source review your kind offer of the latter is most gratefully received. Time is not of the essence, and I think I speak for both nominators when I say we shall happily wait as long as it takes for your review. Tim riley talk 13:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine - shall set to. It'll be in batches, I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Re images - If you wished to kill two birds with one stone, you could change the present photo of Mary Garden to one of her as Mélisande: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg, but you may have a good reason to keep the current lower-resolution photo. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
...and here is the Mary Garden category at the Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mary_Garden. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, but the image is too long and would not fit easily. Tim, perhaps one of the other Commons images from a role was conducted by Messager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We used to have a photo of M Garden as Mélisande, but if memory serves it was voted down. The existing one is conveniently small. Tim riley talk 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I assume Garden as Mélisande has been rejected because the photographer of the cover of the magazine is potentially not dead enough (ie 1948?)... pity. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 1

Batch 1 - Published sources given in the sources section are all of high-quality and the ISBNs/OCLCs all check out on Worldcat. A few queries:

  • Book 2: Bradley, Ian - Worldcat lists G, S and Bradley as the authors, while Googlebooks gives G&S as the authors and Bradley as the editor?
  • If one were, perish the thought, being pedantic, neither WorldCat nor our article is strictly correct. The book consists of Gilbert's libretti on the right-hand pages and Bradley's explanations, glosses, notes and anecdotes on the left-hand ones. Sullivan's music is not reproduced. I can change the author to WSG and make Bradley the editor if you wish, but I think the import is clear from the title of the book, and it's Bradley rather than Gilbert we're referring to here. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No, absolutely get the point. Leave as is. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Bradley is the author of all the analysis and commentary. It's his book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 7: Franceschina, John - oddly, Google books is giving me a publication date of December 2017, rather than 2018, although the snippet does have 2018. And I think the publisher is a single word BearManor, or actually BearManor Media.
  • Happy to change the spacing, damnedsillyspelling notwithstanding, but not sure what to do about the year. Your call. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the damnedsillyspacing should change as it's their damnedsillyspacing but the book clearly has 2018 on the frontispiece so I'd leave that! KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 12: Holoman, D. Kern - there's no consistency at all in the Worldcat listings but, for internal consistency per your listing, I wonder if Concerts du Conservatoire should be capitalised?
    • French capitalisation is an arcane mystery to the Anglo-Saxon. Our MoS says one thing and general French usage says the opposite, and both are right, or at least not wrong. There is no firm rule as there is in English or German. Consistency is desirable, but not, in my view, at the expense of going against an author's preferred version. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to play Devil's Advocate, since we are following the MOS rule on capitalization of the opera names, now, and since English readers expect caps, why not go with the caps in the book list? I think the book authors will be very happy that we are bringing attention to their works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with that if you care to do the honours, Ss. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 19: Morrison, Richard - the full title is Orchestra: The LSO - a Century of Triumph and Turbulence. Would it help the reader to know its focus is the LSO?
    • On the copy on my shelves the only title on the spine is Orchestra, with the other six words appearing in smaller print on the title page. But no harm in adding the subtitle if wanted. Yours to command. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
As above, let's have it as the actual book has it, i.e. the single word. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don't feel strongly, but I think KJP1's first instinct is right: The subtitle gives essential information to our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll add. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 20: Rollo Myers - again there's no consistency, but he appears more commonly to publish as Rollo H. Myers.
    • I noticed that when I was looking him up, but again, I feel we should abide by the author's preference even if he changed it later or earlier. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 25 - Pearson, Hesketh - perhaps Harmondsworth, UK, as I don't think it's a commonly known place? Also, I wonder if it's worth noting it's a 1954 reprint of a 1935 original. In other instances, you list the edition.
    • I think this is indeed a straight reprint rather than a new edition, so I wouldn't mention that. Good idea about the location. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
And understood again. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 28: Rosenthal, Harold - You'll know better than I but Worldcat is giving the Earl of Harewood as co-author, although Googlebooks doesn't. Did Lascelles write a foreword?

End of Batch 1. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You're clearly cut out for this. Taking to it like a duck to orange. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 2

Batch 2 - inline sources not to the main published books. I'll list them all to check they're working but will embolden any comments, queries.

  • Sources 3/5/19/71 - can't access them as I don't have Grove Online but they work;
  • Sources 6/27 - work fine. Support the contents, as far as my French allows me to check;
  • Source 8 - can't access as subscription site;
  • Source 23 - works fine but does it need an "=" in the title?
  • No. My clumsy typing. Now blitzed. Tim riley talk 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 30 - fine and supports the content;
  • Source 41 - supports the content. I do like "Messager's music has not pleased the public";
  • Source 46 - supports the content;
  • Source 53 - supports the content;
  • Source 55 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 57 - another subscription site and in French. But it works;
  • Source 70 - due no doubt to my very poor French, I am not seeing the quote on the linked page. Are we linked to the right page?
  • This is a bit of a pain. Owing to the construction of the site the page you have reached is the nearest you can get by url link to the actual page, which doesn't have its own url and is linked to from this one. I thought of explaining this in the citation, but a concise way of explaining it eluded me and still does. If you go back to the page you will see on the left a little below the middle "Articles de presse" and the first of those links is the one in question. There's another such one to a different page of the same site later with the same problem. Tim riley talk 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, see the problem and can't see a solution either. Lets leave it. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ooh... Since there are two links with the same date, I think we should say that the quote is contained in the first one listed below "Articles de presse". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting a slight throbbing about the temples as my brain overheats. Ss, I have every confidence, without fully understanding it, that what you suggest is a good idea, and I suggest you implement it. Tim riley talk 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That will do nicely. Much more concise than I had managed to conceive. Tim riley talk 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources 83/88 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 91 - Is the wrong program listed here? Programs: 90e année: 1916–17 shows me a Swiss tour and a, cancelled, Spanish tour. I think the French provincial tours are earlier?
    • Changed ref to Holoman's book. Tim riley talk 19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 95 - can't access the relevant page but the link works;
  • Source 96 - can't access this subscription site, at least not without parting with $22, but it works;
  • Source 101 - supports the content;
  • Source 111 - supports the content;
  • Source 113 - supports the content;
  • Source 121 - can't access either but they both work;
  • Source 129 - can't access it but it works;
  • Source 130 - can't access it but it works and it's certainly about two pigeons;
  • Source 153 - supports the content;
  • Source 159 - can't access but it works;
  • Source 166 - Isn't the Discography Appendix 5 rather than Appendix 4?
  • Fixed. I genuinely wonder if the linked site has been rejigged since we linked to it. Two egregious errors in relation to it would seem strange. Tim riley talk 19:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources 168-193 inclusive - all present and correct;
  • Source 205 - well, I didn't see 'em in the intro, but I did skip the 175 pages of reproduced score!
  • Source 207 - supports the content;
  • Source 208 - I think you've an unnecessary closing bracket ] at the end of The Little Michus instead of a ";
  • Tim fixed this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 209 - supports the content.

Source review - batch 3

Batch 3 - FAC source criteria

1c - well-researched
  • The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and, as far as my meagre knowledge of Mr. Messager goes, appears to cover the relevant literature. The article is very well supported by a depth of inline citations. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
2c - Consistent citations
  • The citing is consistent throughout. One quick query - Source 151, The Guardian, 2001, has "p. H17". Is the H a section of the paper? KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's quickly answered: yes. Tim riley talk 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 4, and final

Batch 4 - spot-checks against non-online sources

Looking at some other source reviews from the Riley FA stable, and at Brian's very helpful essay, I'm not at all sure spot-checks of content against sources are really necessary. You're both hardly first-time nominees! And I have done a fair few with the online sources. That said, I'm very happy to stroll over to the University of Manchester Library where I'm certain they'll have some of the offline sources. But it'll be the early part of next week before I can get there. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
T. Riley of Liverpool comments: Good Lord! They have libraries in Manchester? Your call, of course, but I doubt if the coordinators will wish you to go to that trouble for two serial offenders such as Ssilvers and Tim riley. I shall now get back to following up the outstanding points in your review. If I may say so, the review is a splendid job for a first attempt, and has properly put the nominators on their mettle. Tim riley talk 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your checks above are superb, and your sharp eye has helped us to improve the article. It is up to you as to whether you wish to be so generous as to check the offline sources, but everything you have done already has been exceedingly helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think – mind I say I think – we have dealt with all your points, KJP. Over to you. Tim riley talk 19:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You have indeed. And from my perspective you are fine on the sources. I'm very confident that a spot-check of those offline isn't necessary. It's been a pleasure. As Tim knows, I'm a musical illiterate, but I now feel I know Messager like a brother. It's a superb article and I'd happily Support, except I don't think one does after a source review. But you're there without, for which many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Good. Well, warmest thanks for your scrupulous review. I echo Ssilvers in thanking you for helping us to improve the article. Tim riley talk 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all three posters
    • Done, I think. Glad if you (and any other interested editor) will check they now look OK, and perhaps tweak if not. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:André-Messager-c1888.jpg: where is that publication date coming from?
    • The publication date given by the Bibliothèque nationale de France is "18..". Our man is still youngish, and hasn't yet lost his hair, but the date is evidently after 1886 as the picture was published with a few bars from Le Deux pigeons (1886) printed below it over the composer's signature. 1888-ish seemed a fair guess, but I now see The Association l'Art Lyrique Français says 1890, and I have amended our date to match. Details on the image page adjusted accordingly. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Melisande.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • We don't of course. (I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever posted a picture to Commons with reliable information.) Now replaced with a {PD-US-1923-abroad} image. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you very much for the review. I hope the replies above are satisfactory. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Black Hours, Morgan MS 493

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Short article about an exceptionaly beautiful, uber-goth, 15th c illuminated book. I realise the article is slight, but after a few years of exhaustive searching, am confident it represents the totality of research. The article's further reading sect mentions the Facsimile Ausgabe von Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, M. 493, but this is a facsimile and costs about four grand. MS 493 is of a very rare type, very brittle, and not often on display. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I love old books. With the caveat that I am no expert, some comments:

  • consists of 121 leaves, the majority of which consist --> repetition
    Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 14 lines, with fourteen --> inconsistent
    Not sure - the pages of text are arranged in rows of 14 lines, there are also 14 fully illuminated sides. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (folio 121v).[1] --> the lead only needs references for controversial statements, which I doubt is the case here
have reduced the lead refs. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "unequaled luxury" --> is this quote necessary? It just makes me wonder who said so. Would it not be better to rephrase?
    Yes wonder too. Its there to emphasise that whoever commissioned these works had deep pockets indeed. Will mull over. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its codex are --> codices is the plural but not sure whether you want plural or singular
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • presumably for high-ranking members of society, art historians assumed for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold; --> this doesn't flow very well I think, and ending with a ; doesn't make it easy to improve. How about something like this: presumably for high-ranking members of society, most likely for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold. Given their ..
    reprhased as "They were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume commission from the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold Ceoil (talk)
  • if we have colour and colourisation, should we not also have favour
    Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • some of the figure's -- which figure are we talking about here? No figure has been introduced
    Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The manuscript does not contain any family crest to identify the donor, who, given the expense of the book and its dating, art historians assume was a high-ranking member of court;[7] there has been speculation that it was commissioned by or for Charles the Bold.[1] --> this was already described above

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Edwinin for these, and also for your edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more:

  • Borders decorations include --> or is it Border decorations?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • with multiple signature - with multiple signatures?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • which are probably modern, and found around the corners of the outer edges of the pages --> that comma doesn't sit well with me
Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The lettering throughout is reminiscent of the Gothic style, with initials formed from gold leaf on emerald ground, and which typically extend across lines of text,[2] and are in gothic minuscule with silver ink, with gold leaf added for the rubrics --> needs a bit of tidying up, with all those 'and's
Now broken down. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The miniatures are all depict scenes --> is the 'are' here a mistake?
  • The most well known illustration --> I'm not a native speaker but I'd write 'The best-known illustration'
  • Agree Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I found the font for the list of miniatures quite small
  • Used the small template as I didn't want them to be obtrusive, but thats fair enough and now changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It was acquired by Robert Hoe --> is it known when?
  • Clarified Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if there should not be a little more about the text. As a reader all I get is a link to Hours of the Virgin. I think a brief description of the content is in order. Perhaps even a bit more about the language, the font even. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. The font (blackletter) is now mentioned in the lead and body, as is the material used for the lettering. Re the text; I dont have much, its in Latin and includes the mass of the virgin, the hours of the virgin, and the office of the dead, which are noted in the miniatures section as the opposite pages. Thinking this through. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Now expanded. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
More very good suggestions, mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice article. I support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

  • Bruges is linked on second use in the lede.
  • suggest the ownership of privileged and sophisticated members of the Burgundian court." I might consider starting this "suggest its ownership by ..."
  • You mention an iron-copper solution, but this isn't sourced either there or in the body.
  • "they depreciated quickly" I might say "deteriorated" as the verb.
  • "It's codex are largely intact," needless apostrophe
  • "colourisation" I might just say "colours".
  • There is a "T" following the second paragraph of "Commission" without a good reason for being there.
  • "worth more per kg than gold," I might spell out kilogram.
  • "and there are no surviving tile or inventory records before the 19th century." do you mean "title" for "tile"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, got these now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

A small but perfectly-formed article on a small but perfectly-formed book. A few thoughts below but nothing to stand in the way of Support.

Lead
  • "a form of devotional book for lay-people" - link lay-people or will it be commonly understood?
  • "The text is written for use of Rome" - it might be I've not had enough coffee but I'm not getting the meaning here.
Librarian speak for Roman Rite, as opposed to Paris, Sarum rite etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod - Many thanks. It's quite possible I'm the only liturgical idiot over whose head that might go! On the other hand, a link might help. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and uniquely dark tone suggest its ownership ownership" - delete second "ownership".
Commission
  • "MS M.493 was likely intended high nobility:" - "MS M.493 was likely intended for high nobility"?
  • "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the unusual colour of pages" - to avoid repetition, perhaps, "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the uncommon colour of the pages"?
  • "commissioned by the courts of Philip the Bold and Philip the Good" - plural "courts" assuming they weren't the same?
  • "Kaiser Maximilian I observed of the Burgundian rulers" - your period not mine, but isn't Max more commonly known, at least in the English-speaking world, as the Emperor rather than Kaiser?
Attribution
  • "while the angular and linear manner of the figure's clothes" - aren't we talking about more than one figure, i.e. "the figures' clothes (or clothing)"?
  • "Most art historians date it as as after 1475 based on stylistically and paleographically similarities" - remove double "as" and, for it to agree, perhaps, "Most art historians date it as after 1475 based on stylistic and paleographic similarities"?
Contents
  • "The blues were formed from a number of mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour" - perhaps, "The blues were formed from different mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour"?
  • "the latter are similar in style to those found in the Viennese Hours" - do the Viennese hours need an introduction? We haven't heard of them before. There doesn't seem to be a bluelink, unfortunately.
  • "It was rebound in the 19th century for the then owner Nicholas Yemenzi" - insert "the".
  • "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern". - Insert "these are"?
  • "They mostly center around the the Mass of the Virgin" - insert "t".
Miniatures
  • "Mary, wearing a wimpled veil, and St John stand to the left of the foot of the cross." - insert comma , and "to".
  • "To their right are two gesturing mourners whose facial expressions convey a sense of deep sadness and loss" - plural "expressions".
  • "as evidencing the "unusual, exquisite and precious overall effect of that is generated by using the technique of fixing an illumination on a piece of black dyed parchment"" - the quote doesn't read quite right to me. Is the "of that is" redundant?
  • "Folio 50v: Nativity ("Hours of the Virgin: Prime")" - should this read "Folio 50v: Nativity (opposite "Hours of the Virgin: Prime")", as the others do?
Other
  • Note 1 is a footnote, whereas the others are all citations. Should they be split out into two sections, Footnotes and References?
  • Should the book page numbers not read, e.g. 9 Walther, p.363? Just ignore me if I'm wrong. MoS isn't my strongest suit.

A very nice article indeed. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why thank you, and for the close reading and review. Agree with all the above obv, and re Note 1 I've removed for now but may reintroduce in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

  • "The Black Hours, MS M.493 (also known as the Morgan Black Hours) is an illuminated book of hours (a form of devotional book for lay-people), thought to have originated in Bruges c. 1475–80." - the right things to say, but 2 lots of () breaks the flow.
    Yes, now simplified.
  • the "Roman Rite|use of Rome" - I doubt KJP1 will be the only reader unfamiliar with this form - maybe "Roman Rite|Roman version of the texts" or something.
    Your change is much better. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also fiddling as I go - changed dates to "The books date from about 1455–80" (per the group article now) which better fits what follows. "Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany" (c. 1503–8)" - apart from the odd way of putting the date, this isn't a Black books of hours in the way described, nor listed at that article. You can see from the beautiful page by page online version that the text pages are normal, but the full-page miniatures have a plain black border outside a gold frame with lettering. They give the date as 1505-1510, I see. Are we confusing with another book of hers? From the article:"In all, four books of hours belonging to Anne survive, including the Très Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3120) of about 1498, another with the same name in the Morgan Library in New York (M. 50), and the Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3027) of around 1503." Mind you, she was only born in 1477, but perhaps Morgan M. 50 was 2nd-hand?
    It seems to be the correct book, with the designation based on "borders with black paint". I'm looking into this for the last half hour, and the parent article, yes needs work. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern." What's this about - can't see it in the ref given, although the PDF typed notes mention the monogram of Yemenzi, who had the rebinding done. According to the top of p.2, the Latin shows the book was written for a man, btw, which should be mentioned.
  • Yes, most of the other black books were written for women. Presumably "pro me peccatore" contains a gender indication. Will check with Liz when she is back home later. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently not, but the claim re a man is in the article now. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "stamped with multiple signatures" now "The corners of the outer edges of the pages contain a number of modern signatures of previous owners, including the monogram of Yemenzi" (who is mentioned above). Ceoil (talk)
What's the ref for the other "modern signatures"? Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Has been cut. Ceoil (talk)
The confusion was between drop caps and monographs. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The stuff about the expense of blue paint, no doubt true, goes rather beyond what the ref actually says - not too certain this blog is RS either.
The blue paint stuff is covered in a number of the sources; will re-establish. The guy behind "A Scholarly Skater" claims to be an art historian, but I suppose that just means he has a degree or something. The article has been incredibly difficult to write and source; the book is unusually understudied. You mention below the $500 price tag in 1912. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done yet. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Now cited to Maryan Ainsworth and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ""Das Schwarze Stundenbuch". New York: Old Manuscripts & Incunabula. Retrieved 11 October 2015" - page number please! It's 50-odd pages, & they are numbered. Whatever this says, it's clear from the images that "formed from gold leaf on emerald ground" only applies to the initials, not the "multi-lined blocks of text", which are silver on black. Where space allows, the green background has floral or geometric decoration, which you might mention.
  • Ok done (the page number and claim re initials). Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "They mostly center around the Mass of the Virgin, the Hours of the Virgin, and the Office of the Dead" - true, but sounds a bit vague. The Morgan notes have a full list.
Ok, full list now included. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me know if you don't like any of the changes
    They are all very good; much clearer and tighter. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Morgan PDF also lists a rather more complicated list of owners after Firmin-Didot. Even in 1912, $500 seems amazingly cheap, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Article now establishes sales from the collections of Yemeniz in 1867, Didot in 1871 and Hoe in 1909. Thats it before J. P. Morgan Jr. as far as I can see tonight, will look more next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Lord Howe swamphen

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about yet another near-mythical, recently extinct bird. It has one of the most confusing taxonomic histories of any species I've written about, so I hope I've made it somewhat easy to understand... Most of what has ever been written about the bird is summarised in the article, and it includes the most important illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I added the blurb to the article's talk page prematurely, 20 days before adding the nomination to the FAC list, thinking my then current nomination was soon to be closed, but now it seems that this confuses the FAC bot, which will keep moving this nomination to the "older" nominations:[7] I didn't know I couldn't just renew the time stamp here, but that it goes by time of page creation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about another cantata by J. S. Bach. In the last years, I tried one that was 300 years old (BWV 165 in 2015, BWV 161 in 2016), but no cantata is certain for 1718. I chose Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, for personal reasons. It is the first FAC about a solo cantata, and the first for a cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle when he didn't write a cantata or more per week (as in the first and second), but much more selectively. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. - The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. I added a bit about the third cycle, and more references to the recordings table. - Enjoy yearning for death, - Bach did! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I remember reading the previous cantate FA. I still am neither an expert in Bach nor music. A few comments nevertheless:

  • why is "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" in the lead bold?
Because it's a redirect --GA
  • Thomaskantor in the lead could benefit from a brief explanation, as you have in the body
The idea of the lead is a summary, no? --GA
But also an accessible introduction. MOS:INTRO "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined" --EIL
Yes, but there are so many things NOT mentioned, - do we really have to explain what most readers of a Bach cantata article will know? -----GA
  • Who is Albert Schweitzer? Perhaps add something like "music historian" (I made that up)
This is not about him, theologian, organist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician, - founder of the Hôpital Albert Schweitzer in Lambarene, Nobel peace prize laureate (1952), - people should know him ;) --GA
  • The year after --> is there a reason why this isn't explicitly called 'second cantata cycle'?
Yes, because it could have happened ten years after the first. --GA
Sorry, let me rephrase: Is there a reason why you do not use the phrase 'second cantata cycle'? --EIL
For two reasons: avoid repetition, and get the chorales in, - how would you do that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
For me repetition is not an issue here. But I just read that the second cycle is not identical to the chorale cycle, so it's just too complicated. Maybe leave it. --EIL
The second cycle IS somewhat identical, only that Bach wasn't successful making them all chorale cantatas that year, and added later. -----GA
  • Leipzig Cycle III --> this term doesn't get mentioned elsewhere, just the section header and Jones' sentence. Do we need it? Maybe better to put Jones' label in a footnote?
changed the header --GA
  • A third cantata --> how about something like this:
Bach's third cantata cycle, of which fewer works are extant, is different. It spans works from his third and fourth year in Leipzig, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen. It also includes more performances of works by other composers....
I tried differently. The cantatas by others are not part of his third cycle, but performed during the time. --GA
I still find this sentence odd: 'A third cantata is of a different quality.' Should that not be: 'The third cantata cycle is of a different quality.' The following sentences talk about the cycle, not cantatas. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, fixed. -----GA
  • performed works by other - I thought the definition of a cycle was composed, not performed?
see above, - and for Bach, composed meant performed, he composed for specific occasions.
  • Bach shows --> showed?
agree, changed --GA
  • What is the BWV of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen? Looks as if it doesn't have one.
We established it on top, and in this case there's no hymn or other same title which could be meant. - The template lang changed, making every combination hard to code. --GA
  • which has been discovered in 2015 -> just checking the discovery in 2015 was finding out the name of the author? Maybe "The author's identity was long unknown until in 2015 ...
tried something like that --GA
  • A boat on the Sea of Galilee -> a bit more context, why is this relevant?
Sea voyage - do you think we need to explain more? - Several disciples were fishermen on that lake, sea voyage was every day for them. --GA
Hmm. Difficult. Best I could do is: A boat on the Sea of Galilee (mentioned in Matthew 9:1, which the text has several references to). But it gets a bit clumsy. Maybe just leave it. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • whom he regarded -> who is he referring to?
whom he regarded as a 'profound composer' refers to the one mentioned immediately before. Can't say: "a composer whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'" as repetitive, - what do you suggest? --GA
Just realised there are actually 5 men in this sentence. Is it important that Gardiner is mentioned at all? Is the exact relationship father's cousin important? If not, maybe something like this:
This is Bach's only setting of Crüger's tune, recalling the style of his relative Johann Christoph Bach whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'.
In former reviews, I have been requested to attribute quotations, which means Gardiner should stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So it is Gardiner who called JCB a profound composer? Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was JSB. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What Bach said exactly (if he did, and in German), we don't know. We know that Gardiner summarized: "... J. C. Bach, organist in Eisenach, possibly his first keyboard teacher and mentor - the one he called a "profound composer." -----GA

As always, nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful questions, - please check the changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Always a pleasure, Gerda! Edwininlondon (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for more, always helpful! -----Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:BWV56-autograph-manuscript-first-page-Bach-1726.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_1997.168.3_Cross_and_Staff_(2).jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

  • Footnote [a] is pretty basic, but how about a citation?
It only explains what the 3 letters stand for, - was the solution found for the conflict that we can't link to BWV and have it bold as the redirect. --GA
  • Suggested first sentence : "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry"[1] or "I will gladly carry the Cross"[2]), BWV 56,[a] is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach in Leipzig for the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday, and first performed on 27 October 1726."
It was like that formerly, but is a lot of German + translations + catalogue + footnote, before a reader (who doesn't look at the infobox) would know if they are at the right article. --GA
I would use "depicts" when it comes to images, such as tone painting. Give me another ;) --GA
  • "the prescribed gospel reading" — what prescribed gospel reading?
A reader who doesn't know that the Lutheran liturgical year at the time was organized by specific readings for each occasion will know from the link Church cantata, and the others would be bored if we repeat that in every cantata article. --GA
  • What is the significance of the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday? I.e., why is it not just another random Sunday? --GA
same answer, - Bach (and his colleagues) wrote his cantatas to go with the specific readings for a specific occasion, Christmas (3 days with different readings) or 19th Sunday after Trinity. --GA
  • "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" — why is this in bold? To be consistent, should it not be in italics, and should the translation not be between quotation marks?
It's a redirect. Readers who type the title should arrive here. Schlafes Bruder is a novel, a film. The quotation marks frame what is quoted, not its translation. --GA
  • "Du, o schönes Weltgebäude" — how about a translation, and a comma at the end.
The title of the hymn has nothing to do with the content of the cantata, I believe it wouldn't add for someone who doesn't already know it. ("You, oh beautiful building of the world", seems a detour.) --GA
  • "(two oboes and taille) ... "(two violins and viola) and continuo" — taille and continuo should be linked (they are below), and suggest "a taille", "a viola", and "a continuo"
Sorry, no. Whoever doesn't know what these are (like you) can look up Baroque instruments, while for the others it's a sea of blue, and why not link violin? They are all linked in the specific section about scoring. - It's never "a continuo" which is a group of instruments. Saying "two violins" is short for "two parts for violins" which may be played by several players each, depending on the size of the orchestra. --GA

Infobox

  • "Church cantata by J. S. Bach" — any particular reason for the abbreviation here?
Clarity, and brevity. --GA
  • "opening Bass aria" — Why is "Bass" capitalized?
Mathsci wrote that who contributed the image, - it's a bit like a title. --GA
  • Why does "Chorale" have a "by" ("by Johann Franck"), but "Cantata text" doesn't ("Christoph Birkmann")?
Good catch! The reason is that chorale often has the title of a chorale (when it has an article), and "Cantata text author" would seem too clumsy, - has to be differentiated from chorale author. Adding "by". --GA

Background

  • "Thomaskantor (director of church music) ... Thomanerchor" — you describe one, how about describing the other?
I think one explains the other, no? --GA
  • "Cantata music had to be provided for two major churches, ... simpler church music for two others" — it's unclear if all four churches are major, or only the first two. Also, suggest "and simpler..."
"and" added. If it says "two", how would a reader think "four"?
  • "The year after," — can you note somewhere in this sentence that this was his second cycle, to bridge the gap between first (mentioned in the previous sentence) and third (mentioned in the following section)?
seems redundant to me that the cycle after the first is the second ;) --GA

Third Leipzig cantata cycle

  • "Richard D. P. Jones calls this cycle Leipzig Cycle III." — Richard D. P. Jones should be linked. But is there any relevance to this, i.e., is it just another name for "Third Leipzig cantata cycle", or is he the one who coined the concept of the third Leipzig cycle in general?
Linked, thank you! It's only his phrase (here), which was the section title (see above). We might drop the sentence, but it explains the wording in the reference. --GA
  • "third and fourth year in Leipzig" — suggest adding the actual years as well.
Too tricky, because they all begin mid-year, - he took office First Sunday after Trinity, which was in May 1723. --GA
  • "During the third cycle" — I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are you saying he again performed three things: 1) Lehms, 2) BWV 199, and 3) BWV 54?
Would it be clearer to add to the first sentence in that section? added: "... that Bach performed more works by other composers during this time, in addition to repeating his own earlier works." --GA
  • "he performed again" — suggest "he again performed"
taken --GA
  • "Like the models, even church cantatas" — do you need the "even"?
yes, because he wrote many secular cantatas for which it's no surprise that they don't contain biblical text. --GA
  • "The writing for the solo voice is demanding" — in what way?
It's what the source says. --GA
  • "Jones assumes that they" — who does "they" refer to? Structurally it invokes the "trained singers" of the preceding sentence, but this doesn't seem right.
should have been "it", changed to "Bach" --GA
  • "The only chorale cantata of the third cycle," — bit of a run-on, suggest splitting in two.
How? Seems one thought. --GA

Occasion and words

  • "For the same occasion ... in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723" — suggest "For the same occasion in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723, Bach had composed ..." Also, suggest splitting this long sentence in two, one sentence dealing with the first cycle, and another with the second.
done --GA

Poet and theme

  • "whose identity was unknown until 2015" — pretty interesting, would it be easy to give a few words about how he was identified?
The source has it, and his article, but seems not the place to repeat in all cantatas he wrote. --GA
  • "University of Leipzig" — is this the University of Leipzig, or Leipzig University? Regardless, it should be linked.
Both names mean the same thing, - linked. --GA
  • "Sabbath's Tithe devoted to God" — for consistency again, should this not be between quotation marks?
It's only a translation, no title itself. --GA
  • "Ich will den Kreuzweg gerne gehen" — shouldn't this be italicized without quotation marks?
Titles of minor works (poems, hymns, songs) are straight and in quotation marks. --GA
  • "Life is likened to both" — suggest "In the cantata life is likened to both,"
We'd need to say "in the cantata text" then, no? --GA
  • "until the end of the work" — meaning the theme ends slightly before the end of the work? If it's instead present in the entire work, suggest "throughout the work."
excellent! --GA
  • "The hymn in eight stanzas was published" — do you need "in eight stanzas", considering that's mentioned in the next sentence?
no ;) --GA
  • "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 27 October 1726." — where?
Sometimes we know if Thomaskirche or Nikolaikirche, - for this one we don't. --GA
  • "One week before, he had also concluded a solo cantata by a chorale" — same place?
No, certainly the other, but we don't know, see above. They had performances in both churches on one day only for high holidays (one in the morning, the other in the afternoon), otherwise only one, switching churches. It doesn't matter, no? --GA

Structure and scoring

  • "taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), viola (Va), cello (Vc), and basso continuo." — suggest "a taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), a viola (Va), a cello (Vc), and a basso continuo." Also, why does basso continuo have no abbreviation?
for the numbers, see lead. BC is not used in the table, so no abbr needs to be introduced. --GA
  • "J.J.Dominica 19 post trinitatis. Cantata à Voce sola. è stromenti" — how about a translation?
It's explained by what follows, but done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Neue Bach-Ausgabe" — maybe just "New Bach Edition", which via "Edition" indicates that it is a book and is thus a bit more clarifying.
The translation was made only later, not when it was published, seems a bit not historic ;) - There's a link to an article I created as Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA). I added the translation, + italics. ---GA

Movements of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

  • SATB — clarify what this is above at "four-part choir", by saying "four-part choir (SATB)".
copied abbreviation from infobox ---GA

Movements

  • "Wolff notes" — "Wolff" has not yet been introduced, so should be "Christoph Wolff notes".
good catch (he usually gets mentioned further up ... ---GA
  • What does "scoring even" mean?
You didn't ask in the lead ;) - It's the specification in the score which instrument (group) plays what. We can link to score but the question didn't come up in 7 years. ---GA

1

  • Is there a reason movements 1–5 don't show up in the table on contents?
It's the movement numbers from the table. An Alternative would be the long German lines they begin with (which you'll find in cantata articles not by me). Most articles have it like this, which provides a convenient link to a specific movement without having to know how it begins. ---GA
Misunderstood the question. Reason is that it seems not helpful to have the numbers in the TOC, before explaining what they mean. ----GA
  • "describes the upward part as..." — this sentence has some problems. The most obvious is that there are five quotation marks, leaving two clearly demarcated quotations plus a stray mark (is there a third quotation somewhere?). The other problem (that fixing the first might resolve) is that "as a musical pun on the word Kreuzstab" is dangling a bit; is this another description of Gardiner for the upward part (in which case it should probably be "and as a musical pun...")?
Excellent counting. I had the whole thing as one quotation, and left a mark when breaking it up. All reworded, please check if it makes more sense. ---GA
  • "with its long and expressive melismatic lines" — "its" refers to the soloist.
no, refers to "entry" (after the instrumental opening), would be "his" if soloist ---GA
  • "accompany in counterpoint and echoing responses" — not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but (if I'm reading it correctly), I think it would be better phrased as "accompany in counterpoint, echoing responses"
I added one more "in", to clarify that it's both, counterpoint, and responses. If I remember right that paragraph is by Mathsci, - I didn't write the article from scratch. ---GA

2

  • Is there a reason that this (not to mention 3), is so much shorter than 1? The final sentences of each (Gardiner's analyses) seem a bit perfunctory, without much analysis of the movements.
yes, giant opening aria, short recitative, which is added now ----GA
adding: Gardiner writes from the point of view of a performer who conducted all Bach's church cantatas, so knows their sounds, not only construction. ----GA
  • "depicted in the" — should probably be "depicted by the".
yes (would be "in" in German, sorry) ---GA

3

  • "the passage from Isaiah" — what passage from Isaiah?
It was specified and quoted in the "Poet and theme" section. ---GA

4

  • I don't understand the first sentence. Is the German the title of the movement? Also, grammatically speaking, the periods should be removed.
I added "recitative", - can't help then having it twice then, split the sentence. Better? ---GA
  • "string accompaniment which after" — suggest a comma between "accompaniment" and "which".
I split that sentence also. ---GA
  • "It begins ... in triplets." — bit of a run-on, consider splitting in two.
just did that ;) ---GA
  • "Gardiner describes: ..." — grammatically the sentence is missing a subject, and stylistically, not a big fan of starting off with "Gardner describes:".
added "this change" ---GA

5

  • "an inspired masterpiece" — whose masterpiece: Bach's, or Franck's? I would assume Bach (the article is about his work, after all), but the following sentence and quotation deal entirely with the Franck's text.
Sure, Bach's, or it would be handled further up. The text could go there, but I think it makes more sense to see it close to where the music is described. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "BWV 301" — does this have a title?
yes and no, it was without words - as so many of the 4-part settings, so we can take the first line (O, du schönes Weltgebäude), as the ref does, or any other first line from that hymn, - it doesn't matter, as he set the tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 'profound composer' — why the single marks (') instead of double (")?
for a quote within a quote ---GA
need to interrupt once more ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Manuscripts and publication

  • "and the part" — what is the part?
part, the bass has his part, the violins have their part, - like score a rather commonly known term. ----GA
  • "Preußischer Kulturbesitz as D-B Mus.ms. Bach P 118 and ST 58." — what does this mean? It's really hard to understand.
The museums code numbers, P for Partitur=score, ST for Stimmen=parts. We could drop that. It's not so common that we have score and parts extant. ----GA
I would need to search. ----GA
  • "its complete edition Stuttgarter Bach-Ausgaben" — what year?
took several years, not finished afaik ----GA

Recordings

  • "marked by green background" — should be "marked with a green background".
you are the first to say so, but why not? ----GA
  • There are 8 recordings in the chart, but apparently these are taken from a list of 81. What's the criteria for inclusion?
The selection was made so long ago that I don't even remember, sorry ;) - I'll probably add at least those within a set of the complete cantatas. ----GA

Legacy

  • "his 1908 book about Bach that the" — how about "his 1908 book about Bach, name of book, that the"?
name is Bach-Buch - I thought that's German, and the translation, literally Bach Book, repetitive. Will try to find how it's called in English. ----GA
  • This section feels a bit underdeveloped, and doesn't even have a topic sentence. Can you turn this into a paragraph that explains where the work fits in to Bach's oeuvre, and how it is considered to compare to his others?
Hopefully! Flight is called now. Until later. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work on the article, Gerda Arendt. Full comments/suggestions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and helpful review! I replied to the first half, and need to interrupt. Going to travel for a week, responses may come delayed, but as this is planned for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, we still have time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Thing (1982 film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To paraphrase: "I know I'd make this a Featured Article. And if you were all these things, then you'd just not make it a Featured Article, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to promote Featured Articles, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to prevent this becoming a Featured Article. And then it's won."

The Thing is a 1982 horror film, it bombed at the time but has since become recognised as a milestone in the horror genre. Read, be enlightened, feedback, and hopefully this can become one of our top articles! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


One of my all time favorite films, of course I'll take a look at it. I was going to comment how there was no analysis section, but then I saw the cinematic analysis section. Here are a few more articles I was able to find on JSTOR about The Thing:

  • White, Eric (November 1993). "The Erotics of Becoming: Xenogenesis and 'The Thing'". Science Fiction Studies. 20 (3): 394–408. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Leane, Elizabeth (July 2005). "Locating the Thing: The Antarctic as Alien Space in John W. Campbell's 'Who Goes There?'". Science Fiction Studies. 32 (2): 225–239. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Gomel, Elana (July 2012). "Posthuman Voices: Alien Infestation and the Poetics of Subjectivity". Science Fiction Studies. 39 (2): 177–194. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Jones, Kent (January–February 1999). "John Carpenter: American Movie Classic". Film Comment. 35 (1): 26–31. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 

While the cinematic analysis section looks rather in depth as it stands, you might want to at least skim through what these journals have to say about The Thing. I'll have a close look at the article tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hobo I will take a look. Sorry I didn't see this update to the talk page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, defer to FH on source coverage.

  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Further reading should be a separate section, not a subsection, and should not include Wikipedia articles. Also, formatting should match references, although additional information can be included
  • Why include a location for Los Angeles Times and not New York Times? Should be either neither or both
  • FN6 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other books
  • FN7 is malformed, same with 39-41
  • Newspaper refs without URLs should include page numbers
  • GamesRadar should be italicized, as should website names like Film.com - check others
  • FN 49-50: why no spaces?
  • Formatting for FN51 doesn't match similar sources, same with 167
  • Magazine titles should be consistently italicized
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations or not
  • Noting a rather heavy use of sources that are either written by or interviews of people directly involved in the production
  • Box Office Mojo should not be italicized, nor should UPI, nor BFI, etc - check others
  • FN74: page?
  • What makes Strange Horizons a high-quality reliable source? Alt Film Guide? Screamscape?
  • Rather than Goodreads, just cite the edition directly
  • FN123 doesn't match formatting of other sources
  • FN127: archive link doesn't appear to work correctly
  • FN131: use |via=
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, RT and Metacritic's reliability is limited for pre-2000s films
  • Review aggregators may be cited if the film in question has been reappraised in modern times. Patience, Slightlymad 05:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • But they are being cited here more broadly, not simply in the context of modern reappraisal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

oppose pending resolution of some of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The locations were included for newspapers where it was literally a newspaper. If it's online there is no location because the website is the source.
  • You're not following that logic consistently - for example FN79 has both a link and a location - and I don't know that that approach is compatible with the guidance for CS1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic aren't given any point of prominence in the article, it's just used to mention how it is perceived in a broad sense, it is not used in anyway to indicate modern appreciation, there's a whole load of text before the RT/MC mention that goes into detail about it.
  • Although they are not the only sources provided, they are fairly prominently featured within the Critical reassessment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strange Horizons has an article. Seems perfectly fine for what it used for. Alt Film Guide is mentioned here, I'm only using it because it's literally the only place offering the information it is citing, but I'm not attached to it so if necessary it can go. Screamscape probably isn't great, I have no idea, again it's just one of the only sites mentioning the information being cited.
  • The website parameter italices the sites automatically. Only thing I can think of is to add things like BOM and UPI as publisher and a separate website parameter.
  • Using the website parameter is not a requirement; in many cases the publisher parameter makes more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There s a heavy use of sources by or interivews with cast and crew as they are all that is available. I can't really do much about that.
  • Famous Hobo suggested above that there were other sources that may have been missed - have you looked at those already? Where else have you looked for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I date ordered the bibliography.
  • I disagree on Further Reading, a small subsection created to house like 4 links is unnecessary and visually unappealing. Where it is is logically fine, alongside navigation templates, categories, wikiquote, etc. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Navigation templates, categories, wikiquote etc are in the External links section. At the moment the Further reading section is visually unappealing, and combines the function of that section and See also. If you would prefer not to have a separate section for Further reading, two of the three publications in there are potentially citable, and the third already has an article link inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)



Comment Have only skim read, and while the prose could do with some tingtening, they are largely fine, and am sure reviewers will work through issues (I have started light copy editing). Its a great film and very please to see the article here. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support: that was a delightful read. Thank you for that! I think the prose looks fine, to be honest. I will support this article on the condition that something be done about standardizing all of the citations. You seem to mix both the Template:Sfn "shortened footnote" style with the method of providing full reference information for every inline citation. I think you should choose one or the other. For instance, see the Template:Sfnp citation style for my featured article on the Mosaics of Delos, using both print sources and online media. Aside from that issue, congratulations! I have a strong feeling that this nomination will sail through the gate on its way to victory. And Kurt Russell himself will approve it with a thumbs up. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'd maybe have made parallels to WP:sock-puppets for the introduction here (or would that be more fitting for Invasion of the Body Snatchers?), but anyhow, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "pursues an Alaskan Malamute" How has the exact breed been identified here? Perhaps better to just say dog (or sled dog), as they do in the film itself... In any case, I don't see why mentioning the exact breed is in any way important to the plot.
  • "The Norwegian shouts at the Americans, but they cannot understand him and he is shot dead by the station Commander." Perhaps important to note here that he actually shoots at them first?
  • "Blair transforms into an enormous creature" Isn't this creature composed of many other individuals, though? There is even a dog poking out of it.
This doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you want it to be changed to? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that the creature doesn't just consist of Blair, but if the sources only refer to it as a Blair-Thing, then we should too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Cohen suggested that he read the original novella. He found the "creepiness" of" You could name Carpenter instea dof the second "he" for clarity, as it isn't entirely clear it is not Cohen you refer to.
  • "of workers employed under Bottin" Full name and link needed at first mention outside lead.
  • "including Nauls' confrontation of the "box Thing"." Which is what?
  • There is some duplicate linking, try this script to see:[8]
  • "was special make-up effects designer Rob Bottin" Seems he is presented after his first mention, so some of that could be cut.
  • "Masur described his character as not really interested in people, but who loves working with dogs." Something missing here.
  • "He went to a survivalist store and bought a flip knife for his character that he uses in a confrontation with David's character." The change of tense here seems odd.
  • "and the wolfdog Jed appears" Present and link at first mention instead of here.
  • "They would make the 27 miles (43.5 km) hike up a small, winding road" Sure about this measurement? That seems extremely long, and I can't find it mentioned in the two online sources used for it. Did they walk this distance every day?
  • "sometimes because there was too much dialogue slowed the pace and undermined the suspense." something wrong here.
  • "Approximately three minutes of scenes were filmed from Lancaster's script that introduced the characters more directly." I'm not sure what the significance/meaning of this is in context with the preceding paragraph. More directly than what? A former version of the script?
  • "as part of film's soundtrack" The.
  • The section titled "The Thing" Could maybe be titled The "Thing", as you do elsewhere, otherwise it seems to just replicate the filn's title, instead of referring to the creature. I would maybe retitle it "creature effects" or "special effects" instead, for clarity.
  • "At the age of 21, Bottin was hospitalized for exhaustion, double pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, caused by his extensive workload" During or after working on the film?
  • "A cast was made of Lance Anderson's arm" He could be presented.
  • "The team originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white" Why?
This seems not to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't answer this one. It's not elaborated on in the source, just something they discussed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and commercially successful E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ($792.9 million)" It seems unfair to list that after only listing what the Thing grossed in 1982... That number includes earnings from the 2002 re-release, according to the film's article.
  • Aww, you can't help but feel bad for Carpenter after that receptions section!
  • It seems the "Cinematic analysis" could need in text attribution for its statements, in the same manner as the review sections. Now these conclusions are just stated as absolute fact, though these are just interpretations by various writers. Especially when it goes into speculation about homosexuality and what not, which seems extremely subjective.
  • "The Thing has been analysed as" Another case in point, you need to say by who, not only that it has been.
  • " Bravo listed a scene from The Thing at" Which scene?
  • I've deleted it for now. ATM it's impossible to evidence the scene (The blood test scene). I can find the series in one long cut on Youtube but can't evidence the actual episode number so can't properly source it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It would seem the short story and art book mentioned udner cultural impact may be more fitting udner merchandise?
  • They're both not official works as far as I can see but things influenced by it. I class merchandise as licensed goods sold to profit from the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "These were published in an omnibus edition entitled The Thing From Another World Omnibus by Dark Horse Books in 2008" I can't find a good reference to this collection anywhere but that Goodreads link, not even on Dark Horse's website. Was it ever even released?
  • I removed the Omnibus edition mention. It's incredibly difficult to produce a reliable source that mentions the comics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The impact on later film-makers could be mentioned in the intro.

Comment I was surprised not to find a link to body horror, of which this is probably one of the most famous cinematic examples. Might be worth working in somewhere with suitable refs. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian Air Corps

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it didn't even have an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Air Corps has always been the poorer relation of the Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921, but between the disbandment of the AFC and the establishment of the RAAF, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. Though always a stop-gap, it turned out to be a pretty successful venture -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, one of which has been credited as marking the birth of aviation medicine in Australia. Most importantly, the corps laid the foundations for a permanent Australian air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject's brief existence -- have at it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

A few minor observations

  • For Newton's Australian Air Aces", the full title appears to be "Australian Air Aces : Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat".
    • Done.
  • The edition of Stephens's The Royal Australian Air Force: A History appears to have been published by the Melbourne branch of the OUP.
    • Done.
  • There is a mix of ISBN-13 and ISBN-10; I understand that it's preferred at FAC to have all ISBNs consistently formatted.
    • Done.
  • Refs #10, #22 & #33 are sourced to The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Although you've used {{cite web}}, and this source does not appear in the References section, it appears to be a 634-page book. Is there any reason why it's not formatted as a book ref? More importantly, given the apparent size of the source, do the links you provide in the refs take us to the relevant pages? They're behind a paywall, so can't check myself.
    • It's a slightly anomalous situation: yes it's a book, but the online version is not a straight scan of the print book -- there are individual entries and no page numbers, thus cite web is more appropriate for the version I used (yes, the links take you to the individual entries if you have access).
  • Based on the version of the article at 00:58, 5 April 2018
  • I did a random check of refs #3, #9, #17, #21, #30 & #32, and the statements in the article are supported by the sources (though in the case of #21, you could probably reduce the page range to 69-71; minor niggle).
  • Ref #14 does not appear to support the statements that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC. Page 36 mentions both, but this is in a section that appears to be discussing recruitment into the RAAF, and p. 191 doesn't really say anything in support of the statement that I can see.
  • Page 20 is the one: Legge did telegram Colonel Watt seeking his views on the officer proposed for appointment as the AAC's first flight commander and the other candidates being considered for subordinate posts as lieutenants. It was seemingly as a result of Watt's response on 9 December that Cole was selected for the senior job ... On 19 February Major Brown relinquished the command at Point Cook to Major Anderson, who now became the corps' senior officer.90 In February, too, Captain Wrigley took over as the adjutant of CFS, vice Kilby who departed to become aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. Further appointments in the AAC appear to have been made purely as the need arose. I think those are fairly clear but page 18 also states explicitly that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC if we need more.
I missed that. I'm not sure why you need to include pp. 36 and 191 in that ref when p. 20 supports the statement made. But that all seems fine now. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Googling "Australian Air Corps" did not reveal anything to suggest to me that the article is not comprehensive or a full survey of the available sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to make such a thorough check -- much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome. Forgot to add, I saw nothing to suggest that the sources are not of sufficient quality and reliability for FAC. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And a few minor observations on prose

  • ...because it had not then offered a commission to Frank McNamara, VC. Stumbled a little at this. I read "then" as a consequential statement, when in fact I think you're using it to mean "at that time".
    • Done.
  • ...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft and associated spares and other equipment... Maybe "...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft with associated spares and other equipment..."?
    • Done.
  • ...which operated in the waters off New Guinea and Australia's north,... Feels like the end of this clause is missing the word "coast".
    • Tweaked.
  • The AAC performed several tasks in connection with the Prince of Wales' tour of Australia in 1920. Should be "Prince of Wales's" per MOS:POSS.
    • Hmm, "Wales's" seems to me a bit like the unpleasant-sounding exceptions POSS notes...
Understand what you mean, but I'm not sure that Wales is any different from boss, which explicitly takes the apostrophe s according to MOS:POSS. Also, the exception seems to be based on difficulties in pronunciation caused by the word following the possessive beginning with 's', and anyway the solution given is to reword to avoid, rather than allow as an exception. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for belated response... I think "Wales's" is more akin to the "z" sound you get with "Jesus's", which is offered as an exception. Much as I value the MOS, it is a guideline after all and I think occasionally we have to ask ourselves if following it religiously actually produces a better article. I mean for the sake of a quiet life I suppose we could go with "the 1920 tour of Australia by the Prince of Wales", though I still think the way it is now is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I missed that bit. Personally I do not have a problem with the way you have written this, but I note that MOS suggests re-writing to avoid it rather than allowing as an exception. Up to you. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Factotem (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for those comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Image licensing counfounds me still, but by all the other FAC criteria I see no reason not to support. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just what such an article should be, it seems to me as a layman. Clear, readable, and – I confidently assume – comprehensive. Well and widely sourced and cited and appropriately illustrated. All I can dredge up by way of queries are whether Captain Roy Phillipps had quite that many consonants, and whether "program" is now the accepted Australian spelling of "programme". Very happy to sign up as a supporter. – Tim riley talk 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and kind words, Tim. Yes, according to his personnel file (and other sources) "Phillipps" is correct despite looking somewhat odd. As for "program", that does seem common Australian usage, even though we still follow BritEng norms for the most part. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • Consider breaking into two paragraphs, the second starting with "The AAC's primary purpose".
    • Not averse to this but let's see how we go with the next few points.
  • "maintain assets ... pioneering flights" — a bit unclear what you mean by these two terms, particularly the second (does the first basically mean keep the planes in good condition?).
    • "Assets" seems a good umbrella term as I understand the AAC was to maintain not only aircraft but other equipment and the Point Cook base. "Pioneering" is deliberate -- flights not made before.
  • Having read the lead (but not yet the body), I don't have a good sense of how the AAC was different from the AFC and the RAAF, and thus what the point of changing from AFC to AAC to RAAF was.
    • Heh, you may be labouring under the misapprehension that things always happen for a reason in the military. Of course they do, but it's often hard to fathom just what the reason is... ;-)
  • In general (final point, after reading the rest of the article), you could also expand the lead a bit: how many members, how many died, how many planes, maybe some details about some notable flights, and perhaps something about the legacy of the AAC (the final sentence in "Disbandment and legacy" does a good job of this).
    • Given the size of the article I think we want to guard against too much detail in the lead but I'll think on these last two points.
      • I've added a bit more about the point of the AAC as an interim force pending the formation of what became the RAAF, as well as some detail on key activities. I'd rather leave out the number of members because although we have what appear to be figures for other ranks at their peak, the same can't be said for the officers; partly because of that I think I'd rather leave the fatalities to the main body, and the total number of planes operated is also not clear because no source I have states just how many of the Imperial Gift planes were assembled and flown by the AAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

  • Anything that would work as a picture? Did they have a symbol/emblem?
    • Doesn't appear to have been a crest or emblem; as a temporary formation it'd be surprising if there were. Even units conceived as more-or-less permanent can wait years for a crest.
      • Maybe the B.E.2 in the Australian War Museum?
        • That's a thought, except that the flight for which it's remembered took place before the AAC was formed. I do normally like to put images in infoboxes but in this case I haven't seen one that's directly related to the AAC, representative of the entity as whole, and in good condition.

Establishment and control

  • "were disbanded, and replaced" — again, why?
    • Sources don't go into special reasons for the disbandment of the AFC, it seems to have happened as part of the general demobilisation of wartime units. The purpose in raising the AAC is mentioned.
  • "sole unit" — is unit a specific military term, and if so, could it be linked?
    • Hmm, I don't think I've ever been asked to link "unit" but there is a redirect so I don't mind using it.
  • "The decision for such a service had been taken" — suggest "The decision to create such a service had been made"
    • Okay.
  • "maintained, but he later" — suggest "maintained; Legge later"
    • Okay.

Personnel

  • "to Frank McNamara, VC" — how about his rank instead of the post-nominal, and/or turn "VC" into a few words explaining his being awarded the Victoria Cross.
    • I liked the shorthand of "Frank McNamara, VC" but I can spell it out.
      • If you want it that way the VC should separately link to Victoria Cross, but I think your rephrasing is better.
  • "in favor (sic)" — no chance he was just using American English?
    • Well even if he was using AmEng deliberately, it's not AusEng and therefore I expect readers will believe it's wrong and try to correct it if we don't sic it.
  • "McNamara received a commission in the AAC that April" — why the reversal? Did Roy King thereafter join?
    • Sorry, I don't understand the issue. King refused a commission because McNamara had not at that time been offered one; in his January 1920 letter he in effect said "take McNamara instead of me"; the AAC did so that April.
      • Got it. I read it differently the first time (as Roy King saying 'I can't join something for which McNamara was refused'), but see now that King was ceding his spot in favor (or favour) of McNamara.
  • "Hippolyte "Kanga" De La Rue ... was offered a commission" — if he accepted the offer, say "accepted a commission" instead.
    • Okay.
  • "approval was given ..., to cope with ..." — minor suggestion to flip clauses, to "to cope with ..., approval was given..."
    • Okay.
  • "According to The Age" — according to the newspaper (e.g., in an article), or according to an ad in it? I would clarify, and also add that The Age is a newspaper.
    • Although it reads a bit like an ad, it's a brief article, which is why I felt it was fine to express it as I did. I'm not used to having to spell out that newspapers are newspapers but I don't mind adding it.
      • Got it. I would actually prefer According to the newspaper The Age" or ever just your original "According to The Age" over "According to The Age newspaper".
        • I think I'd like to revert to "According to The Age..." then.
  • "returned soldiers" — returned, or returning?
    • Returned is correct.
  • "some compensation" — any word on how much?
    • Yes, can add.
  • "they had been on duty" — technically this says that the families had been on duty.
    • Quite right -- tks for picking that up.
  • "Wreckage that may have belonged" — just a point of curiosity, but what happened to the wreckage? Why couldn't they definitively determine whether it was from the plane in question? Was it just a few washed up pieces?
    • The source offers no further detail.

Equipment

  • "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included twenty" — suggest "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included thirty-give airplanes: twenty ..."
    • The source doesn't explicitly state a grand total so I'd prefer to just mention the numbers of each type that the source does spell out.
  • "their historic flight" — what historic flight?
    • Sorry, that probably was a bit esoteric -- it was the first flight from Melbourne to Darwin, so will clarify.
  • "The aircraft included..." — any word on how many of each, since you gave the itemized count above?
    • The source I've used doesn't break it down; another may do, I'll have a look and itemise if feasible.
      • Thinking about this further, even if I could source the numbers for each aircraft type in this sentence I don't think it would be necessary in this article because only a few of each type were assembled and flown by the AAC (if I had exact number for these I'd include them but the key source, The Third Brother, doesn't specify). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable flights

  • "Williams and Wackett flew" — perhaps "had flown".
    • Yes, of course.
  • "New Guinea" — suggest linking to New Guinea.
    • Okay.
  • "demonstrated that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions" — any reason why?
    • Can add some specifics.
  • "Second Peace Loan" — this is a but confusing, what is it exactly?
    • It's in the next few words: "for the sale of government bonds".
      • That says what it's related to, but not necessarily what it is. E.g., it could have been a promotion, that was intended to facilitate the sale of bonds.
        • I think I could safely say "to promote the sale of government bonds" if that works for you.
  • "what may have been Australia's first aerial derby—at Serpentine," — you could probably use a comma instead of an em dash.
    • Could do but I felt we'd have a few too many commas around there.

Disbandment and legacy

  • "achieve high rank" — should "rank" be plural?
    • As a general term I think it's currently expressed correctly.
  • "According the RAAF's" — missing "to".
    • Yes, tks for picking that up!

Notes

  • Any chance of sfn footnotes that link to "References"?
    • I do prefer the style I've employed as I believe it provides useful detail and find it more foolproof than the sfn format.
  • Notes 4, 17, 27, 32: I don't think you really need the retrieval dates. The references are to newspapers/bulletins, which will forever remain stable; you don't have the risk of a continually updating source, since even if the links you provide ever go down, whatever was in The Age on 22 March 1920 will always be the same.
    • While I agree that a newspaper always exists, I think it's still common practice to add retrieval dates in such citations.
  • Note 27: "lecture" should be capitalized.
    • I think article titles, whether in newspapers or elsewhere, generally use sentence case -- but you've still pointed out an inconsistency in "Imperial Gift Aircraft", which should use "aircraft".

References

  • Stephens 2006/2001: Why two years? If you're using a particular edition, which can be labelled (e.g., "2nd ed), you should clarify.
    • It was first published (in hardback) in 2001; the edition I've used (in paperback) was published in 2006.
      • If you like, and if the edition was named in some way, you could do something like with Meadows 2004 in Pioneer Helmet#Bibliography, where it specifies "2010 digital ed."
        • I don't mind saying "2006 paperback ed." if you like, as that seems to be the only distinguishing feature of the one I used vs. the original.
  • Consider adding {{free access}} or {{open access}} tags as appropriate.
    • Tks for pointing those out but I'd prefer to just stick to pointing out where access is restricted.

Looks great, Ian Rose. Comments/suggestions are above. Most are quite minor; probably the most important is the suggestion to expand the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, as I've indicated earlier I'll probably tackle the points re. the main body before looking at the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose, responded to a few specific comments above. I'll hold off on support until I see what changes (if any) you make to the lead, but looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Usernameunique, I think I've now acknowledged and/or actioned pretty well everything in some way/shape/form so pls see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks good Ian Rose, particular the changes to the lead. Happy to support. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, I've read this a few times and only have a few minor queries...

  • "...that both DH.9As may not have had adequate preparation time..." - sounds awkward to me, perhaps 'that neither DH.9A may have had adequate' or just replace "both" with 'the'
    • Fair enough -- I think replacing "both" with "the" might work best.
  • "...that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions as its engine lacked the necessary power..." - I don't understand the connection. Guessing humidity? heat?
    • I don't think the source went into more detail than that but will check.
      • No further info in source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "...to deliver the Prince's mail, which had arrived by ship in Fremantle..." Did they collect and then deliver? Did they fly from Point Cook to WA then back to Sydney? Over many legs?
    • Will check.
      • Actually the mail was transported from WA to South Australia by rail, and flown from there to Sydney by the AAC. The implication is the AAC flew from Point Cook to South Australia to pick it up, but not explicitly mentioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • References - Newton...Fyshwyck - Fyshwick?
    • Oops.

Thanks for filling this gap in our aviation history. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stopping by, Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those Ian. Happy to sign support, JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Construction of Rockefeller Center

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the construction of New York City's Rockefeller Center. It's a very complicated story: the original complex was only constructed because the Metropolitan Opera declined to build a new opera house on a plot in Midtown Manhattan, and the last few buildings were added several decades after the first buildings were completed. This article was created from scratch last November, so I took great pains to make sure the text was as clear as possible when writing it. I took some inspiration from the Construction of the World Trade Center article, which is an FA. The "Construction of Rockefeller Center" page received a GA review from Ed! and a GOCE copy-edit from Dhtwiki. I look forward to everyone's comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read, but I'm finding a fair number of relatively minor issues:


  • "The project was initially envisioned as a new opera-house complex for the Metropolitan Opera." To avoid the repetition of opera, I might change "opera-house complex" to "home"
  • Done.
  • "Excavation of the site started in April 1931, and construction of the first buildings started in September of the same year." I think one of the "started"'s should be changed to "began". Close repetition of words is something I found a fair number of in this article, suggest reading over with an eye for this in case I don't catch them all.
  • Done.
  • "Building" is the subject for the second, third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of the lede. I'd try to mix it up a bit with different words.
  • Done.
  • "purchased a patch of land" "Patch" generally connotes a small amount, but this is several city blocks. Suggest "parcel". Also, before the reader wonders too much at how low real estate prices were, it might be worth mentioning that Midtown was mostly woods and farmland then.
  • I changed "patch" to "parcel". I also mentioned that the specific parcel was a woodland. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The gardens would operate" But you use "garden" both in the name and in "botanical garden". I'd change to the singular, there and later, might be in order.
  • Done.
  • Some of the present day equivalent amounts are in 2016 dollars, some in 2017.
  • Fixed, as some of the equivalents used the US microeconomic index rather than the US GDP index. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "when the St. Patrick's Cathedral was built nearby," It is usually referred to without the "the". I would also remove the "the" before St. Nicholas Church.
  • Done.
  • "John Tonnele, the university's real estate adviser, was hired to find suitable tenants for the land, since the leases on the Upper Estate rowhouses were being allowed to expire without renewal." I imagine this was in anticipation of some more profitable development than the rowhouses, and should probably be stated.
  • Done.
  • I might at some point round out the search by the Met for new premises by mentioning they moved to Lincoln Center in the 1960s. You do mention Lincoln Center, that might be a convenient point.
  • I included it where the Lincoln Center is mentioned. There may be a better place for it, but I have to consider it more. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as another property on Fifth Avenue between 48th and 49th Streets, " This is, I assume, St. Nicholas Church. As you mentioned it, I would simply so state.
  • Done.
  • I don't understand why there was a need to buy expired leases. Did the tenant still hold some rights even after the expiration?
  • I changed to "expiring" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I just removed "expiring or" from that section, since it now seems redundant to "existing". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and tasked the noted Beaux-Arts architects John Russell Pope, Cass Gilbert, and Milton B. Medary to judge the proposals." "tasked ... to" I'm not sure works. I might change "tasked" to "hired" or "engaged". I would consider either a more usual usage than "tasked".
  • I changed to "asked" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about the eventual renewal of the leases, including the taking up of optional terms?
  • I noted that the lease was renewed in 1953 and 1973, and that the land was sold to Columbia in 1985. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Moreover, Rockefeller could avoid any rent increases for forty-five years, even when adjusted for inflation." I might strike "when adjusted".
  • Does "adjusted for inflation" sound good? epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Metropolitan Opera was dilatory toward the development, and they refused to take up the site's existing leases until they were certain that they had enough money to do so.[45][73]" It's the "dilatory". Odd and a bit POV. They would not take up obligations they might not be able to meet. Considering the Depression that followed, they were sensible. I might change "The Metropolitan Opera was reluctant to commit to the development, refusing to take up the ..." Also, you refer to "the Opera" several times. The shorter way of referring to the Metropolitan Opera is "the Met". Conflict with the term "the Old Met" can be avoided by referring to it as "its old building".
  • Both done.
  • "Since the Opera would not have any funds until after they sold the Old Met by April of that year," I might cut "by April of that year" as unnecessary detail and it makes the sentence read oddly. See also previous note.
  • Done.
  • "Otherwise, the facility could not be mortgaged, and Columbia would retake ownership of the land, which would be a disadvantage for both the Opera and Rockefeller.[75]" I would change "facility" to "new opera house" I think for "ownership" you mean "possession", and I would change "retake" to "regain". The final phrase, seems almost facetious. Of course if the owner of the land retakes possession, it's going to be a problem for the tenants.
All done.
  • "plots" (used many times in article). I would expect "lots" to be much more common. Of course, New York real estate may have its own terminology.
  • Done, though I did replace some with "parcels". epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex would contain the Metropolitan Opera facility as well as a retail area with two 25-story buildings; department stores; two apartment buildings; and two hotels, with one rising 37 stories and the other being 35 stories.[80][81]" shouldn't the semicolons be commas?
  • No, this is correct usage. The semicolons separate complex list items with commas in them, and they are called serial semicolons. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "in a layout similar to that of the English town of Chester.[45]" I imagine the shops there are meant, rather than the town itself. I might insert an image.
  • Yes. Unfortunately, I can't find a good image of Chester's layout up close. And in any case, the comparison to Chester was drawn by the New York Times. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " by buying leases" I'm really unclear on what is being said here. Are they intended to buy the unexpired term of existing leases from the existing tenants? Or is what is meant committing to a new lease, either from Rockefeller or Columbia?
  • Clarified (it was from the existing tenants, for Columbia). epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "invalidated" possibly "mooted"
  • Done.
  • "that Rockefeller pay for half for the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that Rockefeller refused." Maybe, if I understand the reasoning right, "that Rockefeller finance the move by purchasing a half-interest in the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that he refused."
  • Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "With the lease still running," suggest "With the lease term already running,"
  • Changed to "With the lease still in effect," Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • When you say "site" in the first paragraph of "New Plans", do you mean the land set aside for the opera house, or the whole of Rockefeller Center?
  • I fixed it to clarify that it was the entirety of Columbia's site (i.e. Rockefeller Center). epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention, I think twice, that the Sixth Avenue El lowered property values. A brief explanation might be a help.
  • I clarified in the first mention that the elevated caused visual obstructions and noise pollution. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The delivery lane was eliminated in this plan because it was seen as unnecessary, what with the road facing the blank walls of the theaters instead of the windows of department stores.[106]" "what with" doesn't seem to me to be the best prose. And the way it is phrased, I am concerned the reader will miss the point as I understand it: that the delivery road was eliminated because theaters don't have heavy delivery needs, whereas department stores do. Whether or not there were windows is a bit beside the point.
  • "the $200 million cost-projection" I might ditch the hyphen. You do when you use a similar phrase, " $350 million cost estimate" later in the section.
  • Dropped the hyphen, as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "would be relocated to underground tunnels" maybe just "would be covered over"
  • "while the streets surrounding the plot" maybe "development" or "complex" for "plot".
  • It reads "while the streets surrounding the land" in my version. Changed "land" to "project", since that word is used earlier in the paragraph. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "by contemporary standards" to avoid ambiguity, suggest "by the standards of the times"
  • Have so changed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "which was the maximum distance that sunlight could permeate the interior of a building" I might say "penetrate" for "permeate". Interesting stat.
  • Have changed "permeate" to "directly penetrate". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "since the skyscraper's proposed elevators would move faster." I might cut this. The reader understands, I hope, that a faster elevator will be more effective in moving people efficiently.
  • "in response to Chase National bank's request for a single building." Bank should probably be capped.
  • Have capitalized "bank". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The sculptor Paul Manship was then hired to create a sculpture on top of the fountain; his bronze Prometheus statue was installed on the site in 1934.[150][152]" I would insert "to place" prior to "on top of the fountain".
  • Have inserted those words. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "with the projected $250 million, 4,042-seat facility" that seems a very high cost for the times, almost as much as the cost estimates for Rockefeller Center as a whole.
  • I found the mistake. The $250 million was for the entire complex, not for the opera itself. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but Junior wanted artworks that had meaningful purposes rather than purely aesthetic ones." Who is Junior?
  • Have substituted "Rockefeller" for "Junior", meaning John D. Rockefeller Jr. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "his father began scrutinizing all of the following artworks commissioned for the center." I might sub "artworks thereafter" for "following artworks".
  • Now reads "scrutinizing all of the artworks thereafter commissioned". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "it has been a tradition to display a large Christmas tree at the plaza between November and January of each year.[311]" As November and January are in different years, I might cut "of each year" or cut "of".
  • I put "yearly tradition" and removed wording after "January". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the occasional hyperbole" Isn't it more usually "piece of hyperbole" or "bit of hyperbole"?
  • Inserted "bit of", as well as inserted "amounts" after "massive" in previous phrase. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "the United States Postal Service" until 1971, the United States Post Office Department. So you might want to change that "post office" later in the sentence to "facility", if you change the name.
  • There's something of a gap in explanation between the managers wanting there to be subway service and the building of the 47th-50th Streets Station.
  • I added a short "bridge" of sorts, explaining how the Independent Subway System was planning for a Sixth Avenue line in the long term. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects had little to do with Rockefeller Center's development in the first place." I might add "in their firm" after "other three architects". You could remove "in the first place" if you make "had little" into "had had little".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, this is pretty awkward. I was trying to avoid repeating words, but "they ... had had little" is concise. I reworded it differently. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "An updated plan, F-19, restored two smaller 6-story retail buildings to the site of the oval building, as well as proposed a new 40-story tower for a nearby site." I might change "as well as proposed" (a bit awkward) for "and also proposed"
  • Done.
  • "Hood thought this was the cheapest way to make the buildings look attractive, with a cost estimate of $250,000 to $500,000 (about 2.9 to 5.8 million in 2017[3]) that could pay for itself if the gardens were made into botanical gardens.[156][152] " You probably need a dollar sign or the word dollars in the parentheses. Also, refs are out of order, if that is how you are doing things.
  • Fixed.
  • " Hartley Burr Alexander, a noted mythology and symbology professor, was tasked with planning the complex's arts installations.[203][201][204][205]" again, refs out of order.
    • Fixed.
  • Was anything of significance done with the schist removed from the building site?
    • Not really. This was basically the Manhattan schist that was underneath the ground. It's not technically accurate to say that dirt was excavated. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Designs for the RCA Building and International Music Hall, to the north, were submitted to the New York City Department of Buildings in August 1931, with both buildings scheduled to open in 1932.[274] The contracts for the music hall and 66-story skyscraper were awarded two months later.[135][113] Ultimately, the project's managers would submit 1,860 contracts to the Department of Buildings.[275] Rockefeller Center's construction progressed quickly; and in September 1931, construction began on the International Music Hall.[276] By October 1931, sixty percent of the digging was complete and the first contracts for the buildings had been let.[135] " It seems to me there is duplicate information, about the contracts for the music hall being awarded in October 1931, you basically say it twice if I'm understanding correctly.
    • Thanks for that catch, I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The foundations had been dug up to 50 feet (15 m) below ground, with each of the area's eighty-six piers descending up to 86 feet (26 m). " maybe "structure" for "area". It might be useful to say how far the bedrock (which allowed the skyscrapers to be constructed in the first place) was beneath the construction.
    • Only the 30 Rockefeller Plaza site was underpinned by the piers, so I said that. Regarding the bedrock, there are studies, like this one that show that the depth of the bedrock is only a few meters below the surface in Midtown. However, the lack of skyscrapers from 23rd to around Chambers Streets is not due to the 50-meter depth of the bedrock there, but rather the lack of nearby development in the 19th century (source). In any case, I can't find a reliable source that directly mentions the bedrock depth under Rockefeller Center. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " The failure of the vaudeville theater ended up ruining Roxy's enterprise, and he was forced to resign from the center's management in January 1934.[301][299][302]" Refs not in order, if that's how you are doing it. Also, "opened on April 1, 1937,[388][377]", " the opera plans were formally scrapped.[390][174] "
  • Out of curiosity, how did they propose to get trains from Bergen County to Rockefeller Center?
    • The source doesn't say, but I think they wanted to build a new tunnel under the Hudson River. After crossing the river to New Jersey, the trains would have probably surfaced around the Weehawken Terminal (approximately across the river from 48th-49th Streets), then turned north to the Bergen Subdivision or Northern Branch. Again, this isn't mentioned in the source, but that's the most likely route since it would have been really expensive to tunnel southward to the North River Tunnels. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex's underground delivery ramps, located on 50th Street under the present-day Associated Press Building,[343] were installed in May." I might say "completed" for "installed".
    • Done.
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects never had much to do with Rockefeller Center's development.[344]" I wonder if there's sufficient definition as to who the other three architects are.
    • Godley, Foulihoux, and MacMurray. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "when Italy's entry in the League of Nations was obstructed by American isolationists.[360][361]" Should this be the U.S.'s?
    • Yes. I've fixed it. I guess the League of Nations article knows what it's talking about, seeing as it's already a featured article. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and after 29 working days, it was topped out by June.[393]" Since you give a definite figure for the number of working days, the indefiniteness of "by June" is a bit jarring.
  • "In early 1937, the center's managers approached the Dutch government for a possible 16-story "Holland House" on the eastern part of the plot.[398][399] The Dutch government did not enter into the agreement because of troubles domestically, most notably Hitler's 1940 invasion of the Netherlands.[383][400] " First of all, the invasion is three years later, and the building was constructed in 1938; second it's hardly a domestic trouble. Also, the timeline for this whole paragraph appears a bit confused. Eastern signed in 1940 for a building that was surely finished, at the latest, by early 1939?
    • It was very complicated. The building itself wasn't completed until October 1940. The Dutch government had some social unrest at the time which made it infeasible to enter into a long-term commitment for 10 Rockefeller Plaza. There was a gap of two years between the Dutch government's refusal to take the agreement and the Eastern Air Lines' signature of the deal. During that time, 10 Rock was built anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "until 1958, when he became the Governor of New York.[411]" elected or became?
    • Done.
  • "1790 Broadway, in Columbus Circle, " wouldn't this be, more usually, "at Columbus Circle"?
    • Done.
  • What is the timeframe you are using in calling things "Avenue of the Americas" vs. "Sixth Avenue"?
    • It's not a time frame. "Avenue of the Americas" is the name used on addresses. "Sixth Avenue" is the common name of the street. It would be wrong to say "1211 Sixth Avenue" since that's the title, but also confusing to use "Avenue of the Americas" throughout rather than "Sixth Avenue". epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex was deemed complete by the end of October 1939.[417] John Rockefeller Jr. installed the building's ceremonial final rivet on November 1, 1939, marking the completion of the original complex.[64][418][419]" I might throw a "Rockefeller Center" before "complex".
    • Done.
  • "The installation of the last rivet was accompanied by a celebratory speech by Rockefeller and many news accounts about the event.[420] The Eastern Air Lines Building, meanwhile, was not officially complete until its dedication in October 1940.[421][401]" I might change "meanwhile" to "though". Also note refs out of order.
    • Done.
  • " The managers of the property originally wanted to built a 16-story, $2 million structure on that property, but Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect, said that the tower needed to be 36 floors high in order to be profitable.[426] " "built" should be "build". I might go with "stated" over "said".
    • Done.
  • "as part of a negotiation" I might make the last two words "an agreement".
    • Done.
  • "so that the new tower could conform with the Zoning Resolution of 1916." should "with" be "to"?
    • Fixed.
  • "Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center formed a joint venture, Rock-Time Inc., which would share the tower's rent income between Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center.[386]" I might cut all after "between" and substitute "them".
    • Done.
  • " (Incidentally, the Metropolitan Opera finally moved to a new opera house at Lincoln Center in 1966 after declining the opportunity to move to Rockefeller Center.[454]) I might shorten to "(by then the home of the Metropolitan Opera, whose need for a new building had helped spark the Rockefeller Center project)" or maybe just put it in a note.
    • It looks better as a note anyway, so I did that. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Lower Plaza" You are inconsistent on whether you capitalize these words. Please look at all uses.
    • They are now all lowercase. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unlike the old complex, Harrison & Abramovitz's towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: there was no person who cared as much about the new towers' designs as John Rockefeller Jr. had about the original complex's.[457]" I might change "person" to "one". This has the feel of opinion. Perhaps" Unlike the old complex, which had to satisfy John D. Rockefeller Jr., these towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: the present executives of Rockefeller Center were more concerned with the buildings' functionality."
    • Done.
  • "Complications arose with William A. Ruben, a resident at 48th Street" Maybe "of" for "at". I assume that he lived on one of the small pieces of property that were not included in Rockefeller Center because owners did not sell. It might be good to say which one, if so.
    • I mentioned the address
  • Maybe change one of the uses of the word "difficult" in footnote b.
    • Done. @Wehwalt: I have responded to all of your comments above. If there are any other problems, I would be happy to resolve them. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USA-NYC-Titan_Prometheus4.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork? Same with File:NYC-manhattan-rockefeller-eislauf.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: According to the SIRIS record, there is no visible copyright notice on Prometheus (Manship) (created in 1934 and the subject of both photos). The pictures are hosted at Commons, where according to the policy page, Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. A statue published prior to 1978 without a visible copyright registration notice loses its copyright protection and enters the public domain. Additionally, the statue does not physically have a copyright notice on it. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Both description pages should include a tag reflecting this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I put the t":Fifth and Sixth avenues ag on one of the images. I just replaced the second image with a view that excludes the statue. epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you did not see this. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: All of the image issues that you brought up have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Mostly minor

  • Duplicate links: Prometheus, Paul Manship, RCA Building, Rockefeller family, Radio City Music Hall, St. Nicholas Church, Empire State Building, William Fox, Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Foundation, Wallace Harrison, International Building, David Sarnoff
    • Removed.
  • Does fn 50 need to be in all caps?
    • Nope, and it's now lowercase. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Move fn 125, 214, 235 to the bibliography and replace with an {{sfn}} template like the other book references
    • Done, though on a side note, I didn't use SFN at first because these particular footnotes were only mentioned once. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not all the New York Times references have ISSNs. Just an inconsistency.
    • Fixed.
  • Why do the New York Times references have little red lock symbols but the New Yorker (fn 405) does not?
    • Fixed.
  • "an mass-media" -> "a mass-media"
  • Suggest linking "row house"
    • Done.
  • You've used both "row house" and "rowhouse"; suggest standardising on the former
    • Fixed.
  • "Fifth and Sixth avenues" -> "Fifth and Sixth Avenues"
    • In copy-editing, I changed a lot of that, putting all such instances in lower case, unless it was the rare instance of the plural being part of a title (I think there was a subway station where I decided I had to capitalize the street type). It's "Fifth Avenue" and "Sixth Avenue", but "Fifth and Sixth avenues", as "avenues" is a generic description. I did the same for "streets". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Esso was one of the tenants who wanted to expand, and the company signaled that it would build its own office tower if Rockefeller Center's managers did not construct a building for them" I like this bit, which is funny because Rockefeller owns Esso.
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the support. I have fixed all of these issues you raised. Regarding Esso, that... is like /r/accidentalcomedy, but for text. If your owner doesn't want to build you a new building, why not build it yourself? :P epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

Although I'm not into construction, I am happy to review this. Just a few comments to get started:

  • cost equivalent to $1,397,000,000 in 2016 --> $1.4 billion is a lot easier on the eye
    • I've fixed it. This has to do with {{inflation}}, though, so I guess my next three replies are based off this template. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • for $5,000,[2] equivalent to $91,000 in 2016 --> I'm not sure this is right. If I follow the link to the source I get back "In 2016, the relative value of $5,000.00 from 1801 ranges from $90,800.00 to $181,000,000.00." Further down it explains this wide range.
  • 2016 dollars --> if we're putting in all this effort to get the article great, why not make these numbers 2018 dollars?
    • The inflation indices for 2018 are not finalized yet. The most recent index for CPI transactions is 2017, and the most recent index for GDP is 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I must say I feel all these dollars numbers are a bit disruptive and repetitive. More rounding would help a bit: I do not like $64,779,000 but do like $33.8 million
    • Also fixed by manipulating inflation templates. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the 1620s, the Dutch Republic --> although Dutch myself I do think this is unnecessary. If we go that far back, then why not describe the tribes that lived here before colonial claim? I'd start with "in 1686, much of Manhattan, including the future Rockefeller "
  • when Hosack put it -> what does "it" refer to? garden or whole parcel of land?
    • The land.
  • In fact, Rockefeller's acquisition of the land might have been -> not sure if "in fact" is appropriate in combination with might
    • Fixed.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thank you for the initial comments. I've addressed these, and look forward to any more comments that you have. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, a former car factory owned by the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, Michigan. From 1904 (when it was built) to 1909, the company used the building to produce several car models, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first made there. It was also the first factory where more than 100 cars were built in one day, and is currently the oldest car factory building in the world open to the public. The factory survives today as a museum and is well-preserved, with almost all of its original structure intact. Pending its promotion, this will be the second FA connected to Detroit (the first was The Supremes), the second FA about a manufacturing facility (the first was New Orleans Mint), and the second FA related to Ford cars (the first was Ramblin' Wreck). Suffice it to say, the subject of car factories is mostly uncharted territory in terms of receiving featured-quality treatment on Wikipedia. I look forward to reading all of your comments, addressing all of your concerns, and successfully completing this review. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

The only thing I can bring to the table is that I once went to Detroit. Nevertheless a few comments on what appears to be a well-researched and fine article:

  • a museum and former factory --> do you see it as a museum first? or 'a former factory and museum'?
  •  Done I now have it simply stating "former factory", as the fact that it's now a museum is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead.
  • this factory, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first produced there --> To me, most notable is first Model T creation and production, so I would lead with that, and then add that other models were assembled here too. In addition, I think Model T needs a little explanation of significance. I like what you have in the main body: the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States.
  •  Done
  • spur line connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line behind the building. --> to avoid ambiguity, perhaps this: spur line behind the building, which connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line.
  •  Done
  • table of cars: it's quite hard to read the notes in such a narrow column. Can we combine a few columns? Eg., make one for Engine and one for Production dates?
  •  Done The note column in the table was already fixed at 25% of the table width, but I increased it to 33%.
  • The Ford Model AC, produced at the Mack Avenue Plant in 1904, was a Model A that used the engine of a Model C --> do we need this? Were model C engines made at Piquette?
  •  Done We don't need that bit. Per my research, Ford did not start making its own engines until the Model N.

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I know next to nothing about automotive history, but found this to be an interesting read. I'm pleased to see FACs on industrial heritage, though the human dimension could be expanded on here. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The article is a bit wordy. I've made some example edits to streamline things a bit.
  • I'm fine with these.
  • Given that this was such an early car factory, how did the architects know how to design it? Was its layout based on earlier factories and the lessons learned from them?
  • In the second paragraph of the History section, I noted that the factory was modeled after New England textile mills.
  • "The vast majority of factory tasks were done by men, except for magneto assembly, which was done by women." - how many people worked at the factory?
  • To address that, I added the following sentence to the article: "Due to changes in demand and car model changeover, the number of employees varied constantly, ranging from as low as 300 to as high as 700".
  • Do we also have any figures for the size of the workforce after other companies used the plant? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Only figures for Ford are available. A consistent theme in every piece of source material that I found on this topic is that very heavy emphasis is given to Ford and the current owners, but minor emphasis to the owners in between.
  • What were working conditions like for the automotive workers? (eg, was it cramped, noisy, hot, cold, good for the time, etc). What were safety standards like? Did these change over time as the plant's layout and role evolved and the building aged?
  • In the second paragraph of the History section, note the information about fire safety, especially the fire sprinkler system. This was an unusual thing to add to factories at the time (that is also noted). The factory did have a heating system, but that is characteristic of most buildings of the time, especially in places like Michigan where Winters are long and cold.
  • Given that Ford had a complex relationship with his workers, can anything be said about this? (or relationships at other companies who used the site?)
  • I added the following to the article: "The company did not recognize labor unions at the factory, and each worker was paid a daily rate".
  • Did the workers attempt to unionise? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I added the following: "Ford Motor Company was a member of the Employers’ Association of Detroit, an organization that prevented most of the city's factories from unionizing until the 1930s".
  • "completed components would be brought by hand to the chassis for final assembly.[1]:17–18, 20 Completed cars would be shipped to the company's distributors" - repetition of 'would be'
  • Fixed.
  • The para which begins with "In 1905, Ford Motor Company was the fourth-largest car producer in the United States," seems to break the article's chronology, and lacks a clear purpose. Starting it with a more descriptive sentence would help, but I suspect that things need to be moved around as well.
  • The last date mentioned in the previous paragraph was 1905, so there's no chronology break. The purpose of beginning the paragraph this way is to give context to its final sentence, where it states that Ford was the largest US car producer by 1906.
  • "Plans for the Model T were announced" - to whom? (and was this the blueprints for the car, or the fact that they would be produced?)
  • The source material mentions Ford's dealers, specifically, so that has been added.
  • "a group of factory employees" - which factory?
  • I noted that it was Piquette Avenue Plant employees.
  • "Despite no moving assembly line" - not great grammar
  • This has been changed to "Despite not having a moving assembly line".
  • What was the building used for between 1936 and 2000? The article hints at this, but it's not fully stated.
  • I added more info about 3M from the source material, where it specifically states that it made rubber auto parts and non-adhesive paper tape. What the Cadillac Overall Company made is indicated by the name.
  • Not sure that it is - was it involved in Cadillac cars (if so, do we know what part?) or overalls? - serious question for those of us with little knowledge of this field! Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I noted that it made work clothes, which is mentioned in the source material.
  • Presumably the building's layout and equipment became obsolete at some point?
  • The building itself became obsolete by 1909, when it became clear that it was no longer big enough for Ford's needs, hence their move to the larger factory in Highland Park (this is mentioned in the article already).
  • Yes, but the article then notes it remained in use until around 2000, with the uses of the building becoming seemingly less important over time. Can this be fleshed out? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its importance decreased mainly because Ford left (all of the significant historical milestones that happened at the building occurred during the Ford period), and partly because of its location in an industrial area that became mostly abandoned and blighted over time, which coincided with the overall decline of Detroit. On that note, I added this statement: "The Piquette Avenue Plant still stands in spite of the decline of Detroit, which began in the mid-20th century". In terms of factory equipment, there is no mention in the source material about it becoming obsolete during Ford's occupancy (they were only there for a few years), and the type used by subsequent tenants is not mentioned at all. However, I have already mentioned near the end of the article body that the factory currently contains almost none of its original equipment. This suggests that Ford either brought all of their equipment with them when they moved out (the most likely scenario, in my opinion), or it was replaced later by one of the building's subsequent owners. Also, the fact that the factory's power plant was demolished shortly after 3M took over suggests that the power plant became obsolete at some point.
  • Who runs the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex? Is it funded by Ford, a volunteer group, etc? Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Model T Automotive Heritage Complex is the name of the organization that runs the Piquette Avenue Plant. I split the first sentence of the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex section and noted that it's a nonprofit organization.

@Nick-D: I addressed all of your points. Let me know if this is satisfactory. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I addressed your additional comments. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

A curious topic - will read and jot quibbles below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The lead's three paras all start very similarly - try to diversify the initial words. Like this....well, I've done this now. It would be good to combine the second and third paras actually..
  • @Casliber: Thanks for taking a look at the article (it is indeed a peculiar subject). I combined the 2nd and 3rd lead paragraphs like you suggested. Jackdude101 talk cont 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bellevue Avenue Plant was utilized until 1908 - why not "The Bellevue Avenue Plant was used (or even "in use") until 1908"?
  •  Done
  • ''... began to focus the company's efforts .. - unnecessary, just "focussed the company's efforts " is fine.
  •  Done
  • ''Beginning in January 1907, in a room located on the Piquette Avenue Plant's third floor in the northwest corner, the Ford Model T, the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States, was created - either the car was created in Jan 1907 or production of the car began in Jan 1907...suspect that "Beginning" is redundant
  •  Done The 1907 date refers to the start of its design process, and I changed it to the following: In January 1907, in a room located on the Piquette Avenue Plant's third floor in the northwest corner, the design process began for the Ford Model T, the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States.

Otherwise reads ok and looks comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

  • References formatted consistently. web pages archived appropriately. page ranges consistent.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool is ok
  • FN 6 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 17 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 19 - used once. strictly speaking source (which confirms Decline of Detroit) does not state plant still stands but loads of other do. So no big deal.
  • FN 20 - used once. material cited and faithful to source.

ok I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominator comments

@WP:FAC coordinators: This nomination has three supports, and has completed reviews for images, prose, and sources. I believe it's ready for promotion. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Faith in Buddhism

Nominator(s): Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the nature of faith in Buddhist traditions. I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it is ready for FA. I've tried to get the article to comply with the criteria, but there is much i don't know about since this is my first nomination. The article heavily relies on tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, due to the broad nature of the topic, but it also contains many secondary sources. It is at GA now.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I really hope this gets some reviewers with a solid grounding in Buddhism. It strikes me there are many points where things and terms mentioned need explaining quickly. I hope to read through slowly & bring some here, but it is hard going for most Western readers, & me, though I know more about Buddhism than many. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, we can work on that. Can you give me some terms or paragraphs to start with, John? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by outriggr

April, 5

This is an ambitious undertaking. Excellent work. I have looked at the lead only, and have the following comments.

Thanks for your efforts, outriggr. I should have started an FA sooner, as I can see now that i have written several articles that may have to be rewritten considerably. Well, better late than never. I'm going to go through this chronologically. Here goes:
  • "serene commitment in the practice"--I am not clear if "serene commitment to the practice" would be more idiomatic, or if it would change your meaning ignore this
  • Not sure why this was deleted. Seems a valid comment. And fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why use "dhamma" throughout the article as a pipe to "dharma", when the latter word is much more familiar to an English-speaking audience?
  • "the community of spiritually developed followers, or the monastic community seeking enlightenment"--is the "or" separating two different things, or attempting to define the first thing (the community)? If it is defining the first thing, I would reword, such as by using a dash: "the community of spiritually developed followers—the monastic community seeking enlightenment".
  • They are overlapping categories. See below in the same paragraph. Rephrased now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • is there a reason to not have an article ("a") before the noun in " A faithful devotee was called (a/n) upāsaka or upāsika"?
  • "for which no formal declaration was required"--I don't know what this means, but I can guess.
  • Same with "Early Buddhism valued personal verification highest". What is personal verification?

Those are questions I have after two paragraphs, and my concern is that I could continue this list of "things I don't quite follow" throughout the article. It is undoubtedly a difficult topic to explain clearly, and I hope you will continue to clarify as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bring it on!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
My feeling exactly - also I suspect my list from the first 2 paras would be as long, but mostly different. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I will start working on this this weekend.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
April, 7

I would suggest that the article needs a thoughtful copyedit throughout, ideally by someone with knowledge of the subject, and that you take a second look at every paragraph to examine if it adheres to the topic of Faith closely enough to remain. I acknowledge the difficulty (or impossibility) of such a clean separation from other articles about Buddhism.

Alright, I'm doing this after the other comments are fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • One example: I don't believe the current third paragraph of the lead is necessary; the lead is quite long enough without it.
  • I merged the second and third paragraph, cutting out parts.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Another: the beginning of the History section is not an introduction to the section, but rather mentions a couple of concepts that are never stated again.
  • Is it possible to choose between Sanskrit or Pali words, and be consistent? I can see that, depending on the word, either variant may be more familiar for someone with a passing knowledge of Buddhism, but most of the time it will be Pali. We need "dharma" and "sangha", not the other variants. And for a given word, the Pali or Sanskrit may not be used consistently, and it may be capitalized inconsistently.
  • I have changed some terms for consistency, but early Buddhism used Pāli or a predecessor, and Mahāyāna Buddhism used Sankrit, Chinese and Japanese. I believe I'm following scholarly convention as in the sources cited.
  • As for spelling errors, I'll print the text and copy-edit once more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a somewhat disproportionate mention of Sri Lankan Buddhism.
  • Positive: The use of references appears to be excellent. :)
  • Thanks :-)

I should mention that I am choosing some criticisms that didn't require too much engagement with the content, so there is potentially a lot more where that came from. Outriggr (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've just warmed up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The way i see it now, is that none if the paragraphs need to be completely deleted, but some sections should cut to the chase more quickly, as the introduction is too lengthy, compared to the part that actually deals with faith. To fix this, it would require some trimming. Is this what you mean?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all issues now, Outriggr.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
April, 16

Thanks for your responses Farang Rak Tham. Just one comment up to the start of the "History" section now. Hopefully I'll get to read more later.

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Faith in early Buddhism focused on the Triple Gem, that is, the Buddha; his teaching (the Dharma); the community of spiritually developed followers, and the monastic community seeking enlightenment (the Saṅgha)." We talked about this sentence above; now it seems to enumerate four parts of the "Triple Gem". I understand that the last group is the sangha, but it's still a windy sentence. At the least, I would expect an "and" to follow after the last semi-colon as the third thing. Outriggr (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "This does not mean that Buddhism's approach of reality developed in isolation: at the time when Buddhism arose, there was a trend of critical caution in understanding reality amongst Indian religious communities." It's not clear to me how this sentence relates to the text before it.
  • The phrasing is a bit awkward as well ("approach of reality", "there was a trend of caution in understanding...").
  • Is the present tense ("Faith is") appropriate in the discussion of Early Buddhism?
  • It is content based on analysis of textual sources, and thus, to keep an encyclopedic, skeptical tone, I have used the historical present.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it mostly works, but that one paragraph beginning feels wrong.
  • I have changed the tense of some sentences for consistency.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Faith then leads to many other important qualities on the path to the end of suffering..."--this doesn't sound specific, or formal, enough for an encyclopedia article. Outriggr (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
April, 22
  • Thank you for all your helpful edits, Outriggr. In this edit, you have started to edit the see above and see below templates. I am not certain in what way these were malfunctioning at first, but currently, they link to an old diff. Perhaps we should fix that. Maybe we can just leave out the link?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I fixed that in the next edit.
    • I don't think I will complete a review here. (On the FAC talk page, there is currently a discussion to the effect that reviewers should not draw FACs out line by line when we find issues with the clarity of writing. :-)
      • Okay, but where should I ask someone to help improve the clarity of writing, then? Peer review nominations of religious articles do not attract many reviewers.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk)
    • As a final comment, many book references are linked to web sites which host PDFs in full. While this is at the moment useful for e.g. reviewing the use of sources, those files are almost certainly copyright violations, and we aren't supposed to link to copyright violations here. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay, I have now deleted those. If you do want to access any sources, you can always go to the previous version of the article, which still has those links.
Thanks for helping to comment, Outriggr! Too bad you can't continue the review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Porlock Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of two surviving stone circles dating from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age that are located in Exmoor, southwestern England. The other, Withypool Stone Circle, is already rated as an FA, and this short article is presently a GA. Those with an interest in archaeology and/or the West Country might like to give it a read. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Factotem

  • Lead
  • Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset. It is found within Exmoor. -> Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located on Exmoor, near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset."?
  • I like that wording, and have introduced it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations for those who built the circles. -> "...and the stones perhaps had supernatural associations for those who built the circles."?
  • The term "religion" isn't really used in some of the RS, so I've changed this prose to "The purpose of such monuments is unknown, although archaeologists speculate that the stones represented supernatural entities for the circle's builders." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...possibly indicates... Never sure about this. It either indicates or it doesn't, surely? Maybe replacing both with "suggests" is better?
  • Location
  • I'm not sure why the lead gives more details about the location than this section does. The lead summarises the main body, so I think the details should be repeated here. Also, Porlock should be linked.
  • Added mention of Somerset and linked Porlock. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Three of the four sentences in the 1st para begin "The circle...". Any way of mixing it up a little to avoid the repetition?
  • I've replaced the latter two with more appropriate wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Context
  • They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain... Is there any reason why you use "Britain" here, when generally you've used "England"?
  • There's no particular reason. I suspect that I just followed what term that the original RS used (although I could be wrong about that). Happy to change the language if you think it necessary; "Britain" is perhaps a more neutral term given that it has a pan-historical geographical, as opposed to purely national (and more temporally restricted) meaning - plus there are always the Cornish nationalists who insist that Cornwall is not (or at least should not) be considered part of England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fair enough to say that "Stone circles are found in most areas of Britain...", as you do. It does seem a little odd to then say "They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain...", given that, a) you've generally used "England" up to that point, and b) you finish that sentence with a specific mention for Scotland. Notwithstanding the sensibilities of the Cornish nationalists, that region is nevertheless officially part of England, but at the end of the day, this is just a nitpicky point concerning consistency. Not a huge issue, and not something I'd oppose on. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've changed "south-western Britain" to "south-western England" here, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Description
  • ...a strong chthonic element... "Chthonic" is a great word that I've never heard of before. It definitely needs to be linked. Maybe you could add an explanation, but that's a little awkward to do elegantly when its part of a quote.
  • I've added a Wiktionary link to the word. Hopefully that should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The archaeologist Mark Gillings... in the 2nd para. He's already been introduced, so you can simply write "Gillings...".
  • A very sensible idea. Removed the unnecessary wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge is a linear setting of small stones. is a MOS:NUMNOTES no-no. "There is a linear setting of small stones 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge." would fix it.
  • ... it would suggest that Porlock stone circle... Missing a "the" before Porlock.
  • ...carried out by the archaeologists Mark Gillings and Jeremy Taylor of the University of Leicester Again, Gillings is already introduced as an archaeologist. My feeling is that you could just leave it up to the reader to divine that Taylor is also an archaeologist, but if you want to be explicit, maybe "...Gillings and fellow archaeologist, Jeremy Taylor of the University..."?
Did you miss this? Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Guess I must have done, my apologies. I have gone with your proposed wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...which Gilling's team... "Gillings's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Well spotted. A silly error on my part. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years; thus heritage managers face a question as to whether they should remove the more recently-added stones or to accept these as part of the circle's on-going biography. Not sure that that's a correct use of hyphenation in "recently-added". I would be tempted to simplify this sentence as "Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years, and heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed or accepted as part of the circle's on-going biography."
  • Sources
  • I don't see any problems with the quality of the sources, and all books are from reputable publishers.
  • I checked a random set of seven refs across four different sources that could be viewed online, mostly in GBooks previews – Burl 2000 (ref #16), Gray 1950 (#19 & #24), Gillings & Taylor (#37 & #38), Hutton (#6 & #9) – and found only one niggle: the source for the statement ...in 1950 Gray could identify 21 stones as part of the circle... does not make clear in which year, 1928 or 1950, Gray identified the 21 stones; not something that leads me to doubt the veracity of sourcing.
  • You've dated Excavation and Survey at Porlock Stone Circle and Row, Exmoor to 2015, but the SANH index dates it to 2014
  • The journal in question is printed with the year "2015"; it may be that it was actually released in 2014, but "2015" is the number on the front cover, so I think it would cause confusion to go with "2014". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You've dated Geophysical Survey at Porlock Stone Circle to 2012, but the linked document and the SANH index dates it to 2011.
  • As above. I've followed what it actually says on the journal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe it's preferred to use consistent ISBN formats for all books. The ISBN-13 for Riley and Wilson-North's The Field Archaeology of Exmoor is 9781873592588, according to the Worldcat listing.
  • They should all be consistent now (someone else is responsible for that, so my thanks go to them). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this worldcat record provides a valid oclc number for the Proceedings of the SANH Vol 74 listed in the bibliography? I couldn't find any such records for volumes 155 and 158, though I must confess the search was becoming a tad boring and I abandoned it before completion.
  • I'm facing the same issue. I can't find OCLC numbers for the specific volumes being cited. Given that they are journals rather than books, maybe they don't have any? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hope this helps Factotem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Few more comments:

  • The lead is quite short. I wonder if a bit more of the description can be summarised there?
  • You're right, it is. I've added a few sentences mentioning the dimensions of the circle, the nature of the stones, and the adjacent cairn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The lead gives a date range of 3,300 to 900 BCE, but in the main body, the only figure mentioned is the slightly different 3,000 BCE, and 900 is not mentioned at all.
  • I've added mention of the 3,300 to 900 BCE date to the article, using Burl as a reference. I've also made sure that it's added to all the other GA and FA rated stone circle articles I've worked on too (so well spotted!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you double check the dates given in your sources? The Exmoor National Park booklet dates the site to 2,000-1,500 BC.
  • Burl gives us the broadest date range in which stone circles were erected (which has been ascertained by looking at absolute dating evidence from a variety of different sites). Obviously, it did not take over two thousand years to build the Porlock ring (or did it....?) so it has been produced at one particular date within that range. Given that archaeological excavation has not revealed any charcoal or anything else that could be used to ascertain absolute dates for the construction of the circle, archaeologists are relying on educated guesswork as to when it was built. Gillings for instance thought it might be Middle Bronze Age, which would put it nearer to the latter end of Burl's wider date range. I'll try and incorporate some additional prose making it clearer when the circle was likely erected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've double-checked Gillings' write up of his excavation and it does not give proposed dates for the monument (merely a reference to the circle perhaps being middle Bronze Age). I'm not sure that the ENP booklet is particularly reliable in this context, so I'd rather just leave the nature of precise dates absent. Hopefully—and this is a point Gillings makes in his article—more targeted excavation can be carried out in future which will provide good evidence for the date of construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Happy with that. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A fuller archaeological investigation in 2013 revealed eighteen stones, eleven of which are upright and eight of which are fallen Doesn't add up.
  • You're right, but this is exactly what the source says: "This exercise succeeded in identifying 18 stones - 11 upright and 8 fallen - as well as relocating Stone B through excavation." Perhaps it's a typo in the original? I don't really know what course of action to take here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest ignoring the total and simply state that the exercise revealed eleven upright and eight fallen stones. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I find it slightly odd that a 2009 survey found 10 stones, and the dig only four years later found 18 (or 19). Maybe a brief statement explaining the discrepancy, if possible (are the additional stones those that have been recently added, or did the dig unearth buried stones)?
  • The article doesn't explicitly say, but it would seem that these are mostly stones that have been added in the interim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I googled porlock stone circle, but other than the ENP booklet (which, aside from the date question, is not a significant source), could find nothing to suggest that the article is not comprehensive or is not a full survey of the sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your comments, Factotem. I think that I have responded to all those requiring a response, although in some cases you may have a follow up question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a few more, very minor points that need responses, either here or in the article, inserted above. I would also add that I'm not too keen on using the dashes where an author is repeated in the bibliography. If someone carelessly inserts a new source by a different author between the two, then it will get messed up. That's a personal view, and a somewhat nitpicky one at that. I don't believe there's any policy that says you can't do this, so it's not going to affect the support I will be happy to give once the last minor points are addressed. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that I have now covered everything, Factotem. Again, thanks very much for your time and attention on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as "stone settings"" I wonder if there's a singular/plural problem here? I.e., should this be "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as a "stone setting""? Maybe not. Also, I wonder if it's worth linking "stone setting" and creating a stub? I've never heard of this, and I'd be interested to know the difference between a stone circle and a stone setting(s).
  • I've created a page—Stone settings (Exmoor)—through which to expand a little more on this particular monument type. As for the singular/plural issue, I've altered the prose to the following to deal with the issue: "although more recent assessments regard it one of the stone settings, a different form of monument which is more common across Exmoor." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "standing stones, and linear stone settings" This could also be interpreted as unexplained jargon
  • I've linked "standing stones" to Menhir and will see what I can do with "linear stone settings"; it may entail creating another page anew. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made the distinction clear between "stone settings" and "linear stone rows"; and linked the latter to Stone row. I hope that that cleans up that problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "micaceous sandstone"
  • "into the article" is an odd construction. Also, I'd imagine "chthonic" isn't going to be familiar to many readers (but I may be wrong).
  • I've changed "article" to "circle"; that may have just been a silly error. As for chthonic, I'm just not sure if there are any alternative terms or synonyms that could be used. Perhaps I could wikilink it to the Wiktionary entry? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel we never really got to the addition of the stones. Do we know anything more about this? Why were they added? Which stones are new? When were they added? Who added them? (I'm guessing we really don't know!)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that the RS really delved into this at all - it remains a bit of a mystery. I don't imagine that the site attracts a great deal of visitors, and of those it receives I can't imagine many of the 'archaeology' lot being interested in adding stones; indeed, they'd probably regard it as desecration! My suggestion would be that the stones have been added by those with Earth mysteries interests (some of whom regard it as appropriate to alter, or in their eyes 'correct', such monuments), or those who see the circle largely as a marker in the landscape rather than a site with specifically archaeological value (must as how walkers add stones to cairns in various hiking areas). This, of course, purely my own conjecture and could not be put into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Josh. They proved useful in improving the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Two other quick comments:

  • The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany is apparently The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Does your copy look different to that?
  • I've just looked at my hard copy of the book; it definitely lacks that Oxford comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why have you italicised "National Heritage List for England"?
  • It's not intentional, it's just that I included it in the "website" part of the citation, and that automatically italicised it. I shall change it to "publisher"; that should convert it into a non-italicised situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

Whats with the formatting of the sources? Its ok to repeat source names, rather than type ------- Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me Ceoil, but I don't quite understand the above comment. Could you elucidate further? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I think he means repetition of the author names, replacing them with that rather strange horizontal line. Eric Corbett 10:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, we have the dash to avoid repetition in several other FAs, including the thematically linked Withypool Stone Circle (which is the TFA of the day, if anyone's interested). So it's just about keeping a level of standardisation to articles on the same broad topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eric Corbett

  • You've got "south-west" in the Location section but "northeast" in the Description section. Eric Corbett 10:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I've changed "northeast" to "north-east". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Richard Nevell

First of all, good work on an interesting article. I like the approach taken to giving broader context to understand the site, particularly where there are holes in our knowledge. I also like the amount of detail on the investigation of the site as that shapes our understanding and is part of its later biography.

The lead gives a proper summary of the subject and I think it’s a sensible move to state early on that we’re not entirely sure of their purpose. I like the way the ‘location’ section mentions other Bronze Age monuments visible from Porlock Stone Circle. Is there any chance of a map to go with it? The Environment Agency have made their LIDAR data available under an open licence, and the area around the circle has resolution of 0.5m which might show off the landscape quite nicely, perhaps with markers for key features. I think it would be worth saying how close Berry Castle is, because the phrasing in this section makes it sounds like they’re adjacent. The article on Berry Castle indicates it’s an Iron Age or Roman site rather than Bronze Age, so it might be worth noting that. It’s possible a publication somewhere may have commented on the visibility between the two sites.

The ‘context’ section does a very good job of giving background information for this type of site and Exmoor generally. The one thing I’d change is that here you have ‘Mike Parker Pearson suggests that’ whereas later on you have ‘Leslie Grinsell suggested that’ and ‘Gillings suggested that’ so it would be worth double checking the tenses. The ‘description’ section notes that some stones were removed for road metalling, do we know roughly when that was? Would it be possible to comment on the significance of the ‘inversion of the upright stone ideal’ and what Gillings thinks this may have been meant to convey? In the ‘investigation’ section, for the 1928 digging it’s mentioned that no charcoal was found but it’s not immediately clear why this is mentioned. Would it be worth mentioning in the lead that despite excavations no dating evidence has been recovered for when the circle was built? I see Josh asked about the added stones; it’s a shame we don’t more but of course we have to work within the constraints of the available sources. The discovery of the wheel seems significant and while the uncertainty over the dating is tricky to tackle in the lead where you want to be clear and concise, but I think it would be worth trying.

It’s a small world, the 2009 survey in Exmoor was one of the fieldwork options when I was doing my undergrad degree at Leicester. It’s interesting to see the site written up for the public. Would it be worth contacting Mark Gillings to cast an eye over the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Richard and thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. As per your suggestion, I have changed "Mike Parker Pearson suggests that" to "suggested that" to ensure consistency. As for a map of the landscape, I'd certainly be interested in seeing such an addition made (although I'm not sure if there is much room), however I'm not in the position to spend time making such a map at present. Your other comments require a little more thought and investigation so I will have to get back to you on those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
As for the mention of no charcoal being found in the 1928 excavation, Gray does not explain the relevance of this absence; he simple states that "no 'relics' were found nor any charcoal". Presumably he said this because charcoal was known to be something found at other stone circles and prehistoric sites. Obviously, these days charcoal is exciting for archaeologists because it can be used in radiocarbon dating, but this was not he case in Gray's day so it could not have been this which he was referring to in his article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In accordance with your suggestion, I have made mention that no absolute dating evidence has been found to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, Richard. Was there anything else that you wanted to add; any follow up questions or the like? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm certainly happy with the article and have no further questions so have moved to support. If Gray thought it was worth mentioning that there was no charcoal, it's worth including in the article - it's just a shame he didn't explain why he thought it was important as it leaves us with OR to fill in the gaps. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Clear, well written, evidently comprehensive, widely and well referenced, with good images. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. And is a jolly good read too. Tim riley talk 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Like Withypool, an interesting read, clearly well-researched, and does a good job of putting together what is known and identifying holes in current knowledge. A few comments, but just nit-picking, not anything that should hold up promotion (assuming Richard is happy above):

  • about forty-three stones in the circle about seems an odd preposition to a precise figure.
  • Here I followed Gray's words exactly; he estimated that it would have included "about forty-three stones". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The year it was scheduled might be worth including.
  • I couldn't find the exact year, but I have included the law under which it was scheduled (the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, you might consider a very brief definition of scheduling for the uninitiated.
  • I've added "giving it a level of legal protection from alteration." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed Is there any clear consensus on this? Or a notable controversy that could be mentioned?
  • Unfortunately not; if was pretty much just a passing comment in one of Gillings' articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have five statements of support and the images and sources have checked out okay. Unless there's anything else that anyone wishes to add, it might be time for promotion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tutupaca

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which is notable as the site of one of the major historical mega-landslides on active volcanoes during a major eruption in 1802 or so and still potentially a threat. This is the first time I've nominated an article for FA status (I've reviewed images in other people's FACs); Ceranthor and Mike Christie should be credited as well if it passes as they did thorough copyedit work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a review pass, but not enough to get a conomination credit, I don't think. I will read through again in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. My comments weren't thorough enough to be a conominator, though I appreciate the consideration. I will also read through again before I !vote. ceranthor 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

  • "bears traces of former glaciation." - seems a little flowery
  • "One of these volcanoes collapsed in historical time, probably in 1802, generating a large debris avalanche with a volume probably exceeding 0.6–0.8 cubic kilometres (0.14–0.19 cu mi), and a pyroclastic flow." - no comma necessary before "and a pyroclastic"
  • "The whole volcano rises from an elevation of 4,400–4,600 metres (14,400–15,100 ft)." - the way you've written this, it sounds as though the volcano is only 200 meters tall
  • Should mention that Shiveluch is in Russia
  • "The collapse apparently started from the hydrothermal system of the volcano and progressed to involve a growing lava dome,[21] " - awkward phrasing
  • Still think the Samaniego thing needs to be changed - perhaps you could list the names of the main researchers? or maybe just adding et al. will be sufficient

Otherwise, I think the prose is good. Support per 1a. ceranthor 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I got these; does it merit a dedicated source for the location of Shiveluch? Added the et al. as well~since it's a large number of researchers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Does the source itself not clarify that Shiveluch is in Russia? ceranthor 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No, for volcanologists that is probably common knowledge. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine not to cite that then, as general knowledge. It may not hurt to add one citation for its location if you want to be safe. ceranthor 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest editing lead caption for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Got that one, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A couple more things I spotted this read-through:

  • Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex, and the older complex was: repeats "older complex". I thought about "...on the southern part of the older complex, which was..." but then "which" sounds like it refers to the southern part only. How about "The older complex, which includes small hills formed from lava domes on its southern part, was the source of..."?
  • The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described: how about "Trachyandesite and trachyte also occur", or "have also been identified"?
  • In the "Sector collapse" section, is the source of the two units relevant to the fact that one of them formed a granular flow? If so it's fine as is, but if not I'd move that information up so the information about the flow is more compact:
    The two units of the debris avalanche are distinguished by their appearance. One, which appears to have been formed from the basal part of Tutupaca, features 100–200-metre (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills, as is typical for volcanic debris avalanches. The other, which appears to come from the more recent lava domes of the eastern peak, has ridges which vary in length from 100 to 150 metres (330 to 490 ft). The ridges range from only a few meters to more than 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) in height, and from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 ft) in height. The second unit probably formed a granular flow, which is known to cause sorting of the materials within it; similar ridges have been observed in other collapse deposits such as at Shiveluch volcano in Russia.
  • Such monitoring would entail surveilling earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video surveillance: needs a tweak: the first item in the list is a verb, "surveilling", as if we are going to get a list of activities, but then we get two nouns. Changing all three to nouns would probably be the simplest way out.
  • This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols: "costed" is wrong, but this is a future project, so I'm not sure if "cost" would be right. Should it be "budgeted to cost" or something like that?

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Did the first two points (with a slight modification on the first) and the last one; regarding the third I'd think so seeing as the source says The ridged deposit sub-unit 2a is composed of this rock from the active dome and the hydrothermal system. This material collapsed and efficiently fragmented while propagating downslope, leading to a granular mass flow that fed the ridged unit. Regarding the fourth point would "the recording" be better? It does sound like an odd sentence thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
For the second point I meant to suggest replacing the whole sentence with one of the shortened versions -- we don't need to say the occurrence has been described, do we? We can just say either that those forms occur or that they have been described.
OK on the third point. For the fourth, how about "This would entail surveillance of earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video"? I think "surveillance" is implied by "real time video". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That works (regarding surveillance). Rewrote the trachyte thing to one of the shorter versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I went ahead and made the last change. The article meets all the FA criteria, except that I haven't checked 2c and 3. Note to the co-ordinators: I take it from the recent WT:FAC discussion that a "support" should be assumed to cover everything but 2c and 3, since those have the specialist reviews. I'm going to assume that's taken as read from now on; specifically, I'll be checking 1c unless I say I am not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • INGEMMET is only mentioned once, why not spell it out?
  • There are a lot of duplicate links, perhaps try this script:[9]
Removed duplicate links and spelled out name in the first instance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the article written in UK or US English? I see "metres" used, but also "destabilized", though I know "ize" can also be used in UK English.
  • "such as at Shiveluch volcano" At the?
  • "a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano" Is "was" needed here?
  • What does the name of the volcano mean?
  • Any kind of folklore or other history associated with the volcano?
The English that I've learned, which I suspect is in part a mixture between two styles. I am not sure if it's correct to say "the foo volcano", my impression was that one does not put an article before a proper name. I think that past is correct for the "pyroclastic flow" since it was erupted in the past, it is not currently being erupted. The only folklore I can find is that the people of Candarave consider Yucamane the "good" volcano and Tutupaca the "bad" one; is that worth mentioning? Unlike say Coropuna or Tacora Tutupaca isn't really that important in religion, seems like, but that little contrast to Yucamane may be still worth adding. Regarding etymology, I cannot find a reliable source for the name - closest thing is this blog and even then it only gives an explanation for "tutu" and "paca". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
As I'm not a native English speaker either, I won't press those issue. But I do think the part about it being "bad" is worth mentioning, and I think it would also be worth to go the extra mile to translate the name, perhaps even looking at a dictionary or consulting someone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I shall handle these two things tomorrow if nobody comes ahead. Bookmarking Pacocahua (Puno) since its source may be useful for etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Added the oral section; I cannot find a dictionary that mentions the word "tutu". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus

Terrible Tutupaca!
Whose snowy peak I do adore..
The sun itself made by your visage darker:
The stars, the sea, the planet evermore
must tremble at the fierceness of your core!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Terrible Tutupaca!
cuya nevada cima yo venero.
al verte el sol se opaca:
Y los os astros, y el mar y el orbe entero
tiemblan al tu mirar sañudo y fiero!
-
Terrible Tutupaca!
whose snowclad peak I venerate,
seeing you the sun is overshadowed:
And the stars, and the sea and the entire world,
trembles at your fierce and angry look!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Just a comment on the etymology section for now. I don't think it is a good idea to mention that means eagle unless there is a source for that specifically being the case in the name of the volcano - there may well be other meanings of /paka/ in Aymara - and it could mean something else in the combination with tutu (this dictionary gives tutuka as "duststorm"[10]). <paca> in Spanish orthography may for example also represent the Aymaraword /paqa/. So what we need is to find a good source for the meaning of the name itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I am also finding sources seemingly suggesting that it is not from Aymara but from Quechua - but I am uncertain if they are reliable enough to trust them to distingiush adequately between Quechua and Aymara. One source says that the word tutu means "udder" (presumably of llama or alpaca) because the mountain resembles an udder, and paka is from the verb pakay "to hide" - giving a meaning of hidden udder[11]. Another source[12] that I can only access in snippet view mentions the "hidden udder" etymology but seems to be arguing that this is likely a folk etymology, but unfortunately I cannot see the entire discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest removing the Aymara etymology as OR and adding the Quechua etymology "hidden udder" with the note that this has been attributed to the shape of the mountain. I am not sure how to cite the two texts though since it is not possible to find even the authors name in snippet view. It seems only the page number and journal name can be found: Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia (1971) p. 54, Revista andina, Volume 15, Issue 1 1997 p 501.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This source from 1862 by Mateo Paz Soldán describes Tutupaca as a very poetic volcano and includes a small ode to the volcano in French and Spanish.Géographie du Péron, corrigée et augmentée par M.F. Paz Soldan, tr. par P.A. Mouqueron, avec la collaboration de M. Rouaud y Paz Soldan. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Anoher good reason to consider a quechua etymology, Father Jorge Lira publishjed a Quechua folk tale titled "Tutupaka llakta - el mancebo que venció el diablo (Tutupaka LLakta the youth who defeated the devil)". Here Tutupaka llakta apparently is the name of a Quechua youth who bets with the devil and wins.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    To be honest, I was extremely dubious about the whole etymology thing ... in fact I'll remove it. I am somewhat wary of sourcing anything to a Google Books snippet view for the reasons you mention, but maybe there are complete text versions elsewhere ... I'll check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I think you're right to be cautious; it might be best to pull it all out, make a request at WP:RX, and re-add it if when you get a copy. I don't think it's necessary for promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    The good thing is that the "Revista andina" has a website, the bad thing however is that I can't find any mention of Tutupaca in the relevant pages. The Mateo Paz Soldán story is also here and seems potentially worthy of inclusion. I'll ask on WP:RX about Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be expected that the meaning (or proposed meanings) of the name of an article's subject should be mentioned somewhere, whether in a section of its own or not, and it seems there are some reliable sources about it that could be hunted down (WP:RX?) before we give it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we can't really expect it in cases where that information is not included in sources. I have written to an acquaintance who is a Quechua specialist to see if he can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the ode might even be able to bear being cited in full if you dare using one of the much-discussed "decorative" quote boxes - or maybe just as a block quote. I'd volunteer to translate it if you decide to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't mind the quoteboxes, so as long as there are no undue weight concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a lyric translation respectoing the original rhyme Below the original spanish text with a literal non-rhyming translation. This is of course just a suggestion, if you (or other reviewers) don't find that it will improve the article you are free to leave it out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Good. I'll wait for some comments though, since it's one person's ode and not a very well known one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would say it is probably entirely unknown. But then part of our job here is to inform the readers of that which they don't know. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The author seems to be Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán; if that's right we should link him, of course. I found this on Google books, which as far as I can tell (my Spanish is limited to restaurant terms) is an edited selection of poetry. It includes this ode on p. 415. I'd say that means a third party has found the ode worthy of mention, so we can include it -- if it were just Paz Soldán giving it, it would be harder to justify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not completely clear to me whether the ode is by Mateo Paz Soldán (who has an article in the spanish wiki), since his brother Mariano Felipe corrected and prepared his brothers it for publication. The text just says "I wrote this when I was twenty years old", but it is not clear whether this "I" is the original autor or the editor and annotator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I cannot access that (https://books.google.com/books?id=yI1NAQAAMAAJ) so I'll pass on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Researching the etymology a bit more I think the Aymara etymology is better - the "hidden udder" etymology of Quechua seems less reasonable than the possible Aymara etymology of tutu "great" + either paka "eagle" or paqa which seems to mean something related to royalty or leadership. This is OR based on this dictionary[13], of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    In that case I would not include it. If there is more than one possible meaning, I would wait until a definitive source comes up rather than engaging in OR. Is there any consensus on including the ode? I personally think that whether we include it or not is not really relevant to FA status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem with etymology, particularly in indigenous languages, is that there is usually no definitive source but often several conflicting ones. Here I think, that the only etymology we have a source for seems unlikely to be correct given the evidence (this judgment, though based on my professional experience of working with etymology in indigenous languages in aother context, is of course also a form of OR- but I think when excluding information we have some more leeway on making editorial decisions). So basically my recommendation is to either exclude the etymology entirely, or to include the Quechua etymology with a hedging wording that demonstrates that this is a suggestion and not a definitive etymology. I agree that including the Ode really has little importance for the assessment of FA status. The Ode and the eetymology is a kind of cultural information that I think is highly interesting and serves to make an article more engaging for the reader - but which in the end is more an item of curiosity than of necessity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Maunus and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, can I just check if either of you have anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, I for one am happy to support. The depth of research seems good, my literature search has not been able to find anything that seemed like it should be cited but wasn't. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ian Rose Well, I see that someone has added a new image to the article after Nikkimaria's review. Also, I am not sure if we've had a source review yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Licensing on the new image is fine, but captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems in pretty good shape. Just a few things.

  • "Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex,[11] and the older complex was the source of an ignimbrite that covers the western and southern parts of the volcano.[3]" I might delete "and the older complex", and thus begin "which was the source of an ..."
  • You refer to a "Lake Suches" and a "Laguna Suches", both red-linked. Are these the same?
  • "During historical time," I might say "times" for "time".
  • "Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.[30]" I would expect you need a comma after "Today".
  • If you deem INGEMMET worthy of five red links, you could say what it is.
  • "The Peruvian INGEMMET has published a volcano hazard map for Tutupaca,[36] but the volcano was not monitored itself since it is not active.[37]" I would move "itself" to after "the volcano" or possibly to after "was".
  • "This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols" I'm not sure you can use "costed" alone like that. Possibly "which was costed at" or similar. Also, I thought the currency was the nuevo sol. In any event, a dollar or other major currency equivalent would be nice.
  • "Hot springs on the foot of the Tutupaca volcano[41] discharge water into the rivers.[5]"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
First two are already done? As is the "costed" one - since 2015 the name is simply "sol" per Peruvian sols and used {{To USD}} for currency conversion. Added a note to explain INGEMMET. Remedied the other issues - is there a problem with the "hot springs" sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, on the last, would say "at the foot".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks quite good.00Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oxenfree

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a video game that's a personal favorite of mine. It's got an excellent audiovisual presentation and a story that is ripped out of the 80s/90s Spielberg/high school drama tableau. Article has been through a GA and PR and looking to get this a bronze star. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I suppose, since it's a video game, I go into it expecting lots of garish imags; ironic, then, that it only has one small screenshot! I do understand that's due to its fair use; howver, do you think it would be possible to find a couple more images to break up some of the (if you don't mind me saying) slightly—plain looking paragraps / sections? Perhaps photos of the creators, designers, etc., or soem packaging, advertising? Just a stylistic suggestion though.
Also, isn't self sent hyphenated? audiovisual too? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll look into finding additional free images. "self sent" in this instance is a different parsing, not "self-sent", and "audiovisual" is generally one word in style guides I've seen, e.g. [14] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I absolutely love this game, so I will try my best to help with this nomination. Great work with this overall! My comments are below:

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image/logo.
  • I have comment about this portion (This was expanded to the) from the lead’s first paragraph. I would avoid starting a sentence with “This”.
  • For this part (later in 2016, iOS, Android, and the Nintendo Switch in 2017.), I would replace the comma after “2016” with “and”.
  • I think that the following sentence (There, seemingly supernatural events occur and Alex and her friends must unravel the secrets of the island.) can be better worded. I am not sure about starting a sentence with “There”. Maybe something like (Alex and her friends must unravel the island’s secrets while seemingly supernatural events occur.).
  • For this part (Influenced by classic teen movies and), I would link “teen movies” to the appropriate article.
  • Something about the tone for this sentence (The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with sharp, distorted, and digital ones.) seems strange to me. It reads a little too editorial for my taste, and seems more appropriate for a review/article. I would revise it to make it more appropriate and clearer on how it fits in Wikipedia.
  • In the reference titles, avoid putting words in all caps. Examples of this in the article are references 19, 21, and 22, but I would look over all of the references to check for this.
  • Please add ALT text to the screenshot. Make sure that all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • For this part (built around the "walk and talk" mechanic), do you think that a link to “walk and talk” would be helpful?
  • For this part (suggesting that the player's choice may have had an effect on the characters' relationship.), I would cut “may have had an effect” to “had an effect” as the ambiguity is already established through the previous word “suggesting”.
  • For this part (Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions), is the word “loss” really necessary here?
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I think that the person’s name should be before the quote. For instance, in this section, ("We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.), I would putt Krankel recalled before the quote. I think that it would make it clearer to the reader who is saying this rather than having to go through the entire quote to find out, and something about the tone of this sentence structure strikes me as something use more in a fictional work, like a novel, instead of something like Wikipedia. This is up to you, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • For this part (The developers were influenced by other coming-of-age stories like Stand By Me), I would make it clear that Stand By Me is a film and include the year in which it was released. I would also make it clear in the prose that Freaks and Geeks is a television series.
  • For this part (Youtuber Jesse Cox posted), do you think that “Youtuber” should be linked?
  • For this part (reviewers also felt that the naturalistic dialogue of Oxenfree was a strength, while IGN’s), I think that “though” would be a better word choice than “while” as it would be better fit the contrast of ideas present in the sentence.
  • Please link IGN on its first use in the body of the article. The same comment applies for Destructoid.
  • When you first mention Playstation 4 and link it, I would put PS4 in parenthesis after it since you use the acronym for the rest of the article.
  • I have a comment for this part (fans playing the ARG discovered). The acronym for ARG has not been established in the article so this could be confusing for some readers.

I hope you find this helpful. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Aoba, thanks for the review. I'd addressed or adjusted per most of your comments. A few responses: for the game over/loss bit, I included the loss in case there are readers unfamiliar with the term "game over". The references all use OXENFREE in their titles, I'm not sure if the MoS recommends removing them even in those instances? I wasn't really sure what you meant by the sentence being "too editorial" for Wikipedia; it's paraphrasing the Gamasutra reference. I swapped the quotation order on one of the passages in the development section, but I left the other where it was because it bridges the two quotations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I am still honestly not sure about the "The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." sentence. What I mean by "too editorial" is that I find that this sentence seems more appropriate for a review on the game rather an encyclopedic entry on it. It raises some questions on POV, especially since it is right in the lead, as it reads a little bit too much like fan language/praise for the game for my personal taste. I was always told to keep the tone as objective as possible, and I am not sure how that sentence works with that in mind. However, I will leave that issue to other reviewers, as I may just be overthinking it. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I haven't played this video game. I have only a PS3 and a Nintendo Wii from 2008, plus I'm more of a Cities: Skylines guy. Sounds like a very cool game, though. Anyway, on with the review:

Lead:

  • PlayStation 4 and Linux versions of the game released later in 2016 - do you mean "were released later in 2016", or is this some video gaming lingo where the games release themselves?
  • assume the role of teenager Alex - I'd suggest "a teenage girl named Alex". You do use "her" in the very next sentence.
  • developer Night School Studio - not sure the "developer" part is necessary, you already described Night School as a "developer" earlier on.
  • collectors edition - does this need an apostrophe after "collectors"?

Gameplay:

  • speech bubbles appear over Alex's head giving the player a choice between two or three dialogue options - I'd add a comma after "head".
  • Players can select dialogue options at any time during conversations, choosing to wait for other characters to finish, to interrupt, or to remain silent. Certain dialogue options cause a thought bubble with Alex inside it to appear over characters' heads, suggesting that the player's choice had an effect on the characters' relationship. - Just a question, do these dialogue options affect the subsequent movements of the characters at all, or do you just pick an option and the other characters respond? Like if I chose an option to be rude, would the other character respond in kind?
    • I don't think they affect the characters in such a direct way. If you cut in you can stop some dialogue options and fail to cultivate enough of a relationship for certain endings, but I'm not aware of any source that details this more clearly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • All right, then. I guess my curiosity on this is satisfied. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions; the player's choices and relationships with the characters determine which of several possible endings the player receives - How many endings would there be? (Five are mentioned below, but I think it would be helpful here as well.) And if I'm understanding correctly, it's not possible to lose the game, since you're just going through the storyline.
    • I haven't found a source that gives an express number of endings; counting variations in the ending characters there's more than five. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • This should be clarified, in that case. I was assuming from this - In an epilogue, Alex reveals the fate of the characters, with Nona's picture of the group shown and the outcomes dependent on actions made during the game - that there were only five examples. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot:

  • Clarissa (Avital Ash), Alex's late brother Michael's ex-girlfriend - Are they the same person? (Just to clarify, I've never played this game, so if I'm asking a question, it's because I really don't know.)
  • time looping repeatedly - I guess you can link time loop at this point.
  • In a small cavern, Alex tunes her radio and unexpectedly forms a rift - like a physical rift, or a metaphysical rift? This is a bit confusing.
    • The exact nature of the rifts is never elaborated on; I can't really give you any more detail than it's a rift (possibly to another dimension, but exactly where the crew are blasted is also never really made clear.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What is Harden Tower?
  • Not a criticism of the article, but this entire "Plot" section is a bit confusing to me personally. It seems like significant choices can't really be made until the end, and that all you really do is move around and click on speech bubbles. But then again, I'm more familiar with playing games that don't specifically have storylines.
    • As the article states, it's a walk-and-talk game. You don't see the effects of your choices until the end (aside from variations in character moments.) The more mundane differences aren't covered in the plot because it'd start getting excessively long. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So the game is basically asking you to select dialogue and walk around? I suppose it's not my type of game, then. :( epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Endings:

Developments:

  • Krankel had previously met or worked with many Night School members at Disney - do you know which part of Disney? Theme parks? Animation? Video games? Additionally, Night School didn't exist yet when these members worked at Disney, so I'd change it to "future Night School members".
  • Rather than developing the gameplay and attaching a story to it, Night School focused on developing gameplay that would support the story they wanted to tell - How I'm understanding this sentence is that Night School wanted to develop the gameplay around the story itself, not add the story as an afterthought to the game.
  • This meant making sure branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling - so would this be like having too many options?
  • I guess you can clarify that Backstage is a magazine, because I was confused the first time I read it.
  • prior to actors being cast and lines recorded - To be consistent with the previous sentences, I would suggest, "prior to casting actors and recording lines".
  • Oxenfree was developed primarily using the Unity game engine, Adobe Photoshop, and Autodesk Maya - these pieces of software cover three different things. Unity powers the game play itself, while Autodesk Maya is for the graphics, and Adobe Photoshop is for graphical touch-ups. Am I correct in that analysis?
  • The team's need to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look - "need" can be confused as a verb, and this sentence is in need of an extra comma. How about "The team wanted to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen, which simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look"?
  • but found that it helped organize their story better in the process - I suggest "but they found..." since, as currently written, the subject for this phrase is "The unique animation, art, and effects required for the game's major plot developments".

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK, continuing. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Audio:

  • Initially, Night School Studio did not know exactly what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like. - I'm guessing that this is the case for any company that is creating a video game for the first time, because you can't get it exactly right on your first try. It's more probable that they are simply unsure. How about this? "Initially, Night School Studio was unsure about what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like."
  • American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer Andrew Rohrmann, known under his alias scntfc, composed the music and sound design of the game; Krankel knew Rohrmann through a friend of a friend and had not known of his game music pedigree. - I personally think this should be 2 sentences because it's pretty long. I particularly find American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer awkward. It's clear that "film, TV, and game music composer" and "sound designer" are two different things. Would it be OK if you just said "American sound designer and film, TV, and game music composer"?
  • What is "John Carpenter meets Boards of Canada", compared to the music they got in response? I am genuinely confused about this.
  • The soundtrack was released on January 15, 2016 to accompany the game, with a vinyl release on May 25 - there should probably be a comma after "2016". I don't think "with" is the best conjunction; I'd personally phrase it similarly to this: "...and the vinyl record was released on May 25."

Promotion and release:

  • The game's January 2016 release announcement in October 2015 coincided with a second teaser from the game - Grammatically, the first part of the sentence is unwieldy, there are two dates here and I think it would be better if they were separated more. There also seems to be two separate ideas here, and I'd suggest phrasing them like this: "In October 2015, it was announced that the game would be released in January 2016; this announcement coincided with a second teaser from the game."
  • Writer Robert Kirkman is planning to help adapt Oxenfree into a film and a web-series via Skybound - So what's the status of this now? If there were no updates, could you describe when this plan was made?
  • which featured items like - I'd forgo "like" in favor of "such as", only because in context, this is awkward.
  • Alternate reality game - should this be lowercase?
  • This phone number led players to the Twitter account @xray9169363733 - how was this connection made?
  • Fort Ward, WA - I would spell out "Washington" completely. I would also suggest a link to Fort Ward (Washington), unless this is the wrong link. By the way, why was this location chosen?
    • Presumably the location served as an inspiration for the Fort Milner location in the game, however I have seen no info detailing why. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception:

  • Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic"; "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years," he wrote - It looks weird with two separate quotes juxtaposed. I'd say, "Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic", writing: "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years." "
  • A less enthusiastic review was offered by Allegra Frank for Polygon, who wrote that - this too clashes with the overall style of the paragraph, but this time it's because of this sentence using passive voice rather than active voice. "Allegra Frank of Polygon offered a less enthusiastic review: she wrote that..."
  • "The studio’s choice to completely split the art styles between the normal world and the mystical is a massive success." said Buchholtz - The period in the quote should be a comma.
  • In contrast, Corriea appreciated - You have never mentioned Corriea before, but you don't put her first name like you do with the other authors.

I think that's all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius for your comments. I've taken a stab at addressing these, and left inline comments with some responses to certain points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
All right. I'll wait until you finish with your edits, or you can just tell me if you didn't want to take up some of the suggestions. I appreciate your answers to my questions. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed all actionable elements. Some I'd like to provide more context on, but I don't think there's the sourcing available to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This looks good, and I now support this nomination. Again, thank you for responding to my comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a "man-made famine" (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day... (special thanks to Brianboulton, Ceoil, Outriggr, Mr rnddude & others whose help is greatly appreciated). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Godammit I gonna go through it, review and give you a pass. I can state that this article deserves it for it preserves the memory in a neutral yet absolutely implacable way.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor: I really didn't want to say this, out of sensitivity for your emotional response, but I have to: May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply? They are alas POV. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine, I might actually better stay away from this article, it might be too close to my family history.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You can review, and in fact that would be helpful because there may be a shortage of reviewers (?). But try to do so from a detached, academic perspective, if at all possible. If not, then.. thank you for you comments so far! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Lingzhi kindly acknowleges my contribution to the article, which was mainly the removal of about 6,000 words of text from some gross overdetailing in the Background and Pre-famine sections. These length issues were raised at the last FAC and at the PR that preceded it, and I took a somewhat bold approach to the problem. I believe that the article now has much more impact, and I think the current length is justified, given the importance of the topic. At this point I'll just mention a few minor issues:

  • The i/box image caption says: "These photographs altered world opinion on colonialism." Is there a source for this statement? If there is, I would have thought this would be worthy of mention in the main text, but I don't see it there.
    • I thought that was in the article. Did someone take it out? I will look. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Brianboulton: UPDATE: I have revised the i/box photo caption and added a longish sentence with two sources in the "Media" section. [The first part of the sentence was lifted from SV's article on Ian Stephens but I verified the sources and the content personally, and agree that the sources fully and clearly support the assertion]. Moreover, a little farther below on this FAC page you can see me diligently working on another issue you raised. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with the revised caption, since the statement is now fully cited in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Although most of the difficulties in identifying the various levels of "government" have been resolved, there are still pockets of confusion. For example, the "1942–44: Refusal of imports" section begins: "From late 1942 high-ranking government officials and military officers made repeated requests for food imports..." What government were these officials of?
    • I can double-check. I think it was Governor Herbert and and even a little bit Linlithgow, but mostly Herbert. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I no longer have full access to "Churchill's Secret War" which devotes an entire chapter to discussing this question in detail (obviously, from an Indian nationalist perspective). I can try to get access to that again, and to other similar quotes. WAVELL's initial requests were turned down, even though (if i recall correctly) other high-ranking officers such as Auchinlek signed off on the requests... I'll try to find that info and add a relevant cite that backs up "military officers made"..... meanwhile, the info currently cited only says "Government of India":
    • But the shortage seemed absorbable, and the Indian government used this 'rice shortage' estimate only to supplement its request to London for shipping allocation to meet the existing 'wheat shortage', viz. shipping facilities to import 'an additional 600,000 tons of wheat'" ... Relevant footnote says: "See the Secretary of State's telegram to the Viceroy on 16 January 1943, Document no. 350 in Mansergh (1971), pp. 514—515. London continued to turn down requests by the government of India for shipping allocations throughout 1943; see Documents nos. 59, 71, 72, 74, 98, 139, 157, 207, 219 in Mansergh (1973), and also Wavell (1973), chs. 2 and 3."

    • ANOTHER, with more names:

      While Herbert was insisting that Bengal needed imports, Linlithgow was still arguing that there was enough in the province. Further reports of the rapidly deteriorating crisis forced Linlithgow to change his tune. By mid-July he was demanding food imports as a matter of extreme urgency, no matter 'how unpalatable this demand must be to H.M.G.' and realizing its 'serious potential effect on military operations'...Amery, now also convinced that disaster was looming, took Linlithgow's plea seriously and argued the case at a meeting of the war cabinet on 31st July. Relying on military rather than humanitarian rhetoric, he advised that unless help was forthcoming, India's role as a theatre of war would be seriously compromised.32 However, the war cabinet held, against all the evidence, that 'the shortage of grain in India was not the result of physical deficiency but of hoarding', and insisted that the importation of grain would not solve the problem. Amery pleaded in vain with them to reject the position of the Minister for War Transport, who offered merely 100,000 tons of Iraqi barley and 'no more than 50,000 tons as a token shipment...to be ordered to Colombo [ceylon] to await instructions there'. Ministers hoped that on the strength of this measly offer but 'without disclosing figures' the Viceroy would announce that supplies were on their way as required. Amery conceded that he 'might be compelled by events to reopen the matter within a very few weeks'.33 Just a week later, General Auchinleck, commander-in-chief of British forces in India, echoing Amery's request, pleaded with the chief of imperial general staff in London (apparently Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke: 'so far as shipping is concerned, the import of food is to my mind just as if not more important than the import of munitions'.34 To no avail: on September 24th the war cabinet decided that it would not be possible to divert ships to lifting grain for delivery in India before the next Indian harvest.

      • There is still confusion in the opening sentence. The natural chain of communication would have been provincial governors and military commanders to Viceroy, then Viceroy to Amery and then Amery to the War Cabinet, and you say that this chain was operating "by the end of 1942" and experiencing repeated rejections or waterings-down by the War Cabinet. But you then contradict yourself in saying "Early in January [1943], the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, communicated the first of many requests for food aid to Churchill's War Cabinet, initiating a cycle of requests and refusals". So some rewriting around the dates is obviously necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the same section you say: "Leo Amery sent the first of many requests to the UK for food aid". As Secretary of State for India, Amery was a minister of the British government, so he was based in London and would not have had to "sent to the UK" for anything.
    • I will check wording. Avery stood between the people on the ground in India and the bigwigs in London (esp. Churchill). I will try to clarify. Alas I think this whole "government of India" and "Government of bengal" bit would be lost on Americans and perhaps others as well. It confused me for a very very long time. Even the provincial government was largely run by British men appointed by other British men. Suhrawardy (after Pinnel retired) was an exception; he was a Muslim Indian appointed by British men. He screwed up too. His name isn't mentioned because he only played a role in one scew up (the Food Drives). I think it might take an entire article (wikilinked within this one at some point) to explain all this.
      • Avery would have been based in London. He was the minister in the UK government with responsibility for India. The Government of India was separate, and largely based in New Delhi. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this FAC and will be interested to read comments as they appear. I am well aware of the physical and emotional energy that has gone into producing this article, an effort deserving the full respect of the WP community. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: For the "who requested" I added " (including John Herbert, the governor of Bengal; Viceroy Linlithgow; Leo Amery the Secretary of State for India, and General Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India) Ó Gráda, 2009, pp 174–79). I'll clarify your other "Amery" request in a moment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton: I kinda punted, but I think it is roughly accurate. My brain is getting a bit overloaded these days, and the several sources are sometimes kinda vague-ish about the dates, and it's a little hard to lace them together. But the story is this: Amery begged London many times, often because Herbert begged Linlithgow and Linlithgow begged Amery. The general and admiral (I added one) did so muc less frequently, but they did so. And all of this...it may have started a little in December 1942 but requests started popping around like popcorn in January and thereafter. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It will take a while to work through this article, so my comments are likely to be iterative.

  • As an initial question, is there now consensus among the editors involved in this article that it is of FA standard? A factor which led to the failure of the earlier nominations was concerns over the lack of consultation during its development. I can't see a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this.
Nick-D, the article does not have consensus from my point of view. Three editors have complained about the rewrite independently of each other. The first was AidWorker, a subject-matter expert on food policy and famine; he was not an experienced editor, so he had difficulty explaining the issues in ways that were actionable. The second was Fowler&fowler, an experienced editor and expert on India; his main criticism was the same as Aidworker's, namely that there was original research in the form of synthesis. I have no background in either India or famine, but I started reading the sources a few months ago, and I found the same thing in several places: the text was sort of in the sources, but not quite. Also, the sources used are not always about the famine. I think what has happened is that Lingzhi has written a secondary source, almost an essay, analysing his choice of primary, secondary and tertiary sources, rather than a tertiary source that summarizes the scholarly literature on the famine, which is what this article should be.
I began identifying some of the problems on talk, and I tried to make suggestions for how to move forward, but the reception was not good. In one example, even something that was unarguably unsourced (and that, so far as I know, is false) was restored to the article after I'd removed it. One difficulty is that several of the footnotes contain bundled references without saying which source supports which point, which makes verification harder, especially when sources may need to be borrowed via inter-library loan. I would like to see the bundles broken up so that we can clearly see which source supports which part of the text, or a pointer added to the note about how the sources are used.
I'm in the process of looking for an external academic reviewer, but I'm troubled about this too, because the article is not well organized in places, and there's a lot that doesn't need to be there, and also quite a bit missing or not described clearly, so it would make more sense to wait until we have a better version before asking for an external review. I only raced ahead with that because Lingzhi kept nominating it for FAC. I see the current version as a good first draft. But now I think we need to talk about the article's structure; which scholarly sources should provide the scaffolding; how to comply with DUE; how to cite the sources so that, if there is bundling, it is not a bar to source verification; and who the article is aimed at, and how to make the text as clear as possible for that group. SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As a broad comment, there are far too many notes. I appreciate that this is a complex topic, but we're up to note G by the start of the second para of the main body of the article, and by the end of the article we're up to note BI. These notes contain references which should be presented as such, material contradicting the text of the article, estimates of fatalities which should be covered in the body of the article and excessive and sometimes irrelevant detail. This is likely to be confusing to readers. If the material isn't important enough to be in the body of the article, it should, in general, not be included at all.
    • Yes I added many notes, then stopped, then argued that other editors should not be adding more and more and more and longer ones. They were unconcerned, so i thought "Screw it" and continued adding more myself. I can look into which could be deleted. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Pretty much all of them in my view. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I feel footnotes are extremely helpful. Really extremely helpful. i can still try to delete one or two or maybe even three. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I cannot support the article's promotion to FA class with anywhere near as many notes as this, for the reasons noted above. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I also cannot remove all or even most of them. I said I will try to remove a few, if possible. But I have been sick and as weak as a kitten for the past 8 or 9 days, even while traveling, and yet have completely rewritten the "Relief" section... One holdup with the notes is that I didn't add all of them, and so if there was anything I would want to keep or remove, I would have to go back and verify everything other people added. It would take a while. A second thing is that you and I disagree on the basic idea of footnotes. I think they are extremely helpful. I deal with footnotes all the time at work (read, college professor, albeit an extremely humble professor in an extremely humble college). To me, they are par for the course. So I will try to remove a few, if I can, but if you hate them so much, you can Oppose and then match your disapproval of footnotes to some part of WP:WIAFA. I of course hope you won't, but there is a gap between our positions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "while access to international sources was largely denied by Churchill's War Cabinet" - not that simple: worldwide shortages of shipping were also a problem, as the article later discusses.
    • But you can't put shipping up early in the article, because that would be a straightforward case of POV. You could say they claimed shipping was the problem, but then that begs the questions, "Why do you say 'claimed'? You mean it wasn't?' And then you'd have to launch into an explanation.. which is done farther down. In short, I don't even think you can mention shipping early on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It is POV to omit this. The Allies were in fact suffering significant shortfalls of shipping at this stage of the war, especially in this region (which led to the cancellation of multiple plans to conduct amphibious attacks to outflank the Japanese in Burma). The article notes that this meant that a famine was probably inevitable somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • And now you see the dilemma. It's POV to mention it without saying it's highly debatable. It may be POV (I don't think so, but I see how others would) to omit mentioning it. The only answer is to move the entire "Sipping" section into the WP:LEDE. Or to omit it Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The lead is presenting a simplistic and one sided view which does not represent the actual content of the article, and which could be easily corrected with a few words. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
            • UPDATE: I added "arguably due to a wartime shortage of shipping" plus a footnote. I know you hate footnotes. I am sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

() "Some scholars suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others disagree"? Butthen you'd have to add, "Churchill also repeatedly turned down offers of aid from the US, Canada and Australia. Some scholars again suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others again disagree." And then you'd have to explain both disagreements. And.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The lead does not need notes explaining what's covered later in the article. This sentence still uses the incorrect "Churchill's War Ministry" formulation. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Crucially, the (debated) shortfall in rice production in 1942 occurred during the all-important aman harvest" - this sentence is unclear. If there wasn't a shortfall, it's meaningless.
    • No one actually knows if there really was a shortfall, and if there was, then by how much. The crop production statistics were meaningless gibberish at the time. Most sources agree there was a modest shortfall, but a minority (Tauger, Bowbrick, and others) think the shortfall was very large indeed.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Say this in the article then. The current sentence is very unclear. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although imports were a small part of the total production" - how could imports be part of local production? Do you mean that imports were small compared to local production?
    • I'll look into this; at first glance it seems to be simply a poorly chosen word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: changed to "Although imports were a small portion of the total available food crops," Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm troubled by the Malthusian tone of the narrative in the 'background' section. While Bengal wasn't self-sufficient in food by the start of the war, it didn't need to be given that it could and did import it (the UK also wasn't self-sufficient in food at this time, ditto Japan). While this led to a vulnerability, it was manageable as long as transport networks worked.
    • And you have hit on perhaps half the problem: the transport networks didn't work. They were quite destroyed, first by the Denial schemes, and then by the fallout from the Denial schemes, while the trains were used for military transport. Boats are the main (almost only) means of transport, and the Denial schemes screwed them. Some key sources go into a Malthusian discussion, but then sometimes say, "Well, they it's quite possible that they might have still have been OK-ish, with considerably less loss of life, perhaps even only minor loss of life, if x hadn't happened (often saying, "if the transport hadn't been screwed," but other thing as well). This certainly was not a straightforward Malthusian famine, but it was preceded by a very obvious and oft-repeated dire vulnerability to famine. That vulnerability was to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage of influence) caused by Malthusian population factors and then also to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage... ) caused by fragmentation of holdings for debt/inheritance reasons.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The refugees fell victim to dysentery, smallpox and malaria, and later to cholera.[61] According to one estimate, between 10,000 and 50,000 refugees died from various causes even before they reached India.[62]" - is this relevant to the topic of the article?
    • Perhaps the numeric detail could be deleted. But the refugees are important, as is their condition upon arrival. A key point is that Bengal was subjected to shock after shock after shock after shock. Some meaningful proportion (sources disagree, as always) was psychological. The bombing of Calcutta, forex, played a huge role. The populace nearly abandoned the city (for a very short time) because a couple poot-butt little bombs dropped. The populace panicked, then the government panicked. The bombing and ultra-brief evacuation largely inspired the Priority distribution scheme. And the bombing caused (brief) panic largely because Burma had fallen and people were expecting invasion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • If you want to say that the situation before the food crisis was bad, just say this directly. Don't force readers to try to piece things together. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "After the loss of Burmese imports there was increased demand on the rice producing regions" - but note W says that Burmese imports were "small"
    • Yes. I though that point was clearly covered: the effect was not only supply to Bengal, but on 1) supply to other provinces, which began a bidding war that gravely affected Bengal, and 2) on the 'cushion that Burma provided in case of trouble, and 3) on morale/psychology. It's not a straightforward hit on Bengal's supply, but it is a huge factor nonetheless. Would you like me to add quotes from sources to this discussion? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, I see this now. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite this, Bengal continued to export rice to Ceylon[Y] for months afterward, even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent" - who was doing the exporting? Businesses which the government wasn't stopping, or the government from stocks it was acquiring?
      • Update: I trimmed this a little. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I think (not sure) Bengal was exporting to everyone, and it was businesses and government. That is my recollection. The point of Ceylon is that 1) it was a significant proportion of the exports, and 2) government did not see it necessary to prioritize Bengal (or more specifically, the rural poor of Bengal). I would need to double-check to make sure this recollection is accurate. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Using "Bengal" in this context implies that it was some kind of official action. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh. yes. exports to Ceylon were govt, all the way, no private. Meanwhile, however, there were also exports to other provinces, which were largely (maybe solely) private. Sorry for the confusion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "All this, together with transport problems that were to be created by the government's "boat denial" policy, were the direct causes of inter-provincial trade barriers on the movement of foodgrains,[73] and contributed to a series of failed government policies that further exacerbated the food crisis" - internal links within articles are generally discouraged, and there are three in this sentence alone.
    • You can delete the internal links if you like. I think in a large article they are useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It is not my job to make the article compliant with the MOS and similar. Moving this section down as I suggested elsewhere would also remove any need for such links. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the para starting with "The fall of Burma had brought Bengal close to the war front; the war's impact fell more strongly on Bengal than elsewhere in India" has already been stated.
    • I have been considering moving a few sentences. That may be aa part of this; I'll look into it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the para starting with "Nearly the full productive output of India's cloth, wool, leather, and silk industries were sold directly to the military"?
    • Cloth famine, which aggravated unsanitary conditions. And more importantly, inflation, which many people think caused the whole famine (tho.. inflation was both structural and speculative...). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing the link to the topic of this article. I'd suggest deleting this and the 'Cloth famine' section, or reworking this material in a more concise way which makes the link explicit. I'd note that there were worldwide clothing shortages at this time as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'll look at tweaking it. Deleting it is a non-starter. The military buildup and the means by which it was financed are the reason for the initial inflation. Most scholars, including the Nobel-prize winning Amartya Sen, are very clear on this point. And delete the cloth famine? No way, that was a key element of the suffering and lack of sanitation. This wasn't a cloth shortage, it was near-complete cloth non-availability, at least for the rural poor. They could not afford it. Its price was skyrocketing, as discussed. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "the United States Air Force flew" - it was the United States Army Air Forces at the time
    • OK thanks will fix.
  • The '1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement' section should be moved to later in the article: it's mainly about the period after the crisis of early 1942
    • Mmm, I'll think about this. The section is about inflation, and dislocation of populace. If you move it later, it can't be moved much later. It's still about the build-up to the famine. It clearly belongs after the fall of Burma, and before the famine. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • " Rice was directed away from the starving rural districts" - this appears to be the first time the emergence of starvation is noted, yet where any why this occurred isn't described.
    • I'll check on this, thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "it was difficult not to conclude that the Churchill war ministry and Winston Churchill himself had a visceral hostility toward India:" - the source does not go this far: it states that "it is difficult to escape the impression that the War Cabinet [note the proper title] was simply hostile to India" and then notes that Churchill greatly disliked Indians. This sentence is lightly paraphrased from the book, but exaggerates its argument - not least as the Labour Party which was somewhat more sympathetic towards India contributed several members of the War Cabinet.
    • Many sources make this point again and again specifically with respect to Churchill. Key advisors were either hostile (Cherwell) or apparently unconcerned (Leathers, perhaps seeing himself as a hard-nosed pragmatist). Yes the Labour party was considerably more benevolent, as is very briefly mentioned in the "Social discord (Quit India)" section. But Churchill was hostile.. in fact, I really toned down the arguments against him, for fear of devolving into a running vitriolic paraphrase of "Churchill's Secret War." Even his own contemporaries/countrymen essentially called him racist (I recall that General Wavell had a very sharp quote to that effect, as did... someone else... was it Avery?) . Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not referring to the material on Churchill. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "as the cessation of Burmese imports continued to drive up rice prices" - if these were small, how would this have much of an impact?
    • I though that was explained in the article... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Girls were also sold to the military," - highly dubious. A strong source is needed to support claims that the British and British Indian Armies had sex slaves or similar. I presume what's intended is that these women were forced into prostitution where they serviced soldiers.
    • @Nick-D: The sources on prostitution of girls/women to the military are omnipresent; saying that that didn't happen wouldn't pass WP:SNIFF. [If you need more sources for rampant prostitution, dealing mainly with the military, I might be able to scrape together ten or fifteen.] As for the possibility of "chattel", however: the source currently quoted says "girls were sold to the military" but crucially, doesn't define "sold"; it could easily mean "brought into prostitution" or it could mean "sold as chattel". There was in fact at least one case where a UK officer purchased a girl outright as chattel and it caused a stir in the UK House of Commons. I don't recall whether it was Linlithgow or Herbert or Amery who had to testify in front of the House of Commons and deny everything. But I am just saying all that for the sake of completeness. To the point, I am not at this time prepared to argue that girls were sold as outright chattel. I changed "sold" to "prostituted". Is that sufficient?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • That still states that the Allied militaries were the purchaser of the prostitutes' services. These forces did not run official brothels or the like, and individual personnel (using their own money) were presumably the clients. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite a long-established and detailed Famine Code that would have triggered a sizable increase in aid, and a statement privately circulated by the government in June 1943 that a state of famine might need to be formally declared,[265] this never happened" this is already stated
  • The coverage of the relief effort seems rather thin. Why did the military take over the relief effort, how did it manage to solve the problems, and how long did this take?
    • I think the coverage is thin because the coverage in sources is thin. IIRC they said, "And the heroic WAVELL stood up to London, and relief was offered, and it went well, but the real solution was the harvest. The End". But I will try to see if i overlooked something. It is very possible... Why did the military take over the relief effort? In a word, WAVELL, the "Good Viceroy". Apparently Churchill thought Wavell was a bit of a loser, and allegedly put him in charge hoping he'd continue to be ineffective. But Wavell shocked Churchill by transforming into a bold and determined lion. Wavell was not the only "good guy" here; Herbert almost kissed Wavell's boots and wept with joy (figuratively speaking) when Wavell stood up to London. And yes there were reports of soldiers helping, and.. were they ordered not to? yes that rings a bell.. I can try to find it, sounds like "Hungry Bengal" to me... and the rank-and-file soldiers were universally praised as the relief efforts took place. MMmm, I remeber a quote, "Six months into Wavell's efforts, little had been accomplished.." but that seems to contradict the praise that everyone heaps on that effort. The two key points are 1) WAVELL. 2) But even tho he was heroic and impeccably correct, even wavell wasn't the real turn-around. It was the harvest. [Just like FDR didn't really turn the US economy around, it was WWII that did that.. but I chase rabbits..] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • This kind of response is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't understand. Let me try to give very straightforward answers: 1) Why was the military involved? Linlithgow had been Viceroy through most of the famine, but did nothing. Then General Wavell became Viceroy, stood up to London, and soon after that the military was handing out relief. 2) Why is coverage so thin? Because, you have to understand, most books/articles do not devote words to Wavell's efforts. They praise him unreservedly, but don't describe the details of his operations very much. Except that he got rid of the interprovincial trade barriers, using precisely the same authority that Linlithgow pointedly declined to use.. [Ah, I do recall, many relevant high-ranking military officers were very keen to obey Wavell's orders. They were all for it. I'l try to find that quote.] I certainly need to add a sentence or two about his standing up to London and removing the trade barriers. But.. I don't know how many further details i can find. I will look. 3) How long did it take? It took until the harvest was brought in. That brought prices down dramatically (but still not to pre-war levels). It brought grain into the markets. Now, bear in mind, the famine in a larger sense was still raging, because of the disease phase. But the food crisis phase ended when the harvest was brought in. Is this a helpful response? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Lizzie Collingham's book has a useful summary of the relief effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Go to ""Good%20Viceroy"&f=false Hungry Bengal" and search for "Good Viceroy" Pages 140-145... I will try to find more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Various sources also refer to military personnel providing aid to the starving on an ad-hoc basis (and policies being in place prohibiting this)
  • How was the record rice harvest in December 1943 achieved? - the article describes the problems which were suppressing the harvest, and how this was turned around dramatically seems important.
    • Do you mean, " Who harvested all those mountains of rice?" I know this sounds stupid, but: As far as I know, nobody knows. There was a huge excess of population before the famine, and a huge number of redundant workers, but they were surely too weakened to do heavy lifting etc. Perhaps they came from other provinces? Greenough mentions this. I can try to find a quote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The article does a good job of describing the complex and often entrenched societal, economic, logistical, political and climatic problems which led to the disaster. How these were overcome so quickly (thus saving vast numbers of lives) seems pretty significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The various estimates of the number of fatalities should be moved into the body of the article (the 'Famine, disease, and the death toll' section does not in fact discuss what the death toll is estimated at - I can understand the mortality table, but it needs figures to provide context)
  • "Overall, the table shows the dominance of malaria as the cause of death throughout the famine" - I'm not sure that it does. Malaria made up 43% of deaths in the famine year of 1943 (up by 10 percentage points), and increased after the point when the article says the famine ended (eg, over 1944). The growth of cholera seems to have been more significant in 1943.
  • Also, I'm not sure why some of the percentages in the table are negative?
    • I've only had half a cup of coffee so far, so I hope I can be coherent. Percentages (%) for 1943 and 1944 are of excess deaths (that means, the percentage of the deaths that were more than usual and therefore due to the famine, not the percentage of total deaths or even of average deaths) as compared to rates from 1937–41, while those for 1937–41 are with respect to the average annual deaths of that period. For one thing, that means you cannot take the (%) column from 1937–41 and make any straightforward comparison of it to the two (%) columns for 1943 and 1944 in the same row (same cause of death), because they are percents of totally different things... But you can compare the % from the single year 1943 and the % from the single year 1944, because they do measure the same thing.... Meanwhile, you can compare the Rate columns straight across any row to each other, because all cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - the enumerated population in the 1941 census. So the explanation of the weird negative percentages in the "Respiratory" and "Injury" rows goes looks like this: the death rates for both remained more or less the same and in fact slightly falling throughout the famine. That kinda makes sense. Take injuries, for example, many fatal injuries are probably caused during manual labor or whatever, and millions were too sick to work. But the negative numbers aren't really really because those rates were falling (or not mainly because they were falling). The negative numbers are mainly because the explanatory power of other causes of death for the famine was growing dramatically, while the explanatory power of injuries for famine deaths was... negative... [In super-simple terms, I suppose you could say, "Dying from Injury spared him from dying from famine"; so the rates are negative]... As for Malaria versus Cholera (which was bigger/biggest overall?), if you look at Rates, in overall numbers, Malaria was the bigger (and also the biggest overall) killer both before the famine (6.29 versus 0.73) and during the famine (11.46 versus 3.60 in 1943; 12.71 versus 0.82 in 1944). Malaria was always and everywhere the biggest killer. That makes it even more remarkable, from a numeric standpoint, that the rates in Malaria took a huge leap up. The biggest killer became a super-killer... The story of the Cholera numbers is that they took a HUGE relative jump in 1943, Rate jumped from 0.73 to 3.60, and this jump explained very nearly one-fourth of the famine-caused deaths (not the total deaths, not the average deaths) in that year. But then Rates dropped down in 1944 to almost (or slightly higher than) their previous average (0.82 as compared to previous average of 0.73). hey then explained only a tiny fraction of excess (famine-caused) deaths.
    • I have a masters degree in demography, and after reading that I can't understand this table. Your explanation of it suggests that it is fatally flawed: essentially it's presenting relatively advanced demographic concepts in an unusual way. If the 1943 and 1944 figures are for excess deaths, this isn't actually noted in the table's title or column headers, and I don't understand why the table would present different kinds of data alongside one another. The figures hidden away in note A seem much better suited to Wikipedia's audience. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Are you talking about the very first footnote in the whole article, the one that runs through various estimates? First, those are not broken down by cause of death, which was kinda the point that was being explored at that point in our article. Second, forgive me, but I find it slightly frustrating to keep repeating (see article's Talk Page) that that info is Just. Plain. Outdated. And. Superseded. I will try to set up a bit of a table with a narrative that is easier to digest. I need to emphasize twp points: 1) Dyson/Maharatna is academic consensus, and 2) whatever we eventually wind up with must deal with excess mortality figures (as opposed to raw mortality)... I will have time tomorrow... thank you for your patience. [By the way, that fatally flawed table is reproduced from the academic source; I didn't conjure it up myself... Also, if you have a master's in demography, then you could in fact read Dyson/Maharatna yourself. I will happily send them to you]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: I still promise I will replace that complicated table with certainly a simpler narrative explanation and hopefully a new, simpler table. Meanwhile, in response to you & SV and esp. because I found a very nice quote (by Devereux) that permits me to do so, I have stricken my "Just Plain Outdated remarks above, and replaced excess mortality figures with a range (2.1 to 3 million) and an explanation. More later but I have many chores at the moment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D: Sorry to keep pinging you. The table has been greatly simplified and its explanation amplified. Your input solicited.
  • Finally here, the article and its notes say that the figures relating to the population of Bengal and the impact of the famine are all at least somewhat reliable, yet this isn't noted in relation to the table. How reliable is it?
    • UPDATE: I answered this question earlier at length (below this), but in brief, the answer to this question is the same as is explained in footnote "A" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No statistics are anywhere reliable in any absolute sense, period. The numbers in the table have a little fudge room because they weren't always 100% sure of the cause of death, but they are MOSTLY kinda reliable because healthcare workers were actually counting dead bodies and death rates in various hospitals, clinics etc. and comparing them to previous death rates in hospitals, clinics etc. No one knows the TOTAL death counts because countless thousands died in ditches along the roadsides. But they do have hospital records, and the death rates from those records can be assumed to also reflect rates from the larger population. Meanwhile, the crop statistics only very, very roughly reflected reality. In very many cases, unqualified, unequipped and unmotivated people just made stuff up... making extremely rough guesses.. just to satisfy the govt requests for statistics... OH PS if you're asking what Maharatna's staistical source was, looks like it was annual Bengal Public Health Reports, mentioned by Maharatna on p. 239. He says that "great confidence seems to be attached" to them (here talking specifically about malaria numbers). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The article states that "Contemporary mortality statistics are unreliable, particularly for the rural areas where methods were rudimentary even in normal times", but then presents readers with a table (referenced to the same source as this proviso) giving changes in mortality rates at a two decimal point level of detail. This is obviously contradictory. Your assertion about statistics never being reliable is wrong: official statistics produced by modern advanced economies tend to be highly reliable, especially on topics such as this (the point being that, say, modern Australia mortality data is of a vastly superior level of reliability to the figures collected in colonial-era India during a major crisis but readers wouldn't understand this from the article)Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
        • UPDATE: Thanks, I have changed text to "Contemporary mortality statistics were to some degree under-recorded". Thank you for the observation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "This greatly affected domestic and international perceptions of the famine and sparked an international media frenzy" - how did the publication of photos in an Indian newspaper have an international impact? Where they also published internationally?
    • UPDATE: Yes added. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, was there really a "media frenzy"? This seems rather imprecise.
    • UPDATE: Reworded. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The images had a profound effect and marked "for many, the beginning of the end of colonial rule"." - was this in India, or elsewhere?
    • Alas, the source doesn't say. We now have a strong link between "famine photos" and "spurred govt action; saved lives", but the link between photos and "world opinion about colonialism" is weak. I will try for a couple more days to find more, but if I don't, I will delete that bit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Such comments are also a bit simplistic, given the general consensus among historians is that Indian independence was inevitable by this time. Focusing on the impact of the images also seems to under-sell the impact the famine had on the credibility of British rule of India locally and around the world.
    • yes perhaps the logic skips a step, but the conclusion remains the same. To wit: yes, the famine had a huge impact on world opinion. But the key point here is that no one in the world even knew the famine existed until the Statesman published those pix. And hold your breath, but even many in India did not even know there was such a massive crisis. I am not joking, even tho that sounds alien to modern ears. There was essentially a news blackout. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • "...Until The Statesman publicized it, [note from Lingzhi: several editorials (unnoticed by the world) over a number of weeks, but the really big bang was the photo spreads in Aug. 1943] the calamity in Bengal had been unknown to most of India and utterly unheard about in the rest of the world. In New Delhi, [the capital, far from Bengal, which had hitherto been oblivious] storefronts displayed the pictures of famine victims, and in Washington the state Department circulated them among policy makers." Churchill's Secret war p. 175.
      • "Thereafter, the Statesman— and Amrita Bazar Patrika—adopted a policy of reporting on the extent of starvation frequently and graphically. Its photographic images of the famine made world headlines." - Sufficiency and Sufficiency and Sufficiency p. 57 [Can still look for more quotes, if you want them] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • " transforming what should have been a local shortage into a horrific famine." - not currently covered by a citation
    • yes thank you, it's added now: Ó Gráda 2015 pp. 39–40. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "British Field Marshal Viscount William Slim observed that "the horrible thing about Calcutta was the contrast of the blatant wealth of some of its citizens with the squalid misery, beyond mere poverty, at their very doors" - the location of this material implies that it refers to his views relating to the famine. From checking the book, it is actually his views on conditions in pre-famine Calcutta.
    • I'll put that on my list of things to double-check, but for now I'll take your word for it that I made a mistake about the time frame. Deleting. The quote is not necessary anyhow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't describe who ordered the Famine Inquiry Commission and the impact of its report - which seems remarkably bluntly worded if it was an official inquiry, especially in the context in which it was written. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It was ordered by the top. UK. And it actually is not bluntly worded, at least not in a key sense: It shifts 90% of the blame onto Provincial government. And that is highly controversial to put it very mildly. It omits the fact that the Indian Government stood by and did nothing, when in fact it certainly had the power to do things that might well have cut the famine short or greatly reduced its impact (see Weigold). I'm not trying to start a political discussion but to show the nature of the inaction and then harsh (yes very blunt, but blunt toward others — businesses, the provincial govt, but never themselves) finger-pointing. The report also cheerfully elided the forcible repatriation of Calcutta destitute, forex. [they said something like, "Oh and by that December the destitute population had been greatly reduced" but did not say how or by whom]. But I can't add that bit about their elision to the article, because no sources mention. I just noticed it myself. Some sources mention repatriation, but none mention that FIC didn't mention it... So adding that would be WP:OR Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: The Famine Inquiry Commission which was appointed by the Government of India in 1944. there was a clamor for its creation. they dragged their feet for months before starting it. its meetings were held in private and all notes destroyed except those secretly kept/hidden by Nanavati. DETAILS ABOUT FORMATION OF COMMISSION added to article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, I was poking through my copy of Srinath Raghavan's book India's War, which notes that the communists provided an effective famine relief program which contributed to them being very popular in the region as of 1946 (pages 453-534). Aside from this not being mentioned in the article, it does raise the issue of the article also not noting any other non-government relief efforts. The population of Bengal is presented as either starving powerless peasants or their oppressors, which seems rather simplistic. Even families are presented as mainly betraying their members. Surely there were civil society organisations, etc, which tried to save lives - however ineffectively - and families tried to help one another. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Contai and Tamluk are what you're talking about, I assume. In Midnapur. The "Civil Unrest" section mentioned this aeons ago, but perhaps it was deleted. Anyhow, the Communist and or/nationalist rebel relief, IIRC, was only for the cyclone, and only in Midnapore. They rebel forces (can't say that without thinking of Luke Sjywalker) actually set up an entire parallel govt in that area, which claimed to be.... a national govt, I think? But overall, the peasants were to a large extent every bit as helpless as you describe. They begged. They migrated. They died. Unless they were middle class or upper class. then the govt saved them. OH... and... Raghavan... I seem to recall... isn't that the one with many inaccuracies? I think I deleted it from my sources? Will check... I will check further on [presumably, urban, middle-class?] nationalist groups launching relief aid. But yes, the great mass of peasants died passively. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I will write a small paragraph about private relief. May take a while. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Many changes made as per your comments, but some still remain... "Relief efforts" section beefed up considerably to highlight vital role of Wavell and the military. That section also explains (in a footnote) why the harvest was so huge, as you mentioned. I also changed "Amery contacted UK" to "Amery contacted War Cabinet"... I have not forgotten your comments about the WP:LEDE. More later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the new material added today

  • It now uses the confusing "Churchill's War Council". Presumably the war cabinet is meant, but even here it's confusing given that Avery was also a minister (albeit not a member of the war cabinet)
  • The material on the rice harvest is still unsatisfactory. This seems to have been a remarkable success in responding to the crisis, so why it's hidden away in a note and not explained is unclear to me. It goes to the point I raised earlier about the relief efforts: Presumably there was some kind of coordinated effort to get this going, with the workers then making it happen.
    • I can move it out of the footnote next week. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
      • Update: I am sorry, but I really, really, really have never seen anyone mention there was any kind of centralized coordination or management of the post-famine harvest. I was mildly surprised when I stumbled on the footnote in Greenough that said the increase was due to shifting crops toward rice (presumably, away from jute). I also think I remember that a lot of the labor came from other provinces (which was not unusual, in other contexts) , but I am not certain I could find that smallphrase or clause in my sources. I will give it a try. As for moving the Greenough "they used more land" quote out of the footnotes, well, I have to say that looks like footnote material to me. It is kinda peripheral to the famine. But if you want it in body text, I can oblige. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The para is also a bit confusing: it starts by saying that the central government didn't do much to help until September, but then notes that assistance actually commenced earlier but was delayed due to various logistical problems. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • THat wasn't aid that was delayed; it was various purchases. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Added clarifying text a few days ago. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: I have completely re-written the Relief section, greatly expanding to meet your requests for information about the military, private aid, etc., and even throwing in a bit of communalism. I have made many other smaller changes. Please let me know if these changes are agreeable to you, then I can move on to your other concerns. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose After reviewing the above, I've decided to shift to formally opposing this nomination. As well as the various unaddressed issues above, my main concerns are:

  • The extent of the footnotes is greatly excessive. As noted above, many are actually references or irrelevant details, and could be swiftly removed. Others contain excessive level of detail, and are clearly unnecessary. Some, and especially the first, include material which belongs in the body of the article.
  • From reviewing the discussions on the article's talk page I'm not convinced that the article is in fact stable, or this nomination has the support of other involved editors. There have been repeated concerns over how the article has been developed, and I don't think that they've been addressed.
  • The article's narrative is over-complicated, as are some details (I still don't understand the table of mortality figures, which at minimum is wrongly labelled)
  • I'm not convinced that this article covers the topic in a way which appropriately reflects the balance of sources. As noted in my review above, it seems to be structured around a particular narrative (eg, that the British authorities caused the disaster, did little about it, and it lead to a near complete breakdown of society), with other views being minimised or excluded. It seems fair to say that this disaster did result primarily from the utter incompetence of the colonial authorities (which I understand is the clear consensus among historians) but the role of vindictiveness vs incompetence, the significance of the war situation, and the self-help initiatives are not covered adequately. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • thank you or your comments and your Oppose. I have not seen anyone at all making anything resembling a case that references WP:WIAFA, WP:NPOV or even WP:NOR, though SV accused me of that on article talk. Since no one references any of those, nothing that has been said is actionable. There is no way I can respond to non-actionable comments, except, well, 1) argue, or 2) Thank you. I choose the latter. Thank you for your time and trouble. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Note to FAC coordinator]: i actually ended up being kinda forced to refute most of Nick's objections in a later section, below. Thank you for your patience Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Commentary withdrawn [was (mechanical) "source review"]

I volunteered to check everything about the references given. [April 21 edit: "everything" is ambiguous; I am referring to what is called on FAC talk a "mechanical" source review. I think this is clear with the rest of the statement.] I checked every journal citation, via URLs, for accuracy, made numerous small corrections, and removed inconsistent formatting practices. (diff1d2) In previous interaction with the article, I found (to the limited degree I looked) that claims made in the text matched the sources. There is maybe one non-academic source (NYT). This review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but I want to make a note of this so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review". The lengthy "Works cited" section should be close to impeccable at this point. Outriggr (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC), updated 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing all commentary from this page based on the rhetorical sleight-of-hands occurring here, and will also strike the text posted by Lingzhi below which mentions me (not knowing at the time that it would be submitted to FAC, which added a new and not necessarily accurate context to it). I volunteered to help with some "grunt work" associated with this article. I had no partisan motivation, despite the subtle but regular implications otherwise ([15] (mentioned in the diff's diff) et al + this page). That grunt work has ended up being miscontrued in a few places, and a defense of it would be disproportionate to the very nature of my contribution. Moreover, I am not involved here, despite attempts to make me appear so. People on Wikipedia will sometimes volunteer to help; other people find this surprising, and look for motive. All I can do here is protest the situation via my "cancel" button. Outriggr (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Outriggr: I added two sources, to rectify issues pointed out by Brian (above). Sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I posted a question here for Outriggr, but it was moved. Rather than move it back, I'll leave it below again because it refers to Outriggr's post above. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This page suggests that Outriggr checked four sentences against the sources. If I've understood his posts correctly, he confirmed part of the first, the second, and the third (I think, I'm not sure); and the fourth failed verification. I'd like to know what "close to impeccable" means as a description of the "works cited" section. Does that refer to the formatting? SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

I have been following this page almost since Lingzhi began his userspace draft. I have added no content, but have watched it develop over the last two odd years. Like Outriggr, I think this review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but want to note that the article is especially well written, and I was most impressed by Brian Boulton's re-sizing and adjustments to the article's balance of focus and overall scope. As such I Support on prose. Any remaining issues I have in this regard can sort myself or on talk, but they are minor. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind support! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot checks

  • This page suggests that Outriggr checked four sentences against the sources. If I've understood his posts correctly, he confirmed part of the first, the second, and the third (I think, I'm not sure); and the fourth failed verification. I'd like to know what "close to impeccable" means as a description of the "works cited" section. Does that refer to the formatting? SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think he means the integrity of the sources rather than their use. Source reviews are usually spot checks, and Outriggr has clarified the dept of his investigation. He did say "This review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but I want to make a note of this so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review"", which I think was an honest assessment of his conclusions here. I don't read that he was trying to have a final say at all (disclosure: Outriggr is a friend of mine, as is Lingzhi, as implied in my narrowly defined support below). Speaking for myself only, I am mindful that votes in FAC's like this are carefully weighted by the delegates and not all of equal consideration. Similarly Outriggr says above his intention was "so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review"". I see and appreciate your concern, but given the review was very upfront in scope, don't see that anything else is to be see here. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's helpful, here's a summary of my views on sourcing, largely as noted above:

  • I was concerned about the claim(s?) that the Famine Inquiry Commission's report referred to government 'propaganda' (an unusual term in government-style reports). But it did when I checked.
  • The material cited to "Bayly & Harper 2005, p. 286" at the current reference 138 somewhat misrepresents the source, and the text in the article was uncomfortably close to what's in the book. The issue around misrepresentation has not been corrected: the book simply does not claim that the entire British cabinet "had a visceral hostility toward India".
  • When checking some of the few other books I own which provide useful coverage of this topic (Lizzie Collingham's work on the role of food in World War II, and Srinath Raghavan's India's War) I found significant issues which the article did not cover at the time - eg, the role and extent of aid efforts. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I've changed the sect header to reflect the stated and intended scope; can you move these points to your own review area, or open a new area. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This was started by Outriggr as the 'source review' section, which is a common feature of FACs. I'd suggest that you change the heading back. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have moved SV's post above from my 'source review' section to here. (Spot checks are either an aspect of source review, or something else, depending on who you ask [16]; but since we have this section, it is easier to have the discussion here.) To answer SV's question, it is true that I could not verify the one statement to the page ("When prices rose sharply, their wages failed to follow suit; this drop in real wages left them less able to purchase food"). This may be a reading comprehension issue on my part, but Lingzhi can look at it. I've deleted the files. I did more than four spot checks, at least ten I believe. Outriggr (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, do you regard the first sentence as verified? The text is: "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed, the authorities seized rice stocks from wholesale dealers, shattering any trust the rice traders had in the government."{{sfn|Brennan|Heathcote|Lucas|1984|p=12}}
The first thing I wonder is why Brennan 1984 is used. The source is discussing Greenough 1982, so why not use Greenough directly? The source says (I copied the following from Lingzhi's subpage, rather than from the source itself):

In his analysis of the provincial government's response to the problems of the rice trade following the British defeat in Burma, Paul Greenough (1982: 98-126) points out that the initial move of imposing a maximum price of Rs 5/12 when the market price was Rs 8, drove rice from the market, encouraged a black market, and introduced into the grain trade a range of speculators who would carry the price to much greater heights in the future. More importantly this action and the appropriation of rice stocks in late December 1942 to meet the crisis in Calcutta caused by Japanese bombing, broke the confidence of the rice traders in the government and in the predictability of its actions.

It does not say: "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed". The shops in Calcutta were closing and no one could be fed. I'm only skimming Greenough because it's a large page range and I don't want to spend the rest of the evening on this, so I may be missing something. How did you verify the "prioritised industries" aspect? This matters, because the implication is that the government cared only about certain workers. SarahSV (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not the nominator. I volunteered to transcribe passages from up to 3–4 provided sources that related to the article text that cited them, whether that was a sentence, a sentence clause, etc. I will leave claims about the degree to which any given citation supports every discernible statement of fact since the last footnote to others. That being said, a similar passage earlier in the article reads, By December 1942 the total number of prioritised individuals, with their families, was approximately 1,000,000;[126] this high number forced the government to seize rice by force from mills and warehouses in Greater Calcutta. Three citations are given: again to Brennan et al, but also to Ó Gráda 2010, who writes the authorities prioritised Calcutta and its war-related production over the rest of the province. Concern for the city's 'priority classes' accounted for the forcible requisition of rice from mills and warehouses in and around the city in late December 1942 (36). I will leave any further discussion of sources to the nominator. Outriggr (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, I'm talking about the spot check you did on that one sentence. It didn't check out because it wasn't in the source offered. It may be in other sources, but that's not the point. This is what I've found throughout this article. Things are sort of in the sources, but not entirely; sometimes whole sentences are unsourced, sometimes sentence fragments, sometimes I was able to find the unsourced parts in other sources and sometimes not, or sometimes they were on other pages of the same source. It was prohibitively time-consuming because it was never straightforward. This is an important, complex and long history article, so we need text (source), text (source), with reasonable page ranges. We also need Greenough 1982 to be used when it's his research that's being discussed, not some other source that mentions him. SarahSV (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
O'Grada writes similar comments in Famine A Short History 2009: In Bengal, fears of a Japanese invasion in 1942-43 determined the priorities of those in authority, and the so-called ‘Denial Policy’, which removed stored holdings of rice, cargo boats, and even bicycles from coastal regions lest they fall into the hands of the invaders, undoubtedly compounded the crisis. Most fundamentally, military considerations left the poor of Bengal unprovided for (p. 10) and In April 1942 the Japanese sank a destroyer and several merchantmen in the Bay of Bengal, and they bombed Calcutta in December 1942. Other sporadic air-raids followed. As a result, the usual supplies of rice from Burma, albeit a small proportion of aggregate consumption, were cut off. ... Military considerations also meant giving urban workers, particularly those in war-related industries, priority over others, so that public agencies and Calcutta factory owners competed with other consumers (p.154). This is simply a case of re-iterating points from another source and forgetting to add the requisite citation. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, that's right. The source was missing, and the spot check didn't spot that. And this is what it is like throughout the article. I don't know what percentage would fail verification, but I believe it would be significant. And finding it all would be so time-consuming, no one could do it. So a conversation needs to take place on the talk page about how best to move forward with this article. It will be much faster to rewrite portions than to go sentence fragment by sentence fragment trying to verify the current version. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
We are finding minor spots that need minor buffing, which is a positive outcome of the collaborative FAC process. I thank you for finding that one... Very frankly, it would be very shocking is we did not find such. The talk of "a way to move forward" is completely illegitimate. The article's coverage is already massively complete, and minor corrections to cites are quite reasonable and expected... as for complete coverage, see response below about being chopped down from Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution. If the chopped-down version seems to be missing something, go look there. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Everyone. This is a huge thread for a very few cites. Let me see if I can wash away all the chaff above and identify concrete points that we want to verify. I see three or four points. Each point will take time to research This will take time. Please don't argue with me It takes time to address points!
    • for the first point, @Nick-D:
  1. "the whole cabinet had a visceral dislike". It's instructive to look at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution and note that neither that sentence nor the corresponding quote were in the original version which I essentially wrote... In fact, my version was infinitely milder: The violence of the "Quit India" movement was condemned around the world and did much to harden British opinion in many sectors against India and Indians in general;[178] some sources speculate that this reduced the British War Cabinet's willingness to provide famine aid at a time when supplies were also needed for the war effort.[179]"... So ... Did I add that, or did someone else? Hmmmmmmmm. The history says it was Fowler&fowler, on 23 May 2017‎, diff here, with edit summary "August 1942: Civil unrest: Bayly and Harper are talking about a visceral hostility toward India, quite apart from the demands of war; rephrasing and partially quoting". At this point I would like to apologize humbly and to Nick-D for not spotting/catching that error, which Nick correctly says "somewhat misrepresents the source". And I would like to apologize to this entire forum as well. I will fix it ASAP.
  2. Nick wrote: "I found significant issues which the article did not cover at the time - eg, the role and extent of aid efforts". I did considerably expand the relief section based on your comments, and I appreciate your input. I would suggest that the original version covered key points in summary: govt delayed aid (both provincial and govt of India, in this case), army stepped in to deliver aid, but bumper crop was the actual fix for the food problem. I innocently but alas incorrectly thought that was sufficient information. That is the virtue and benefit of our collaborative process: you pointed out that details needed expanding and exploring, and after a brief while I grasped your point. In short, the process was a success. Thank you for your help. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    My concern is that I, with limited knowledge of this topic and only a handful of books which cover it in any significant way, was able to spot some significant omissions from some quick checking. This included checking one of the books which was already being used as a reference. This goes to my broader concern about the lack of collaborative editing in this article's development. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Extensive collaboration has taken place with Fowler&fowler (who added a huge amount of text, actually), Brian, Ceoil, Mr rnddude, and to a lesser degree with several others like Palindromedairy. This article has been sitting here, basically stable, for an entire year... I put it in WP:PR as well, but the only comment was "too long", hence Brian's edits.. Never a week goes by in which reviewers don't suggest adding a bit of text to one or two or three noms. This article has very, very full coverage of 99% of the topics. In fact, its coverage was massively chopped down by Brian... For example, in Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution the "prioritized distribution" topic had 5 paragraphs in its own dedicated section; now it has 1 only paragraph lumped together with other topics... if yu are able to spot anything else that could be further fleshed our, I'll give you dollars to donuts that you can find whatever you need in Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution.. But the point is, collaboration has been extensive. That "no collaboration" meme is a relic from a year ago (first FAC, April 2017) when I moved the article from user space. It has had one entire year with multiple collaborators. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    There has been no real collaboration. Fowler&fowler seemed upset by what was happening. He was attacked a lot and referred to it as "low-level harassment" (or words to that effect). More people need to become involved now in discussing how to move forward with the article. SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Another of Nick's points: the article is biased and vengeful. Nick himself said that academic consensus holds that he famine is man-made (a point well-verified and more sources can be found), yet he also wants to say the article is biased. How can that be? if Nick was referring to the text that Fowler&fowler added, which I just deleted, well even that was in Nick's own words only a slight misrepresentation. Was it the entire paragraph that Nick wanted to delete, "Nearly the full productive output of India's cloth..."? It says that teh military used all of India's supplies, so does that make it biased ant-British? I fail to see the bias here. Very clearly, the tone of the article is 100% in line with academic sources. I'm really trying to be urbane and dispassionate and nice and calm, none of which are my natural attributes, but I must say firmly: Prove there is POV/Bias. or strike your comments. If these charges cannot be established, they need not be heeded.
  4. SV wants to hang the success/failure of this FAC onn a single paragraph, quoted in full below, [and I will be adding highlighting and discussion]:

    The Famine Inquiry Commission's Report of 1945, discussing contributing factors to the famine, singled out the first Japanese air raids on Calcutta, which began on 20 December 1942. The daylight attacks, largely unchallenged by Allied defenses, continued throughout the week, triggering an exodus of thousands from the city.(Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a,p =34-37; Ó Gráda 2015 p=40) As evacuees traveled to the countryside, food-grain dealers in the city closed their shops. To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed, the authorities seized rice stocks from wholesale dealers, shattering any trust the rice traders had in the government.(Brennan Heathcote Lucas 1984 p=12) "From that moment," the 1945 report stated, "the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta. The [food security] crisis had begun."(Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a p=34, 37)

    SV's main concerns seem to be the highlighted bit. Every word of that can be verified from multiple, multiple sources, including the very last cite at the end of our article's paragraph, cited to the Famine Inquiry Commission. It says, "On the 27th December, the Government of Bengal, in order to maintain the distribution of supplies in Calcutta, were reluctantly compelled to requisition stocks from wholesale dealers and from that moment the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta." The first bit is clear: "in order to maintain the distribution of supplies in Calcutta" (FIC text) is precisely analogous to "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed" (our text). And if that isn't clear enough, our article also cites O'Grada 2015, and I quote: "Concern for the city’s “priority classes” accounted for the forcible requisition of rice from mills and warehouses in and around the city in late December 1942". The link between the govt's rice seizure and its goal of feeding the priority classes is stated very explicitly there... The second bit might not be quite so clear: "from that moment the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta" (FIC text) is a polite/political euphemism for "the traders ceased to trust the government" (our text, roughly). It does appear that I somehow stuck in a cite to brennan heathecote etc when i should have been sticking in others that said precisely the same thing. So what we have here is that I made an error. In an article this size, are we shocked? As mrndude rightly says above, all is easily verified, and "This is simply a case of re-iterating points from another source and forgetting to add the requisite citation." I made a boo-boo. I do admit it. Let's kill the FAC, shall we? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sarah's concerns are obviously much broader than that. It appears that you're trying to misconstrue my and Sarah's concerns as being narrowly-based, when the opposite is actually the case. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I picked out another sentence at random: "Advanced anti-malarial drugs such as mepacrine (Atabrine) were distributed almost solely to the military and to 'priority classes'; DDT (then relatively new and considered 'miraculous') and pyrethrum were sprayed only around military installations. Paris Green was used as an insecticide in some other areas.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2002a|p=102}}
The source is: Bhattacharya, Sanjoy (2002a). "Tackling hunger, disease and 'internal security': Official medical administration in colonial eastern India during the Second World War (Part I)" (PDF). The National Medical Journal of India. 15 (1): 37–40. PMID 11855591. Retrieved 8 February 2016. 
I can't find that text in the source. The citation says p. 102, but the paper consists of pp. 37–40. I've searched for the names of the drugs, and several other words, and I've quickly read the article, but I can't find them. I can see two general sentences about malaria control. Apologies if I'm missing the rest, but I've read it only quickly. SarahSV (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That source has a part I and a part II. The Part II is the relevant one:

While food distribution and public health measures in the towns and villages near military encampments or battlefronts in Assam, Bihar, Orissa and United Provinces were ratified by the civilian and military officials, vast areas of rural eastern India were denied any lasting state-sponsored distributive schemes. Agood example of this is provided bythe distribution of antimalarial measures, especially the latest technologies and techniques, among civilians. The spraying of DDT (widely considered to be amiracle chemical atthe time) and pyrethrum tended to be organized in centres in and near troop encampments, while the older technique ofusing 'Paris Green' was generally continued elsewhere. Similarly, mepacrine, the new synthetic antimalarial drug was almost completely monopolized for military use and only shared with very specific civilian groups such as the labour employed in strategic projects and mines. 26 ,27Even though attempts were sometimes made by the British and Indian officials attached to local civilian administrations to redress some of these difficulties by the general distribution of released hoards of food and medicine, such efforts tended to remain spasmodic due tovarious reasons.

—  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Part II is Bhattacharya 2002b. You cited Bhattacharya 2002a. SarahSV (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SarahSV

Oppose, per 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2c, 4.

  1. Re: 1e (stable). I'll mention this first, because I feel that the article ought not to have been nominated. The current version has never really gained consensus. To recap: the article was rewritten in user space between February 2016 and April 2017 (Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution); the regular editors were invited to look at the rewrite but told they could not edit it. Once installed, it was nominated immediately for a MILHIST A-class review (not promoted), then went straight to FAC1. It has been contentious ever since. The difficulty is that 14,000 words (now 11,000) were added in one lump, with sources not always easy to access, and checking it is a huge job. I told Lingzhi recently that I was reading the sources and had begun the search for an external reviewer, which in my view the article needs before another FAC nomination. Despite that, he went ahead with this nomination without notifying me.
  2. Re: 1a (well-written). I see this as a first draft rather than a finished product. It isn't well-organized and it's hard to read in places. The famine is lost in a maze of unnecessary detail. If we're aiming it at an intelligent older teenager with no prior knowledge, I think they'll get very little out of it. There should be a background section explaining something about British India; who ran it, for example, which would help the reader (and author) navigate what follows. Any background sections should be pared down to what is really needed to understand the rest of the article.
    Two examples of the organization problem (note: these are only examples): (1) paragraph three (216 words) of the section 2.2 "1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement" discusses the "cloth famine": "Nearly the full output of India's cloth, wool, leather and silk industries were sold to the military." But then 4.3 "Cloth famine" deals with it again. An argument could be made that the earlier section deals with it chronologically, but no, it goes right up to the end of it. Or that the second section deals more with the social aspect, but it doesn't really, or not much; much more could be said about the social aspect. So we have two split-up, half-hearted efforts to explain an important and interesting part of this. (2) Another example: media coverage comes right at the end in its own section. But the media played an important role in prompting the government to set up the relief effort, so that needs to be handled chronologically.
    There are a few minor prose issues, but nothing that can't be fixed easily, e.g. (these are just examples) "Aid increased significantly when the Indian Army took control of aid"; "These processes left social and economic groups mired in poverty" (which groups? word missing?); "troops arrived into the province", "at the feet of unavoidable fate".
  3. Re: 1b (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). There's quite a bit missing, and no space for it because of the unnecessary background detail at the top. (I think we should aim for 10,000 words.) What happened after the relief efforts? What happened to the affected communities? The section on women and children is very poor. The names of key parties are missing, barely mentioned, or misunderstood; we don't get to know them. For example, no mention of Pinnell's nervous breakdown. (By the way, first we call him Leonard G. Pinnell, then L. G. Pinnell; he should be Pinnell on second reference). Who died and who didn't die? How was food for the priority classes organized exactly? There is no mention of the lack of looting, which is one of the saddest parts of this: the victims made very little effort to save themselves. No mention of the difficulties Wavell faced. Also no mention of the long hours spent queuing for food, and the disease that took hold in those queues because of the lack of facilities and hygiene.
    It also isn't clear throughout who was doing what. For example, the article gave the impression that the British Secretary of State for India (a member of the British government) was based in India; it said: "Early in January the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery sent the first of many requests to the UK for food aid." He did not need to send a request to the UK; he was in the UK. I tagged this in February with "clarification needed" (I briefly wondered whether he had been visiting India when he made the request). Lingzhi removed the tag without fixing the mistake, and it remained there until Brian raised it during this FAC. Lingzhi's reply included that "this whole 'government of India' and 'Government of bengal' bit would be lost on Americans and perhaps others as well". It will be lost on everyone if it isn't explained clearly, so that's what needs to be done.
  4. Re: 1c (well-researched, verifiable). There are several problems with the sourcing. It isn't clear that the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". There are some odd choices of sources, and a few high-quality scholarly sources barely used. For example, Yasmin Khan (2015). India at War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War, Oxford University Press, is the kind of source that the article should be built around, but it's used only once, and then only because it cites another source. I opened a talk-page section to list the key sources so that we could develop a sense of the article's scaffolding (which we need for DUE), but so far I'm the only one who has posted anything.
    Several editors who have done spot checks have found issues. Two previous editors said they had found source misrepresentation and OR/synthesis. One example that bothered me was the claim that during the famine parents had buried their children alive. That was a red flag for reasons I explain at User:SlimVirgin/Bengal. It wasn't in the source as written, so I removed it. Lingzhi restored it, and proceeded to argue about it, although it was clearly unsourced. He eventually removed it again, but continued to claim that it was in Greenough 1982, although he wouldn't give a page number. I can't find it in Greenough 1982. Another thing that bothered me, for similar reasons, was the use of File:Smallpox child.jpg, an image from the Centers for Disease Control of a young girl with smallpox, "captured in an unknown location", according to the CDC. [17] Its use and caption gave the impression that it was from that period in Bengal. When I removed it, the removal was challenged. These two examples (that children were buried alive, and the use of a misleading image and caption), and particularly their defence, seem to go beyond simple error, in my view.
    I tagged one section as OR on 3 March, but Lingzhi removed the tag on 4 March. See Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/Archive 9#Original research. Another example of OR was the use of Ghedin et al. 1997, a medical primary source about Leishmania donovani, to support "Statistics for malaria deaths are almost certainly underestimated, since the symptoms often resemble those of other fatal fevers,{{sfn|Ghedin |Zhang|Charest|Sundar|1997|p=530}} ...". The source mentions malaria once and doesn't mention the famine. It also appeared that Lingzhi had cited a source without having seen it; this was noticed only because several sources had cited it with the wrong page number and Lingzhi had copied the error (but without saying "x, cited in y"). I hope he will check that every source cited has been seen directly.
  5. Re: 1d (neutral). At this point we don't know that the article complies with DUE, because it offers no indication that majority and significant-minority positions are represented as they should be.
  6. Re: 2c (consistent citations). The bundled citations don't make clear which source supports which point, which makes verification even harder, so that needs to change; they should be unbundled or information should be added to the note (for this, see x; for that, see y). A more minor objection is that the article uses both short footnotes {{sfn|Smith|2018|p=1}} and Harvard referencing "according to {{harvtxt|Smith|2018|p=1}}".
  7. Re: 4 (stays focused): Goes into too much detail on certain points, e.g. the death toll and the table. The earlier sections are too long, particularly "Rural credit and land-grabbing".

To keep this readable, I'd appreciate it if responses were posted below and not inside my post. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [edited 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)]

  • Thank you for your opinions. The article says what all the very WP:RS sources say. It says only what the sources say, and saysit very comprehensively. It is well-researched, comprehensive, and NPOV. It very extensively uses the very, very best sources possible... All you are doing is waving your arms and saying that it is not and it does not. You have, however, not established that it is not or does not. In essence, you are saying that if someone comes onto a FAC page for whatever reason, adds am intimidating wall of text, and makes a very long ream of accusations, then you expect their unverified accusations to be taken as truth. Once again, thank you for your opinions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh PS A top-notch expert -- cited repeatedly in the article -- enthusiastically promised a review nine days ago. I sent a polite Thank You... It would, however, be unacceptably rude for me to even begin to send yet another email wondering if it would be possible to send it soon, or some other very presumptuous thing. So I will just have to wait and hope. Thanks again for your opinions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Collaboration and stability
    • OK I'll try to write a point-by-point reply to SV's very interesting take on the article. But I have to say, it's Midterms week, and I will be hip deep in papers to grade. So my reply might be slow. Maybe I can post some numbers late tonight Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

() So we have a huge wall of text above. It will take a very, very long time to address all these points, and I will be busy this week. Let me just discuss two before I retire for the night: first, "I am looking for sources". Well, just ask me (Lingzhi) then. I have 99% of them, and the ones I don't have are almost always visible through Google books or Amazon.... Second, there has been some arm-waving and breast-beating about "... he dropped his version in from user space... and there has been insufficient collaboration". There are several reasons why this is an invalid argument. I'm tired so I may not express them well first try, but:

  1. I'm too tired to look at WIAFA, but does it give any directions about the proper way to collaborate? Does collaboration come in there anywhere? I don't recall... Oh, we're saying that means it's not "stable". Well...
  2. The first FAC ended April 30 2017 almost exactly one year ago. One. Year. Ago. The article has been sitting here all that time. I'm not sure what the expiration date on the argument that "he dropped it in from user space, therefore it's not stable" is, but I'm pretty sure it's a long time before one year
  3. What, the talk page conversations got testy at times? Wait, that means the FAC is invalid? Insufficient collaboration? Let's go through the FAs forcseveral long-time editors, then... including SV.. and delete them then if the talk page got testy. Even further, people seem to be suggesting that I bulldozed other editors and claimed the page as my own. I dispute that. But let's.. even though it's not true, let's do a thought experiment. As we all know, there are indeed editors who are infamous for bulldozing other Wikipedians, then WP:OWNing the relevant page. Yes, it happens. Some people, in fact, use it almost as their standard operating procedure. Should we go back and delete all the FAs or GAs those people have earned? Let's draw up a list and notify them, then... and bear in mind, I dispute the whole "bulldozing" thing anyhow.
  4. What yardstick can we choose for collaboration? How about "participation"? Here are two tables. If you look at them, the editors who are accusing me of shutting others out have been very, very active (while being shut out). The numeric columns are total edits, total edits that added text, total text added, total edits that deleted text, total text deleted. Of course there were many other editors who added text to both mainspace and talk, but I am showing what seem to be the main ones:
Talk page participation since 30 April 2017
User Edits +count +bytes -count -bytes
Lingzhi 331 300 192245 31 15527
SlimVirgin 140 137 85409 3 4467
Fowler&fowler 127 115 104197 12 694
Mrrnddude 41 37 27025 4 689
Ceoil 28 27 2585 1 10
Brianboulton 9 9 7468 0 0
Herostratus 8 8 6273 0 0
TylerDurden 7 7 3727 0 0
SerialNumber 5 3 95805 2 281412
AidWorker 5 5 41745 0 0
Article edits since 30 April 2017
User Edits +count +bytes -count -bytes
Lingzhi 641 404 46502 237 39107
Fowler&fowler 225 170 32541 55 10770
Ceoil 135 10 110 125 11487
SlimVirgin 94 64 12686 30 10246
Outriggr 50 15 872 35 4144
Brianboulton 28 5 52 23 45886
Mrrnddude 9 7 567 2 3
Worldbruce 8 4 176 4 99
Palindromedairy 6 1 2 5 7230
AidWorker 3 2 9664 1 127313

() Alas, I am barely, barely started. I will need to spend many more hours answering the rest of the text above. I will certainly not have much free time in the next few days... but I will try to answer everything as soon as possible. I hope everyone will be a little patient. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where these figures come from, or whether they reflect a particular timeframe, but they're not what the WMF shows: article edits; talk-page edits. Of the four top editors by text—Lingzhi · 186,827 (53.4%), AidWorker · 39,848 (11.4%), Fowler&fowler · 36,150 (10.3%), SlimVirgin · 12,686 (3.6%)—only one supports the current version. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Reliability of sources
Please note that I have on hand a very, very large percentage of all sources listed below. Most of the few sources that I do not possess are books that are viewable through online preview (Google books, Amazon.com) I would be very pleased to email sources to anyone upon request.

I'm making this a dedicated section because I have a lot of information to post. This is in reply to SV's comment: "1c (well-researched, verifiable). There are several problems with the sourcing. It isn't clear that the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". There are some odd choices of sources, and a few high-quality scholarly sources barely used." This section is presented, of course, as a convenient vehicle for SV to explain which choices she considers to be odd. If the explanation is comprises a basis for an Oppose, then it should present major, fundamental problems rather than minor blemishes that could perhaps be buffed. [PS:

Books

If we include Maharatna's PhD thesis in the "Books" analysis, since it's book-length and was later published as a book by OUP, then as far as books are concerned, the article is built largely around Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press, London School of Economics and Political Science (United Kingdom), and the FIC report. Those four account for 250 cites, or 69% of the total book cites. If you add Madhusree Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War (111 Google Scholar cites) you account for 75%; adding Bayly & Harper's Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire and the War with Japan (65 Google Scholar cites) brings the proportion up to 77%.

SV suggests that the article should have been built around sources like Yasmin Khan (2015). India at War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War. Yes, it's an OUP source (just as 93 of this article's book cites are currently OUP). It does not have seem to attracted much academic attention yet, however, with only 3 Google Scholar cites so far. Moreover, from what I can see through online book previews, its treatment of the Bengal Famine of 1943 seems to cover mainly standard points, offering little new (as far as I can see; I could request more pages from WP:RX)... I suppose I could use it to replace some cites from other sources. I'll put that on my list of things to do.

Book publishers
Publisher name (book) books per publisher total cites per publisher
Oxford University Press 8 97
Routledge 5 7
Cambridge University Press 3 4
Harvard University Press 2 3
H.M.S.O. 2 3
London School of Economics and Political Science (Maharatna's PhD thesis) 1 25
Orient Longman 2 2
Princeton University Press (Ó Gráda 2009 and Ó Gráda 2015) 2 40
SAGE Publications 2 3
University of Calcutta 2 5
Agricultural Economics Society Conference 1 1
Basic Books (Churchill's Secret War) 1 22
Bengal Government Press 1 1
Cooper Square Press 1 1
Facts on File, Inc 1 1
Indian Associated Publishing Co. Ltd. 1 1
Indian History Congress 1 1
Institute of Development Studies 1 4
John Churchill 1 1
Lion Press 1 1
Manager of Publications, Government of India Press (FIC Report) 1 92
Mariner Books; Reissue edition 1 1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1 2
New Press 1 3
Padmaja Publications 1 6
Palgrave Macmillan UK 1 7
Pen and Sword 1 3
Penguin Books Limited (Forgotten Armies) 1 9
Penguin Publishing Group 1 3
People's Publishing House 1 1
Pip International Publications 1 1
Reader's Digest Press, distributed by E.P. Dutton 1 4
Stanford University Press 1 6
The New York Times Company 1 1
The United Nations University/World Institute for Development Economics Research 1 1
University of Pennsylvania Press 1 1
Wiley-Blackwell 1 4
Journals

I must confess that I am not very knowledgeable about journal impact factors. The top two most-cited journals in the Wikipedia article, Modern Asian Studies and The Journal of Asian Studies are both peer-reviewed academic journals published by Cambridge University Press. The third most-cited, Cambridge Journal of Economics, is published by OUP, oddly enough. The fourth, Economic and Political Weekly seems prestigious regionally and at least notable globally, see Journal Rank of EPW. Those four together account for 48% of the total cites of journals in our Wikipedia article. The next few seem to be regional journals 9which is not necessarily a bad thing), until we get down to #9 Tauger's article in British Scholar and #11 Ó Gráda's article in Economic History Review.

Journals
Journal name articles per journal total cites per journal
Modern Asian Studies 9 56
Economic and Political Weekly 6 16
Indian Historical Review 2 2
Journal of Peasant Studies 2 5
Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933–1960) 1 8
Social Scientist 2 3
South Asia Research 2 4
South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 3 13
Studies in History 2 12
The Journal of Asian Studies 2 21
The National Medical Journal of India 2 7
Annual Review of Phytopathology 1 4
British Scholar 1 8
Cambridge Journal of Economics 1 19
Economic History Review 1 6
European Review of Economic History 1 2
Food Policy 1 3
History Ireland 1 1
India International Centre Quarterly 1 1
Indian Historical Review 2 2
Journal of Economic Literature 1 3
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 1 6
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.) 1 9
Middle East Journal 1 1
Oxford Development Studies 1 2
Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1 1
Past & Present 1 4
Population Studies 1 2
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 1 1
Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India 1 5
The Indian Economic & Social History Review 1 5
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1 2
Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers) 1 1
Specific sources cited (all formats)
Sources cited at least 5 times
Specific article/book cited Cited wikipedia Cited Google scholar
Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a 92 50 (but note that the vast majority of scholarly sources on Bengal famine '43 cite this repeatedly)
J Mukherjee 2015 43 14
Greenough 1982 42 329
Ó Gráda 2015 29 4 (but note that much here is repeated in other papers that are more widely cited)
Maharatna 1992 25 Book version cited 89 times. This is a (PhD thesis). London School of Economics and Political Science. It was later printed as a book by Oxford University press.
Mukerjee 2010 22 112
Brennan 1988 20 18
A Sen 1977 19 299
Greenough 1980 16 35
S Bose 1990 15 47
De 2006 12 8
Ó Gráda 2009 11 191
Bayly & Harper 2005 9 65
Iqbal 2011 9 0 (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh)
Islam 2007a 8 16
Brennan, Heathcote & Lucas 1984 8 14
Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh 1946 8 58
Tauger 2009 8 11
Iqbal 2010 7 58
A Sen 1981a 6 11,383
Knight 1954 6 95
Natarajan 1946 6 1
Ó Gráda 2008 6 40
Tinker 1975 6 31
Mahalanobis 1944 5 4 (Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India)
Mukherji 1986 5 10
S Bose 1982 5 22
Neutrality

Nick-D and SlimVirgin both Oppose based on neutrality concerns, confronting me with the task of proving the article is not biased. Interestingly enough, neither offers an evidence-based rationale for this Oppose. This is a bit like accosting someone on the street and saying, "Prove you aren't having an extramarital affair!" However, I'll do the best I can. Just offhand, I can think of two general approaches to this question:

  1. Nick-D explicitly accused it of being "vindictive" and "anti-British". Well, for about two years now, I have attempted to remain hyper-vigilant about preserving a neutral tone. In fact, in the MILHIST A-Review, Fowler&fowler made the strange accusation that the article is too neutral in tone: "...it is packed with details, but yet strangely sanitized in both in prose and pictures... I perfectly understand Wikipedia NPOV, DUE guidelines, but, still, we are looking at a famine in which there were at the very least an estimated 1.5 million Indian deaths, a significant proportion from starvation. Yet not a single Briton died from starvation." [That may have some bearing on the somewhat-misworded quote which Fowler&fowler added and Nick-D graciously pointed out]. I have again and again argued against England-bashing and Churchill-bashing. I have against and again argued against the prejudicial use of Churchill quotes like "The Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion" and "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?". I have unwaveringly tried to strictly maintain a "Just the facts please, without the commentary" stance. In fact, if someone were gonna make splashy POV accusations, you should accuse me of being pro-British, as in fact my favorite talk-page visitor already has a couple times. I skipped the incendiary quotes, and stuck to the facts...
  2. And speaking of facts, SlimVirgin says we haven't had time to check the facts. Maybe I was sneaky, and Nick and SV have uncovered my crafty ways. Maybe I'm adding only facts, but "cherry picking" them. Well then, I have the sources. Ask for them. Check them. To be honest, all you have to do is read a couple O Grada articles. They have easy, accessible prose. Then read Tauger for the FAD perspective. They are not difficult going either. If you had a free weekend, I bet you could easily read three or four in place of the usual novel or whatever. heck, you could even read Yasmin Khan, which SV advocates, although (as I mentioned earlier) from what very limited bits I can see online, Khan's analysis isn't particularly deep (which is not a point against her, since the Bengal famine of '43 is only one point within her considerably larger topic). After reading for a few hours, what you'll find is this: yes, there's disagreement, but FEE is consensus and FAD is a minority view (even Tauger says so, if i recall correctly). The newer voices that want to say everything is political are actually firmly in the FEE camp; they have simply widened that camp's borders (quite reasonably). What else can I say? My contention is that you can spend maybe three or four hours reading at most, and discover this for yourself. So the fact that you didn't spend a few hours reading is legitimate cause for Oppose? I beg to differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

Well this accusation is an easy target, because of course many many many facts must necessarily be omitted. All you have to do is point at one and say "It's important!". I will try to make a list of all facts SV says I have omitted:

  1. "There should be a background section explaining something about British India; who ran it, for example, which would help the reader (and author) navigate what follows. "
    That is a huge topic in itself, considerably too large to be shoehorned into this article. Who was Amery? Linlithgow? Wavell? Herbert? Suhrawardy? Pinnell? Rutherford? Or even Leathers? What was Churchill's War Cabinet? What was the hierarchical relationship between/among all these people? Who had more power, who had less, and what powers did they have, and when? "Who ran British India" deserves its own article. Oh wait, that article does exist on Wikipedia, it's British Raj. If you think the Raj article does a sucky job of explaining things, then please do edit that article. There are already way, away, way too many topics that need to be covered in the Bengal famine of 1943 article to spend any more than one sentence (or at the extreme most, two sentences) on this topic. If SV wants to add one sentence, then I will be glad to do so.

Image review

Not a problem

Possibly a problem

  • File:Map of British India anachronous.png, released into the public domain by its author, User:Deepak, who has old warnings on his page about unfree images.
    • Deleted, we can find better. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Map of Bengal districts 1943.png, map from the Famine Inquiry Commission. PD-India, needs a US tag. Status depends on whether it was published in the US within 30 days.
  • File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, from Bengal Speaks (1944). PD-India and PD-India-URAA. Not clear who the photographer was; this might be one of The Statesman images. Again, status depends on whether it was published in the US within 30 days.
  • File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg, ditto.
  • File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg, ditto.
  • File:Gandhi 1944.jpg , PD-India, needs a US tag; no author or source (the link leads to only part of the image).
  • File:PeoplesWar Sept1943.jpeg, Communist Party of India newspaper front page from September 1943, fair use claimed to illustrate the "changing response of media to government suppression of info". The media response changed in August with The Statesman. It would be better to use one of their front pages; there is one here: "Calcutta sewers choked with bodies". I can't make out the date.

SarahSV (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for this img review. I really didn't want to bother Nikkimaria until/unless the FAC was making real progress, because imgs are always easy to remove and sometimes easy to replace. As I said, it's Midterms week etc., but I will certainly start plodding along on all these imgs. Thank you again. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2018

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The last few years of Boat Race articles have made it to FA (and every single one of the others are GAs) so I'm following in that tradition and nominating this year's which was the greatest sporting triumph in modern history. Well, Cambridge won all four races... Thanks in advance for anyone who has the time and energy to provide any comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Source review
  • Sources are all good quality. Several archived are still available, but fn 48 didn't load for me.
  • 63 is an official Facebook page. -okay

Support All looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added an archive link to ref 48. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Three points come to mind having only read the lead and background. Firstly, what do you make of the inconsistency in the naming conventions of these? List of The Boat Race results links to four others that are called "The Boat Races [year]", which makes sense given that more than one race occurred on the same day in each of those, yet this article uses the singular. Are you happy with the title as-is? Secondly, is this article in potential contravention of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license? The article is modeled on the previous Boat Race articles, and it clearly began life as a paste of the relevant information from the 2017 edition, yet there is no attribution in the article history. The 'finished' product we see here has even more similarities to previous years' articles, structurally and with whole swathes of text incorporated unchanged. Now, that's not necessarily a problem; I just wonder if by a strict interpretation of the licence we're not dotting every 'i' here (and I realise that a complicating factor may be that you were likely the original author of much of that text). Thirdly, does the recency of this event give you pause? I mean, it felt like I was in London just yesterday hearing about this ... wait, I literally was in London yesterday hearing about this :-) Is that enough time to ensure 1b is met? The last few articles at least had six months before they reached FA. Do you expect nothing else of note to be written? Steve T • C 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve (a) it's named for its common name, there's no inconsistency, just an adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. (b) Happy to add attribution of the background to the talk page, not a problem at all, although I wrote virtually every character, so it's not really an issue. But for dotting i's and crossing t's I'll do that. (c) No, there's no pause for me right now. As a counterpoint, what do you think is missing? What part of the coverage of this event will percolate in the next week, month, year? Let me know, as I'm keen to keep the article as comprehensive as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve oh, and given you've made fewer than 250 edits in the last two years, are you actually going to come back here and respond to any comments made or is this just a hit-and-run? Just checking, have you given pause to that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Hi. There'll be no 'hit-and-run'; I'll keep this watchlisted for the duration. Thanks for clarifying the first two points. On the third, to answer your question: I don't know what might be missing, which is why I'm not opposing on that point; I've just never seen anything based on a recent event come to FAC this quickly and wanted your take on it. However, I think it should be something that other reviewers with more familiarity with the topic (and what is likely to be written about it) should consider. Steve T • C 23:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. My advice to you is to look back over the last few Boat Race articles, The Boat Races 2017, The Boat Races 2016 etc which are already featured, and see if you can find anything fundamental missing from the articles. They all conclude pretty much on the day of the races themselves. If something's missing, please let me know. If not, then your concern is not actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve P.S. It may be helpful to understand that I generally used to take these articles to GAN first, but since that process can take an eternity, and since I know how good the articles I write are, I decided to bypass that dreadful wait and go straight to FAC. Perhaps, as an additional aid, you could look at the article histories of the FAs I've noted and see how much changed from the date of the race of the date of FA promotion. And I mean fundamentally changed or where fundamental information was missing, not just tweaks as a result of the review process. Please let me know if you spot anything I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    The GAN queue for sports articles is currently a year long, and the half-life of sports references is notoriously short, so immediate FAC nomination makes a good deal of sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 1b, further to my comments above and below. I've reviewed a couple of the previous Boat Race FAs and can see that, for example, The Boat Races 2017, though promoted in October 2017, does not contain anything new written more than three days after the event at the beginning of April 2017. Assuming 1b was met in that FAC, this backs up the claim that nothing new of substance is likely to be written on the subject of this race. However, a simple 30-second search reveals evidence of at least some potentially-useful content written well after the 2017 date that may have been relevant there, for example this pair of articles written on April 6 and May 2, respectively. Or this, from July 2, which provides the sorely-missing UK viewing figure data (which, incidentally, won't even have been compiled/released yet by BARB for the 2018 race). My point is, even though I might buy that you've deemed those examples (and that's all they are) irrelevant from an editorial point of view, and while I agree that sporting events such as this leave such a fleeting footprint on the news cycle that we can likely be assured of comprehensiveness after a relatively short period of time (unlike an article on a popular book, perhaps, which likely needs a few years), I don't think two days is enough time to know what might come out about the 2018 race, and possibly means that encyclopedic data (such as viewing figures) is not going to be available. To be clear: I do not believe that GA is a prerequisite for FA but the rush to FAC here is I think unprecedented, and it absolutely gives me pause. Steve T • C 22:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    The first two links are trivia. The third is useful and can be incorporated. But I'm not hanging around for months for the possibility of other news relating to the topic to arise. That's just daft. Thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Further, the 2017 article went to GAN on or about the day of the race itself and was reviewed four months later, passing with basically no changes. The FAC immediately followed and passed within around a month with basically no changes. This oppose is basically unactionable without withdrawing the nomination and waiting for, how long? Six months? Sorry, but I think that's bordering on nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One other, minor point I wanted to ask you about without cluttering the above: do you think it's a little odd that—owing to the fact that much of this article has been taken from the previous years'—there are a bunch of citations with 'retrieved by' dates that pre-date this article's creation? The accessdate parameter is supposed to be the date when the content pointed to by the url was last verified to support the text in the article. Some of these still say 2014. Is that really the last time some of these sources were verified? Steve T • C 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    As predicted, this commentary from Steve is a hit-and-run. What a shame we couldn't actually work on making the article better, but apparently it's nothing to do with that, it's about the fact that the event itself took place a week or so ago, despite the prelude starting months and months ago, and nothing realistic being offered in favour of the "1b" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I have this watchlisted, and have checked in every day. If I have not responded, it is 1) because I have spent actual hours researching this race, much of which I was witness to, 2) because I have gone back and forth about six times on whether I should strike my 'oppose', 3) because an article at FAC is likely to stay in the list for several weeks, and 4) because I have spent most of my free time these last few days with my family, owing to the fact that this is Easter weekend. I do not appreciate the bad-faith assumption of a hit-and-run review. As anyone who remembers my contributions here will attest, I am and always have been a conscientious FAC reviewer. I am not surprised that FAC reviews have dried up the last few years when at every turn my concerns about this article have been minimised and treated with condescension. Your first reply, before my 'oppose' and when I was simply raising a concern, was to make immediate reference to the fact that I had only made 250 edits in two years, despite the fact that most of those were major rewrites as a result of weeks of research—and actual money spent—to save someone else's Featured Article that had been listed at FAR. Your combative attitude is one which I imagine most editors will find off-putting to a degree where they will opt to avoid reviewing articles for fear of having their contributions scrutinised and used against them, rather than as an opportunity to improve the article in question. To address the substance of your complaint, 1) the FAC coordinators will make their own decision on whether or not my 'oppose' (should I decide not to strike it) is actionable, and 2) I understand that the article was started months ago, but to give you an insight into my viewpoint, over at WP:FILM we start film articles when principal photography begins, but there is often—always even—major content written months or years after the film's release; we would never dream of listing a film at FAC that had been released only a few days beforehand. I see that Boat Race articles are almost certainly different owing to the news cycle, but it's that potential for extra content that gives me pause. It may be that your stance is correct, but I urge you not to immediately confront reviewers who disagree with that viewpoint. I will be back this way to reassess, but at my own pace and backgrounded by my extensive experience with FAC reviews. Good day. Steve T • C 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Right, so you're sticking with an inactionable oppose. You've yet to offer any substantive content that is missing from any Boat Race article, so this is all very unhelpful, despite your self-proclaimed "extensive experience", how do you think that benefits anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    No, I'm considering it and reconsidering it; as explained above, I've gone back and forth several times on whether to strike my oppose, and have attempted at every turn to ignore the condescending tone of your responses (even before my 'oppose') and focus instead on their substance. I have already conceded that this may well be an unusual circumstance in which nothing new of note is ever written about an event mere days after it occurs; films, elections, TV, literature, meteorology, music and most other sporting events require much longer to percolate through the cultural consciousness. I am unaware of any other article on Wikipedia that has been seriously considered for promotion to FA only days after the event they are about has occurred; even if I strike my oppose and this is promoted uncontested, this will still be precedent-setting, and that reason alone should justify some hesitation in reaching a decision. Steve T • C 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, you've made your point but there's no actual evidence to support your position, or at least none that you've provided. And that's a shame because it just means that you're providing an oppose that can't be actioned apart from withdrawing the nomination and waiting some arbitrary time during which nothing will happen. This isn't "precedent-setting", this is approaching a very stable topic with the application of common sense. What is unusual is that I produce such high quality material so rapidly after an event has taken place. I have very extensive experience in this field, as evidenced by the 150+ GAs and half a dozen FAs on this very topic. And mark my words, if I discovered something vital was missing from any one of the 164 articles, I'd be the first person to add it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose struck. If I get the opportunity, I'll read through again to see if I have any suggestions. If not, good luck. Steve T • C 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I am very familiar with The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles, and this one is well up to his customary high standard. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Glad to add my support. (And extra points for being so quick off the mark. V. impressive.) Tim riley talk 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96
  • Alt text for all images would be of benefit to those who have image dsscriptions turned on
  • "including SuperSport across Africa and EBU across Europe." - If I'm mistaken, EBU is referred to as "the EBU"
  • "The Championship Course along which, for the third time in the history of the event, the men's, women's and both reserves' races will be conducted on the same day" - was conducted
  • "led by their chief coach Steve Trapmore. Trapmore, a gold medal-winning member of the men's eight at the 2000 Summer Olympics," - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "Both CUWBC president Daphne Martschenko and rower Paula Wesselmann were unavailable " - Why were Martschenko and Wesselman absent?
  • "The Dark Blues feature one returning crew member" - featured
  • "The Light Blues also feature the 2015 World Rowing Championships quad sculls gold medallist Olivia Coffey." - same as above.
  • "The Cambridge crew includes a number of experienced Boat Race rowers:" - included
  • "will be the tallest individual ever to have competed in The Boat Race." - was the tallest individual to have competed in the history of The Boat Race.
  • "Cambridge's crew contains four individuals who have featured in the Boat Race:" - contained

Apart from the issues raised above, I believe this piece of work to be quite neatly put together by TRM. MWright96 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MWright96 thanks for your comments. I've addressed them all, the only one which wasn't simple was the absence of Martschenko and Wesselmann. I know the former was ill, there's no information on the latter and in other sources Wesselmenn's absence isn't even noted, so I removed that. Hopefully all addressed to your satisfaction, please let me know. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Apart from a couple of infelicities already listed by MWright above, I could see nothing of concern. They appear to be uncontentious and easily fixed, so happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimfbleak. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

First Battle of Dernancourt

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a joint British/Australian defensive battle on 28 March 1918 which played a small part in stemming the tide of the German Spring Offensive of WWI. A Tasmanian sergeant, Stanley McDougall, was instrumental in defeating the only real German breakthrough of the defences, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions. This is the first WWI battle article I've developed from scratch, so hopefully it flows well. I believe it is comprehensive. All constructive comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Operation_Michael_1918.jpg needs a US PD tag, and the uploader is not the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

  • "northwestern" should be "north western"?
  • Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. This is the case with the Spring Offensive navbox at the trop, but not the WWI navbox at the bottom. But its up to you.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Removed the WWI navbox, it really isn't needed here. Thanks for taking a look Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article when it was up for GA, and it has been improved greatly since then. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • some of the the images lack alt text. I'm not sure if it is an FA requirement, but it might be helpful to add: [18]
  • the external links all work and there are no dab links
  • do we know the German commander's name?
  • in the lead "2nd Army (German Empire)" is overlinked
  • elsewhere "Lancashire Fuisiliers" is also overlinked
  • I spot checked the citations to Coulthard-Clark and Carlyon as I have those sources
  • three German armies: suggest linking Field army here
  • 4th Division, Major General Ewen Sinclair-Maclagan was ordered: possibly needs a comma after "Maclagan"
  • He hosed them down with the gun: not sure about "hosed" here, it seems a bit informal

Messier 87

Nominator(s): UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an elliptical galaxy in Virgo cluster, some 50 million light years from Earth. It is famous for its enormous supermassive black hole which weighs about 6 billion solar masses and a relativistic jet emanating from the core, that extends up to some 4500 light years. This article was listed as GA in 2010, has been improved over this period of time, has been reviewed recently and I have also made some improvements. So article is broad in coverage, neutral, stable, well referenced and thorough. And so, I believe it meets FA criteria. UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

Did more than one person add the references? They seem to be in at least two different styles, perhaps more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, article has been on Wikipedia for 15 years and many people have added references. But all citations are in <ref>author, year, publication name, publisher, volume/issue/edition, page, bibcode/isbn</ref> style and none in Harvard (author,year,page) style. So they seem to be consistent. Could you please provide a specific example? Thanks --UbedJunejo (talkcont) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Compare the formatting of the page numbers of the book sources in fn 2, 6 and 14 - all different Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Image review
  • All images have appropriate licences, at but one being from NASA, ESA or ESO. I updated one licence on Commons.
  • The exception is File:Virgo constellation map.svg. Seems to be okay. The copyright holder asserts (on his talk page) that the legal status of all my star maps is the GFDL

Therefore, all images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggest moving fn 25 into the Notes section
Done.
  • Template:Cite journal is called with more than one value for the "display-authors" parameter.
Done.
  • Weirdness: The DOI system says that the DOI for fn 74 is wrong. I checked it against the journal page [19], and it is indeed what it says.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Now it is number 73. DOI is as given in the article pdf. May be, as the doi.org says, The DOI has not been activated yet. :-/ --UbedJunejo (talkcont) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I considered that, but the article was published in 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus

Support – I gave it a read through and it mostly seems reasonable from an accuracy perspective. However, there are a few items that may need to be addressed:

  • There is no mention of it being a LINER-type active galaxy. A discussion of what this means for M87 would seem appropriate.
Done (in section properties).--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 17:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no discussion (I could find) of its enormous radio lobes,[20] or the implications thereof.
Done (in jet section). Unfortunately, I couldn't find a free image.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 01:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the statement: "At the time it was the only known example of an elliptical nebula for which individual stars could be resolved": the reference for this sentence says on page 51 that this claim has been criticized because, at that distance, clusters and groups would be indistinguishable from individual stars. I have to suspect that what was being detected were members of the globular cluster population rather than individual stars, but I'm not sure how that could be referenced.
I think I have fixed it in a reasonable way. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 12:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme Bartlett

Done
"refer to caption" is not up to the standard required. The idea is to say what the picture looks like for those that cannot see the image. It is not to replace the caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not possible to describe many images of the article without introducing redundancy. One can not explain how X-ray emission looks like to somebody who can not see it. Nevertheless, I have tried to fix most of them.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 01:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The idea is just to say what we see. We don't see X-rays, but you can say what we see in the pic, a yellow circle with red bubbles coming out the top and bottom, upper right, and lower left, A blue beam shoots to the top and another to the lower left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the pic before, but still, while reading this description, I couldn't generate any visual in my mind that matches with actual image. Maybe you should add "deformed rectangular region, with red shades, surrounded by blue background, with many stars .......". But as policy page says "alt text needs to be short and to the point, detailed explanation should be left to body". On the other hand, caption is descriptive and to the point.UbedJunejo (talkcont) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Previous caption was inaccurate. Fixed that + equivalent description in alt. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ö B¨ohringer should be Böhringer
Done
  • extragalactic or extra-galactic
Titles of publications are not altered, other instances fixed.
  • Gebhardt or Gehbardt (initial K - probably the same person)
Done
  • intracluster or intra-cluster
Same as number 3
  • Inconsistent apostrophe: M87’s or M87's
Fixed
  • 'p' - should this be in double quotes "p"?
Done
  • In the Jet section there is a phrase "and vice versa" but it is not clear, do you mean the reverse faster→smaller or opposite bigger→slower.
"vice versa" is not commutative, I think ;) So, "small diameter=fast variation", --vice versa--> "large diameter=slow variation", i.e it will take first argument first and reverse :D
  • At one point Virgo-A makes a mention, but later it is always "Virgo A".
Fixed
  • Should VIRGO CLUSTER in reference 91 be all caps?
Fixed
  • Slight inconsistency with X-Ray (in external link) or X-ray in text
Fixed (as X-ray), although it was in publication title, but since title was all caps, so justified I guess
Done (wherever wiki article exists)--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 13:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also where authors have articles use authorlink. (The first I checked Christian Luginbuhl, has no article, but does have an asteroid named after him!) but Brian A. Skiff exists

(I will check references and also do a spelling and symbol check) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Comments from Jim

Looks pretty comprehensive, just a couple of nit-picks

  • it lacked any spiral structure, but appeared to belong to the same family of non-galactic nebulae as spiral nebulae—a few words explaining why it's classed with spirals despite not being one might be helpful
It actually means that it was identified as non-galactic nebula (like spirals, which were also identified as being far from the Milky Way), as opposed to galactic nebula (like planetary nebulae, which are within the Milky Way). I have clarified it a bit in the article.
  • with former being independent star systems—"the former"?
Done.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to watchlist, happy with changes, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking pretty good overall...notes below:

  • ...it has been shown that M87 has absorbed a medium-sized star-forming spiral galaxy over the period of last billion years. "the" last billion years? or even better "sometime within the last billion years"?
Done
  • I'd link chevron, and corona
I am not sure on this one, if it would be appropriate.
Agree/point taken. Ok not a dealbreaker Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gamma rays coming from M87 have been observed since the late 1990s, but in 2006, using the High Energy Stereoscopic System Cherenkov telescopes, scientists have measured the variations of the gamma ray flux coming from M87, and found that the flux changes over a matter of days. - I'd split this long sentence
Done
  • Interaction of relativistic jets of plasma emanating from the core with surrounding medium gives rise to radio lobes in active galaxies. - should there be a "the" before "surrounding"?
Done.UbedJunejo (talkcont) 14:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok - all looks good prose and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Cooperative pulling paradigm

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Something different: an article on animal cognition. Will two animals pull a rope in a synchronised manner such that they both can obtain food? In reading the research I encountered quite a few interesting findings, which I hope you will enjoy as well. I'm pleased to report one of the researchers involved kindly donated his drawing of a cooperative pulling experiment with elephants. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

I fixed a few p/pp errors for you but there are still a dozen left. And 13 instances of Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing a few, I believe I have fixed them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things need fixing. Lead section: Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937, used as apparatus two ropes attached to a rolling platform that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The phrase "used as apparatus two ropes" should be replaced with "used an apparatus consisting of two ropes", or something similar. A similar sentence in the Apparatus section requires the same treatment. Overview subsection of Findings section: Bonobos, also social animals but with higher levels of tolerance, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks. This sentence needs to be reworked. Perhaps something like "Bonobos, which are social animals with higher tolerance levels, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks.".
      Fixed both by following your suggestions. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
    3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 169 separate references cited. The vast majority of these are books, so good faith is assumed.
    4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
    5. stable: The vast majority of edits have been from the nominator, who is also the article's creator. All good here.
  2. Style guidelines
    1. a lead: Lead has no problems besides the item mentioned above.
    2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
    3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section. However, there are several instances where more than three citations are back-to-back. Whenever possible, no more than three should be used at a time, or else it's WP:Citation overkill. Either remove the unnecessary citations, spread them out within the information that they're citing, or give a solid case for why they should remain where they are.
      Fixed, mostly by spreading them out.
  3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.
  4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

This article looks solid overall. Fix the items above and I'll support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment, much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
All issues raised in my comments have been resolved. Support. Jackdude101 talk cont 21:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Not sure there is a lot of benefit to having images just for the sake of having them - for example, I think it's safe to say most readers will understand the concept of "dog" without the photo
Hi Nikkimaria. The idea is that the images convey the actual subspecies that participated in the experiments, e.g. Asian elephants, spotted hyenas, and Labrador Retrievers. There are a few species that are uncommon and benefit from an illustration ((kea, tamarin), and it just looked better to be consistent once I had added a few. Happy to remove them all if that's the consensus of reviewers.
  • File:Sketch_of_a_cooperative_pulling_experiment_with_elephants.jpg: given that this image has been published in a copyrighted journal, I'm not sure the author retains the right to release it as CC BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The article does not have this illustration. It has a better one, but this is the one the author says is still his.Edwininlondon (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The only difference between this illustration and Figure 1 View 2 in the source article is a dashed line - that's not significant enough a change to have a different copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Too bad. I've removed the offending illustration and have asked the scientist if he has an alternative sketch with full rights. If that fails, is it okay for me to make my own sketch or does that count as original research? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See WP:OI. In that case you'd also need to avoid creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The scientist just responded and said that as per http://www.pnas.org/page/authors/licenses he has retained the rights.
Looks like under the default license only noncommercial reuse is permitted, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. So the license should be CC BY-NC 3.0, correct? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not a permissible license - that's why {{cc-by-nc}} redirects to a deletion tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I drew one myself instead based on the raven, rook and kea experiments. I assume this is fine now? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I asked a friend to sketch one with dogs. Much better. No license problems anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. I noticed that the elephant image mentioned here was removed as a copyright violation, but it should be fairly simple to redraw in a way that doesn't violate copyright? It does seem a shame that there is no lead image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem a shame. I'll see if redrawing without violating copyright is possible. I'll do one of the bird experiments, seems safer than elephants.
Added a lead image. Not as good as the elephants, sorry. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, could there be some arrows or description of what and how they are attempting? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A friend made an even better one. I think arrows will clutter it too much for mobile. Should the caption explain a bit more?Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the new image is very clear. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some duplicate links, perhaps try using this script:[21]
That's a nifty little tool! Thx for the tip. Deduped.
  • The first paragraph under "Elephants" ends without a citation.
Fixed
  • I know it may not be necessary, but could the first sentence under "Conditions" get a citation?
Done.

Thank you for you helpful comments so far. I look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Does the name Meredith Crawford have to be spelled in full after the first mention in the article body? Everyone else only gets last names anyway.
Removed Meredith in the second mention.
  • "who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937" Does the idea have any history before this?
No source has mentioned anything. De Waal calls Crawford the pioneer.
  • You are inconsistent in whether you list the publication year of a mentioned study or not.
Would the following approach be alright: years are mentioned in Apparatus section, for pioneering work by Crawford, and Hiroto's invention of loose string, but then nowhere else. With the exception of "In 2008, Seed, Clayton and Emery said the study of the proximate mechanisms underpinning cooperation in animals was in its infancy" as that statement leads to misinterpretation without a year. Should I follow that approach? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I made this change and I think it looks better now.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that happened, but seems the talk page of this article is not tagged with any Wiki projects?
Added.
  • It is a bit unclear in each animal example whether wild or captive animals were tested (you specify for some of the chimp experiments, but not for many others). I think this would be interesting to note.
I have added this for each.
  • "was the Clever Hans effect" Could be briefly explained in parenthesis or in a footnote.
Added explanation in parentheses
  • "Labrador Retrievers" Is this the kind of dog used in the studies, or is the image just arbitrarily chosen? If the former, could be mentioned.
It is one of the breeds used yes. Added to caption.
  • "10 meters apart", "1 cm, 3 cm and ultimately 6 cm apart". Perhaps a conversion could be given, as in other science articles.
Done
  • "Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)" Missed italics.
Good catch.
  • It seems off to have a section on "parrots" and one on "keas", considering the latter are parrots too. Since the first section is only about a specific kind of parrot, I think it should be renamed "African grey parrots" accordingly. Or simply "Grey parrot", as that seems to be the preferred name.
Done
  • "birds native to New Zealand" Also seems misleading, as they are simply parrots. Saying "parrots native to" would make more sense, as we already know they are birds by them being in the bird section.
Done
  • "use cooperative pulling experiments in order to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved." Maybe it should be stressed there that it only applies to animals with high intelligence and cognitive abilities (judged on what species have been chosen for study). Social insects cooperate, but I doubt they would be considered for such experiments.
Funny you mention that. I have asked two researchers mentioned in the article if any one ever has done anything with ants. I will try to find a source that makes your point and then add. Thanks for all your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I will try to find a source that describes the selection criteria.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Not much luck. The best I can find is something like this: "Researchers of experiments in cooperation have favored as subjects species that are tool users or live in complex social groups." This doesn't really exclude the ants, plus is broader than the cooperative pulling paradigm. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the content looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just one thing really

  • observed in the air (e.g., among hawks— I'd prefer a link to bird of prey, instead. if you follow the link, hawk is somewhat imprecise, and although you cite only Harris hawks, cooperative hunting is reported in Aplomado falcons (Hector D.P. (1986). "Cooperative hunting and its relationship to foraging success and prey size in an avian predator". Ethology. 73: 247–257. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00915.x.) Cooperative between different species has also been recorded (Cudworth, J., and Massingham, C. 1986. Hen Harrier and Merlin hunting together. British Birds 79:430, also Dickson, R. C. 1984. Falcons hunting close to harriers. British Birds 77: 481-482, and this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I only picked out hawks as an example. I changed hawks to Aplomado falcons, but still only as an example. It should probably be species specific and not make readers think all bird of prey hunt cooperatively. Plus keeps it in line with lions, killer whales, driver ants. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, not a big deal anyway, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

A nicely researched piece. Thoughts from me:

  • "When Edward succeeded, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim to the throne" - I'd have gone for "When Edward succeeded to the throne, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim", as "succeeded" read oddly to me without a mention of the throne adjacent to it. May just be me though!
  • "Alfred had succeeded Æthelred as king of Wessex in 871, and almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. After the battle, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control. In the early 880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd, and around 886 Alfred adopted the new title King of the Anglo-Saxons as the ruler of all Anglo-Saxons not subject to Danish rule." - this didn't quite work for me in the lead - it seemed to digress siginificantly away from Edward (who isn't even mentioned in the paragraph)
  • How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Edward led the defence, together with Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, who had accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control.
  • On second thoughts this is not quite right as it almost certainly exaggerates Edward's role compared with the veteran Æthelred. How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the mid-880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Æthelred and Edward led the successful defence. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control." Does this look OK to you Hchc2009? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Edward has been described as "perhaps the most neglected of English kings"" - I'd be keen for this to say who's described him as such.
  • "His reputation among historians rose in the late twentieth century, and he is seen as destroying the power of the Vikings in southern England" - I'm wondering if "and he is now seen" might work here; I'm assuming that the second half of the sentence applies to his improved reputation, not his former one?
  • Done. I try to avoid the word "now" as it sometimes leads to accusations of recentism, but hopefully I can get away with it here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Alfred the Great married Ealhswith in 868. Her father was Æthelred Mucel, Ealdorman of the Gaini, and her mother, Eadburh, was a member of the Mercian royal family. Alfred and Ealhswith had five children who survived childhood. " - would it be possible to frame this paragraph so that it began by focusing on Edward? (e.g. Edward was the son of...)
  • "so Edward was probably born in the mid-870s" - could this key fact be brought closer to the beginning of the paragraph?
  • I do not think this would work as I am explaining first the reasoning behind the date. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • How about "Historians estimate that Edward was probably born in the mid-870s. His eldest sister, Æthelflæd, was probably born about a year after her parents' marriage, and Edward was brought up with his younger sister, Ælfthryth; Yorke argues that he was therefore probably nearer in age to Ælfthryth than Æthelflæd. Edward led troops in battle in 893, and must have been of marriageable age in that year as his oldest son Æthelstan was born about 894." - I reckon this would give the reader the heads-up about why we're describing his sister's date of birth etc, and would also give the key fact in the first sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "More is known about Edward's childhood than about that of other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information about the training of a prince in a period of Carolingian influence" - I'm assuming that this is the description given by Asser above?
  • "experience in royal business" - I wasn't sure if royal business was like royal administration (running the country), or more like actual business affairs (trade etc.).
  • "The principal currency was the silver penny, and some coins carried a stylised portrait of the king." - is this a general statement for the period, or Edward's particular reign? If the latter (as the next sentence implies), this should be "the King" as it is referring specifically to Edward.
  • It is general relating to the later Anglo-Saxon period. The source does not make that clear so I have added another which does. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

NB...

  • I've cleaned up the image of the coin a bit. Some other images that might work well (and look okay from a licensing perspective) are [:File:Early-Medieval coin , Penny of Edward the Elder (FindID 223825).jpg], [:File:Edward the Elder coin imitation silver brooch Rome Italy c 920.jpg], or [:File:Edward the Elder on the Coronation Stone.jpg]. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clean up. I have added the penny. The brooch was in the article but taken out as Nikki queried the lack of licensing details by the uploader. I was doubtful about the coronation stone as it is thought to be an eighteenth century fabrication, but in view of the shortage of suitable images, I could put it in with a sceptical caption. What do you think? See also query above. Many thanks for the review Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I always perk up when I see one of Dudley's Anglo-Saxon articles up for review. One is sure of an interesting and informative read. I shall be adding my support for the promotion of this excellent example, but just a handful of v. minor points first:

  • "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia with their support" – ambiguous: does this mean "with their support Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia" or "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia who had their support"? (I assume the former, but it's as well to avoid any shadow of doubt.)
  • "...more information about Edward's childhood and youth than is known about other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information..." – too much information (to coin a phrase).
  • "The effect of the changes were to strengthen" – singular noun with plural verb.
  • "a major monastery for men, possibly in accordance of his father's..." – two points here. First an idiot question, viz can you have a monastery for non-men, a.k.a. women? (Forgive a layman's ignorance.) Secondly "in accordance of" looks odd: one might expect "in accordance with".
  • OED suggests a monastery is mainly for men, but two of its quotes are for women. I have changed to "religious community" as monastery is in the following sentence. Also fixed "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "however" – there are nine "howevers" in the article and one does start to notice them after a while. A judicious pruning would be beneficial: most "howevers" add nothing and can be blitzed with advantage to the prose.
  • I have never understood this terrible prejudice against "however". It is a lovely word, which signals that you are qualifying the previous sentence. 2 of your nine are in quotes, but I have pandered to your views and got it down to 4. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • They're fine in small doses, but when there are lots of them they do rather break flow. However, no problem on this page now. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Them's my meagre gleanings. I'll look in again anon. Tim riley talk 13:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your review and kind word Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to add my Support. The phrase "page-turner" seems silly when one's looking at a screen, but if this article were on paper that is what it would be. One really wants to know what happens next. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Johnbod

- excellent stuff - just some small niggles: I am reading through, and doing some edits. Anyone interested in saving "however" from a Viking-like campaign of extermination, might like to comment at Talk:Anglo-Saxon art, where another editor has asked for comments. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • So far so good:
  • "and the Danes of Northumbrian York offered her their allegiance, probably for protection against Norse (Norwegian) Vikings who had invaded Northumbria from Ireland," - gets a bit compacted. Aren't all Vikings "Norse" - Norsemen? Norse activity in the British Isles covers the lot, and people are always trying to rename Vikings. I wonder if such clear distinctions can be drawn between Danes & Norwegians at this point - the leaders perhaps, but weren't the rank & file mixed Scandiwegians, with no doubt Irish etc too? It's rather like those who try to distinguish between Angles & Saxons after about 600. Perhaps: "protection against a Norwegian-led invasion of Northumbria from Ireland".
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English defines Norse as 1. the Norwegian language, 2. "Norwegians or Scandinavians in ancient or medieval times." Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use it to mean Norwegians, and Stenton refers to the threat to Danish-ruled York from "Norse raiders from Ireland". I do not think we should change correct usage by historians because some editors object to it. As to the lack of clear distinctions between Danes and Norwegians, you are very likely right, just as there were almost certainly Vikings who had accepted English rule and fought on the English side. Oda, one of the most respected Archbishops of Canterbury, was the son of a Viking who came over with the army in 865. However, historians speak of Norse and Danes, not Norse and Dane led, and I do not think we can correct their language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but something needs to done about " [[Norwegians|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have changed to [[Norwegians#Viking Age|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " and added the alternative name with reference to the linked page. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If it was me, I think I'd move another summary quote from "Reputation" to the lead.
Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's it - various links added, all correctly I hope. I'm afraid my books are all boxed up at present so I can't check if there is more to say about art from his reign.

Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your edits, support and comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Reading through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Mercia was the dominant kingdom in southern England in the eighth century [and maintained its position] until it suffered a decisive defeat by Wessex at the Battle of Ellandun in 825. - I suspect the bracketed bit is redundant and can be removed safely without changing the meaning
  • You are no doubt right, but as deleting would strictly imply that 825 is in the eighth century I prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah my bad, you are right. I wasn't familiar with the dates....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Err...what's an illustris femina? needs a link, footnote or explanation...
  • Added translation to "noble lady" with reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise...looks on track. Reads well. I guess it is complete but am not too familiar with this stuff...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Image review - the images are obviously public domain, but there are some problems with the licences. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 2013 is not the true date of this[22] illustration. Also, its licence tags say "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
  • Changed the date but on the other point it does say below that it has a US tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This coin image[23] also needs a PD tag for the artwork itself, not just the photo.
  • I am not clear what is required. Can you advise please? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
That is actually sometying Nikkimaria usually asks for. Since it is not an entirely two dimensional artwork, there are two copyrights here, that of the photo, and then that of the artwork on the coin itself, similar to here:[24] But for some reason, it doesn't seem to be used for images of old coins, now that I look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be - coins are typically not covered by freedom of panorama, and we usually require that a tag is included even if the item is obviously ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This coin image[25] needs the date of publication, not the date it was uploaded. It appears it is a photo of a photo? In any case, that counts as a scan, and the original publication date is still all that matters. You list Grueber as the illustrator, yet you have artist unknown.
  • I have changed the date. As to the unknown artist, I discussed this with Nikkimaria when she did the image review at A-Class, and she said it was OK as indicating artist as an unknown moneyer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In this case the creator of the coin is unknown but the coin is obviously out of copyright due to age, and the illustration is old enough to also be out of copyright due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This page[26] was hardly ever published in the US, so it needs a more general PD old tag as well.
It didn't seem to show what was intended, I've added the tag I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a half-hour (very, very black) comedy about cryptic crosswords. I've never attempted a cryptic crossword, and I didn't find the episode particularly funny. Nonetheless, I think it might be my favourite ever episode of my favourite ever TV programme. It is brilliant, and I spot something new every time I rewatch it. I hope this article is a worthy one for such a great piece of television. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bilorv

  • "A second was introduced accidentally, and then incorporated into the episode. This second nina was interpreted by some viewers as having a political meaning, but Pemberton, Shearsmith, and the BBC have denied that this is the case." – The second sentence is just confusing without being told the nina is "RIPNHS". I think it's also undue weight anyway; just the first sentence would suffice.
    • Yes, that's fair. Removed. I try to avoid anything too spoiler-y in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ""The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the third episode of the series, after the Christmas special "The Devil of Christmas" (December 2016) and "The Bill" (February 2017), the latter of which was the first of a run of five episodes." – This seems like a weird order to write things in. I would say that "The Devil of Christmas" was a 2016 Christmas special, and then the rest of the series aired in a run from February 2017, of which "The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the second of five (or third in the series).
  • Can the running time be added as a parameter to the infobox? (It might also be worth a mention in the production section – was the final cut exactly 33 minutes long?)
    • Indicated based on claims from BBFC. That doesn't quite match up with losing five minutes, so I've rephrased slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "civilisation was then "stripped away"" – I don't understand the "then". Does it refer to a change in the writing process or the chronology of the episode? I also don't understand how this links to the previous "very English" clause.
    • I've rephrased: "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, played out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode were, for the writers, very English; the episode then changes character. Civilisation is "stripped away", resulting in the episode having the elements of a Greek tragedy." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Elsewhere, Pemberton explained that" – The "Elsewhere" is unnecessary as the sources for the previous sentences were not mentioned in the prose.
  • "On a stormy Cambridge night" – Surely this should be "On a stormy night at the University of Cambridge".
  • "predicting that a DOWNANDOUT will find Charlotte WRAPped in her UNDERSLIP in SWAMPLANDS" – As well as looking messy, these clues have already been revealed: I think it would be better to write "predicting via reference to solved clues that a down-and-out will find Charlotte wrapped in her underslip in swamplands (references to previous clues)".
  • "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS (("Rest In Peace National Health Service") was a political message" – It seems misleading to me to give the 'explanation' in brackets when Shearsmith is saying that is not what the nina refers to. The clause could be rephrased to "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS stood for "Rest In Peace National Health Service"" or something similar.
  • "ironic" does not need a link to irony.
  • The blockquote from the Den of Geek review probably belongs under Analysis rather than Reception.
    • I've sympathy with that idea, but I'm inclined to think that it belongs in the reception section as a demonstration of the (highly praised) attention to detail. I'm inclined to think it's a little laudatory to be framed as dispassionate academic-style analysis. I can look into moving it if you/others strongly disagree with me, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Other than these 1(a) concerns, I think the article meets the FA criteria. It is very comprehensive in coverage and an excellent article on what is also my favourite Inside No. 9 episode. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: I've made one uncontroversial edit, and all my comments have been addressed. I would still prefer the Den of Geek quote to go in the Analysis section but I am not particularly bothered about this and I can see the case for it to belong under Reception. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! I have changed 31 minutes to 32 minutes, as the 35 seconds would presumably round up, rather than down! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments edwininlondon

I'm not familiar with the subject but found this an interesting read. The article looks worthy of FA status but a few comments:

  • all FA articles I checked all started with the plot as first section. Is there a reason to deviate?
    • I followed the production-plot-analysis-reception structure in my other film/TV FAs. It just makes more sense to me; it feels chronological! It's (roughly) "Here's what happened before it was shown, here's what happened in the thing, here's what was really going on in the thing, here's what people said about the thing after the fact." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • in Summer 2015 --> I found this odd, why not describe everything chronologically?
    • The paragraphs are thematic, rather than chronological; I can move things around if you think it doesn't currently make sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • in Summer 2015 --> I'm not a native speaker, but just checking if this should not just simply be lowercase "in the summer of"?
  • was originally Morales's --> just checking the need of originally here: am I right to infer that there is some dispute about whose idea this was? If uncontroversial it's probably better to drop originally
  • play Sleuth,[12] Shearsmith --> should that comma be a full stop?
    • No, it's part of a list; Pemberton said this, Shearsmith said this, and BBC producers said this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • caption: He selected the episode as one of his favourites from the third series.--> I don't think this is needed in the caption, it makes it unnecessarily long
  • Pemberton also noted that not everyone enjoys crosswords, ... Tyler. --> this sentence would fit better in the next section
  • Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword: these challenges, he explained, would lead to the writers producing their best work. --> doesn't really flow for me. Two times explained, mix of tenses. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword. Such constraints, he felt, encourage them to produce their best work." Is that better? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The episode's second nina --> which is what?
    • I would rather avoid specifying it here to avoid spoilers. My understanding is that it is acceptable to avoid "springing" a spoiler on someone (such as in the lead or a production section). Spoilers are naturally going to be present in (for example) the plot and analysis sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The two of them, Pemberton explained, --> I don't think that "Pemberton explained" is needed
  • Suddenly spluttering, .... She suddenly --> repetition
  • predicting that a predicting --> ?
  • Nina, as well as being the name --> this has already been explained in an earlier section
    • The article is yet to tie together the name of the character with the crosswording term. I know it might sound obvious given what's already said in the article, but I have no doubt that a lot of viewers will have missed the reference, and it's something that several sources point to, so I think there's a good case for leaving it in. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, and thanks for your edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image. The same comment applies for the images in the body of the article.
  • For this part (but particular inspiration came from Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.), I would make it clear in the prose that Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword is a book as it was not immediately clear to me.
  • Please link Inside No. 9 on its first appearance in the body of the article.
  • For this part (at the end of the episode, Squires faces a situation that mirrors a situation faced by Michael Gambon's Albert Spica), I would avoid the repetition of the word “situation” in such close proximity.
  • The references for this sentence (Pemberton had long been a fan of cryptic crosswords, and he was inspired to develop the episode by reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.) are out of order. The same comment applies to this sentence (Reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee led Pemberton to ask whether one could "dramatize doing a crossword, which is so un-dramatic?”).
  • Just a clarification question, but is the word “nina” something that was already associated with crossword puzzles or did the writers of the show invent it for the episode? Is it at all related to the character Nina?
    • It's a word used by crossworders, but probably not well-known outside of that world. The character was named Nina (at least in part) because of this fact. @Edwininlondon: This is perhaps a demonstration of why I want to keep the explicit mention in the analysis section! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • I am a little confused by this part (she was "devious and deadly”) for the use of the quote. Is this quote from the episode? If so, do you think you should attribute who said it in the prose?
  • I am a little confused by the Charlotte/Nina parts. Is Charlotte Nina’s real name? Do you think more context would be helpful here?
    • Yes. I have few words to play with in this section, so I'm nervous about adding much more explanation. I thought that was clear from this: "He tells Charlotte—"Nina"—to". Do you think more is needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that I was following it correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Tyler hands Squires the flesh, and he eats, fearing Charlotte will die.). I was under the impression from the previous paragraph that Tyler was one that proposed that Squires should eat Charlotte, which by extension I had assumed that he wanted her to die. In the above sentence, he does not appear to want Charlotte to be dead or eaten so I am a little lost here. I apologize if this is very obvious.
    • It's Squires who's scared; he fears for her life, and so eats in the hope that once that's out of the way, something can be done to save Charlotte. I've rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Squires confirms that his middle name is Hector as he weeps over Charlotte). Was there a particular reason that Squire mourns Charlotte’s death? Was it because of the reveal that she is Tyler’s daughter?
    • She's his daughter! "However, Simon's autopsy—Tyler explains—revealed that Simon and Charlotte were actually Squires's children". (Not to mention the fact that there's a dead student on the floor of his office and he's published a crossword that basically says he killed her. Everything has come crashing down around him.) It's a hugely twisty-turny plot... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The referenes are out of order for these parts (drawing upon gothic themes) and (A number of critics identified Sleuth—"a grandfather of sorts" to Inside No. 9—as a key influence.).
  • The citations for this part (The episode was widely noted as both very dark) are out of order. It also borders on citation overkill (as there are six citations here). Maybe bundle them together to avoid this?
    • I can't bundle them together without changing my whole citation style, sadly. I've trimmed two of the less useful references and reordered the others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The citations for this part (with particular praise for Roach,) are out of order.
  • For this part (Patrick Mulkern, writing for RadioTimes.com,), do you think it should be Radio Times instead of RadioTimes.com?
    • I don't honestly know if it was published in the print version, so I'd rather specify just the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this. Once my comments and questions are addessed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

One of the first articles that I reviewed at GA! I'd love to take a look. VedantTalk 13:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are some comments:

  • Why italicise "Sphinx"?
  • I know that this might complicate the sentence, but the mention of Shearsmith as Dr Jacob Tyler, another Cambridge academic at the end is a little odd. Why not have it as right next to mention of the other two?
  • The article also seems​ to not italicise "Sphinx" and put it in quotes later in the lead.
  • I've been told that the among others bit can be WAFFLE.
    • Sorry, could you expand on what you mean by this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been told that if the details of the "among others" is worth mentioning you should spell it out or drop the "among others" altogether.
  • Why not mention the year of the play as the article does for the film?
  • "clashing with first episode of the third series of Catastrophe, the acclaimed Channel 4 comedy" - Is this really important? I mean I would get it if it affected the ratings and stuff, but did it?
    • I couldn't say for sure, but it was picked up on by at least one critic. It certainly seemed to affect the number of reviews published. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "filmed in December of that year" - Isn't filmed in December that year just fine too?
  • You could replace onr of the "filmed" with "shot" in the following sentence.
    • I already use the word "shot" in the sentence, and I worry it's a bit of an Americanism, so I'd rather not! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, this is an awfully long sentence. One might loose track of all the details. It might just be me though.
  • I do not get this bit: "as well as the house of Oscar Lomax in the Shearsmith and Pemberton collaboration Psychoville".
    • Shearsmith and Pemberton previously did a programme called Psychoville. On Psychoville, there was a character called Oscar Lomax, and Langleybury was used as the character's house. I've rephrased this slightly but I'm not quite sure what isn't clear! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Umm, idk Oscar Lomax somehow didn't strike me as a character name, Apologies!
  • "The script was 32 pages in length, resulting in a first cut that was 38 minutes in length." - 38 minutes long? to avoid repetition?
  • "the production team still needed to lose several minutes in the edit" - too wordy for me, can't we just say had to shorten it? a more suitable one word verb?
    • I am not sure it would be clear what the it referred to if I was to say that. " The BBC permitted the final version to be a little longer than the half hour typical of Inside No. 9, but the production team still needed to shorten it." I could say "shorten the first cut", but then that's not very interesting; I think first cuts basically always need to be shortened. Having to lose several minutes in the edit for a 30 minute episode is (I think) quite significant. I'm definitely open to suggestions, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that it's alright the way it is.
  • Is there a reason why the article uses such long sentences. the opening one of the second paragraph of the Production section is real long (almost ahlf the paragraph).
    • Probably bad writing on my part! I have reworded this (I assume you meant "third paragraph"), as you aren't the first person to pick up on that sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't say that, it reads almost brilliantly! xD
  • Release years could be added for the films and publications used.
  • The article mentions that "Sleuth" is a play, but doesn't do the same off any of the other plays/movies/books/TV shows?
    • Yes, that's fair. I've expanded a little; I think I got everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll read through the rest soon. VedantTalk 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not see any more obvious changes that need to be made, the analysis and reception section are really well written. I think you might have missed a couple of release years here and there and another reading might help fix that, but other than that I can support this for promotion on the prose standards. Good luck! P.S. I really have to watch this episode now. VedantTalk 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for your comments! Point taken on "among others". I'll have a think about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I don't see television much, haven't heard of the series in question, and thought Rees Shearsmith was an actress, but the words "cryptic crossword" caught my eye. A few minor comments, which I hope will be of use:

  • Production
    • "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, plays out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode are, for the writers, very English" – I don't quite understand what this is trying to get across. Why is the first half for the producer and the other part for the writers? Or does it perhaps mean "in the opinion of the producer" etc?
      • Yes, sorry; I suppose that "for the" construction is a little odd. I've removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • "keeping the cast small, meanwhile, kept production costs low" – the import of the "meanwhile" isn't clear.
      • I was meaning to suggest that the smaller cast wasn't solely for financial purposes. I've gone with "keeping the cast small also served to keep production costs relatively low". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Crossword setting
    • "Such constraints, he felt, encourage them" – is there a clash of tenses here?
      • In the past he made a general claim about what is the case. It'd be like saying "Nietzsche claimed that God is dead." Do you think the current wording is problematic? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • As long as you're happy with it, that's fine. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • "prior to working" – I'm with Fowler: why use "prior to" in preference to a plain "before"? Here and in the next paragraph.
  • Plot
    • Caption: In what way does the picture show an adaptation of My Fair Lady? It looks exactly like the familiar My Fair Lady.
  • Analysis
    • "cruciverbalists" – could do with a link to Wiktionary or somewhere. Not a word many readers will know.
    • "George Bernard Shaw" – it would be a courtesy, as well as following general scholarly practice, to pipe this to "Bernard Shaw", which is how Shaw insisted on being known and is how most leading Shaw scholars term him. See here. (Not a chance of amending the title of the WP article on him, for obvious reasons, without wishing to be rude about our American cousins. Palliative measures are the best we can get away with.)
    • "Higgins's line "By Jove, I think she's got it!"" – Higgins has no such line in the musical. Best not to misquote.
      • I blame my source for that. There're definitely allusions, so I've changed the sentence to "while Squires's language echoes that of Higgins in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of the play". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. An unpleasant subject, but the main author has dealt with it commendably. Tim riley talk 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a read through. Watching the episode has made me think about giving a crossword a try, but I'm yet to pick one up... I should probably start with some novice puzzles and work my way up... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy to add my support. I'll drop you a line on your talk page about ways into cryptic crosswords for those who are so inclined. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review/Spot check from Cas Liber

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • FN 24 - used 6 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 29 - used 2 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 30 - used once. material faithful to source
  • Earwigs has inflated score due to (attributed) direct quotes - copyvio clear.
Thanks, appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century American Catholic priest that led a really remarkable life. He was the first Catholic priest born in British America and was heavily involved in the establishment and expansion of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. He founded and was the president of numerous religious and civil institutions, among which was Georgetown University. During his lifetime, he was a very well-known figure in both Washington society and the Catholic Church in America. I created this article in 2016 and recently expanded it significantly. I've researched the subject thoroughly online, at the Library of Congress, and at an academic library. As far as I'm able to tell, there is nothing encyclopedic about this person that is not included in the article. Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Very_Rev._William_Matthews.png is missing the author's date of death, but how is the date after the publication date?
  • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The book was published in 1891, which means the image must have been created in 1891 or before (very likely before, since Matthews died in 1854). So, even if the author of the image were 1 year old when they created the image, and even if it were created in the year the book was published, 70 years from 1891 is still 1961. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 70 years ago is 1948. It would be possible for someone to be old enough to create the image in 1891 and young enough to survive past 1948. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • File:St._Matthew's_Cathedral_door_mural_cropped.jpg: in the US the photographer of a 2D work like a mural garners no new copyright, so the current tagging is incorrect
  • File:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Philadelphia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources question: There are 37 citations to Durkin's book, which, according to WorldCat, has 169 pages. There are no page references, no online links. How are these citations to be verified? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I think I've resolved the hiccups regarding licensing for the first two images. For the third one, that image is transcluded by {{Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia}} at the bottom of the article, which I haven't worked on. Maybe Alekjds, the creator of the work, can assist? As for the book, it is not available online and it does not have an ISBN printed in the book. It is only available in academic research libraries (and perhaps the Library of Congress). My understanding of Indicating availability was that citing that book would be acceptable, as it was published by Benziger Brothers, a reliable publisher. I also don't know how to cite individual page numbers without being extremely repetitive with citations, since the citations all refer to different pages in the book, and having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. Ergo Sum 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for the image review, but I'm sure Nikki will pick up your responses. As to Durkin's book, you've been misinformed if you understand that citing the whole book without page references is sufficient. Citing each of the 37 refeferences individually is not at all odd, it's exactly what you have to do. Look at any number of the book-dependent nominations on the FAC page, and you'll see how it's done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, overlooked @Nikkimaria:'s signature. As the for book, I didn't realize that. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the book within the next couple days and add page numbers. Ergo Sum 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ergo, having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. It serves another purpose - indicating than an article is over reliant on a single source, and thus may not reflect the full breath of available scholarship. Note this will not always be the case as some topics are better covered in the literature than others, but may explain the request. Its a lot of work for you now, but may be a good approach for you to build into your editing technique from here. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I've gotten a hold of the Durkin book and added page numbers for all inline references (except for one from a different book that I'm going to add when I get the book in the coming days). I don't think the article is over-reliant in this case, since it's a rather niche subject that is mentioned in passing frequently in contemporaneous documents and historical literature, but is only covered biographically by this one book, which goes into great detail. What do you think of how I've cleaned up the article? Ergo Sum 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ergo Sum, delighted to see. Will have another read through over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

  • The article is quite well written, but fragmented throughout into very short paragraphs (the lead was 6 paras on a 3996 word article) which makes reading a bit disjointed. I'd do a lot of merging, which would certainly help with flow. I would probably support after a resolution of source issues and a light c/e. More comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    As I see Brian's request on page numbers has not been met, I'll have to register an oppose pending resolution. I have to say I'm a bit concerned that the nomination was made without having to hand a copy of the book used as the primary source. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a book from an academic library that is only available to be taken out for brief periods of time. I have my hands on it again and seek to add page numbers this weekend. Haven't done it until now because I've been quite busy with real life things. Ergo Sum 22:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

  • I agree with Ceoil's point on short paragraphs. Combining them would improve the article.
  • Early life: It might make sense to put the family part before the education part, since that is more in line with actual chronology.
  • "St. Patrick's was the largest parish in Washington, D.C. at the time[9] and the first Catholic church constructed." The first constructed in D.C.? If so, add "there" to the end of the sentence.
  • "He sought that there be no lay trustees for St. Peter's Church" I see what you mean here, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe "He sought to avoid having lay trustees in positions of authority for St. Peter's Church"?
  • "Matthews was firmly opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in Matthews later being selected for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia." I know what you mean here, but only because I wrote the articles on Michael Francis Egan and Henry Conwell. Maybe add something to the end of this sentence to explain it, like "where a long-running dispute over trusteeism was in progress."
  • St. Peter's Church: I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second paragraph here. It seems like a minor point about something that may not have happened.
  • Miraculous event: I'm curious why you didn't make use of this 2011 book, which is entirely about the miracle. Seems like a good source to me.
  • Georgetown College: the parts about the Corporation of Catholic Gentlemen of Maryland and its relationship to the Society of Jesus will be confusing to most people without an explanation of the suppression of the Jesuits and their subsequent restoration. Without that, the idea that the Corporation considered itself a continuation of the Jesuits in America doesn't make much sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • These are good ideas. I'm going to work on the article this week and will try to incorporate these. Thanks for the link to the book, especially. Ergo Sum 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Link

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining my two nominations of Seattle train stations, here comes the line that connects them. Central Link (most call it "Link" or "the light rail") runs 20 miles from the city's airport to the central business district and the university campus. It took over forty years between conception and construction, and was nearly derailed by a budget crisis at the turn of the millennium. But it was built and carries 72,000 passengers per day (ranking high among U.S. light rail systems), and will eventually form the backbone of a 110-mile rail network spanning the entire metropolitan area. The article went through a copyedit and GA review recently and I feel it easily meets the FA criteria. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This article is part of an ongoing Good topic nomination and was improved as part of WikiCup. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

A fine article. Little to quibble with on prose. Just a few comments:

  • will also open in 2023 --> a comma can help here: will also open, in 2023,
    • Rephrased that sentence in a different way.
  • forced the interurban system to shut down --> forced seems a bit strong. Did the Great Depression have something to do with it? See perhaps History of rail transport in the United States
    • @Edwininlondon: The first interurban shutdown was a year before the Black Friday crash, so I don't think it's attributed to that. Reordered that sentence and added a reference. SounderBruce 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2016 dollars --> a few instances of these, which ideally are updated to 2018
    • These are generated by an inflation template and will automatically be updated to the newest GDP-based inflation rate when it becomes available.
  • 20 hours per day from Monday to Saturday, from 4:00 am to 1:00 am --> that would be 21 hours
    • Fixed (actual start time is 5 am).
  • 12:00 am is normally ambiguous, less so here. Still, midnight would be better I think
    • Fixed.
  • is reduced to 15 minutes --> is reduced to every 15 minutes
    • Fixed.
  • not sure now if on Tuesday morning the second train comes at 6:06 am or 6:15 am. Is that not early morning for most people?
    • It's what Sound Transit considers to be its "early morning" schedule. Commutes can start rather early here, thanks to the long days during the summer, so it can be on the edge for some people.
  • The record itself --> is itself necessary?
    • Removed.

I'll look at the references later.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Formatting references seems fine. Sources reliable.
  • Spotcheck: 58 59 81 124 all fine
  • 130 seems to have 2 authors and published May 22

Nice work. With the caveat that I am not an expert or local, my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Came here to do an image review but found fewer than three supports. so am reading. comments below...

  • The Central Link project was originally planned to open in 2006 and cost $1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.76 billion in 2016 dollars) - sounds like the actual cost. Might read better as "projected to cost" here

Otherwise looks ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

All images are licensed appropriately. I support this nomination. Jackdude101 talk cont 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tracer (Overwatch)

Nominator(s): Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character Tracer, from Overwatch, a 2016 video game developed by Blizzard Entertainment and related Overwatch media. She is arguably the game's most popular character, being featured in the game's animated media, digital comic series, in its marketing, and the game's cover art. I believe the Tracer article has been edited and developed to FA standards; it has gone through a GA review, a peer review, and 2 copy-edits. While Tracer is occasionally referenced in media nowadays, and the possibility of further changes to Overwatch is open, for all intents & purposes, the Tracer article is virtually comprehensive when it comes to relevant material. This is my first attempt at a FAC nomination, so I'd just like to especially thank anyone who helps out (or has helped out) with this process in advance, and I'll definitely receptive to any feedback. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: This isn't showing up on the main FAC page. I think you forgot to list it there. JOEBRO64 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Thanks for the heads up, but I really don't know what else to do though. Like I thought I had followed the 5 steps under "Nomination procedure". I see it listed here. Is it supposed to show up elsewhere? Soulbust (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, I see it now. Guess it missed my eye. JOEBRO64 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments in a bit. From a glance this article looks pretty clean. JOEBRO64 21:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Round one:

  • Just a general note: I'd publishers wherever I can. For example, Vox Media publishes Polygon. I don't think this is an absolute requirement for FAC, but I'd do it.
  • Similarly, some references link to the websites they cite, but others do not. Keep your references consistent.
  • Her design is based upon an element from Blizzard's canceled project, Titan. How so?

More to come. JOEBRO64 19:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NB re: noting publishers in {{cite web}}—this is actually incorrect usage. WPVG does it by habit, but the |publisher= field is more for books or as a non-italicized |work= field. Otherwise |work=Polygon should be sufficient. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs

Oppose for now. The article is a solid foundation, but it needs a lot of love.

  • The article suffers from bad sentence construction throughout. Semicolons are used haphazardly, resulting in linked clauses like Geoff Goodman, lead hero designer for Overwatch, was influential in Tracer's design; she was the first hero designed for the game and was used to test the basic gameplay which suggests that Geoff Goodman was the first hero designed, not Tracer. Later on the character biography makes it sound like Tracer is a member of Overwatch but then states that Overwatch was created concurrently with her timey-wimey background. There's unnecessary passive voice that should be reworked.
  • Tracer belongs to the Overwatch universe but she was first introduced as a playable character in an April 2016 update for Blizzard's crossover multiplayer online battle arena game Heroes of the Storm. First, I'm not sure why I care what universe she "belongs" to, but more importantly, it's really confusing to split hairs about "playable character" and first appearances. Makes far more sense to say that she first appeared in the Overwatch trailer and then was a playable character in Heroes of the Storm. Otherwise on first scan it seems like the infobox and article body are disagreeing.
  • There's a lot of weird contextual fluff that's unneeded at best and confusing at worst. I'm not sure why it's important that her fictional biography be appended with Outside the game... for instance. The character is fictional, so telling me there was an "in-universe" incident that caused her powers (as opposed to an out-of-universe one?) is irrelevant.
  • There's an excess of quotes throughout, both in unsourced fragments (this is distracting) and long paragraphs that seem undue in weight (why does every single Kotaku panelist get sentences to talk about the character's sexual orientation?) This was noted as a problem in the PR, but it's still an issue.
  • Single sentences aren't paragraphs. Non-paragraphs shouldn't have subheadings dedicated to them.
  • Was Tracer's orientation not controversial or controversial? The article suggests the former but ends the section with another long quote that suggests it was divisive.
  • Probably most critically, this article is designed around someone who is familiar with Overwatch, not a casual reader, let alone someone who doesn't follow video games. The actual term "Overwatch" isn't explained until after it's already been namedropped, for instance.
    • Her Blink ability, which comes with three charges, allows her to teleport a short distance in the direction she is traveling.[34] Using this ability she can "zip behind an enemy in an instant for surprise attacks, or dodge completely out of the line of fire".[43] It has a cooldown period, requiring the player to wait for each Blink to recharge.[45] Her Recall ability allows Tracer to return to her position three seconds prior, resetting her health and reloading her gun; this also has a cooldown period is an example of the article trending into gameplay minutiae that's not relevant for a Wikipedia article, as well as bogging us down with bad sentence construction. Why do we get "this has a cool down" after each mention of the ability? Does her ultimate ability *not* have a cool down, since it's not mentioned? What is a Heroic ability in Heroes of the Storm, and why is this important to spend three sentences on it versus explaining that her moveset is similar to Overwatch?
      • Do not use "nerf". And definitely don't just wiki link it to an article about NERF guns.
    • Tracer is depicted with her chronal accelerator removed; the game's Twitter account confirmed the accelerator still works if removed as long as it is charging nearby.[70] Again. Relevance to someone who's a non-fan; no one is asking where that one thing that was mentioned once before is or how it works.
  • I don't see File:Tracer & Emily kissing comic panel.png or File:Animethon 23 - 2016 (28552553510).jpg having justification for the article. The former is just two people kissing, it's not the subject of critical commentary in and of itself and it's not necessary for visual identification (people know what kissing people look like.) And the cosplay shot is dubiously declared free, when Tracer's costume is elaborate enough it's not clear whether it falls under non-protection as utilitarian clothing.
    • Given that the infobox shot is a cropping of a full shot and you later have two full-body shots to illustrate the character's poses, I'm not sure the infobox image is justified for visual identification purposes when there's a better argument for non-free usage later.
  • I'll do a spot-check for sourcing issues later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


Comments
Just a couple for now, but:
  • I've tweaked some of the minor things so far (like the semicolon usage in the Geoff Goodman sentence and the Nerf wikilinking).
  • I've inserted an explict clarification of when something is in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe due to past suggestions that not clarifying when applicable would be detrimental (I believe, as per this)
  • I'm currently working on some of the other issues you've mentioned.

Soulbust (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

some more comments:
  • I think it's important to clarify in-universe at the beginning of the Story and character section b/c it's under the "Development and design" section, so I think it would be helpful for readers to understand her in-universe story was designed the way it was in the fashion it was (i.e. Tracer's backstory can be found through a fictional biography).
  • I have tweaked the article a bit more.
  • I would like some reasoning as to why not to use "nerf" & if there is an alternative phrasing for that concept.
  • I'll be trying my best to retool the article to be less technical/full of minutiae when it comes to the gameplay mechanics.
  • I'll have to respectfully disagree on the kissing comic panel's justification. It's not necessary for visual identification on kissing. I assume people know what kissing looks like. It's necessary for visual identification on Tracer's identification as a lesbian, which Blizzard devs seem to have tagged as something that "just felt right to make" as "an aspect of her character." It's a critical visualization of her portrayal in the comic series, as she's not just exclusively featured in the game. And it's hard to argue that this isn't the most notable panel of her in a comic portrayal, or honestly any non-video game portrayal, seeing how in-depth her kissing scene and lesbian identification overall was covered by reliable VG sources.
  • I'm thinking about tweaking the Appearances section to have 2 subheadings: "Overwatch media" and "Other media", to fix the issue of that one-sentence paragraph. The only problem this causes is it separates her appearance in the HotS game from her appearance in Overwatch. The only other solution I can think of is perhaps combining Merchandising and Films into "Other media" or something like that. I'd like to have some feedback on that.
  • Thank you for all the suggestions, so far. I'll be working on the article to improve it. Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The subheadings idea sounds good. The merchandising doesn't really mesh with the film appearance, though. It'd make more sense I think to fold it into an 'other media' heading separate from the merchandise, since that's often considered more "promotion" than an "appearance" (tie-in products versus a work in and of itself.)
    • Regarding the image, WP:NFCC criteria is that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (emphasis mine.) Removing this image doesn't remove the readers' ability to comprehend she's a lesbian. One's sexual orientation is not inherently denoted by one's visual appearance, nor even apparent behavior (one can be bisexual despite never having kissed a member of the opposite sex). Her portrayal in the comics itself is a very small facet of the character, given that they are notable for the video game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WestJet Encore

Nominator(s): Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the WestJet regional airline. WestJet is the second largest Canadian airline brand. Airline articles are reasonably popular, based on edits. This article is particularly compliant with guidelines, unlike some other airline articles. As such, it could be a model of how to improve other airline articles if it is a FA. Thank you for your kind consideration and comments... Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I think it's evident that a lot of work has been done on this entry's references, but I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards and I'm wondering if a GOCE copyedit might help. Here are a few examples:

  • In the History section, the "Lack of turboprop aircraft..." sentence is written in passive voice and it reads a little rough.
  • "The ATR-72-600 had been considered, being offered at a lower..." - I think you're saying that this one was less expensive but it's wordy.
  • "WestJet Encore was to start separate routes..." - I think this one needs to be broken into two sentences.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing..." - You have two verb tenses (was/is) in this sentence. Does the first part refer to 2015 while the second part refers to the present?
  • "teal-and blue-geometric" - If I understand correctly, there should be a hyphen after and and not after blue.
  • "the management initiated WestJet Pilots Association, a subgroup of the WestJet Proactive Management Team, ratified contracts..." - I feel like there is a missing word here.
  • You mention Jazz in this paragraph, but unless the reader checks the cited source, it's unclear what that is. There's a grammar error as well ("unlike Jazz, who do not...)
  • "being characterized by the Calgary Airport Authority CEO as 'the new terminal is long on aesthetics and short on functionality'" - this leaves a sentence fragment by itself after a semicolon.
  • "from 2016-2019" - generally we use "from... to" and don't mix from with a dash.
  • There are a few missing hyphens - i.e., two kilometer walk.
  • "WestJet Encore services two destinations outside of Canada, Boston and Nashville." - At first I read this as meaning that they go Canada, Boston, Nashville and two other destinations.
  • "WestJet Encore aircraft has a Plus section, which consists no change fees..." - consists of

I think there's probably more, which is why I wonder if GOCE might be helpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. I have made corrections to address all of the above issues as well as improved the prose in many other areas. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text for the logo in the infobox.
  • For this sentence (It is owned by WestJet Airlines, Ltd. which also owns WestJet Airlines.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “own”.
  • Make sure all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • In the “History” section, I would move the image down to be by the second paragraph. That paragraph is the one that really talks about that particular type of plane, and it would avoid having the infobox push the image down in an awkward way.
  • I am not familiar with this subject matter at all so I apologize in advance, but I am a little confused by the structure of the “History” section, particularly the opening two paragraphs. It is not until the third paragraph that you mention WestJet Encore by name, and I was lost when reading the first two paragraph. I understand that these paragraphs are important, but is there a way to make it clearer that these paragraphs are about the conditions that set up the creation of this airline? I hope that makes sense.
  • For this sentence (Nashville was added the following year.), do you think that you should put the airport in Nashville rather than just the city (only if it is included in the source cited of course).
  • For this part (a $2 billion, 2 million square foot international terminal), 2 should be spelled out as “two”.
  • I would add a citation for this part of the sentence (for U.S. cross border and international flights opened at Calgary International Airport, the largest hub of WestJet Encore and its affiliate WestJet. Despite consultation with the airlines, the terminal design proved problematic.) to make it clear what reference is being used to support this information.
  • The lead seems rather short, and does not appear to include much information from the “History” section.
  • This ( or, until July 31, 2018, American Airlines AAdvantage.) needs to be cited.
  • In the “Cabins and services” section, I am confused about the Plus section. You say that it “does not have increased legroom or space”. Is the plus section then just a portion of the seating that is closer to the cabin? Are there any advantages/reasons to book a seat in the Plus section?
  • I would revise this sentence (In 2017, McDonald's McCafe coffee service was announced.) to (In 2017, flights began to offer McDonald's McCafe coffee service). The “was announced” structure of the original sentence is slightly awkward and opens the question of who announced this in particular?
  • I would simplify this (altering taste bud sensation) down to (altering taste buds).
  • Something seems to be wrong with Reference 39. The bare URL is showing up in the “References” section.

Good work with this article. I admit that I am not familiar at all with the subject matter, and I have never worked on this type of article before so I apologize if I miss anything. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments. I have addressed every point noted. I have also made some improvements, small in byte size, but to improve the flow, make it understandable to both the airline enthusiast and general public. I have also tried to meet the definition of FA, which is the finest work in Wikipedia. In comparison to some airline articles, I have tried to avoid making the WestJet Encore article an advertisement.Vanguard10 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Comments from the first 25 references:

  • Ref 4: I think "ATW" means "Air Transport World", not "Air Transport Weekly"
  • Ref 5: Reuters should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
  • Ref 6: Conversley, The Globe and Mail should be italicised, and needs "work="
  • Ref 13: Same point re Mississauga News
  • Ref 14: Same point re Financial Post
  • Ref 21: ...and re Toronto Star
  • Ref 24: ...and re Calgary Herald

As you can see, there are recurring errors over the question of italicisation, and I'd be graeful if you would work through the rest and make any necessary adjustments. Call me when you've done, preferably by a brief talkpage message, as my ping messages tend to disappear and then I told I'm rude for ignoring them! Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. This was a systems problem from using the citations template. I did not know that "The Globe and Mail" was a work and not a publisher. When entered as a publisher, there are no italics. When entered as a work, there are italics. It should be The Globe and Mail. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
it's quite common with well-known publications to treat the title as the publisher and use the work field to ensure italicisation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've completed my review:

  • There are still a couple of print sources not italicised: see refs 21, 25.
  • There are quite a lot of italicised non-print sources. The ones that concern me are refs 28, 31, 33, 34, 42, 45, 49, 50, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 70. I believe that in these instances you are using either work= or website= when you should be using publisher=. The website= field should not be used without also publisher=, because the website is the thing being published, not the publisher. My advice is to change all of these to publisher= and forget about website=.
  • In ref 41 the publisher is WestJet, not WestJet.com; likewise, in 52 the publisher is MRO Network.
  • There are a few nomenclature inconsistencies: you have "Global News" and "Global News (Canada)"; WestJet" and "Westjet"; "Cision" and "Cision PR Newswire" (there is actually a WP article for Cision that you can link to).
  • Ref 65 is confusingly presented. American Airlines is the publisher, the correct title seems to be "WestJet partnership ending". You don't need aa.com, but you do need a retrieval date.

I'm sorry to be asking you weed the garden again, but try and think of it as a hot day with a beer waiting in the fridge. Let me know when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Especially helpful is your explanation that "publisher= " in the citation template should used rather than "website= " in order not to get improper use of italics. One reference I did not change is 34, which is a name of a small town newspaper, Powell River Peak. It should be in italics, just like the Calgary Herald or New York Times. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

  • Wikilink both "McDonalds" and "McCafe" in the lead.
  • "Having more flights on a route than a competitor is a competitive advantage." — According to who? and how so? elaborate on this.
  • "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 aircraft by December 2016 and to 43 aircraft by December 2017." — You can reword this like "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s was expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 and 43 aircrafts by December 2016 and December 2017 respectively."

That's about it from me, Vanguard10. Quite an offbeat article from those I usually work on. A keener pair of eyes can go through more than what I have. Address these comments and you have my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. 1. I have made the correction. 2. Having more flights being a competitive advantage is a well known principle and not disputed. I have added another reference, a book, so that the sentence has two citations. 3. You kindly made the third suggestion and edited the article - thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Acefitt

How necessary is the paragraph about the new terminal? Not once has an Encore plane bridged over there, nor has WestJet announced any plan to fly Encore from there. It really has nothing to do with Encore. -- Acefitt 03:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

True, but I have done some original research and have been told that WestJet Encore was and is considering cross-border flights but is discouraged by the international terminal. To comply with Wikipedia's original research prohibition, I cannot write about things that I know but are not in print. The international terminal mention is not critical to the Wikipedia article but is there for this reason. There are reliable sources attesting that Calgary is a WestJet Encore hub and pilot base.
I might also add that 50% of WestJet Encore traffic is connecting traffic (mentioned in the Wikipedia article along with a citation) of which some, mostly WestJet flights, are international flights. This causes a problem for WestJet Encore. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is "transborder" to be hyphenated? I have never seen that word hyphenated before. -- Acefitt 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a hyphen according to the Calgary Herald. See http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/westjet-ceo-blasts-new-terminal-at-yyc-says-airport-authority-hasnt-listened-to-concerns (6th paragraph). If you support this FAC, thank you. If not, I am happy to strongly consider your suggestions and implement them, if possible. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
She uses it, but Air Canada doesn't, WestJet (subject of the article) doesn't, YYC doesn't, YVR doesn't, and other Canadian journalists appear to not be using it. Not a big deal, I support the article. -- Acefitt 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The logo is used by both WestJet and WestJet Encore. It may be somewhat similar to the logo of Royal Dutch Shell plc (incorporated in the UK, headquartered in the Netherlands) and the logo of Shell Oil Company (headquartered in Houston, TX, USA). However, I like the purity of an article with no fair use and only free use so I am removing the logo image. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I expressed concerns that the fact used in this article's recent DYK was misleading at WP:ERRORS during its run, so would like to take the opportunity to review the whole article. As a starting comment, the thought of flying Canadian distances in a Bombardier Q400 is horrifying - I've endured these planes many times on relatively short flights by Australian standards (with Australian planes being pretty comfortable compared to North American planes), and longer trips with worse service sound awful!

  • "The airline was formed to allow increased frequency of flights by using smaller aircraft as well as start service to routes with less traffic." - this makes it sound like it was established as a public service: presumably WestJet saw this as a market opportunity.
  • "The airline is a low cost carrier." - already stated. I'd suggest dropping the first mention as this is then discussed throughout this para
  • "it was operated with non-union employees but union drives began starting with the pilots joining a labour union." - repeditive
  • "An airline variant of McDonald's McCafé was later introduced" - what it is 'later' after isn't clear
  • I'd suggest providing some background in the 'Market conditions leading to the formation of WestJet Encore (2005-2013)' section on why WestJet was at the point of saturating the market (assume that readers, such as me, have only barely heard of WestJet!)
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
  • "WestJet Encore flies Q400 NextGen on regional flights up to 700 nautical miles, including both direct regional flights and connecting flights" - this seems a bit out of place given that the airline's fleet and routes are described in the earlier paras. The limitation on how far it takes these planes seems worth noting.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
  • " WestJet Encore and its flight attendants reached an agreement " - was this also a union agreement? - it's unclear from the next sentence (which implies it was not)
  • "The first president of WestJet Encore was Ferio Pugliese, who retained his title of Executive Vice President at WestJet Airlines, Ltd. He was hired in November 2012 coming from WestJet, " - this is confusing and repetitive: was he or was he not still a WestJet employee?
    • Not addressed yet. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
  • "He left to become an Executive Vice President at Hydro One Ltd" - when did he leave?
  • "Some routes are increased frequencies on existing routes, such as between Calgary and Saskatoon." - also unclear (were these increased frequencies on existing WestJet routes?)
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
  • "EFB and ICAS could determine whether or not objective thresholds were exceeded resulting four hours of maintenance and inspection instead of previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence, which would automatically result in maintenance and inspection" - complex and unclear (and the grammar looks a bit off?)
  • What does a WestJet Dollar buy you? Is this a 1-for-1 discount on future flights? - or the usual airline arrangement where you need several zillion points to get anything useful?
  • "WestJet also participates in WestJet Rewards" - seems a bit obvious? I'd suggest tweaking this para to state that this company doesn't have its own rewards scheme, but uses that of its parent company.
  • "WestJet Encore flights are ground loaded" - I'm not sure what this means.
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have large overhead lockers in the cabin allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard." - larger than what? (the usual carry on bag size allowed on aircraft?)
  • "Food is available for purchase but beverages are served free" - the bit about beverages being free doesn't seem to be referenced in the body of the article?
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents? Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

- - -

Thank you for your comments, which are of a different type than other comments. This is useful and not a criticism. I have addressed and modified the article for most of the points raised and have further explanations below.
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
I cannot confirm nor deny that the Toronto pilot base was established when the first Toronto flight started. With the mainline WestJet Airlines, they started Toronto flights while they only had a Calgary pilot base, which was very awkward from an operational standpoint.
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
WikiProject Airlines discourages listing too many routes. Nashville-Toronto is the only WestJet Encore route but there are several routes from Boston.
Seems like something worth noting to me. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
This appears to be significant enough to be cited by the manufacturer.
The source seems to be a press release from the airline. I'd suggest removing this. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
I cannot find any references about the promotion criteria. Looking at a random selection of 27 airline articles, I find none of them describe the promotion criteria for pilots.
I'm not asking for the promotion criteria. It's unlikely that pilots are "guaranteed" promotions as long as they don't quit (especially by an anti-union employer). Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
I cannot confirm or deny that it is a standing agreement nor have I seen their employment contracts. There have been two WestJet Encore Presidents. Both have concurrently been Vice Presidents at WestJet.
I'd suggest noting that both presidents held the role then. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
From original research, I have information that there is no running water as of December 2017.
OK Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
Many, including me, do not believe in airline ratings. The best and middle of the pack are often similar. That said, WestJet Encore does not have a reputation as a bad airline for passengers nor does it have a famous reputation, like Singapore Airlines. Skytrax, a common rater, does not rate WestJet Encore.
No professional reviews at all? Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents?
Yes, two flight attendants were injured due to turbulence. This was not included because of guidelines from WikiProject Airlines, which emphasize severe damage (hull loss) of aircraft or deaths. Another flight had visible smoke in the cabin.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Some extra comments:

  • " Plus section seating and frequent flyer programme participation is offered." - many readers won't know what "plus section seating" is, and does the existence of a frequent flyer program need to be noted in the lead given that this is standard for airlines?
  • " After internal marketing studies about future growth were initiated, WestJet Encore was formed..." - unclear. Presumably it was formed as a result of the results of this analysis.
  • "If such thresholds were not exceeded, four hours of maintenance and inspection would be prevented compared to previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence." - still unclear and a bit wordy
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have larger overhead lockers in the cabin than previous versions of the Q400 allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard" - but the airline hasn't used other versions of the Q400? I'd suggest deleting this.
  • A map showing the locations served by the airline would be useful, and fairly easy to create (the map at [27] could easily be adapted). This would help to give the article a bit of the 'wow' factor expected for FAs. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your additional comments. I have made corrections to all, except the last suggestion. For the first comment, I've removed mention of the Plus Section seating in the lede because the Plus Section is really a joke airline tactic. The seat is the same. The leg room is the same. There are just some relaxed ticketing rules. The frequent flyer mention is, however, even more noteworthy than I originally thought and revised it. Most airlines require a zillion points for a free ticket. WestJet Rewards is different. You can redeem an award for as little as $15 off. That might mean that you can redeem an award after as little as two round trip flights, albeit $15 off being a small discount. As far as the map, I am uncertain whether creating such a map exceeds the original research prohibition in Wikipedia. The link provided is helpful but it is outdated. Nashville-Toronto is still operated, according to Expedia.com booking tool, but Nashville isn't shown on that WestJet link. If I try to create some lines indicating routes, I would not be using any published source but rather creating it from looking up Expedia or Orbitz or Travelocity websites used for buying airplane tickets. Seems like original research to me.
Most routes are those that include the hubs, such as Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax as either the origin or destination. However, there are a few thin (low traffic) routes such as Fort McMurray, Alberta to Kelowna, British Columbia that don't seem to make any sense except that WestJet Encore probably discovered that there are people that want to travel between those cities. Not enough for a Boeing 737 but enough for a Bombardier Q400 NextGen. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking it up, I see that the Kelowna-Fort McMurray flight was discontinued after two years of operation. I did add the fact to the destinations section due to the oddity of the route. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that a map referenced to the company's website and other reliable sources (the major booking websites seem great sources for what airline flies where) would be original research. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Done and not a non-free use image! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest swapping to either a map of North America, or leaving the US cities out and noting them in the caption. The red dots in the caption aren't a good look ;) Given that this will change regularly, having an 'As of' date would also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that map isn't rendering properly at all. I question why it's even necessary... -- Acefitt 14:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The map is for, as Nick-D put it, for the wow factor! Another user took out the red dots for Nashville, TN, USA and Myrtle Beach, SC, USA. Those were the two dots in the captions. I considered a North American map but the problem is there is no USA+Canada map. If the whole of North America is used, all the dots in British Columbia and Alberta are squished together. The map is good to show that there aren't too many destinations in the middle of Canada (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, most of Ontario). Let's keep the map unless there is a desire to remove it. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for opportunities to expand and deepen the article as new sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Buckton Castle

Nominator(s): Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Buckton Castle isn't the kind of historic site that interests most people as there are no ruins to explore or inspire the imagination. The view over the east of Greater Manchester is impressive it you catch the weather on a good day. But as one of the earliest stone castles in the region, and one of the few that have been excavated, it is an important site and one that interests me at least since I excavated there for two (I think) seasons.

The article is based largely on the book published in 2012 about the excavations as it is the most recent comprehensive source available (worth noting that I'm one of the authors). Fieldwork finished in 2010, and interpretation of the site is unlikely to change in the near future. I've tried to ensure a good level of detail without putting the reader off, but in a nutshell there isn't a whole lot know about Buckton Castle so there are quite a few ifs and maybes. All feedback is gratefully received! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SN54129

Nice little article, Richard Nevell; I for one wouldn't criticise ifs and maybes, as working on any period such as this, that is precisely the language the RSs take—and for good reason. Couple of minor points to kick off with.

  • You use "gatepassage"; I think separate words are favoured?
  • But mainly, images. You've a MOS:SANDWICHING issue in the Construction and use section, and I wonder if they could generally be tidied up a little? It's quite image heavy (don't think that's a problem in itself), so their (dis?)arrangement stands out all the more. I'd favour a more symmetric approach, and perhaps something can be done to tighten the prose around those landscape pictures; what do you think?
  • Also, for acreage and distances, convert them.
    —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Having 'gate passage' as two separate words is pretty widely done, so I've changed that. I've added an extra conversion to the text. Hopefully that's all of them – the layout section is strewn with them. I've removed the image of pottery for now (though the licence might get sorted) which helps a bit. I put an image gallery at the end of the layout section to avoid having the images run into the next section. I've tried the same with the location section which seems to work ok. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Eric Corbett

I've yet to check through the article in any great detail, but one point sticks out for me. A small one, but nevertheless ...

  • The lead states without qualification that the castle site was used as a beacon during the Pilmigrage of Grace, but the Later history and investigation section is a little more circumspect, stating that "The site of the castle may have been used as a beacon in the 16th century, first during the Pilgrimage of Grace ...", my bold. Eric Corbett 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point, the lead should have been less definite on that point; I'll keep an eye out for similar inconsistencies. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The {{citation}} template you've used – which I like as well – automatically generates links between the citations and the sources, but you have to create those links in the text by using either {{Harvnb}} or {{sfnp}}. I prefer {{sfnp}}, to which I've converted most of your citations. But creating those links has exposed an otherwise difficult to spot error; is it "Harley & Newman" or "Hartley & Newman"?
That's a handy spot; I'll double check the spelling – probably tomorrow night. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been able to double check and it is Hartley rather than Harley, which the article now reflects. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Medieval_body_sherd_of_an_unglazed_Pennine_(or_Northern)_gritty_ware_(FindID_564839).jpg: the Photographer section on the image description states this is all rights reserved?
  • File:Plan_of_Buckton_Castle_by_George_Ormerod.JPG is missing a source and US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added the source to the Ormerod plan. I'm not sure what's up with the image from the Portable Antiquities Scheme; a lot of their images are under an open licence but as you say that one has 'all rights reserved' on it for some reason. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, but until it's sorted I've removed the image from the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley

This is an excellent and enjoyable article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion to FA. A few small drafting points first:

  • Location
    • "Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre" – by coincidence I have just quoted Fowler on "per" at another FAC: "It is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well; so much a year is better than per annum and much better than per year", but I think your "per" here is justified because I can't think of as concise an alternative way of saying what you have to say.
    • "Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest." – I don't follow this. The two halves of the sentence don't seem to relate to each other. It isn't clear to the lay person how the wealth or poverty of an area affects the number of castles built there.
    • Third paragraph: I don't know if others would disagree or agree with me, but an unattributed quotation such as the one you end the para with seems to me pointless unless you tell us in the text that this is what the such-and-such expert So-and-So says. Here, I think the sentence would have much more impact if you put the quote in context by attributing it inline to "the archaeologist [or historian, whichever is appropriate] Rachel Swallow".
  • History
    • "It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county." – I think I know what this is supposed to convey, but it isn't what you have actually said. The cost and the palatinate relate to the likelihood, not to the earls. Just shifting the end of the sentence to the middle will do the trick: "It is likely, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester". Or "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester".
    • "it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" – either "came" or "had come", I imagine?
    • "finished, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma. I'd go a plain "but", which is both shorter and OK after a comma.
  • Later history and investigation
    • "an Iron Age hillfort, however a study" – another however with a comma.
    • "However, this was before" – this "however" seems to serve no purpose at all.
  • Layout
    • "There are six stone gatehouses in the region which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries" – it isn't immediately clear whether this is a restrictive (defining) clause or a non-restrictive (describing) one. In short, are there six stone gatehouses in the region, all of which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries or more than six, of which these six were built in the 12th or 13th centuries? If the former, I'd add a comma before the clause: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region, which were built…" If the latter a comma-less "that" is wanted: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region that were built…"
    • "Trenches in the castle's interior did not find the structures" – do trenches find things? Might "reveal" be bettter here?
    • "robbing activity" – a strange phrase. Does it differ from theft?
    • "There is a spoil heap-like feature" – hyphens can cause all sorts of tangles, and the one here can be avoided by juggling the words about: "There is a feature like a spoil-heap", or, perhaps better, "There is a feature resembling a spoil heap".

I hope these few minor comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the comments.
  • Location
  • I can't think of an alternative to 'per square kilometre' so I'll leave there where it is.
  • With this sentence I was trying to show that it's less common for there to be a castle in this part of the county, but tried to do too much at once. It it just says 'most of the castles are near the border with Wales' the reader will conclude that it's all about warfare which is true to an extent but there were economic factors as well which is what I tried to include. But that sentence just wasn't working as it seemed like two separate ideas. Hopefully by inverting the second half it now gels together.
  • I was mulling over the attribution the other day, and I think it does make sense to give some context to the quote so I've mentioned who said it.
  • History
  • I see what you mean. I think it's worth explaining why the bit about Cheshire being a palatine county is relevant, so I've tried "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county in which the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester."
  • Oops, I probably had 'had come' and then decided 'came' was preferable and didn't quite manage the change. Thanks for spotting that.
  • I've swapped 'however' for 'but'.
  • Later history and investigation
  • I've swapped 'however' again to avoid repetition as there's a sentence later in the paragraph which starts with 'however'.
  • However seems to be one of those words I've not quite got the hang of! I've removed it.

That's it for now, but I will of course come back to this and the comments by others later. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Layout
  • That's absolutely right, I hadn't spotted that it could be read two ways. I've amended as suggested.
  • Good point, 'reveal' makes more sense than 'find'.
  • It's a bit of jargon really (archaeologists often refer to walls which have been removed as 'robbed out'), but theft doesn't quite cover it so I've tweaked the sentence.
  • That's a much tidier way of putting it, so I've used your phrasing. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Factotem

  • Lead
  • Given that nothing remains, is it correct to refer to the castle in the present tense; "Buckton Castle is..." (lead), "Buckton Castle lies..." (Location), etc.? The tense gets mixed up a little in the Layout section; the first two paras start with "Buckton is...", the third with "Buckton Castle was...". Compare Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall. in the "Layout" section with It was surrounded by a 2.8-metre (9 ft) wide stone curtain wall in the lead.
  • I'm not sure you've used the convert template adjective parameter quite correctly. {{convert|2.8|m|ft|0|adj=mid|-wide}} will get you "2.8-metre-wide (9 ft)", which I believe is the correct way to represent the size of the curtain wall in that sentence. Similar issue with the convert template used in the "Layout" section.
  • "...and a ditch 10 metres (3 ft) wide by 6 metres (20 ft) deep" would eliminate the slightly inelegant "and...and".
  • Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was investigated by archaeologists as part of the Tameside Archaeology Survey, first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit then the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology. The use of "investigated" seems wrong to me, and the second clause seems to miss a "by" or two. Maybe "Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was the subject of two archaeological excavations, first by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit and then by the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology."?
  • Location
  • During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire. The county shared its western border with Wales. -> "During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire, a county which shared (shares?) its western border with Wales."? Starting that sentence with a statement of time made me wonder. I understand from the Tintwistle article that the area now lies in Derbyshire, so Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle. might be better written "Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle, now a parish in Derbyshire." I'm assuming here that Tintwistle is a parish and no longer a manor.
  • A manor was a division of land and administered by... I don't think that "and" should be in there.
  • Cheshire is a mostly lowland area, and Beeston is the only other castle as pronounced in the surrounding landscape -> "The county is mostly lowland, and Beeston is the only other castle in the area that rises as prominently above the surrounding landscape."?
  • History
  • The earliest castles in England typically used timber... -> "The earliest castles in England were typically constructed from timber...", and do you think this sentence would go better as the first sentence in this paragraph?
  • ...during which the ditch was created... "dug" instead of "created"?
  • My first thought was that "sherd" was a typo for "shard", so a link to sherds would be helpful.
  • The castle is first mentioned in 1360... This information is repeated in the "Later history" section, where I think it's better placed. And again, it indicates tense confusion - here you use the present tense, the second time the past tense.
  • It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county and the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles. The last part of the sentence suggests an earl could grant castle-building authority to someone else, and therefore does not support the statement at the beginning of the sentence that the castle was likely built by an earl. Was it the case that the earl had an authority to build castles on his own initiative that nobles in non-palatine counties did not? If so, then maybe "...Cheshire was a palatine county, giving earls the authority to build castles" would be better, at least in eliminating another "and...and" construction?
  • The earls were involved in the civil war of King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century commonly known as the Anarchy and the revolt against Henry II in 1173–74, both of which may have prompted castle building. -> "The construction of the castle may have been prompted by the earls' involvement in the the Anarchy, a civil war during King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century, or the Revolt of 1173–74 against Henry II"?
  • Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control. The construction of Buckton Castle may have been to safeguard Cheshire. It's not clear why Carlisle is relevant. Maybe "Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, may have built Buckton Castle to safeguard Cheshire during the Anarchy, when much of northern England had come under Scottish control"? Even if not, "4th Earl of Chester" needs a comma after it.
  • The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications. The dearth either indicates or it does not, surely? Not sure you need that "might" there. I would also start a separate sentence with "However, the re-cutting...".
  • Later history and investigation
  • In the 18th century, people began treasure hunting at Buckton Castle, and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost. I'd be tempted to split this sentence, "...at Buckton Castle. In 1767..."
  • In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however... Either break this sentence into two, starting the second with "However...", or keep as one but replace "however" with "though"?
  • Since 1924, the castle has been designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument[23] which is intended to protect important archaeological sites from change. -> "In 1924, the castle was designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a program designed to protect important archaeological sites from change."?
  • ...examine a possible outer bailey. As a result, the possible outer bailey was revealed to be a 20th-century feature and was probably related to nearby mining activity. Repetition of "possible outer bailey". Maybe "The latter was revealed to be a 20th-century feature, probably related to nearby mining activity."?
  • On two occasions (1999 and 2002) illegal digging by unknown parties... -> "Illegal digging by unknown parties in 1999 and 2002..."
  • More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team as well as university students. The "as well as university students" reads as if something is missing. Is it possible to name the university and amend the sentence to "More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including teams from the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team, supported by students from ??? university."?
  • Layout
  • Buckton Castle was entered through a gatehouse in the north-west. It is 9.3 metres (31 ft) wide and 7.5 metres (25 ft) deep. -> "Buckton Castle was entered from the north-west through a 9.3-metre-wide (31 ft) by 7.5-metre-deep (25 ft) gatehouse.
  • The east side was occupied by the gate passage and the west a chamber. by a chamber?
  • ...until the late 20th century the overgrowth disguised the fact that it was a stone structure. -> "...until the late 20th century, vegetation obscured the existence of a stone structure."?

Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Factotem, thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've replied to your comments below.
  • Lead
  • Nothing survives above ground, but there are the remains of a castle just beneath the surface so I think it makes sense to say 'Buckton Castle is'. Past tense is used when describing the ditch because the measurement refers to the original measurements rather than the current depth.
  • That's a good trick, I've used that in the article.
  • That would help with avoiding repetition so I've made the change.
  • 'Investigated' is pretty nebulous but used by the likes of [https://www.mola.org.uk/olympic-park-archaeological-investigations Museum of London Archaeology. I chose it because it covers topographical survey as well as excavation. I've added 'by' as suggested, but wonder if you would be happy sticking with 'investigated'?
  • Location
  • Thanks for the suggestions, that short sentence had been bugging me a little. I used past tense because the site is now in Greater Manchester, but that's only since 1974 so I've not dwelt on it.
  • Agreed and removed.
  • That's clearer, so I've changed it.
  • History
  • I hadn't considered that. I had been arranging it chronologically and then explained why the paleoenvironmental evidence was relevant, but re-ordering it makes sense and means it starts a bit less abruptly.
  • Changed to 'ditch was dug'.
  • Of course, that really should be linked.
  • That's fair I don't think the first mention needs to be in that section especially since the same point opens the next section.
That's as far as I've got tonight, more anon. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I adjusted this sentence based on some feedback above and have added more detail so it's clearer why the earl's authority over castle building is relevant. Hopefully that clears it up, but let me know if it needs more work.
  • Re-ordering the sentence makes it clearer so I've shifted it around as suggested.
  • To be fair, Carlisle isn't directly relevant to the point that Buckton may have been built to protect Cheshire so I've removed that bit and explained that a lot of northern England was under Scottish control.
  • Maybe you could be right about that one, so I've removed the hedging. As noted above I'm not the best judge of when to use 'however' – I tend to overuse it, not just here! – so I'm going to err on the side of sticking with 'but' as the contrast is still clear.
  • Later history and investigation
  • Those sentences stand on their own so I've split them as suggested.
  • This sentence was changed after some feedback above.
  • Being a scheduled ancient monument isn't a programme as such, so I'll stick with the current wording.
  • That's much better, thanks for that.
  • Done.
  • I've tried some different wording to see if that works.
  • Layout
  • I've merged the two sentences but removed 'wide' and 'deep' because the latter sounded a bit odd, as if the foundations go down a long way.
  • Done.
@Factotem: Thanks again for going through the article, those changes helped iron out a few points which I hadn't picked up on myself. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with the above, but:
  • I still find it odd that you write about the castle in the present tense when there is no castle visible, not even ruins. Those first three words set up an expectation of a structure, and it was discordant to see none in the lead image, and a bit of a surprise to later learn that there is nothing left above ground.
  • You've kept the phrase "used timber" in the "Construction and use" section. "The earliest castles were constructed from timber..." is, I think, more the level of concision that FAC tends to demand.
  • In the 4th para of that section, ...Cheshire has fewer per square kilometre... Might be worth explicitly stating that Chester has fewer castles per square kilometre, just to make it clear that you're not referring to the earls, which is where the sentence immediately preceding ended up on. Also, your edits have broken the end of the last sentence in that section (Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but d), and however it ends, "4th Earl of Chester" is parenthetical and still needs a comma after it.
  • There's another instance of ditches being created instead of dug in the first sentence of the "Layout" section. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: In the end I've gone with the past tense for the lead to describe the castle; it's a steep walk uphill if you're expecting there to be walls. I've also swapped 'used timber' for 'constructed from timber', I think I just missed that one. And added in 'fewer castles' to make it clear what I'm walking about. And finally, I ditched 'created' and swapped it for 'dug'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

An interesting site. In terms of FA standards, I think that the text needs a little bit of work; in places it feels stylistically like an archaeological report rather than an encyclopaedia article, and there's a little bit of repetition.

  • "first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit" - "first by"? Feels like there's a word missing
  • "The castle was probably built in the 12th century, but fell out of use soon after." - I didn't think this matched up with the main text, which says "The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications." - if it may have been occupied for an "extended period", it didn't necessarily fall of out use quickly, surely?
  • The location and history sections cut backwards and forwards somewhat; I found it odd to be talking about a garrison and a surrounding manor, for example, before we've established when the castle was built.
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." seems to lack a citation
  • "Compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire, which were also on the Anglo-Welsh border, Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre. Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest. " - I wasn't sure what this was trying to tell the reader about Buckton Castle - is there any way to rephrase it to focus back on the subject of the article?
  • "Construction and use" - this section doesn't actually say clearly that the castle was probably built in the 12th century; it might be worth spelling it out, as per the lead.
  • "but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" - "came"?
  • "Pennine Gritty Ware" - any way of linking this, or covering off in a footnote what it is? (or, if it's just a kind of pottery, it might worth simplifying the language a bit)
  • "the re-cutting of the ditch" - is there dating for this? I note that the infobox suggests that the castle was completed by the "late 12th century".
  • "and finally deliberate demolition" - I thought this needed explaining a bit further. If we're saying that the castle was deliberately pulled down, it needs highlighting in the lead and in the history. At the moment, we say that it was demolished, but only say that "These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle" - why, how, etc.?
  • "This usage may have been reprised in 1803 when a beacon hut is recorded near Mossley" - is Mossley near the castle? We haven't mentioned it previously.
  • "and later in the 1580s when the country was under threat of invasion" - worth noting who would have been invading?
  • "and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost." - the first half implies that the discoveries might not be entirely true (otherwise, why mention "reports"?); the second half seems more definite that they *were* found and are known to have been lost.
  • "In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however a study of hillforts in Cheshire and Lancashire found that Buckton was topographically different from these sites and therefore unlikely to have been built in the Iron Age.[21] Excavation in the 1990s demonstrated that the site was medieval, with no sign of earlier activity" - this feels out of sequence, since you then have a major section on modern archaeology two para's later. Also unclear if the 1990s archaeology is the same as that mentioned later, or something different. "it was suggested" - by who?
  • "It had also been suggested that the castle was a ringwork – a type of fortification where earthworks formed an integral part of the defence." - ditto, who did the suggesting?
  • "Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall." - unsure from the lead if the wall is still there or not...? Ditto tense of other remains.
  • "Constructed in the mid to late 12th century, Buckton’s gatehouse is the earliest in North West England" - the dating here seems expressed differently to the dating before ("probably 12th century", "Completed: Late 12th century" Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article Hchc2009. The style is probably partly due to the source material and partly because I was in the middle of writing a thesis when wrote this draft. There is also more emphasis on the archaeology than most other articles partly because with relatively little known about the site, the investigations actually form a substantial part of the site's 'biography'. Also since the investigations were restricted to just a few years, it's a relatively straightforward story to tell. Hopefully it hasn't gone overboard.
  • 'by' added after feedback above.
  • I was operating on different timescales when I wrote that bit. In the lead 'fell out of use soon after' really means 'wasn't in continuous uses for a couple of centuries' whereas the main text lays out the slightly conflicting evidence. I've simplified it to 'The castle was probably built in the 12th century and was first mentioned in 1360, by which time it was lying derelict.'
  • I see what you mean. My preference is to treat the 'location' as (quite literally) setting and having it early on. I included information on the manor and stuff to give some context to the landscape. Would it be as simple as moving the section after 'history' do you think?
  • I'll root around for the reference and add something for the bit about Tintwistle. Just added the citations for Tintwistle being in the lordship of Longdendale. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll take a closer look at this. What I was trying to do with this part was show that Cheshire is a bit unusual compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire without going into the why which is mentioned later in the article. There's a similar issue with the economic aspect, which is explained later on. I'm struggling at the moment to weave this in without sounding repetitive in a short article, but if you think it's worth it I'll keep trying. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ...ah. Thanks for spotting that, I've made the construction date more explicit in the body of the article.
  • Mercifully I've sorted this one.
  • We don't have an article sadly and while there's an image on Commons which could help make this bit interesting I've not heard back from the uploader about the licence issue. I was tempted to just say 'pottery' but with only four sherds it seemed a shame not to be specific. I'll have a think about including a footnote. Or perhaps I should see if there's enough to write an article about Pennine Gritty Ware.
  • I don't think so, but I'll double check. Unfortunately, no absolute dating evidence was recovered for the re-cutting of the ditch so we can only put it in a relative sequence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I went light on the details of the slighting since it relates to the topic of my thesis. I'll have a think about how to deal with this and keep my additions to 3,000 words or less. The slighting is now mentioned in the lead, and I've tried to explain the reasons for slighting in the 'construction and use' section. 'These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle' really was going too light on detail.
  • I've explained that Mossley is a settlement very close to the castle. I've mentioned Carrbrook and Mossley only in passing because they're not important in the medieval landscape but can add more if you think it's useful context for the later history.
That's all for now. I'll try to return to this tomorrow or Wednesday but failing that it'll be next week as I've got my viva coming up on Friday. Some wally thought it would be a good idea to nominate something at FAC at the same time. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy old week but I'll get round to addressing the rest of your comments soon. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've explained that it was the Spanish who were likely to invade.
  • I've changed the wording to say that while most of the treasure hunting seems not to have uncovered anything of note the 1767 digging did find something.
  • I'm not keen on being vague like this, but it's one of those things which is difficult to attribute. Forde-Johnson discussed Buckton and how topologically it didn't look like a hillfort so dismissed it as such, and was speaking to a standing assumption that it was but I haven't found the initial who. Since the haziness around suggesting it was a ringwork has been resolved below, do you think it would be ok to leave the ambiguity here? I've also moved this part further down, as it didn't quite fit with the chronology and cleared up the year in which the site was established as medieval.
  • I've put that it was King and Alcock.
  • I've swapped to past tense (and have done so in the lead) and explained that the wall isn't still standing.
  • The 'completed' field of the infobox wasn't updated when I refreshed the rest of the article so I've opted for the broader '12th century'. Because dating evidence is so sparse and 'mid to late 12th century' to my mind could run from about 1135 to 1200 it's not a terribly helpful description so I've dropped it. The 'history' section further up should give a better idea of when it is likely the site was in use.
Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Two-thirds of the citations are to a single source, Grimsditch et al 2012, but I expect this reflects its status as the best source on the subject. The sources are impeccably presented and are all of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johnbod

Nice work - a couple of additional comments on the start:

  • "Buckton Castle is a medieval enclosure castle near Carrbrook, Stalybridge, England" - county/metro area here please
  • "Buckton is one of the earliest stone castles in North West England" - if none of the stone is now visible, maybe this should be clarified here? Presumably most the stone was removed, which is nowhere said, nor if some remains underground.
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Johnbod. I've added that the site is in Greater Manchester and clarified that nothing survives above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - now Support Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Great topic, but you may not be surprised to hear that I've never heard of the castle.

  • "It was first mentioned in 1360" Surely that's not true; what you mean is that it appears in the historical record in 1360, or something?
  • I'm not sold on the four short paragraphs for the lead; I'd think about consolidating into two longer paragraphs. Also, I feel "The site is overgrown with heather and peat, and there are no above-ground ruins." probably belongs earlier on; I think some readers might feel a little "cheated" to find out the castle they've been reading about doesn't quite match what they have in their mind's eye!
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." Comma? Ref?
  • "archaeologist Rachel Swallow" As was drilled into me in a previous FAC of my own, false titles are often considered nonstandard/informal in British English.
  • I'm not sure I'm particularly sold on the two "stacked" images. The map is surely going to need to be clicked before it can be seriously perused; I'd drop it to a thumbnail (perhaps after a crop!)
  • "The castle is first mentioned in 1360" As above. I was struck by the lack of dates earlier in that same paragraph- can we be no more specific than "medieval"? Just how long are we talking between construction and slighting?
  • "earldom of Carlisle" Wikilink?
  • "William de Neville" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks if the subjects are notable.
  • "Tameside Council" Wikilink?
  • "antiquarian Thomas Percival" False title again

I like this article (I particularly enjoyed the "Later history and investigation") and commend you for the work you've put into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback J Milburn, sorry for the delay in replying – it took me this long to recover from the shock that you hadn't heard of this place. I'm glad you like the article, I hope it makes an interesting read and even pretty obscure sites can have an interesting history particularly into the modern period.
  • On reflection, it does sound a bit like no one so much as has a conversation about the castle before 1360. It's fairly common phrasing, but what it of course means is the earliest surviving record of the site is from 1360 which is what I've now put in the lead.
  • Yes, the lead didn't really need to be split into four like that. That's also a good point about mentioning earlier what people should expect, so I've moved it to the start of the third sentence.
  • Still need to sort this from one of the comments above, but I will get round to it. Now referenced and with a comma.
  • I think it's worth explaining to the reader why this person's opinion is relevant so have gone with 'According to Rachel Swallow, an archaeologist' which seems to work.
  • Yes; what I meant was that you should refer to her as "the archaeologist Rachel Swallow", rather than "archaeologist Rachel Swallow". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah I