Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages, 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; but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  • 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, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so 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.



SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Back at it with another submarine article. This time, it's the lead ship of the U-1 class, U-1. The main article dealing with her class was just promoted to FA-status about a day ago, and this article recently passed an A-class review late last month. I've incorporated some of the recommendations I received during the U-1-class FAC into this article since the ACR closed, and I think it's now ready to be taken to FAC.

Now, about the submarine itself. U-1 was the first U-boat build for and commissioned into the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Her design included several unique features mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. This was largely because she was an experimental design intended to evaluate competing proposals from three different foreign firms.

Throughout her career, U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I. However, she never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, she was again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola near the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy. The Italians decided to ultimately scrap the submarine in Pola in 1920.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Lead, 1a:

  • "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—why not active voice? "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after the Navy had rejected domestic proposals" (I added "had" ... please check)
  • I hiccup every time I see "she" and "her". If you must use sexist language—as the MilHist males have successfully fought tooth and nail to be allowed to persist with—could we not at least ration it a little? Many of them are redundant, anyway: why two "she"s in one sentence? "She was 30.48 meters (100 ft 0 in) long and, depending on whether she was surfaced or submerged, displaced between 229.7 and 248.9 metric tons (226–245 long tons; 253–274 short tons)." Note that range typography is not permitted after "between" or "from". In the end, it's not easy to know exactly what you mean: so surfaced, the tests were lower in that range, and submerged they were toward 248.9? Are those averages?
  • Grammar and fluff problems:

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, it was discovered during her sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 that these engines were found to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and posed a risk of poisoning the ship's crew." ->

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 showed these engines to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and to pose a risk of poisoning the crew."

  • "Despite these criticisms, tests of her design provided information which the Navy used to construct subsequent submarines." -> "Despite these criticisms, design tests provided information the Navy used to improve submarine construction." (That's some guesswork by me.)
  • "in order to". No.
  • "but was at Pola at the end of the war"—the "but" means the training role was no longer at Pola? Bit hard to work it out.
  • "to avoid having to hand its ships over"—why not "to avoid handing its ships over"?
  • "Following the Armistice of Villa Giusti in November 1918 however, U-1 was seized by Italian forces and subsequently granted to the Kingdom of Italy under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920. Italy chose to scrap the submarine, and she was broken up at Pola later that same year without ever having sunk or damaged any vessels during her career."—The "however" needs a prior comma, but using it in afterthought position is very unusual. Why do we need it at all? "... which was broken up at Pola ...".

Glancing further down, I see lots of things to fix. Needs a thorough audit. Tony (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talented as he was, the British Museum's first restorer owes his renown to the actions of a drunkard. John Doubleday is best remembered as the man who restored the Portland Vase after it was smashed by a young man at the end of a week-long bender; along the way, he also testified in criminal trials, traveled internationally, and sold Shakespearean artifacts. Or at least so he said.

In its previous nomination this article attracted the support of three reviewers (thanks, Casliber, J Milburn, and KJP1); the decision to archive it was both surprising and, I believe, poorly considered. This article is thoroughly researched, well written, and by far the most comprehensive take on Doubleday available anywhere. It is featured article material. Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, hopefully some of the earlier reviewers will return first. I ran the citation bot, and though it may seem like a screw up that it removed the publishers, it is apparently discouraged to include those when citing journal articles. Of course, feel free to revert that, but the bot did some other useful things too that could be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the placement of the lithograph and the shards should be swapped, so that it fits the order they are mentioned in the article?
  • Done. Ideally the watercolor of the shards would go a section earlier (Portland Vase), but there isn't enough room as it stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The vase was next restored by J. W. R. Axtell in 1948–1949, and then by Nigel Williams" What is meant by this? Why did it need to be restored again?
  • Added a bit more info. The adhesive used by Doubleday grew increasingly visible over time, while Axtell's grew both discolored and weak. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "John Doubleday with his restoration" Could mention date of photo in caption.
  • Reworded to "around 1845," since that's probably the date, but isn't known for certain. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " making it "an unusual bequest"" According to who?
  • It seems a bit unusual that his personal information is featured last rather than first, but I guess there is good reason.
  • Normally I'd do a section on his early years and then personal life later on (example), but this seemed like a better approach since almost nothing is known of the first 30-odd years of his life. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "To the memory

of" Does "of" really have its own line on the stone?

  • Yes, although it's centered and has a line on either side of it (————of————). You can make it out if you squint a bit at the full resolution photograph. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, I can't imagine further commentary would make me change my mind. Little is known about this man, so we can't be less ambiguous than the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Just a few comments:

  • "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal " Is this somehow a combination of sulphur and white metal, or are they separate items, or is something else meant? I understand white metal, in British speak, to mean either a non-silver alloy or silver alloy that has not been tested at an assay office and found to be sterling.
  • Some in sulphur, and other in white metal. I've added some clarifying language ("casts in coloured sulphur and in white metal" ... "He sold sulphur and white metal casts, the former which he coloured in different hues"), and linked white metal. If you're interested, there's a description on pages 74–75. In part: "He also copies silver coins in white metal, but although the copies are as accurate as those in sulphur, the metal has the color rather of tin than of silver, and I did not like them so well; still they are very fair imitations of the originals. It is his custom, when copying silver and gold coins in sulphur, to distinguish them by different colors, making the gold a deep red, &c.—he also labels them."
  • "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) by a friend," maybe the parenthetical (later Sir Charles)?
  • Done.
  • "and the 1851 census as a New York-born "artist" who was nonetheless a British subject, " I might make clearer this is a British census, rather than US.
  • Changed the wording in the lead to reflect that; from the context and the piped link, I don't think the the second mention needs the explanation.
  • I don't see anything in my likely numismatic references about Doubleday (I have not conducted an extensive search, simply glanced at the indexes of some of my British numismatic references. In the archives of The Numismatist, I see a an American die engraver named John Doubleday Lovett (1819-1886} who is buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, if it's of any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and support, Wehwalt. Responses are above. John Doubleday Lovett looks to be someone else; by the time he was eleven years old the British Museum John Doubleday was in his thirties and in London. You don't happen to have a copy of Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Numismatics (2009) by Harrington Manville, do you? I don't know if Doubleday is mentioned in it, but Vlasto is supposed to be, and I haven't yet got my hands on a copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No I don't, sorry. I checked my two volumes (Craig and Dyer) on the history of the Royal Mint. I didn't think Lovett was the same person, I was just wondering if there could be a family connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Personally, I was happy first-time around, hence my support then. I didn't myself see significant prose issues and as others, including the nominator, have remarked, I think we have to accept that gaps in the record will inevitably lead to gaps in the article. I think it is as comprehensive as it can be, and am pleased to Support again. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, I appreciate your support both then and now. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

With a few minor quibbles

  • but was primarily their specialist restorer - Specialist in what sense; restorer of a particular type of object, or specialist in restoring
  • I read it as the latter, but the source doesn't specify. I should be able to check the source that it cites (Oddy 1993), however, on Monday. (Thanks for that, by the way—couldn't remember why I had Oddy 1993 pulled up on WorldCat until your comment.)
  • maybe first dedicated, or something. 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The very realism for which he was lauded - drop "very "
  • Done.
  • Thousands of his copies filled out the collections - drop "out"
  • I think "filled out" means something slightly different from "filled." The former to me means that individual holes in collections were filled with copies, while the latter means the copies formed the backbone of the collections.
Reworded as "gaps in" Ceoil (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • He also appears to have been - no need for "also"
  • Changed to "he seems" (there's an earlier sentence in the paragraph that begins "He appears").
  • "a masterpiece of Roman cameo glass" that is "probably the most famous glass object in the world" - this could probably be paraphrased so its not quotes
  • Done.
  • The British Museum awarded Doubleday an additional £25 (equivalent to £2,500 in 2016) for his labours: "for his labours" sounds a bit dated, maybe just "for his work"
  • Done.
  • onetime keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the museum - "former"
  • Done.
  • forever destroying the inscriptions - do we need "forever"
  • Nope, removed.
  • Doubleday first attempted to fire the unbaked tablets to make them hard - this could be more scientifically put, with blue links for fired, baked and hard
  • Linked fire to Pottery#Firing. Any suggestions for links for baked and hard?
  • Doubleday twice served as a witness in criminal matters - for the British Museum
  • The first one doesn't appear to have been for the BM—rather, from what I can tell he seems to simply be testifying as an expert.
  • ..Why does Early in February, Timolean Vlasto, a fashionable twenty-four-year-old from Vienna whose late father, Count Vlasto, had been a diplomat need 5 refs
  • Removed two.
  • Charles Newton (later Sir Charles) - don't need later Sir Charles?
  • I think it says something about the social status of the people Vlasto was dealing with. Interestingly, both Sir Henry Ellis of the BM, and General Charles Richard Fox from whom Vlasto stole, were permitted to sit on the bench and confer with the judge regarding sentencing. This seems like an unlikely privilege had the victims been considered less respectable.
  • Then just Sir Charles Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Vlasto was henceforth given unfettered access - drop henceforth, maybe "unrestricted" rather than "unfettered"
  • Removed "henceforth".
  • I'm confused by "Upon inspection many more coins could not be found, some of which were recovered when a search warrant for Vlasto's lodgings was obtained on Thursday" - how could coins that could not be found, be recovered
  • They couldn't be found in the museum's collection on Monday; on Thursday, some were discovered in Vlasto's lodgings when a search warrant was executed.
Fine, and reworded but dont like this Monday/Thursday business. Too specific and bordering on padding. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In private life Doubleday was a dealer, and a copyist of coins, medals, and ancient seals - Not sure "private life" is correct here as private life usually indicated personal life. Maybe just "apart from his work for the BM"
  • Reworded.

A most enjoyable look at a fascinating area of art history (19c restoration). Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support, Ceoil. I've adopted most of your suggestions; full responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see how the last candidacy alas, did not get through, but unreservedly support the current nom. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Army of the Rhine and Moselle

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Army of the Rhine and Moselle, a French army during the French Revolutionary War. I had submitted it earlier, but realized thanks to Tony that it was not ready for prime time. It has been radically revised. Please feel free to share your comments. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), MWAK (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most iconic dinosaurs, and the first member of its family (Brachiosauridae) to be nominated for FAC. It is also one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. We believe most information published about the animal is summarised here, and the article is now a GA. The article came together as a WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


1a lead:

  • "in the Colorado River valley in western Colorado, in the United States." Perhaps remove the last "in the"? Or "in the US state of Colorado".
Took your first option. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "However,"—I'd personally prefer "But", but it's up to you.
Just removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note, you can’t start a sentence with “But”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "are unlike most sauropods: the forelimbs were"—muddled tense?
Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "its tail was proportionally shorter than in most other sauropods."—inside them, the tail? Perhaps "than that of other".
Said "those of other". FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Most popular depictions of Brachiosaurus are in fact based on Giraffatitan, a genus of brachiosaurid dinosaur from the Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania that was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."—That's a looong sentence. "in fact" seems to flag contrast; it's a back-reference, is it? What was originally described: the genus or the location? Try: "... Tanzania. Giraffatitan was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Three other species of Brachiosaurus have in the past been named, from Africa and Europe, but two them are currently thought to be invalid and a third has become the separate genus Lusotitan." Have in the future been named? "based on fossil evidence from Africa and Europe? Personally, I'd use a semicolon after Europe, but it's up to you. Do you need "of them"? Perhaps a separate genus, Lusotitan. Unsure. Does "currently" add anything?
reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The type specimen of B. altithorax that was originally described by Riggs in 1903 is"—remove two words.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • probably and possibly?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "finds it to have been"—quite high certainty level. "suggests it was" would be lower. But your choice might well be what is reflected in the best sources.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Brachiosaurus has appeared in popular culture, notably in the 1993 film Jurassic Park."—yeah, they're cute.
Are you suggesting to leave this fact out of the lead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I think it was just a statement. "Think of it as a big cow"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It was my attempt to be ironic/humorous. :-( Tony (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan probably possessed a small shoulder hump"—possessed ... sounds like a fashion handbag.
changed to a simple "had"; also removed the word throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs auditing throughout, though the lead may be the most problematic. Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence. And "most recently" ... but you give two sources. "more recently"? Fixes needed throughout. Tony (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "more recently". Is that in the same sentence that is too long? Or did you just reiterate the point about the sentence in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Did I get my points mangled? I'm not sure I understand your query. BTW, it's a very interesting article! Tony (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I mean what sentence does "Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence" refer to? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My glitch. Size and general build subsections:

  • "Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull, a long neck, a large trunk with a high-ellipsoid cross section, a long, muscular tail and slender, columnar limbs."—Is it just the large trucnk that had that cross-section, or the whole body. The former is indicated at the moment. And a serial comma after "tail" would clarify the list-item boundaries here.
It is the trunk that is meant. Fixed the comma. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The estimates of size: they're surprisingly exact at one decimal point. Are they meant to be averages? The last estimate has a different precision ...
Not averages; these are single estimates as given in the sources, usually of the most complete specimen. The precision does not reflect the level of confidence (as the estimates range between 20 and 60 tonnes), and even rounding them up to get rid of the decimal point would suggest a higher precision than there actually is. We usually give decimal points when the sources do so (we also had that discussion in the German Wikipedia – same result). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
So, would it be possible to convey this to non-expert readers, perhaps for the first list of mass (and we hope the reader will assume it's the same for the subsequent list), by adding "has been estimated on the basis of individual fossils at 35.0 ...."? (Italics mark the possible insert.) You have one ISO symbol "m" in that list, against the expanded forms. These lists are still cluttered, though. Why do we need the old British empire unit conversions in a scientific article? Our rules say: "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." It would be so much easier to read, even for American grade-school students (who do, after all, have learn about the metric system). Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The issue of conversions in science articles is a bit contentious, there was a long discussion about it here[1] (started by me), don't remember what the conclusion was, but it seems there was general agreement that "some special reason to do so" was too vague wording... FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, looking through that discussion again, it seems it was you, Tony, who created that guideline in the first place. I thought the issue had been solved after the long discussion and multiple proposals, but seems they were never implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "In studies including estimates for both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, the latter was estimated at 31.5 metric tons"—"estimates/d" twice. And is there a reason to clutter up the proposition with "both x and y"? It's just about Giraffatitan. Why not just: "Giraffatitan's [average?] mass was estimated at ...". Were these estimates based on computational results using the sizes of fossilised bone samples? How many, about? Half a dozen, or scores? Just trying to get an idea of the reliability.
See also answer above. The reason for the clutter is that we can only compare estimates made in the same study, since the methodology for obtaining the estimates varies too much between studies. So these values must be compared to those for Brachiosaurus given in the previous paragraph, which is not ideal. I'm not sure how to make this clear, maybe we should either repeat the Brachiosaurus estimates or remove the sentence altogether. Pinging MWAK if he has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A solution might be to explain for each estimate which method was used. This would make the entire subchapter less repetitive and highlight the rôle the genus had historically played in the development of such methods.--MWAK (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "This lead to the trunk being inclined, with the front much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle."—Lead is on the periodic table. There's only one "and", so do we need the comma before it in a sentence that's not too long?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "These bony rods were attached to neck muscles at their ends, allowing these muscles to operate distal portions of the neck while themselves being located closer to the body, thus lightening the neck."—The neck is part of the body. Do you mean closer to the trunk? And does it make the neck lighter, or just lower its centre of gravity? Try to remove "thus" if it doesn't damage the meaning.
yes, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The ribcage was unusually deep."—What, for a dinosaur or for a subclass?
added "deep compared to other sauropods". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the elongated forearm and metacarpus known from other brachiosaurids"—from ... moving away. Why not "... metacarpus of other ..."?
yes, changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This ... this. It's repetition-sensitive. Second one "the"?
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "show" -> had? Since your model has mostly been to look at them metaphorically as if on a movie, rather than scientifically via fossils. There's another one, too.
replaced throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "given its more elongated dorsal vertebrae"—which of the two does "its" back-refer to?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the broadened neural spine" ... "a"? Since you haven't talked about this aspect before, unless I've overlooked it.
changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus suggest identical proportions.[2][3]" So we get a year for Paul's suggestion, but no time-anchor for the update. And "suggest/ed" twice. "Paul had suggested the neck ..., more recent work points to ..."? Tony (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the detailed suggestions! Will remember these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lusotitan

Great to see this finally get here! I know everyone has put a lot of hard work into this article, and it's been a long time coming for such a well known and important genus to get to this level. I'll probably wait until Tony1 gets a bit further into the article to start my reviewing so I'm working on the most recent pass and we don't step on each other's toes.

Drive-by comment

Just passing by to say I'd recommend not starting all three paras in the lead with "Brachiosaurus". Fantastic work to all those involved on improving this article, though! I'm kinda surprised it wasn't an FA yet, but it sure deserves to be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I made some tweaks to the third paragraph of the intro. By the way, this is the last dinosaur appearing in Jurassic Park to be nominated for FAC, if it passes, they are all FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That's great to hear! Looks like all the dinosaurs from the first three movies will be FAs then, with the exception of Spinosaurus and Corythosaurus, which are GAs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
There are a few genera from the second film which are unlikely to go anywhere soon due to taxonomic instability too (Pachycephalosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Pteranodon). FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The subject of this article was the first Catholic priest born in British America. He became an influential figure in 19th-century Washington, D.C. and played a significant role in the establishment of Catholicism there. This article has undergone significant revision and honing, including two FACs, a GAN, a peer review, and a GCE copyedit. The last FAC failed due to lack of continued comments. Thank you in advance for any and all input. Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellently written and researched article. The issue with the last nomination, which was around page numbers for the Durkin book, is now resolved, and the article has improved in several other ways in the interm thanks to the tireless Ergo Sum. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton_-_Michael_Laty.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: I've added an archive link to the image's Commons page and added the date it was published. Ergo Sum 19:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


1a: It's not bad.

  • Lead: three alsos. The first is necessary. The second and third should be dumped.
  • "Matthews was the first ordained Catholic priest born in British America and the fifth Catholic priest in the United States." Here's a place you might insert a comma, to stop the momentary query over whether he was born in British American and within it somewhere specific. Instead we realise in reverse that it's a quite new proposition.
  • "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County, located in the Maryland Colony of British America." Why not: "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County in the Maryland Colony of British America."?
  • The agency metaphor might be thought rather precious by some readers: "Matthews' matrilineal ancestry traces its origins to the noble O'Neills of Ireland." Then, the hated "thus". The explicit causality doesn't quite add up. Because his folds were "noble" in Ireland automatically means they were a "prominent, established" family in Maryland?
  • "he witnessed British troops burn part of his family's estate"—it's grammatical, but why not "burning". Supports the vividness of being a witness.
  • Me, I'd put a comma after "Jesuits" to stop the momentary query over whether they became Jesuits and something else too. Seems to work with the sentence size and rhythm.
  • "Although he was a student at St. Mary's Seminary, Matthews often served as a professor of English at Georgetown College because the professors and seminarians at St. Mary's were asked by Bishop John Carroll to assist with the teaching duties of the Jesuits at Georgetown." Opening is ambiguous. You mean though (I prefer the US "though") he was just a student, or though he studied at the Seminary? This was an informal swapping arrangement, was it? "often served as a professor" sounds rather grand. And occasional professor? Check the source: perhaps he just filled in for them when necessary, taking a few classes.

That's down to the end of "Early life". Perhaps an audit of the rest by you? Tip: print it out and go somewhere different with a pen. Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've incorporated your suggestions. For your last bullet point, the source does, in fact, use the term "professor." However, in this instance, instructor works just as well. I believe I've reworded the sentence to dispel any confusion. I'll go through the article to see if there are any other unclear phrasings, though the last time I checked, nothing stuck out to me. Ergo Sum 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I've gone through and copyedited the rest of the article. It should read more clearly now. Would you care to go through and see if you spot anything else? Ergo Sum 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: Did you have a moment to give the article another look? Ergo Sum 04:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Williams (actress)

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This article's first nomination had two supports on prose, successful source and image reviews, but did not attract much attention afterward. Hopefully, there are more eyeballs this time around. As directed, I'm pinging the reviewers from the previous nomination: Moisejp, Aoba47, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in terms of images since my last review of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination for promotion as all of my concerns were addressed in the first FAC. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Lead, 1a:

  • "Williams. Williams"—perhaps ", and was"?
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this comment. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Sry, I used shorthand: Her surname is repeated, divided only by a point. Tony (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Commas are sometimes a personal choice, but: "At 15, she gained emancipation from her parents, and she soon achieved"—it could read more smoothly as: "At 15 she gained emancipation from her parents, and soon achieved".
  • It's often a challenge to avoid too much of the subject's name in the lead. I've bolded the possible issues:

    "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). Williams followed this by featuring in low-budget films that were not widely seen, before achieving her breakthrough with the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned Williams her first Oscar nomination." ->

    "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). This was followed by [appearances in a number of? give number if easy to do, or just leave it as plural "films"? unsure] low-budget, low-profile films, before her breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her an Oscar nomination." Now, I've removed "first", which indicated more Oscar noms were to come. You might think it's important to flag this here. If not, we'll get to it later. Unsure.

Well, it was the first of her four Oscar nominations (and the only one I have highlighted in the lead). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, what about something like: "This was followed by appearances in ?three low-budget, low-profile films; these led to a breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her the first of four Oscar nominations she would receive."
I've already mentioned the fact that she has four Academy Award nominations in the first paragraph, so we shouldn't repeat that information in the lead. I've changed "Oscar" to "Academy Award" to avoid any confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the latter"—look for nicer-sounding alternatives. It's a one-word title, so why not repeat it instead.
  • Next section: "a close bond with her father, who taught her fishing and shooting, and encouraged her to form a reading habit". Be aware of each sentence length, and the rhythm, when distributing commas (or not). Bumpiness versus avoidance of amibuity and easier parsing ... needs continual juggling. Fishing and shooting sound like university modules, and habit sounds like opiates. What about: "a close bond with her father, who taught her to fish and shoot, and encouraged her to become a keen reader." (or "encouraged her to read", unsure)

So, I wouldn't dismiss this in terms of cr. 1a, but it does need auditing throughout. I look at random and see things like: "Also that year, Williams played a small part ..."—why not "In the same year Williams played a small part ...". (Again, I balanced the subsequent, unavoidable comma in making that suggestion.) What made me think right here? I don't much like "also". Tony (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent suggestions, Tony1. I'd appreciate any further help in tightening the prose. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Well ... I see FAC as sampling, critiquing, encouraging, judging—rather than a full copy-editing service. Any fellow editors you might ask? And try printing it out and marking it up with a pen. Tony (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Tony1 I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I wasn't asking for a "copy-editing service". I've written the article to the best of my abilities, having learnt tremendously from my past FACs on some of Williams' contemporaries. So if you or other kind reviewers could highlight problems, if any, in the prose that would prevent it from meeting our FA criteria ("critiquing" and "judging", as you perfectly put it), then that would be an ideal use of the FAC process. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment in the references, the point of the retrieval dates is so that readers can look up the webpage on when the link goes dead. Since you already include archive links in the cites, the retrieved-on dates serve no purpose and can be removed. Further they make the refs look extremely bulky and inelegant, as they now each have three (!) dates in them.—indopug (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Indopug ok, I have removed them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moise

My support on prose from the previous nomination stands. Reading through the article again now, one minor point I noticed is about “On set, she and Gosling practiced method acting by largely avoiding the script and improvising several scenes.” If they were “largely avoiding” the script, that sounds like they improvised most of the movie, but then it says they only improvised “several scenes”. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp, I've removed the “largely avoiding” the script" bit to avoid confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the next couple of days when I have time, I'll revisit my source review from the last nomination. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

For the first nomination, I did a lengthy source review including spot-checking about 50 sources. Looking at the edit history now, there are no changes that reduce my confidence in the sources. I was going to mention the points that Ealdgyth brought up here [[2]], but I see they have already been dealt with. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Moisejp. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Washington State Convention Center

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seattle's convention center sits atop a freeway (which I hope to bring here soon), wraps around a non-profit theatre, and sits under a few high-rises. It is made famous by one of gaming's biggest conventions (which just ended) and was the host of the 1999 WTO conference that was disrupted by the infamous Battle of Seattle. In fact, during its construction the project nearly went under after one of the lead developers filed for bankruptcy because of a lender agreement gone south.

This article went through a GOCE copyedit and was languishing for an entire season in the GAN backlog, so I've decided to push this forward. It's a bit of a long read for convention center, but the project was more than just a place for bleary-eyed visitors to hob-nob and indulge in plenaries and meetings. SounderBruce 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)



  • "meeting centers"—any word to substitute to avoid such a close repetition of "center/s"? Thesaurus? Especially since there are more to come in the opening para. Suggestion: "and the convention center opened on June 18, 1988" -> "and the complex opened on June 18, 1988" ... but up to you; I'm unsure that's a good substitute there. And "the existing facilities"? Just thinking out loud.
  • "A second expansion at the site of Convention Place station, a block north of the original convention center, has been under construction since 2018 and is planned to be completed in 2022." What about: "A block north of the original facility, a second expansion at the site of Convention Place station has been under construction since 2018, with competion expected in 2022." ... or something like that.
  • If it's already under construction, why does a caption below talk of "planned construction site"?
  • Is the area given for the each of the two halls, or both?
  • Parking spaces? Bit boring for the lead.

Tony (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've rewritten the lead per your comments. Thanks for dropping in for the early review. SounderBruce 23:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is small yet hopefully interesting spin-off from its mother article, aluminium. I've made my best to make it a decent read so I hope you'll find it good, too!--R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


To what extent do "history of ..." articles normally define the thing they're historicising? We seem to jump in at the start without (for a grade-school reader, for example) giving a short, orienting definition ... perhaps shorter than in the Aluminium article, but something more like it—at least that it's an element, with abbrev. Al, and now a major blah blah. What you think?

I wasn't thinking at all about context since this article was started as a spin-off from aluminium, but now that you've brought that up, I'll try to add up a para to lead during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe we need "greatly", maybe not. "whose work" is more than just the "discovery", is it?
    I'd say we do need that "greatly", Woehler did really lots of early work and that partially was why everyone was so keen to keep him as the discoverer in the 19th century. "Whose work" is indeed just discovery; but what do I do?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pure aluminium metal was difficult to refine and thus rare."—"rare" we'd normally ascribe to the raw material, wouldn't we? But here it's causally connected with the refined product.
    Good point. Changed to "uncommon."
  • Probably comma after "process". Jointly developed, or independently? The second "developed" might be possible as "devised" ... unsure.
    It seems to me we'd do fine without that comma though if you disagree, I'll modestly recognize your authority over myself on that. Independently; added that. I don't see the need to differentiate these two, so since you're unsure, I'm, too, inclined to keep it as it currently is.
  • Remove "day".
    Okay.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These methods ... these methods.
    I've changed the former to "these processes."
  • Is it a because since or a ever-since since?
    In this particular sentence, it's an ever-since since, but both would be correct, actually. Why?
  • 57.5 million?
    I'd rather not. I want this long number from 2015 (57,500,000) to serve as an antipode to the short number from 1900 (6,800), so that the difference strikes the reader.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "... and as astringents for dressing wounds; alum was also used in medicine, ...". Is dressing wounds medical?
    You're right.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "a fire-resistant coating for wood (which protected fortresses from enemy arson attempts),"—simpler as "a fire-resistant coating for wood to protect fortresses from enemy arson,"
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aluminium metal was unknown to them." Remove last two words as contextually redundant?
    Well spotted.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in order to. Please: to.
    But it does say, "in order to"?
  • "Some sources suggest a possibility that this metal was aluminium;[b] this claim has been disputed.[5]"—"Some sources suggest that this metal was aluminium[b], a claim that has been disputed.[5]"
    I'll blindly follow but could you explain to me (this is a genuine question) why this is an improvement as it requires more words?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that the Chinese were able to produce aluminium-containing alloys" -> "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys" ... glad I zapped that first "possibility".
    Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem. Tony (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS You're a native-speaker of Russian? Then your English is mighty good. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find someone whose English would be better than mine to get this done.
P.S. Thanks for the compliment!--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Would be good for the nominator to hang around in the days after launching it. Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap

I reviewed this at GAN and have accordingly little to add, beyond the fact that I think it a fine article.

  • Footnote C should mention that the Al-Cu alloys are alluded to in Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), wikilinking Joseph Needham.
    I don't like the idea of including a cite for the sake of including a cite; the rest of the text does not explicitly mention any specific sources and I'd like to keep it that way. I would, however, gladly use the book as a reference to back some fact from it, but what could I back? Here's the book itself.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment about "for the sake of". The footnote uses another ref already. Needham's opinion is highly relevant as both a sinologist and a chemist, and probably the most respected of all sources on such matters. If that isn't sufficient for you, then consider that the question of what alloys and chemistry the Chinese actually had is a matter for scholarly debate; and that editors must not rely on their personal knowledge or opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I somewhat concur with Tony that a brief bit of context on the metal would be useful.
    Just as I told Tony, I'll try to get a para on that this weekend--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) or maybe even tomorrow if I'm lucky.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    John has added a paragraph and I've touched it as well; please see what came out.
  • Similarly, "The nature of alum remained unknown." is rather a bald lead in to 'Establishing the nature of alum'. Perhaps add something like 'until the nineteenth century'.
    Well, the story follows the chronological order and I kind of hoped that would be apparent to a reader. "Until the 19th century" wouldn't be correct; I've mentioned the chronologically consistent time mark of the beginning of the Renaissance. I think this should be fine as the next sentence already tells us about how this nature of alum was slowly revealed by later scientists.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I still think we should have a few words about the time period intended in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I tried to start the section with "Around 1500"; does it do the trick or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Much better, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, too, the lead sentence in 'Rare metal' says simply "the metal remained rare; its cost exceeded that of gold." Again, some description of the period of time (i.e. not just a single date, but a range) during which this remained true would be helpful. I know it's defined in more detail below, but the lead sentence needs to give at least a valid clue to the content. Something like 'for much of the nineteenth century' would do, or you might prefer to name some dates.
    I see what you're pointing at but I can only tell this: a kilogram of gold cost about $665 in 1852 [3] while a kilogram of aluminum cost $1,200 that year [4] (I doubt either is a Wiki-reliable source, by the way). So to be fair to the reader, we can tell him that this was true before Deville's method was implemented (which is correct), and then in the next sentence, we say this method was announced in 1854. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)#
    It sounds just the sort of thing needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest we should add the discovery date to the caption under the image of Wöhler, though given the earlier date of Ørsted's claim, we should either have an image of Ørsted with his date, or a mention of Ørsted's possibly-prior claim in the Wöhler caption. Personally I'd think an image of Ørsted would be more appropriate: the section is easily long enough for a second image.
    I agree; done.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Recycling is said to be "extensive" but no figures for recycling tonnage or percentage (of total Al scrap, or compared to new Al production: both might be helpful) are given. We might go further and use a recent image of Aluminium recycling (e.g. File:DillingenAluminiumSchrott.jpg), or indeed create a subsection for 'Recycling'. Currently recycling is covered in parts of both paragraphs of 'Mass usage', which is not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is a very worthy comment. I'll try to look into this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I've expanded on the history of aluminium recycling in both sections relating to the 20th century. As for figures of secondary aluminum vs. primary aluminum, as far as I know, figures for secondary aluminium are only available for the United States (from 1913) and China (from 1950) rather than the whole world. I've referenced the United States data once; I don't want to reference more, though, so that the article does not appear too U.S.-centric.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    Msny thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Tovarna_glinice_in_aluminija_Kidričevo_-_kupi_aluminija_1968.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    From what I get from the file description, the picture was published in Yugoslav/Slovene newspaper Večer on March 21, 1968.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hans_Christian_Ørsted_daguerreotype.jpg needs a US PD tag
    Done.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg: what is the copyright status of the coin itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't get this one. This is not a work of art which you may be not allowed to make copies of; it is a coin, that is, money. How can it have a copyright status?--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    It is a coin, but it's not just a blank piece of metal - it has a design that is potentially copyrightable. See commons:Commons:Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    I see; thank you for the link, the read was very enlightening. Germany's coins are not usually copyright-free; however, I suspect this is the case with our picture as the coin's emission ended in 1922. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany tells us that the copyright term in Germany is the author's lifespan + 70 years; but I cannot figure what rules do you apply when there is no particular author to attribute the design to?--R8R (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is no identified engraver for this particular coin, then it would be either PD-EU-no author disclosure or Template:PD-GermanGov - I'm not sure whether coins fall under the latter. And then with a 1920 date the pre-1923 tag would cover the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Project E

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the US supplying nuclear weapons to the UK forces during the Cold War. It was the first of a series of nuclear sharing agreements; subsequently weapons were supplied on similar terms to Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. The article faced deletion as a hoax back in 2008, but was saved, and is now presented at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Lead 1a:

  • "prior to Britain's own nuclear weapons becoming available"—it's slightly clunky; but you may have reasons for not liking this suggestion: "before Britain independently developed its own nuclear weapons". Any problem in using "United Kingdom" and "Britain" in the same sentence? I could cope with the repetition of "Britain" to avoid processing the switch. Later, I see "United Kingdom" again, which after first usage I'd prefer to be abbreviated too ("UK")—if you decide to keep switching.
    Re-worked the lead slightly to get around this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The United States was approached"—passive ... so who did the approaching? Canada, on Britain's behalf? Full sentence: " The United States was approached to supply weapons for the strategic bombers of the V-bomber fleet until sufficient British ones became available. An agreement was reached in 1957." I wonder whether the medium-sized and stubby sentences could be unscrambled and merged to solve some problems (including the ungainly "ones").
    Mentioned the PM and President to escape from using the passive. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Under Project E, US personnel had custody of the weapons, and performed all the tasks related to their storage, maintenance and readiness. "US" here, so why not also on first appearance after you spell it out at the top? Commas: my preference is for serial commas in inline lists, but fine if it's not your cuppa. But could you dump the comma after "weapons", for flow? Can it be "all tasks"?
    Deleted "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Secure Storage Areas (SSAs)"—why capped in expanded form? Just because some source does it is not reason for modern publications to do it. Styleguides in the US and the UK say to minimise unnecessary capping. So does our MOS. Why Nuclear in the infobox?
    De-capped per WP:EXPABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "were also used on the sixty Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles which were operated by the RAF from 1959 to 1963 under Project Emily." First, without a comma before, "that" is preferred over "which", unless you're David Attenbrough. Second, I can cope with the first passive voice, but why a second? You don't even need that/which: "... Missiles the RAF operated from ...".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Check you need both "also"s in the last para. Maaaybe.
    Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A maritime version of Project E known as Project N provided nuclear depth bombs used by the RAF Coastal Command." MOS discourages bolding like that. Can't it be italicised? And here's another passive. Is this possible? "provided nuclear depth bombs for the RAF Coastal Command". Unless you're going to tell us later that they did use them to bomb ... whom ... the Irish?
    MOS:BOLDTITLE: the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Checklist for auditing throughout: unnecessary commas in a few places; unnecessary passive constructions. Country abbreviations for simpler reading?

Nominator is a prominent, much-admired editor of MilHist articles ... that's my opinion, too. So I'm rudely suggesting we clean up a bit. :-) Tony (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye, as usual some gnomish suggestions...

  • in infobox image caption, my browser throws the E onto its own new line - need nbsp?
    Doesn't look anything like that on my screen, but added an nbsp for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Winston Churchill, approached approached the - remove dupe
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement - should be Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • which it considered to be a joint discovery - ambiguous, replace 'it' with 'Britain'?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On 16 November 1945, Truman and Attlee signed - introduce and wlink Truman and Attlee?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • proposed limiting the British program - programme per elsewhere?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • the 2 February 1950 arrest - detained January, charged Feb? (I can't tell from his article)
    No, he was arrested on 2 February 1950. Yes, I realise that was after he confessed to espionage in January. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times - should have their 'the's included?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreement on the provision on American bombs - of?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles E. Wilson - wlink to Charles Erwin Wilson?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The crews practiced the - practised? (if Brit spelling)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Air Ministry - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick Reaction Alert - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • RAE Farnborough - refine wlink pipe to Farnborough Airport, or 2 separate ie one to RAE
    Looks like it is going to the right place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • sputnik crisis - cap S?
    Only if we are going to capitalise the C. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues, and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. - commas/and right here?
    Removed the second comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Air Council decided - wlink?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in the development Red Beard bomb - development of?, 'the' Red (or bombs plural)
    Added "of" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • for providing nuclear weapons the British Army of the Rhine - missing 'to' after weapons?
    Added "to". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • targets of opportunity - wlink
    There's an article on that? Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 2 x References sections - 1st should be Notes?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Cathcart, Brian - authorlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol is a story everyone knows, either in the original, or through one of the many, many adaptations that have been produced since it was published. Its success comes down to numerous factors, including the socio-historical background that the British were re-examining Christmas and exploring new practices that many consider part of a "traditional Christmas". It also comes down to being a relatively short read, packed with superb descriptions, rounded characters and a bad-turns-good ending 150 years before Star Wars did it. I took this to GA about 16 months ago (under a legitimate alternate account), and some minor wrinkles have been ironed and smoothed since. – SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • For this sentence (After their visits Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man.), add a comma after “visits”.
  • For this part (He was influenced by experiences from his own past,), I think you can make it more concise with the following revision (He was influenced by his own past) as I am not sure “experiences from” is really necessary.
  • Makes sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • Done (I always forget the ALTs!) - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If you are going to link “Christmas Eve” in the body of the article, I would do so in the lead for consistency.
  • I would add a link for £.
  • Not sure of its use: it's a major world currency, so doesn't need clarification by the link. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Understandable; I thought that I might as well propose it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These two sentences (In 1824 John was committed to Marshalsea, a debtors' prison in Southwark, London.) and (At the end of December 1842 Dickens began publishing his novel Martin Chuzzlewit as a monthly serial) require commas for the beginning phrases. I notice several instances of this (i.e. beginning phrases, primary those involving dates, lacking a comma); rather than listing everything out, I would recommend looking through the article to correct this.
  • That's an American habit, not necessarily followed in British English - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I am American so I was not aware of this. I would just make sure that is consistent throughout. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not used to preferred structure for a literature article, so apologies if this is really obvious, but wouldn’t it be better to put the “Characters” section right after the “Plot” section. It would make sense, to me at least, to have these two sections placed together as a group. I could be wrong, but I just wanted to throw it out there as a suggestion.
  • I've seen a variety of structures used for literature articles, so I'm not sure there is an entirely "set" way of doing things. I'll mull this over, if I may, particularly if others make the same suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have never worked on a literature article or have done a review for one, so apologies for being uncertain about the overall structure/approach. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that the “Themes” section should be moved after the “Reception” section to group all of these more critical/outside opinions together?
  • I don't think this one would be an advantage. The themes are part of the book, lain down deliberately by Dickens - the outside critics are just highlighting something that was there, whereas the reviews are third party opinions - if any of that makes sense! - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies if this is obvious, but what is the reason for The Ghost of Christmas Present image in the “Aftermath” section? Same question for the image in the “Legacy” section?
  • There are too many images in the upper sections of the article if we include those up there too. For those sections where we have no free images (or no good excuse for non-free), I've spread what we do have to break the walls of text. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Understandable. I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is DuckTales included in the “See also” section? I know there is a character inspired by Scrooge in the cartoon, but what makes DuckTales more special than the other adaptions of the Scrooge character to warrant a mention here?
  • Quite right - now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You have done an excellent job with this article. I would imagine that this must be a difficult article to work on, given how popular the novella is worldwide and across history. This would definitely be a cool article to have featured on the main page on Christmas day. This FAC definitely inspires me to work on a more literature-related article sometime. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Aoba47. I've changed per most of your suggestions, but there are a couple I've demurred on, and one I'll think over at length. Thank you very for your comments, they really have been most useful. I have another review lined up to do first, but will swing by your article after I have finished on that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Marley's_Ghost_-_A_Christmas_Carol_(1843),_opposite_25_-_BL.jpg: where is the CC0 tag coming from? Don't see it at the source site
  • File:Christmascarol1843_--_184.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:JohnLeechHimself.jpg, File:Christmascarol1843_--_137.jpg
  • File:Francis_Alexander_-_Charles_Dickens_1842.jpeg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • Scrooge_or_Marley's_Ghost_(1901)_-_yt.webm: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Always one of my favourites, though I have sometimes thought the "before" Scrooge much more interesting than the "after" ... but to business.

  • "Most critics reviewed the novella positively." I might say favourably rather than positively.
  • "Dickens took action against the publishers" I would say "legal" before "action"
  • "much longer than Marley's chains." I might say "much heavier than Marley's burden". Marley says "weight and length".
  • Stave 2: It might be worth mentioning that Fred is the deceased Fan's son.
  • "The boyhood scenes portray Scrooge's lonely childhood," I might say "reveal" rather than "portray"
  • "Finally, they visit a now-married Belle with her large, happy family on a recent Christmas Eve." The point is not particularly seeing Belle. It is that Belle is hearing about Scrooge, more or less as he has become, with Marley lying on his deathbed. Seeing and hearing this nearly breaks Scrooge and possibly it is worthy of a bit more detail.
  • Will look at this point again shortly - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Added a little more colour and tweaked slightly to show the meaning. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Sobbing, Scrooge pledges to the ghost that he will change his ways to avoid this outcome." I would change the final word to "fate".
  • "He spends the day with Fred's family" Well, the afternoon. He goes to church first.
  • "Marshalsea" more usual with "the" before it?
  • Do your sources say whether Dickens translated the Christmas in Pickwick to A Christmas Carol?
  • Will check - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Now clarified - it's one of several influences. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you are consistent with whether you put a dot after "Mr" and "Dr".
  • "until 1870 (the year of his death), when it provided the material for his farewell performance.[87]" Hopefully not as Marley. Could this be clarified a bit?
  • Will do shortly - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Clarified (I hope). - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Can more be said about how A Christmas Carol has been interpreted by scholars in more modern times?
  • I'll go over the material again. I was surprised by the seeming lack of good critique (outside what we've already got here). There were a couple of others I didn't include as their points were the ones already covered by better sources already used, but I'll comb through once again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
That's it for now. I'm still looking for my Dickens references and may have a few more comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Wehwalt. All the straightforward ones done, and I'll go over the sources on a few of the other points you've raised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Could you ping me when you are ready for me to take another look?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do - should be tomorrow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Wehwalt, all done, I think. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support All looks good. Improved since I viewed it last.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged to the trouble you've gone to. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

A pleasant surprise to find this article here. I had no idea it was on its way. Happy to support: it is most readable, is comprehensive, well referenced and splendidly illustrated. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • Links
    • There are a few words and phrases that I shouldn't have blue linked (clerk, ghost, fundraising, English literature) but these things are to some extent a matter of personal judgment, and I don't press the point.
I've left "clerk", as it may not be as common nowadays (particularly outside the UK) than it was, but I've trimmed the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Stave two
    • I haven't read the book for about fifty years, so please forgive what may be a silly question: "a lonely childhood" but "his relationship with his beloved sister" – aren't they mutually exclusive?
He had been sent away to school. Fan comes to get him on Christmas Eve, when he is alone at the school, to take him home and promise he will not be sent again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added that he was at boarding school by way of clarification. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Characters
    • I really don't think I'd label Carlyle a "Chartist philosopher". I can think of many adjectives for the old buzzard, but Chartist wouldn't be high on my list. His 1840 tract is by no means unambiguously pro-Chartist, containing both radical and reactionary aspects.
  • Publication
    • A tiny MoS point: I'm almost certain the MoS bids us put references outside closing brackets, and not inside.
  • Reception
    • The reviewer from The Illustrated London News – unexpected preposition. "in" would be more likely, I think.
  • Legacy
    • zeitgeist of the age – tautological, perhaps?

That's all from me. I find I haven't actually got a copy of the book on my shelves, and the article inspires me to buy one tomorrow – what higher praise can there be? – Tim riley talk 09:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All your points addressed as per your suggestions. You really should buy it - it's a great story that is worth re-reading, and although the prose is a little flowery on occasions, it's all in the right spirit. (and sorry for that pun!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

Support. Great article. I made a few minor tweaks and I approve those made as a result of comments above. Easily meets the criteria. Well done. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Ceoil

Mostly concerned about reliance on cliche and in "in universe" phrasing. But impressed overall, and expect to support, eventually. Editing a bit as I go, if that's ok with the nomitator. I can't say in good faith that the page is pitched where I would like a work of fiction to be pre nomination, but its close enough to anticipate support. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've re-worked some of the changes, as the meaning was altered from the original, and one or two clichés were added(!) that are now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries man, and thanks. To say, the article is a most enjoyable read; very well done. Ceoil (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much, and thanks for your changes too. I've left most of them in there - it was only a few small points I've changed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Moving to support now that I've read the whole thing. To be clear, my comment re cliché was wrt to the plot section, which given our familiarity with this story would be damn hard to avoid. Most of my tweaks were to this section; the rest of the article is just fine. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

The expected high quality prose and content. A few comments for consideration below.

  • "The treatment of the poor and the ability of a self-interested man redeeming himself by transforming into a more sympathetic character" - two thoughts here. Would "the ability of a self-interested man to redeem himself" flow slightly better? And while "self-interested" is entirely right, would "self-centred", or indeed "selfish" be a little clearer as to meaning?
Plot - Stave 1
  • ""A Christmas Carol" opens on a bleak, cold Christmas Eve in London" - here the title is in quotes, elsewhere italicised. I think I prefer A Christmas Carol.
Plot - Stave 2
  • "his relationship with his beloved sister Fan" - do we need consistency on Fan or Fran? It's the former here, the latter in the para. above. Unless, of course, it's used interchangeably in the novella?
  • "Scrooge's neglected fiancée Belle is show ending their relationship" - "shown".
Plot - Stave 3
  • "a joyous market of people buying the makings of Christmas dinner and celebrations of Christmas in a miner's cottage and in a lighthouse" - suggest "a joyous market with people buying the makings of Christmas dinner and to celebrations of Christmas in a miner's cottage and in a lighthouse".
  • "sales were disappointing and he faced financial difficulties. By this time he was a well-established author, having written six major works". I'm sure Ackroyd is right, but this confused me a little. He's facing financial difficulties but is a well-established author with six major works under his belt. That seems contradictory. No idea what to suggest, however, except maybe to flip the two sentences and add a waiver, e.g. "By the end of 1842 Dickens was a well-established author, having written six major works, as well as several short stories, novellas and other works. In December of that year he began publishing his novel Martin Chuzzlewit as a monthly serial; the novel was his favourite work, but sales were disappointing and he faced temporary financial difficulties."
  • "For the chained Marley, Dickens drew on him memory of a visit to the Western Penitentiary" - "his".
  • "a protean figure always in process of reformation" - is "protean" worth a link? The lead of that article does carry an explanation of the meaning.
  • "Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol because of how British social policy treated children at the time and wished to..." - not fond of "because of how". Perhaps, "in response to British social attitudes towards poverty, particularly child poverty, and wished to..."?
  • Note 11 - "In 1875 Mitton sold the manuscript to the bookseller Francis Harvey – reportedly for £50 (equal to £4,300 in 2018 pounds " - the equivalence starts with a bracket but ends with a hyphen.
  • "Dickens sued on the cases of copyright infringement and won" - "for copyright infringement"?
  • "these were secular conversion tales which reflected the societal changes of the previous year, and which social problems still needed to be dealt with" - not quite sure what this is trying to say, particularly the latter part. Perhaps something like, "these were secular conversion tales which acknowledged the progressive societal changes of the previous year, and highlighted those social problems which still needed to be addressed"?

Excellent coverage of a much-loved book. The above are, mainly, suggestions only and can be rejected at will. Very happy to Support once you've had a chance to consider them. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

    • Many thanks KJP1. All addressed, mostly as per your suggestions, with one exception. All much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I studied Eng Lit and Dickens as minor courses during my first two years at college, so am somewhat familiar with the sources, and have no issues with those used here. Have trawlled through the formatting and not seeing any inconsistencies. SchroCat is a long term and trusted editor, not seeing a need for spot checking. Ceoil (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Ceoil – your input is appreciated once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

SMS Wettin

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Another entry in the battleships of Germany series, this ship had a fairly uneventful career, as far as these things go. Obsolescent by the outbreak of World War I, the ship spent the first year in the Baltic Sea but she saw no action against the Russian fleet. By late 1915, the Germans were having serious crew shortages, so older ships like Wettin were removed from active service to free up men for more important activities. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "The exercises concluded on 12 September ... concluded": Avoid concluded ... concluded. You could drop this first sentence entirely if you like.
    • Cut most of the first sentence and merged the date into the preceding one.
  • "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July, for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet." I don't know what "until 20 July" means here.
    • That got changed by a copyedit during the A-class review - don't know why they did that.
  • "In consequence of the British visit, the 1905 autumn maneuvers were shortened considerably. It consisted of exercises in the North Sea from 6 to 13 September.": Something doesn't sound right.
    • See if how I reworded it works for you.
  • "{{illm|Kopparstenarna|sv|Kopparstenarna}}": Either a stub or a red link would work, preferably a stub. Same goes for Schilksee.
    • Is there a reason not to use the interlanguage link?
      • Would you rather have that discussion in this review or somewhere else? - Dank (push to talk)
        • I've created stubs for both locations. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 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) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

I reviewed this at Milhist A-Class earlier this year and had precious little to quibble about then. A few comments:

  • Imperial Diet as a translation of Reichstag doesn't work for me, I would have thought parliament was the common term? You use parliament later.
  • link ceremonial ship launching
    • Done
  • "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July"? on?
    • Fixed above, per Dan's comment - this was something that got garbled during a copyedit.
  • drop the comma from "cruiser, Danzig"
    • Fixed.

That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources are of high quality and reliable, standard reference works on German WWI and WWII warships. No formatting issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SMS Wettin NH 47897.jpg - looks good, though the caption does not use a hyphen for Wittelsbach class when the main article does. Also, does line drawing need a hyphen? "Line-drawing of the Wittelsbach class"
    • I think you're referring to the hyphen for the image below, not this one. The hyphen is used when "Wittelsbach" and "class" form a compound adjective (meaning, "Wittelsbach-class" is an adjective that describes "battleship"), not when "Wittelsbach" is an adjective describing the noun "class". Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • English is a tricky one. You are right, I meant for the below, and sounds good. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Wittelsbach class linedrawing.png - what is the source country and reason that this cannot be PD there?
    • Brassey's was published in the UK, and we'd need to know the name of the illustrator and when he died to know it's PD there. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you include the page number in the source? Just wanted to do a sanity check that the illustrator is unknown. Used up all my phone data trying to find it (my fault). Kees08 (Talk)
        • It's there already - Plate 40 - Brassey's doesn't number the line-drawing pages in sequence with the rest of the work. They're in the end of Section II (after page 345). Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Europe 1911.jpg - looks good

Let me know on the second one. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, would you be able to add alt text? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Lead, criterion 1a:

  • "She was built by Schichau Seebeckwerft, in Danzig."—Such a short sentence: is the comma necessary?
    • No, removed
  • "Wettin was laid down in October 1899, and completed October 1902."—Elliding "was" doesn't work here: "and Wettin completed ..." was my first parsing, and I had to reverse back then. Again, is the comma necessary?
    • I have repeatedly been told that repeating the helping verb in constructions like this was not necessary (or had other copyeditors remove it, as with Dan in another article), and now you're telling me the opposite.
      • Don't you see the momentary ambiguity? I spelt it out above. It's not a "helping" verb. You need to insert it. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Her sister ships were Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg. They were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)."—Let's take advantage of the nice short sentences to merge two: "Her sister ships—Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg—were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)." You just mentioned four ships. Which one is "The ship" in the last sentence?
    • Done, that works for me.
  • "the majority of her career"—you're not counting numbers here, so why not "most of"?
    • Works for me.
  • "The training exercises conducted during this period provided ..." — this period is "most of her career", is it? And I presume that "most of" is co-extensive with the "extensive annual training". Given that, why not just: "The training exercises provided ..."?
    • Sure
  • "The ship was decommissioned in June 1911 as newer dreadnought battleships began to enter service but was reactivated for duty as a gunnery training ship between ..." — I'm not an expert, so you're writing for my type. I suddenly thought "newer" meant that Wettin was a dreadnought. You see the problem? It was a "pre-dreadnought", I had to cast back to see at the top. Would it work without "newer"?
    • I suppose, though I don't read it that way.
      • Obviously you didn't "read it that way", or you'd not have written it thus. You need to write for readers, not yourself. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships, like Wettin, from active service." The sentence isn't so long that you're looking for optional comma opportunities. Would it flow more smoothly without them?
    • Those were introduced during a copyedit by another editor. I preferred it without them, TBH.
  • "The ship was stricken from the navy list"—should it be "struck"?
    • I think "stricken" is correct in this sense - see, for instance, this. It's also commonly used, for example here, here, and here.
  • I'm done fighting MilHist about the use of the female for ships, so I'll have to endure this. But it's THICK with "she" and "her". Any opportunities to substitute with "Wettin", "the ship", etc would be welcome. Here's one ... I've substituted the first word and ellided the second "she": "Wettin saw limited duty in the Baltic Sea, including the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August 1915, though saw no combat with Russian forces." Concerning that sentence: it's pulling in opposite directions: "limited", then "including"—I don't know how to fix it, or whether it's possible, so no big deal. Do you feel that positive–negative tension too?
    • See if how I reworded that works for you.

To start with, audit comma usage (your writing needs to focus on this ... look at sentence lengths and existing density of commas ... look at the rhythm ... say it in your mind's voice ... ensure no ambiguity whatever your comma choices). Less of a problem, but do check your back-refs are unambiguous (she, it, which, they, her, them, etc). Topic is a bit grey (this happened, then that happened, then ...), and almost bereft of any personal aspect ... or drama. I suppose the sources don't provide scope for that, and it's not an FAC criterion.

Is the rest of the text better-written than the lead? I'm not happy with this. You're a significant editor in this field, so I'd like to see you attend to some technical things in your writing. Tony (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

When I rewrote the article, I didn't pay enough attention to the lead - I should hope the rest is better. I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective (seeing as other copy-editors disagree - as is apparently the case with your second point - not to mention the comma issue, which was to some extent introduced during the copy-edit that was done as part of the Milhist A-class review). I suspect we won't always all be happy with a given piece of prose, but I do appreciate your help in tightening things up. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective"—playing reviewers and people you call "copy-editors" off against each other never works well. It's a put-down. I point out technical issues, so I doin't react well being told that it's just my opinion. I'm not supporting at the moment. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not playing reviewers off each other, I'm just pointing out that you appear to be criticizing based on your own opinions. You think one thing, others think other things – that's life, move on. And for someone complaining about put-downs and not reacting well to being told something is just your opinion, I suggest you re-read some of the things you've said in this review. I've been writing FAs for a decade, I don't need condescending lectures. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything that drops from my lips is my opinion. Goodness, this is like the old days, 2005–07, when nominators were routinely rude to reviewers. I see you're an admin, which suggests that you're used to pushing editors around and getting away with it. And clearly you don't like criticism of your writing. Please don't bring that behaviour here. Let's do some spot-checks a little further down, where you claim to have paid more "attention" to the writing.

  • "After the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) ordered the four Brandenburg-class battleships in 1889, a combination of budgetary constraints, opposition in the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), and a lack of a coherent fleet plan delayed the acquisition of further battleships."—It's a long, winding sentence. Consider dropping "the" before "acquisition", which would trim just a little and work nicely.
  • "The law authorized the last two ships of the class, as well as the five ships of the Wittelsbach class, the first class of battleship built under Tirpitz's tenure."—authorized what? Their launching? Their crewing? Their design? Their funding? Their construction? "Built" occurs late and doesn't really clarify what the first proposition is about. The specs are well-handled.
  • "under construction number 676. She was ordered under the contract name "D", as a new unit for the fleet."—I hope this means something to all naval historians, and isn't jargon imported from early-20th-century Germany that is rather exclusive. It could almost be footnoted, but that's up to you.
  • Another possible simplification (please look for these opportunities throughout): "In August 1902, a crew of 60 men took the ship to Kiel for sea trials, which were supervised by KAdm Hunold von Ahlefeld."
  • "concluded with cruises"—c c ... consider the simpler, more germanic "ended with cruises".
  • "while the other units went to other ports"—I can't see how to avoid other other. But you might have a way.
  • Caption: "Map of the North and Baltic Seas in 1911". We might write that in 2050 after climate change has raised sea levels, but not at this time.

Oppose for 1a. To make it worse, the nominator is continually rude and appears to be unwilling to cooperate on improving the prose. Tony (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I don't think further interaction here is going to be productive. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you take your staggering lack of self-awareness somewhere else? I'm rather unhappy that this FAC has gotten derailed by your seeming inability to interact in a collegial manner. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Guys can we try and take things down a notch? Nate, I value Tony's recent re-engagement with the FAC process -- we've all probably become a little complacent in our writing because editors with his eye for detail haven't routinely been reviewing our noms, so the way he challenges us on prose can be a shock to the system. It's not meant to be personal -- I've talked to Tony at several meet-ups and it's not his way. I include myself when it comes to possible complacency, and I look forward (albeit with a certain trepidation!) to him giving my prose the once-over next time I nominate an article here. BTW Tony, I've worked with Parsecboy since forever at MilHist, and I've never seen him unduly throw his weight around as an admin. I hope we can just focus on article assessment and improvement, which is why we're here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with my writing being challenged - what I do have a problem with is someone complaining about me being "continually rude" (when I haven't been) while at the same time being incredibly condescending and insulting. If Tony wants to collapse all this and start over, I'm fine with that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is you don't seem to realise how not to annoy (and insult) reviewers; some introspection would be helpful, but I don't want to know about it. To turn the tables, I don't like to see such a skilled Wikipedian who has worked so hard on a piece feeling upset—that is contrary to the purpose of the FAC process. Your contributions to milhist are admirable. Tony (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Clikity's comments I'm just jotting down some things as I edit

  • Be careful with the passive voice. This is why I was attracted to this article when I read the lead. I had to fix a few errors there. If you look at my edits I changed the part mentioning Operation Wessrubung due to the passive voice.
  • Try to be detailed in as few words as possible. In the article it used to say: "After the operation the ship was again given secondary duties..." Again isn't really necessary. Also in "After the conclusion of...", you don't really "the conclusion of".

National Front (UK)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a fascist party that reached its apogee in Britain during the 1970s, at which point it gained the country's fourth-largest vote share and contributed to a broader shift to the political right under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government in the 1980s. Over the past year I have brought other articles on British fascism (John Tyndall (politician)) and British politics more broadly (Referendum Party) to FA status and it would be nice if this article, currently a GA, could join them. With the issue of far-right resurgence a particular hot topic both in Europe and the United States, it is important that our coverage of the subject is improved here at Wikipedia, and hopefully this FAC shall contribute to that end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't
  • I've gone through the article and ensured that those that require periods have got them and that those which don't, don't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg: the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just what is depicted, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. This needs a different tag and stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several bare URLs in the reference list
  • Those appear to have been added since I launched this FAC. I'll look into fixing that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Formatting of FN127 doesn't match other sources
  • Fn128: don't repeat publisher as author
  • Per WP:LAYOUT Further reading is generally an independent section not a subsection
  • Jackson 2011 appears to have a second author not listed here
  • I double checked the source. Jackson is the only author of the report, although a Matthew Feldman has written a two-page "Introduction" (more a foreword); hence, Feldman is given as a co-author at the University of Northampton's website, but should not really be considered such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Walker 1977 a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It is an in-depth journalistic account of the NF based on considerable fieldwork and interviews with members. Although Walker was not himself sympathetic to the NF, his book is actually far less sensationalistic and overtly biased than much of the journalism on far-right topics that we see today. Attesting to the book's reliability, it has repeatedly been cited in academic studies of the NF and far-right in Britain more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

In general, seems in good shape, though quite long. Through the end of History, (so to speak)

  • "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the NF has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists." Isn't this a repetition of your opening sentence?
  • This is true, but I think it is a point that warrants repetition. This sentence also offers the added information that some political scientists regard it as "neo-fascist" rather than simply "fascist", which is not something that I think could be fitted into the opening sentence without the result looking rather clunky. We have the same lede structure at articles like British National Party, English Defence League, and UK Independence Party. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The article and the lead are really long - I think the sentence can be left out of the lead. There is no mention of a distinction between far- and extreme-right in the body of text and aren't they automatically neo-fascist by virtue of their postwar status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The NF generated much opposition from left-wing and anti-fascist groups throughout its history," Shouldn't this be "has generated" given it is still ongoing?
  • Again true, and I'll make the change accordingly. Part of the issue here is that the NF has really ceased to be a significant political player since the early 1980s and thus the vast majority of academic and journalistic material that discusses it focuses on the period before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the arguments over the location of the party headquarters necessary in such a long article?
  • Perhaps they aren't crucial, but they only take up three short sentences that are part of one paragraph, so I don't think that we're overdoing it here. Including mention of this argument helps to underscore the differences within the party at that time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and in spring 1969 assaulted two Labour Party ministers at a public meeting, thus accruing a reputation for rowdiness.[48]" rowdiness seems a light term, but perhaps it's my American English.
  • I'm not able to double-check at present, but I have a feeling that "rowdiness" might have been the word used in the source given. I could perhaps go with "disruptive behaviour" or "disruptiveness" instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the paragraph beginning "The NF capitalised", there are a number of sentences beginning "In the XXX election". I might vary the phrasing a bit.
  • Agreed. I've made various changes here to diversify the use of language a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "After a resurgence in fortunes for the party in London at the 1977 GLC election—where they improved on their October 1974 general election result—it planned further marches in the city.[87] " I might use commas, but also you seem to refer to the party with both "they" and "it".
  • I've added the commas in place of the dashes and have ensured that "it" is used consistently in place of "they". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "that had previously gone to the NF.[92] NF membership had also declined," back to back NFs.
  • I've changed the first instance of "NF" to "Front". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "This party then contested the general elections in 1997 and 2001, but made little impact in either.[119] " I might cut "then".

More later, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Your comments are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "although previous fascist parties—including the British Union of Fascists, the German Nazi Party, and the Italian National Fascist Party—also took part in elections, rendering this argument obsolete.[135] " the last part seems a bit opiniony and may need to be sourced inline.
  • A very fair point. I've altered the prose to make it very clear that this is the political scientist Stan Taylor's opinion. This will therefore be the first mention of Taylor in the text, so I have also trimmed back what is now the second mention of him to avoid duplication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands cautioned against attempts to understand the National Front through comparisons with Italian Fascism or German Nazism as they existed when they were in power because it remained without political office.[142] " Possibly this whole sentence should be divided. I imagine "it" refers to the NF?
  • I've divided this sentence in two, as you suggest. I've also tinkered with the prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of the NF's history, it has contained various different factions, often with distinct ideological positions. From the party's early days until the Tyndall/Webster split in 1980, the NF's ideology and propaganda output was dominated by the ex-GBM faction.[7] According to Wilkinson, theirs was a leadership "deeply imbued with Nazi ideas"" Are you treating National Front as a plural noun in the British fashion that takes the plural form? This passage looks inconsistent on that point. Similarly, in the last paragraph of this subsection, "faction" seems to be referred to both as "it" and "they
  • I'll strip out the use of plural nouns here and stick with "it". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and argued that different races can be ranked on a hierarchy based on their differing abilities.[163]" I might cut the word "their" to avoid having it look like we're saying different races have different abilities.
  • ""negroes... are not fitted to go to white schools or to live in white society".[109] " shouldn't there be a non-breaking space before the ellipsis?
  • "and that black workers prevents unemployed whites getting jobs.[211] " Doesn't seem grammatical. And shouldn't it be past tense?
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "and that the employment of black workers left many white workers unemployed." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Anti-semitism: this section is expressed in the past tense, unlike earlier sections on the NF's views, but there's nothing that says they've changed their position, so I don't see why this is in the past tense.
  • I've switched most of the sentences to present tense. This is a recurring issue with this article, I fear, due to the fact that the vast majority of published sources discuss the NF as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s rather than dealing with its present day, much denuded form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The word "claim" and its forms are overused in the first few sentences of "Government and the State"
  • I've replaced two of the three instances in which it is used at that juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "that the British Army should replace rubber bullets with lead ones," I might say "real" instead of "lead". Just preference.
  • I'm not sure "real" is the right term here (after all, "rubber bullets" are still "real", as opposed to imaginary), but I'll change this to "metal" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " In 1978 it issued a leaflet, How to Spot a Red Teacher, to school pupils.[307]" I don't like the way the title is in the middle, with "to school pupils" at the end.
  • I've changed this to: "In 1978 it issued a leaflet to school pupils, How to Spot a Red Teacher." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "by ensuring that all those capable of working do so rather than subsiding on unemployment benefits.[277]" I think you mean subsisting, not subsiding.
  • "The NF was not eager to publicise how many branches active across the UK.[327] " I would suppose that something like "how many branches were active across the UK" or something similar but perhaps it is just my American English.
  • It's not your American English, it's a silly error! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Through Security section.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the most I'm going to be able to do. Two bits of advice:
First, I think you do need to update the antisemitism section, you should have sources on the present position if you are going to detail the past position. I don't think you can source a statement that a party is antisemitic to a 1978 source.
Second is a question of tone. Passages such as "During the 1970s, the NF's propaganda regularly presented black people in Britain as a source of crime.[217] This anti-immigrant discourse was similar to that employed against the recently arrived Ashkenazi Jewish community in the late nineteenth century and also echoed the response to gypsies and Huguenots in seventeenth-century England.[218]" There's an extent to which this lends itself to WP:SYNTH because you are equating with a known evil without your establishing a connection between the two--"similar to" is a slender reed. And there's a fair number of zingers that end paragraphs or section, for example, "This literature referred to areas with large African and Asian communities as being "immigrant-infested", a use of language comparing non-white migrants to vermin.[189]" What they say is fair game, but I think you're pounding it into the table there. The reader is as capable of you or I of deciding the NF are a nasty group without needing to be persuaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I will try get back to this, but I don't have time right now to do a full review due to travel. If it closes before I finish, I'll add comments at the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by slatersteven

I would rather sources that are 30 years (or more) old are not used to source current statements. They may not have changed their stance, but we also have nothing to say they have not, and a lot can happen in 30 years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: This is arising from my recent alteration of the "anti-Semitism" section", where I switched the past tense text to present tense on the basis of your suggestion. Slatersteven reverted my changes, and has provided this comment to explain their decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't read the sources. If the sources won't support my suggestions, that's an acceptable reason not to change the text. You've read the sources and I have not. My suggestions are editorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Lead, 1a:

  • Do we need to be told that 1967 was "51 years ago", and do we need to have red, white, and blue colours displayed (and linked, for some reason)?
  • I don't really know why the red, white, and blue colour boxes are in there (certainly not my addition), and I would not really object to their removal however it does seem that the use of such colour boxes is very widespread in political party articles (Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK), Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States)) so any removal is likely to be met with re-addition at some point. As for the gadget we have that tells the reader how long ago the party was formed, I would personally favour its retention. Again, we see it widely used on political party articles, and I think that it likely saves readers a minute or so of their time should they wish to calculate how long the party has been in existence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This is where we judge article excellence, for possible promotion. Bad practice in a set of other articles isn't a strong argument. The infobox is more effective for readers if clutter by redundant info and gaudy colours is removed. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it useful to link "London" in this context?
  • I thought the general rule of thumb was to not link countries but to link cities and anything smaller. However, on this count I don't really mind either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The general rule is not to link when every eight-year-old on the planet knows what the word refers to. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "fourth largest party"—something is missing.
  • We currently have "the UK's fourth largest party in terms of vote share." I don't mind rewording it, but I'm not really sure how that could best be achieved. "the party with the UK's fourth largest vote share", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hyphens required in both. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "regarding"—would "about" be plainer, simpler?
  • "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, while the National Front's electoral support deteriorated heavily." It's uncertain from the wording whether these two propositions are causally connected. Unsure "heavily" is the best epithet.
  • How about "substantially" in place of "heavily"? Or "significantly"? As for reflecting the impact of causality, how about "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, contributing to a substantial decline in the Front's electoral support"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Much better. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous: "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics". Is it an equative "or"? (also known as the far-right)? Does it mean extreme right or just the extreme of Br politics? Why not drop "extreme or"?
  • Yes, it is an equative "or" in this case. I'm cautious about dropping "extreme or" because later in the article the NF gets described as "extreme right". I'll expand the prose at this juncture to refer to "the extreme-right or far-right of British politics"; do you think that this does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Or use commas: "on the extreme-, or far-right, of". You need the first, hanging comma, from what you say. Or: "on the extreme right (far-right) of". Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom"—isn't this central enough to the ideology to add "racist" to the opening sentence? Tony (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure on this point. They are racist, that's certain, but "racism" perhaps is not a fair description of their ideology in the way that "fascism" is. I'm cautious about the opening sentence getting too long with descriptive words; if we add "racist", then an equally valid case could be made for adding "anti-Semitic", "white supremacist", and so on. I also think that the term "racist" is perhaps a bit vague to be used at this point. The racism of the National Front is, for instance, very different from the racism of a white liberal or socialist who might act in a patronising but well-meaning manner to a person of colour; both can be construed as "racism", but they are referring to very different things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the lede, Tony. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Interesting topic. Notes below....

  • After the BNP, the NF has been the most successful extreme-right group in British politics since the Second World War. - isn't UKIP far right?

:*Not by the reckoning of political scientists (at least, not thus far - the party could always shift its ideology). UKIP has always been more closely akin to the right-wing end of the Conservatives than to the BUF, NF, or BNP; Thatcherite rather than fascist, basically. It spends a great deal of time calling for drastic cuts to the levels of immigration but does not oppose immigration (non-white or otherwise) on principle and certainly does not call for non-white Britons to have their citizenship revoked followed by deportation. Economically, it's all for free markets and privatisation rather than for the national-oriented economic protectionism that typifies the British far-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Contravening his earlier commitment to keep him out, Chesterton welcomed Tyndall into the party - he can't really contravene himself. i'd say "Going back on" or "Ignoring" or something
  • A leadership election produced a strong mandate for Chesterton and his challengers left the party - wasn't it just that he won? Or did they specfically vote on policies as well?
  • In the 1979 general election, the NF mounted the largest challenge of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918 - what does this mean?
  • It refers to the number of seats that they were contesting. I'll make that clearer in the prose: "

In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is very large - having read through it, I get the impression some material is repeated, but I need to go back and check. It is an interesting read though. More tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance - I think this sentence can be removed or merged with the one following.
    • Side comment: Cas, I agree because as an exposed introductory proposition it raises the question of what "permissive" is (it's undefined in the text). Some readers might ask "what behaviour is permitted, and what isn't, in the eyes of the NF?" I do like the "what it perceived as" in the next sentence (the one you're suggesting might open the section). May I also suggest, along the same lines of NPOV, that "regeneration" be in quotes? Tony (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Red-capped parrot

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Another bird article. This time alot of help from @Cygnis insignis:, which has been much appreciated. As has the GA review. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Nice to see a bird again. First comments below:

  • The red-capped parrot was first described by German naturalist Heinrich Kuhl as Psittacus spurius in 1820,[3] from an immature specimen collected in Albany – sounds a bit as this would be the only specimen available to him, but he surely must have seen live ones.
not necessarily. many of the bird species of this era were described in Europe from a single skin or drawing and limited information Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but from the next sentence it follows that he must have had at least a second specimen to compare with, as he was comparing juveniles with adults? This is what got me confused. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see your point. Will see what else there is explainng that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
A mystery! I was wondering the same from the start of my research, the spurius epithet is comparative. It is possible that Kuhl saw another specimen in England, or there are notes from Baudin's expedition, but no one has stated that. It is worth noting the region had no English settlement, collections and information would be rarer than from the east of Australia (Port Jackson).cygnis insignis 11:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Gould also gave blue parrot as the name given in the new colony. – Wording seems a bit convoluted.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • other vernacular names include: pileated parrot, derived from the old epithet pileatus and formerly used in aviculture; western king parrot, distinguishing it from the Australian king parrot (Alisterus scapularis) occurring in the east; purple-crowned parrot, grey parrot, or hookbill for the distinctive upper mandible. – This is a bit difficult to read, especially the last part, where the separate names are no longer separated by a semicolon.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, vernacular names are put in quotation marks, and sometimes not. I would find it easier to read if all were put in quotation marks.
ideally all words as names-as-names would be in italics but this would be confusing with scientific names. Have put them in quotation marks now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • English artist Edward Lear illustrated the live specimen in his 1830 work – Is this referring to the specimen mentioned in the previous sentence?
yes, hence the "the" there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably this is just because of my incomplete understanding of English, but was the specimen really a living, captive one, or was it just illustrated in life pose? If the former, I would mention that in the previous sentence already to make it clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I recently added 'living specimen', which is surprising though plausible. The full title of Lear's work states they are drawn from life, and this apparent in the realism of the posture and so on, but I needed a secondary reference to support the assertion that the subject was a living bird. cygnis insignis 00:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If you are sure that this was a living specimen, I would state that already in the previous sentence, otherwise it is confusing as the reader would first assume that the specimen is a dead one. If you are not sure, it might be better to remove this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that Vigors saw living specimens. I can provide a citation that Lear sketched a living bird, in England, and believe that is evident from the illustration. The use of references is in accordance with what I know so far, as I'm not a 'sky is blue' contributor. I feel that I can only improve this when the refs support what I assume, but I am not steering this article and will concede to a different view.cygnis insignis 12:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • have been recorded at: Perth, Djar-rail-bur-tong and Djarrybarldung; King George Sound, Jul-u-up; Stirling Range, Chelyup; and Southwest, Djalyup – as above, the sentence structure was not immediately obvious to me, reading flow is not optimal here.
Me again, I think the italic helped, but I awkwardly tried to compress this information. No objection to expanding this sentence. cygnis insignis 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A recommended orthography and pronunciation list of Nyungar names has proposed daryl [char’rill], djarrailboordang [cha’rail’bore’dang], and djayop [cha’awp]. – Unclear to me: Is this repeating names mentioned previously, with other orthography (if so, what is the other based on)? Is this about how to pronounce the names?
Workers have begun using that list for names, I added this after giving Serventy's note from the mid-20C. The orthography and pronunciation list is generally accepted, but not as widely cited as Serventy and Whittell. I added both, but it is the Captain's choice to subtract or merge. cygnis insignis 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the Taxonomy section, you write "red-capped parakeet" instead of "red-capped parrot", which is slightly confusing.
I prefaced it with a note on the official name to give it context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would link "crown" in the description part. Also other terms such as "lore", and many others.
ok, I linked a bunch, but do you think bill should be linked or too obvious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In March and April, the crown feathers and ear coverts of birds with new plumage can have fine black edging. – But they moult in summer and autumn?
Yes, It's the the southern hemisphere - I clarified thusly

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How could I forget about that … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
[off-topic comment: hegemony? :–) People in the 'South' always have to convert seasons to months to understand texts, Northerners can presume without context. ] cygnis insignis 01:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • white spots on ten or fewer wing feathers are male – so its the opposite as in adults, where only females have the white spots? Or is this about a different kind of spots? Are they on the upper side or on the underside?
ok, females have white spots on undersides of wings. males don't BUT some immature males do have a few spots. Juveniles have lots of spots, but males have fewer than females.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the first para of the description, the iris and bill description is somehow sandwiched between separate parts of the plumage description.
I had it there because it was near the other information about the head, but have moved it to the end now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I miss a description of the plumage coloration of the wings. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"Upperparts" generally includes wings, but I made it unambiguous just to make sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The nest site is a tree hollow, on average 9.6 m (31 ft) above the ground and often north or east-facing.[25] A site is selected at an older large tree, marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum or paperbark, at a height between 4.5 and 16 metres (15 and 52 ft). – "an older large tree, marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum or paperbark", but these are all trees? Maybe reformulate. Also, it might make sence to give the average height after the range, or otherwise combine the to bits.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A lower entrance, narrow with a larger hollow, recorded at 3 metres (9.8 ft) was considered exceptional.[40] There are often chew marks at the entrance,[23] which is 70–170 millimetres (2.8–6.7 in) wide. – Perhaps switch these two sentences, as it makes more sense to discuss the typical nests first?
But the outlier (in height) is placed directly after height is discussed in the previous sentence. So it follows on naturally. The next sentence about chew-marks is a different attribute Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The beak of this parrot allows more finesse to obtain seeds from a eucalypt's capsule, the tough case of marri is chewed through by the ringneck parrot or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species). – I don't fully understand why the other birds are mentioned here; is this thought to be a comparison of bill function?
the others are locally occurring psittacines that all eat the same gumnuts...but in different ways, highlighting the specialised adaptation of this parrot's beak. We can remove if too off-topic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Marri is a rich food source, but only for those birds that can efficiently extract them. The red-cap parrot and long-billed cockatoo have cracked this nut, and their population has risen and fallen with the changing distribution of marri. In short, this is about ecology, and I tried to shoehorn that into existing sections. cygnis insignis 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The fruit of other cultivated introductions are also selected, almond, nectarine, olive, peaches, plums, pomegranates, and white cedar (Melia azedarach). – Maybe add an "including"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The grass species, wild oats (Avena fatua), and acacia is grazed for green seed – Which grass species? If this isn't meant to be as specific, why not simply write "grasses"?
Wild oats is a species of grass, so I did this to reduce confusion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The information in the first paragraph of the "Feeding" section could be put into a better order. The information on feeding on cultivated fruits and introduced plants is given at different occasions; it might be better to discuss the original food sources first and than discuss feeding on things introduced by Europeans.
Rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • red gum's store of large seeds – What is red gum? Not mentioned previously, maybe add to the list of food plants?
Red gum is a synonym for marri (Corymbia calophylla), fixed now. cygnis insignis 01:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be because of historically high proportion of wild-caught birds entering aviculture. – But this is only the reason for its reputation for being anxious, and not that it is generally anxious in captivity (as in this case, the link makes less sense to me). Could be a little clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is probably the former Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – thanks for this nice piece. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Purpureicephalus_spurius_-Platycercus_pileatus_Red-capped_Parrakeet_-male_-by_Edward_Lear_1812-1888.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Here are some initial comments:

  • The "and" in the second sentence is a bit odd, but it's ok. I would still prefer that it be changed, possibly to "with".
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice to say that "Nesting takes place in tree hollows, generally of older large trees, as just saying "tree hollows" isn't very interesting. It also shows, to the keen eye, for example, how the simple planting of trees won't help. Thus, I think that it'd be a good fact to include in the lead.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "it has a bright crimson crown, green-yellow cheeks, and a distinctive long bill. The upperparts, wings and long tail are dark green

"; inconsistent usage of the Oxford comma.

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This really applies to the conservation section, but it'd be nice to state why the population is increasing. According to its IUCN account, it is because formerly unsuitable habitats are degrading to become its preferred habitat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The phrase "very different" appears odd in the sentence "The specific epithet spurius is the Latin adjective meaning "illegitimate", and refers to the very different adult and immature plumages (hence appearing unrelated)." Maybe say "notable differences between"?
changedf to "markedly different" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You say "Vigors' name was generally used until German naturalist Otto Finsch followed Kuhl in calling it Platycercus spurius in 1868", but didn't Kuhl place it in the genus Psittacus? And it seems that Kuhl died a year after describing it.
You are correct, thanks for reminding me. There is a couple of problems that emerged from two editors using different and occasionally erroneous sources. I will try to access HANZAB to untangle the taxonomy, if Cas does not get there first. cygnis insignis 03:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
what I meant was that the species name pileatus was mostly followed (with different generic combinations) until Finsch recognised spurius as taking precedence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you could say "The species name pileatus was generally used until German naturalist Otto Finsch followed Kuhl in using the specific name spurius, calling it Platycercus spurius in 1868." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all for now, but I'll leave more comments later. It's interesting so far! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • When you say "There is no known geographical variation; five birds from Esperance had smaller bills and tarsi, however the sample was too small to draw any conclusions", you do not mention what the birds from Esperance were compared to; previously collected samples in general, or perhaps birds from another specific locality? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I wrote this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit odd to say "The red-capped parrot was known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots, but relationships within the group were unclear", when we do seem to know that it is related to other broad-tailed parrots; perhaps say "The red-capped parrot is known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots, but relationships within the group were unclear before [date]." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The first "was" places the whole line in the past tense. Adding another past qualifier such as "before" or "previously" strikes me as tautological in this case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
But you shouldn't even have a "was", because it is related. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, I did this then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems like there should be a "the" before "red-capped parakeet" in the phrase "English ornithologist John Gould called it 'red-capped parakeet' in 1848 based on Vigors' scientific name". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I'd agree so rephrased it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The phrase "and Pizzey confirming in a 2012 birding guide" reads a bit odd; shouldn't it be "confirmed this" instead of simply "confirmed"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Good call, that might have been mine mangling of the sources. I had another go, here, but hope Cas reviews this change.cygnis insignis 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine now, but I think you should have kept "birding guide". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW [pers. com.], this confirms my interviews with W. Aust birdies: King=Red-cap.cygnis insignis 13:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The adult male has a crimson forehead and crown, which extends from the gape or base of the lower mandible through the eye, grey-brown lores, and green hindneck and cheeks, with more yellow green ear coverts", "with more yellow green ear coverts" is out of place. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Rejigged like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The last part of this sentence is a bit odd: "The upperparts (including the wings) are dark green, the rump yellow-green, the tail green with dark blue tip." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I added the missing word Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This phrase is pretty ambiguous: "The bill is pale grey-blue or blue-grey with a dark grey tip". First off, what's the difference between grey-blue and blue-grey? Second, does pale apply to both grey-blue and blue-grey (if there is a difference)? Third, does the "dark grey tip" only appear in bills that are blue-grey (again, if there is a difference between grey-blue and blue-grey)? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
grey-blue is supposedly more blue and blue-grey more grey. however this distinction is probably pretty arbitrary. Just left as blue-grey. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
"Iris dark brown; orbital rim grey; bill bluish grey or whitish grey with darker tip, upper mandible greatly elongated; legs grey." — Handbook of Western Australian birds [ref 40]
I still haven't seen HANZAB, but the above authority may allow some nuance in the description of the bill. The authors of handbooks and guides have different approaches to colour description, Serventy's Handbook (1948) says, "Iris, dark brown; beak, grey-horn with a bluish tinge, and the upper mandible greatly elongated; legs, light brown." — cygnis insignis 03:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Does "it" refer to the male or the female in the sentence "The colouring of the female resembles the male, though it is slightly duller in comparison"? Same thing for the other sentences in the paragraph. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked to remove the issue. I think it is obvous that the next two sentences refer to the female. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, looks good now. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the description section, you use both the plural and singular in reference to the adult bird; I think the singular should be for consistency. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
singularised as much as I can without sounding awkward Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The bill is more orange" than what? And how much more orange? Is the bill basically orange, or does it just have an orange tint? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The adult? My sources only suggest 'more than the greyishness of the adult', but Johnstone (Handbook, 1998) says, "Bill grey with yellow tip." for juv. and imm. Platycercus spurius. The article currently says, "The bill is more orange, but turns the pale blue-grey of adult birds by two to five months of age." As with the rest of the paragraph, the comparison is to the adult.cygnis insignis 03:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Saying "The juvenile plumage is greenish overall, developing the full colouration of the adult after the first year" and then, later, "Juvenile birds begin their first moult around August, and their subsequent plumage much more closely resembles that of adult birds" seems a bit redundant, and seems to indicate that the "full colouration of the adult" is not completely developed after the first year. Also, it seems to indicate that all birds, no matter if born at the end of the breeding season, moult around August. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I folded the text in like this to reduce redundancy. Source says moulting starts in august - no idea how this relates to birth time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph of the description section, all of the terms for different types of calls (ie contact call, begging call, etc) should probably be linked to the "call" entry in the birdgloss. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
linked to specific calls Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
sounded alright to me but google and you say otherwise. changed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The red-capped parrot occurs in the Southwest Australia ecoregion in dense to open forest and woodland, and heathland in coastal regions" reads pretty odd to me. First off, isn't woodland forest? This also appears in the second paragraph of the section. And second off, the comma before "and heathland" is a bit odd. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
See woodland - it has less tree cover. I have linked to it, but then should I link to forest or is that too obvious? The comma is to clarify that the occurrence in heathland is in coastal regions specifically, where as the other two aren't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you mean "extend" in the sentence "Records of the species extent inland from the southern coast, as far as Gingin and Mooliabeenee"? Also, shouldn't it be southwestern coast? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
yes/fixed. the coastline along the bottom of WA is the southern coast. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At least to me, "becoming sparser toward the inland boundary of its range" reads a bit odd. Maybe say "becoming sparser further inland"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I switched the two plantation types to avoid the reading 'pine gum': It generally avoids blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and pine plantations. The species of pine seems irrelevant, but it is notable that they do not, the introduction of blue gum and pine monocultures often replaces marri and other smart and adept birds visit them and tuck into pine cones. cygnis insignis 04:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried to fix this item, and the next one here cygnis insignis 05:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the sentence "A sighting at Benger Swamp wetland, a region rich in avian species, is also probable" mean that one is able to see this bird at Benger Swamp, or does it mean that there has been a possible record of this species here? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis added that and I think has had a go at tweaking it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "8–9", you should say "eight to nine", per MOS:SPELL09. IMO, you should also convert all of the en dashes to the word "to", but that's a stylistic choice, and it doesn't really matter if you do or don't. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
the 8-9 months is left as numbers as there is a 20 months just after. MOS also says better to be internally consistent here. I have changed some of the dashes, as I agree that "to/or" or some prose alternative works better in some places, but using it everywhere makes the prose look a little laboured to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
it is an important concept and so I'd never call that a boulevard! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You already mention the kind of trees this parrot needs to nest in, so saying "The nest site is a tree hollow generally in an older large tree, such as a marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum (Eucalyptus rudis) or paperbark (Melaleuca spp.)" seems a bit redundant; maybe merge this information and the rest of the sentence with the initial sentence mentioning nesting trees? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Umm, I can't see first mention - I list trees that live in the parrot's habitat but that does not necessarily mean it nests in them...(unless I am missing something?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
"The red-capped parrot needs mature trees large enough to have hollows in the trunk or branches." To me, this seems to clearly refer to nesting trees, as it mentions the possibility of having a hollow. If it doesn't refer to nesting trees, though, clarification is definitely needed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Saying "was considered exceptional" seems a bit odd in the sentence "A lower entrance, narrow with a larger hollow, recorded at 3 metres (10 ft) was considered exceptional." Isn't it still exceptional? And you should probably mention the author; maybe have the last part say "is considered exceptional by [author]." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Link clutch. Also, the sentence "The clutch of eggs is laid on wood dust at the bottom of the hollow, recorded at depths between 190 and 976 mm (7.5 and 38.4 in)" is a tidge ambiguous. Why don't you just mention the height of the hollow overall in a separate sentence; currently, you could interpret it as being measured from the bottom of the entrance. Also, if you included it in a separate sentence, you could mention how large the clutch is when you first mention it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Information on the incubation period is limited, but is between 20 and 24 days", you should probably say "it" before the second "is". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have said that line over a few times in my head with the "it" and it sounds really odd to me..but if there is a consensus I will change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The nestlings are nidicolous—as they remain in the nest initially, weighing 4–6 g (0.14–0.21 oz) at birth and gaining on average 4.1 g (0.14 oz) a day", you should probably remove the "as", and I think there should be a comma before and after "on average". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Saying "finesse" in the sentence "The beak of this parrot allows more finesse to obtain seeds from a eucalypt's capsule, the tough case of marri is chewed through by the ringneck parrot or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species)" sounds a bit odd. Also, shouldn't there by an "and" after the comma? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There are several ways to eat oysters, some do it with 'finesse'. The comparison has raised an eyebrow before and been scrutinised several times, I see that as my failure to convey what the sources keep mentioning. cygnis insignis 05:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I think its fine. But just don't use finesse, because (at least where I live) it has been adopted as a slang term. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I just checked the urban dictionary, the definitions are concordant with established usage, and I am at a loss to find a synonym that is certain to not be local slang for some type of mischief. Suggestions or edits to the term are welcome, because I thought it appropriate and am not being persuaded otherwise. — —cygnis insignis 15:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The urban dictionary definition is definitely correct, but what I'm saying is that I feel like there could be a more formal word for what you are describing. Perhaps say "dexterity"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Switched for 'precision' - 'dexterity' not the right word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At the start of the sentence "Records of feeding on acacia seed pods include Acacia celastrifolia, A. dentifera, A. oncinophylla and A. restiacea, which occur in its range, and stripping pods for small seed of cultivated Acacia merinthophora", why not just say "Acacia species where feeding by this bird on seed pods occurs include"? In its current state, it seems a bit odd to go into a list of species.
The intention is to list the local species of acacia it is known to feed on, and that one [reliable] record was of individuals harvesting seed from an introduced species. I suppose 'records' is weighting the integrity of the information, perhaps that is not necessary. cygnis insignis 05:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The end of the second paragraph of the feeding section does not have a citation, and the next paragraph is very short. Perhaps these should be merged? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
rejoined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just say "The red-capped parrot primarily feeds on the ground" instead of "Feeding is often observed on the ground" in the sentence "Feeding is often observed on the ground, clasping the capsule of eucalypts or cones of sheoak with one foot and extracting the seed with their slender hook"? Also, does "hook" refer to the beak or the other foot? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
the beak, clarifiyed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The dexterity they exhibit using foot and beak to dislodge seeds is also presented by long-billed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii), occurring in the same habitat, both are specialists in extracting the marri's store of large seeds" reads a bit odd. First off, shouldn't there by an "its" before "foot and beak"? And, why say "presented"; "shown" is much more simple". Also, there should be a "the" before "long-billed black cockatoo". Next, I personally would phrase the part of the sentence starting "occuring" as "with both occurring in the same [although maybe "similar" should be used here] habitat and being specialists in extracting the marri's store of large seeds." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
of the upper mandible - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


1a, lead:

  • "though genetic analysis shows that it lies within the lineage of the Psephotellus parrots and its closest relative is the mulga parrot (Psephotellus varius)."—Adding a second "that" would clarify that the second proposition is also from genetic analysis, not a general statement by the writer. We try to minimise "that", but it seems necessary here.
I did ponder a second "that" for here added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the key distinguishing feature being a white stripe on the wing undersurface that is not seen in her counterpart."—I was going to suggest removing "that is", but it doesn't fix the other problem: is it the wing undersurface that's not seen in males, or the white stripe? Probably the latter, but the wording is ambiguous. is the latter. I thought that would be obvious as males can fly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"… the key distinguishing feature *is* a white stripe on the wing under-surface that is not seen in her counterpart." current version
Slightly better, but how about:
"… the key distinguishing feature, a white stripe on the wing under-surface, is not seen in her counterpart."
I think that may be clearer. cygnis insignis 03:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Tony (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as flowers and berries, but it may also eat insects"—I'm being fussy: this is ambiguous. We don't know whether it also eats insects, or we know that sometimes this occurs, in some individuals, in some areas? I don't mean to clutter up the wording, but I don't know how to fix it.
My live suggestion is this with a further tweak here.cygnis insignis 04:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • it its it it: "Although the red-capped parrot has been shot as a pest and it has been affected by land clearing, its population is growing and it is considered to be a least-concern species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has a reputation of being anxious or difficult to breed in captivity." The first "it" could be removed. The second could be "the"? The third "it" refers to its growing population or the red-capped parrot (perhaps "and the species"?).
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "anxious or difficult to breed". I presume it's not B because of A. "and"? Unsure.
clearly related yes, causative? not clear.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks promising. I haven't read any more of it. Tony (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments (and questions) from Aa77zz

I haven't Higgins and I'm a long way from a suitable library.

  • At what age do red-capped parrots first breed?
pairing at 20 months - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • How long do red-capped parrots live?
Not sure, the ABBBS database has nothing really useful as their longest interval was under two years.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any notable behaviour involved in establishing the pair-bond?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the pair stay together from one year to the next?
evidence says yes - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Does a pair use the same nest site from one year to the next?
HANZAB doesn't specify, but from the way it is written I suspect not. Still, it doesn't spell it out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the pair defend a territory?
they defend the nest site - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • How many broods does a pair raise in a year?
HANZAB doesn't specify, but from the way it is written I suspect it is one.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the chicks naked when they hatch?
white down - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps add a photo of a marri seed to the article.
Not much available here...could add File:Parc Gonzalez - Corymbia calophylla (fruits).jpg or File:Starr 020203-0005 Corymbia calophylla.jpg I guess - will have a look on flickr Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • How do the parents transport seeds - in mouth, in crop, under tongue, in cheek?
HANZAB doesn't specify - presumably the crop?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Presumably the parents need to prepare the marri seeds for the nestlings. Do they do this at the nest or do they bring seeds already prepared?
HANZAB doesn't specify... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species)." - off topic?
Pondered this already in this FAC - am in two minds - I do think the comparison is helpful as the birds are often hidden but dropped gumnuts are common. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do the parents feed insect larvae to the chicks?
HANZAB doesn't specify (though one would think so...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "They are fed by the female alone for the first two weeks," Does the male bring her food for the nestlings?
HANZAB doesn't specify (though one would think so...). The male feeds the female while she is incubating, but HANZAB does not talk about after babies born. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do the young produce faecal sacs or do faeces just accumulate in the nest?
Good question but HANZAB doesn't specify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "This may be because of historically high proportion of wild-caught birds entering aviculture." grammar and I don't follow the argument.
wild-caught birds are generally very anxious and more difficult to breed, unlike birds born in captivity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

More later. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked at the HBW alive article and realised that very little has been published on this parrot. It may not be possible to answer some of the above.

I added a note from HANZAB on this as a covering note Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For how long does the female incubate the eggs? (HBW has c. 20 days)
HANZAB has 3 sources - Forshaw says 20, the others say 23 and 24....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there predators of this parrot or its nests?
HANZAB has nothing specific, though one would assume the usual....raptors, goannas etc. Still, not listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "it has adapted to farmland" - I'm uncomfortable with "adapted to" and would prefer "occurs in" or similar - (but may need to jiggle as the next sentence has "occurs").
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Support - all good. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


This was my lunchtime reading on Thursday and Friday. Colour me impressed with some quibbles;

  • Not easily confused with any other parrot species, it has a bright crimson crown, green-yellow cheeks, and a distinctive long bill. Should this be "due to its bright..."
umm...not sure. I mean it's not the colour scheme as such as there are parrots with some elements (eg western rosella has red head and yellow cheeks)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For the uninformed either link or name "upperparts" (lead)
reworded - can't find anything to link upperparts to and actually is only one word to change anyway so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Butting in here, Glossary_of_bird_terms#U has relevant entries. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • link eucalypts at first instance
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • has been shot as a pest - is considered a
tricky - I thought the shooting bit was unusual and worth mentioning. Not every pest gets shot... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • anxious or difficult to breed in captivity "anxious and"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • the image in the Taxonomy section is ovelapped by the extended infobox, leading to text squash. Maybe move it down to the para beginning with "The red-capped parrot is known to be related"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mathews did tentatively describe - Mathews tentatively described
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The red-capped parrot is known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots. Then but relationships within the group were previously unclear. I'd loose "is known to be" and rephrase as " known to be", and "had been unclear"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Description: "boldly patterned plumage" - boldly?
aaww, what's wrong with "boldly" - captures the bright, clear patches of colour well, I'd have thought.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • more later Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Petropavlovsk-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Petropavlovsk class was a group of three Russian battleships that participated in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, all based at the leased Russian base at Port Arthur in China. One was sunk early in the war and the other two were sunk during the Siege of Port Arthur. One of them was salvaged and put into service by the Japanese as a training ship. She participated in the Battle of Tientsin in 1914 where the Allies occupied that German base in China and was sold back to Russia in 1916. Aside from a minor role in intimidating the neutral Greek Government, she did nothing else of note during World War I. The ship was captured by the British when they intervened in North Russia during the Russian Civil War and was ultimately scrapped by the Soviets. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently cleaned it up and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of BritEng and unexplained jargon as well as identifying any prose issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Not much to say. All looks in order.

  • "as her original name was in use by another battleship." nothing in the body supports this.
  • You seem inconsistent to me with "the navy" vs. "the Navy" (Russian)
  • "and were good seagoing ships. Their crew consisted of 26–27 officers and 605–25 enlisted men;" first part sounds a bit opiniony.
  • "the ships reached maximum speeds of 16.29 and 16.38 knots (30.17 and 30.34 km/h; 18.75 and 18.85 mph) from 11,213 and 11,255 ihp (8,362 and 8,393 kW), respectively, during their sea trials." I might move "during their sea trials" to the front of the sentence so it doesn't get lost.
  • "The ships also carried 50 mines to be laid to protect their anchorage in remote areas.[8]" I might make this "Each ship ...its anchorage ..."
  • You say "armor" but also say "armoured".
  • "a fire broke out aboard the ship and killed 2 crewmen and injured an additional 28." to avoid the and ... and, suggest "... the ship, killing two crewmen and injuring ..."
  • "Vitgeft made another attempt to break through the Japanese blockade on 10 August in accordance to a direct order from Tsar Nicholas II." I might say "obedience" rather than "accordance"
  • "eventually gained control of the squadron and led most of them back to Port Arthur." I might say "the ships" rather than "them".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
  • File:Sevastopol_NH_81875.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply?
    • Umm, all of them? Deleted.
  • File:Russian_battleship_Poltava_destroyed_at_Port_Arthur.jpg: per the given tag, this needs a publication date
    • Unknown, but almost certainly before 1910.
  • File:Tango1908-1909.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • 2005 for sure, probably in 1961 as well. Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Green Park tube station

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Green Park tube station is one of the most interesting stations on the London Underground system having gone through three stages of development which I think is well covered in the article. DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

SN 54129

Nice article! Just a few points that jump out, nothing major of course.

Glad you like it. Responses below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rival schemes
  • "although it was re-presented in 1903, it was dropped in 1905": How about "although re-presented in 1903, it was dropped two years later"?
  • Perhaps "Due to failures in the application process, this scheme was also rejected", purely on account of the sheer number of schemes which you have listed as being individually rejected by then?
Construction etc
  • I see you use whilst twice and while once; any particular reason for the choice? I'm not a particularly pro- or anti-ster, but I suppose I'd prefer consistency. Or maybe it makes a change?
    • Drive-by comment (more considered comments from me will follow on the whole article shortly): "whilst" seems just a bit quaint to me, but Fowler only says that it is "less commonly" used than "while". The Guardian style guide says "while not whilst" but doesn't say why. In short, a matter of taste, I think. I don't know that I have a view on whether one should stick to one or other form rather than mix and match. More anon. Tim riley talk 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I normally use whilst and amongst rather than while and among, so not sure while is here. When would be better, but, anyway, I've changed the wording to address one of the other comments below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Can "accent band", as a technical term, be linked to anything for clarity?
    • it just means the edges of the panels of tiling being in a different colour to the rest. I have changed it to margins.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Did anything "happen" relating to the station between its opening and the 1930s? (Except the attempts at crowd control!).
    • Nothing exceptional. After the flurry of construction in the 1900s, the UERL was financially exhausted. There wasn't much going on in the central area during this period. Most of the new initiatives on the Underground were extensions: Northern line to Edgware and Morden, Central line to Ealing Broadway, Bakerloo line to Watford Junction, Metropolitan Railway to Watford and Stanmore. There were some new trains (the London Underground Standard Stock was introduced on the Northern line in 1923 and the Piccadilly line in 1929), but nothing important happened at Green Park as far as I can see.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The new ticket hall was accessed from subway entrances in Devonshire House on the north side of Piccadilly on the corner with Stratton Street and a southern entrance on a piece of land taken from the park"—can this be broken up slightly? Preferably, I think into two sentences, but if not, at least some punctuation—perhaps a semi-colon somewhere?
  • "below ground passages"—"below-ground passages".
  • More out of curiosity, again, but why "teahouse or tea shop", rather than just one or the other? They do link, after all, to the same thing, which does rather suggest synonymity :)
    • Amended. That was another user's edit of a link. Possibly they weren't sure which of the options was relevant.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Vctoria Line
  • I notice, again, that you refer to the system itself as the underground rather than the tube; in fact, the only time the latter is used is in the title and the references. Perhaps it's a question of consistency again, but I think that, by the post-war period at least, you can probably start referring to it in the colloquial occasionally.
  • "variety of new routes and extensions of existing lines" > suggest either "the extension of existing lines" or "extensions to existing lines".
  • "A collapse...stabilised to enable work to continue"; can this be rephrased? Perhaps, In 1965 one of the tunnels collapsed during excavation, and it was necessary to chemically stabilise the earth to continue", or something?
    • Reworded. It wasn't so much the tunnel that collapsed as the ground through which it was being bored.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Which leads on to the next sentence: remove repetition of the year, and use "the following year"?
    • Done
  • Is it possible to get a picture of Unger's Victoria Line tiling, and perhaps replace the image of 5-7 Dover St, which, frankly, is a little disconnected (although a picture of the original would be great!)
    • The reinstated versions of Unger's tiles can be seen in the first image in the Recent changes section in the recess of the seat. The penultimate image in the London Transport Museum set in External links shows the originals (which have a pale yellow-green background rather than the white background of the replacements - that might be a colour defect in the image or TfL may have decided that a white background went better with the new white wall tiles). There's another image in Commons that shows the tiles face-on which I have added a link to in the image caption.
    • The first of the London Transport Museum images shows the original building.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "when the third stage of the line opened" > "with the opening of the third stage of the line"?
    • Done.
  • "The official opening by the Queen" > "The same day, the Queen carried out the official opening at GP".
    • Reworded, slightly differently.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Fleet Line": perhaps something like, "What was then called the Fleet Line", or something, so as to prepare the reader for the later name change—particularly as, with the sub-heading being used, they will be expected that rather than this! Maybe condense the footnote into the text for this?
  • "Baker Street to Charing Cross via Bond Street and Green Park": how about just "Baker Street to Charing Cross", as it's quite a complex sentence otherwise. Although it's worth asking at this point whether we can use any of those old maps at all that show various lines in different stages of completion? I think I've got a couple myself, but are they still ©?
    • Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • TfL is very assertive about copyright of its images. Arguably, the stuff produced when the organisation was government owned as the London Transport Executive or the London Transport Board (up to 1970) should be subject to Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. Post-1970 when it became London Transport Executive under the GLC, standard copyright probably applies instead, though we haven't got to the point of testimg that yet.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The first couple of lines of the second para may want to be reworded? On the one hand, you say tunnelling finished in 1974, but on the other, construction was still going on in 1977? Do you mean of the stations, the fitting out, etc? If so, could this be clarified as it might be slightly confusing to the general reader who knows nothing of the planning of tube tunnels.
    • Yes construction of the stations. The tunnelling is often finished long before the line opens due to the time needed for the track and signalling to be installed and all of the works in the stations, just as we are seeing on Crossrail.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "was used for a substation" > "was used as a substation"? Although I'm uncertain myself.
    • The substation occupies space in the shaft, so I think "for" is more accurate. I've clarified its an electrical substation in case a reader thought it was a minor railway station.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "deep red with leaf pattern"; can we say what colour the leaves were in, for the contrast? Off the top of my head I can't remember, but from the image you use it might be black. True?
    • They are black, yes. Mentioned.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "in August 1978 and the Jubilee line opened on 1 May next year".
  • "Fleet line's stages 2 and 3": Suggest clarifying (perhaps earlier on, when discussing the proposed routes, on the assumption that that's what we're talking about here) precisely what these stages were (a footnote might do it). Also maybe refer to as the Jubilee, since that's what it was by now.
    • It was still the Fleet line when the approval was given. I've amended the existing note to give more information on the routings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition of "passageway".
  • "The new extension opened in stages starting in the east": This needs clarification; I assume you mean Stratford, which should be named and linked. Also, in this para, you should link somewhere to Jubilee Line Extension.
    • Good idea. Stratford mentioned and a link to the JLE is added.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Having said that—that whole last para is entirely about the line itself, not Green Park station specifically; although since GP was the junction between old and new, perhaps it's OK. I certainly don't insist on it either way.
    • I think most of this is necessary context to explain why the tunnels to Charing Cross were abandoned after only 20 years. It does discuss the improvements at Green Park as well.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Recent changes
  • Re. "the Hans Unger tiling in the seat recesses of the Victoria line platforms was replaced ": I seem to remember that there was a big (probably Evening standard-led) brouha over this at the time. Now that's completely my own theory, but perhaps see if you can find something out about it? It would add a little human interest. In any case, the final sentence re, the Unger restoration, currently needs a reference.
    • I've not been able to find anything regarding a brouhaha about the tiling, nor is there a citable source that specifically mentions their reinstatement. The photographs that we have of the station though show that they were reinstated as part of the late 2000s works:
      • this and this show the platforms with the original wall tiling in April 2007 and June 2008.
      • this shows the June Fraser replacement tiles in April 2007
      • this and this show the platforms in July and September 2008 with the wall tiling removed during the refurbishment and the walls rendered in preparation of new work.
      • this shows the wall tiling replaced, but not the recess tiling in 2009
      • this shows the completed work with the reinstated Unger pattern in 2015 - we know from ref 51 that this work was completed by 2011.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The new ramped entrance from the park and the street level shelter "; I wonder if it's worth amalgamating this with the earlier sentence
    • I've reworded this to mention the ramp on first mention of the new park entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "...with access directly from Green Park". "Which consisted of a new ramped entrance", etc. As it stands, you open a parage referring to a specific ramped entrance which hasn't actually been mentioned before, except perhaps by implication.
  • I don't really see a necessity in naming the architects; but then, perhaps I do too much anti-spam work around here :)
    • It's not vital to name check them. I suppose. They are mentioned in the sources so are not anonymous if someone is interested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition of "cool"; perhaps "To help regulate the temperature, a system..."? (Annoyingly, our article on Temperature regulation, which would be a nice link, is basically about body heat!)
    • I've change the first "cool" to "moderate temperatures in"--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Again...Ove Arup and Partners?! But I'll go by whatever the general feeling is.
  • Ah-ha! A mention of the Fleet Line stage one—again! All the more reason to discuss these stages earlier?
    • Now mentioned earlier.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference required for "No further work has been done...".
    • It's not possible to prove that nothing further has been done, but the sentence can be removed without changing the preceding.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Now, this is purely my opinion, but I wonder whether this really requires its own section? As it's only one sentence, I imagine it could neatly into the prose, chronologically? But again, I'll go with the general view on this.
    • I don't think it fits in as part of the previous sections which all relate to developments to the stations. The bomb does not appear to have damaged the station, so there was no reconstruction required.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "On 9 October 1975, terrorists belonging to the..."—suggest, per WP:WORDSTOWATCH, "On 9 October 1975, the Provisional IRA...". Or perhaps, "On 9 October 1975, members of the Provisional IRA's Balcombe Street Gang..." which has its own article, and that lot are probably well-known enough to warrant a link.
  • Just curiosity, but is this the only thing it's been used in? I don't want to turn this section into a fancruft fest, but I thought it would be a backdrop in classic B&W films. Shame if not, an, as long as they're sensible additions, this is more human interest I suppose. Still, can't make it up, can we... 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It does not seem to have had the glamorous life of Aldwych tube station, which has featured repeatedly as itself and, in disguise, as other stations. There may be some random street shots with the station in the passing background, but that does not really count for this sort of section. Certainly, fancruft is to be avoided and by providing a good source for this one instance that should stop the random unsourced crap that appears otherwise.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I hope this is of some use at least, DavidCane. Best of luck with it!

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

      • Thanks; it was all very helpful.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article for GA and thought then it was of FA quality. Revisiting it, I remain of that opinion. Comprehensive, v. readable, logically laid out, well and widely referenced. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim.--DavidCane (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Prose looks good. Pity it fragments into higher-level sections at the bottom. Two of them are one sentence long. Tony (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

  • Regarding Tony's comment above, the IRA bomb could be more than a sentence (compare and contrast with Blackwall Tunnel#Provisional IRA bombing, for example), and most station articles have an "accidents / incidents" section (paging Mjroots who researches a lot of this stuff). With this information, the single line section could easily be expanded out to a paragraph or two.
  • Green Park tube was the meeting point for the People's Vote March this summer, attended by 100,000 people. Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, this would be worth at least a sentence in order to meet criteria 1b.

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

...and has got its own article @1975 Piccadilly bombing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
A search of the Railways Archive website doesn't reveal any accidents. RAIB website also draws a blank. A {{main}} would be useful in the section on the bombing. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
According to this Times citation, on 24 October 1936 it was reported that a man was fined £2 with £1 1s costs for allowing his dog to walk on one of Green Park's escalators. Shame this isn't DYK, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw the piece about the poor dog that got his leg mangled in the escalator, but didn't think it key to put it in. There were also a couple of people reported (separately) to have fallen under trains, but that's, unfortunately, not particularly uncommon. The only other thing that I found but didn't put in was a fire in one of the tunnel construction sites which meant that workman needed to evacuate the workings temporarily.
I've added a {{main}} tag.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

San Junipero

Nominator(s): Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Mirror is an infamously dark and depressing anthology series, but as it moved to Netflix, Charlie Brooker marked the show's new era by writing what is, in my opinion, the most beautiful and uplifting love story in the history of television. A previous FAC for "San Junipero" failed only due to lack of comments. I hope the article does the episode justice. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments

@Aoba47: I've addressed all the comments you made at the previous FAC other than the following:

  • I will have to preface my comments by saying that I have not seen this episode (or any episodes from this series). I find the “Plot” section to be confusing, particularly the jump from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. There is a large time jump between 1987 to 2002, and that left me confused. Are Yorkie and Kelly in 2002 played by the same actresses from 1987 version? Are they treated as being the same age? I am just lost with the whole timeline. I would imagine that writing a plot summary for a show with twists must difficult.
    • Yes, they're played by the same actors. They appear as the same age. It's like they're in a different level of a video game, but as the viewer doesn't yet know that they're in a simulated reality, they're not supposed to understand exactly what is happening yet. Can you think of any specific bits which could be rewritten to make this bit of the plot clearer? Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not sure how to make it clearer without making the prose awkward so I believe that it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (Kelly follows and propositions Yorkie, who declines, saying she is engaged.). What sort of “proposition” was Kelly offering Yorkie? A sexual one? A romantic one? I would clarify this in the prose.
    • A sexual one. Kelly says "Wanna go to bed with me?" What rewording do you recommend? Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I would make it clear in the rose that is a sexual proposition. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence ( After Yorkie leaves, Kelly follows and confesses that she is dying), does Kelly say how she is dying in the scene?
    • Nope, we don't know. Kelly says "They tell me three months. It's spread basically everywhere. They said three months before six months ago. So, you know, what do they know?" Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention multiple songs being featured in the episode in the body of the article, but only one song is in the infobox.
    • I've added the others mentioned in prose, but it's not an exhaustive list as the infobox documentation says "Television episodes often include numerous songs; only include the most notable". Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Understandable, and thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see the need for the rainbow flag image in the article.
    • Well, the Analysis section has a paragraph about Kelly and Yorkie's sexualities. I've replaced it with a bi flag, with a bisexual lighting–related caption, as this is perhaps a little more pertinent. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems more appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Goodman and Atad both opined that the story would leave viewers in tears,), the references need to be placed in numerical order. I would check the article for this.
    • That's not policy, and I consciously chose to place them in the opposite order so the first ref is the first reviewer mentioned, and the second is about the second. See, for instance, WP:REFORDER for previous consensus about this. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it make more sense to just switch the reviewers' names around as I do not see any clear reason for them to be placed in that order? However, I will leave this up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will look through the article again by the end of the week, but please ping me if I do not add additional comments by the end of Saturday. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. It is a far less commercially/critically acclaimed piece of television (i.e. it was terrible and a flop), but any help would be appreciated. Good luck with this round, and I hope that this receives more comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed the last couple of points. I'll take a look at your FAC soon. Thanks! Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received and the episode's plot twist was widely praised), I am not sure if the word “very” is necessary.
    • I think it's more accurate with the "very". As the Reception says, "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised, even by reviewers who disliked the episode." I think I found one reviewer who didn't like their acting versus dozens who praised it. To say "well-received" is a huge understatement. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (along with the uplifting tone of the episode and its visual style.), I would say (along with the episode’s uplifting tone and visual style) just to be a little more concise.
  • For this part (but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people.), I would add the citation to make it clear what is supporting this information, particularly since two citations are used in the following sentence.
  • I am somewhat confused by this sentence (Brooker was involved in the choice of arcade games for the set). The “Plot” section does not reference arcade games (unless I am reading over it by accident). Were they involved in the episode, or were they brought it on set for the actors during filming for some reason? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
    • I've rephrased slightly. They're part of the 1987 and 2002 nightclubs, and we see Yorkie playing on one in 1987 and Kelly playing on one in 2002. These bits are very brief so they're not included the plot (which has a very tight word limit), and reviewers don't seem to have really mentioned them, so this is really the only place they can be mentioned. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You wikilink “plot twist” in the “Critical reception” section, though you use the words “twist” and “plot twist” in previous sections. I would move the wikilink up to the first time you mention it in the body of the article.
  • I would avoid beginning the sentence (But Wallenstein criticised Mbatha-Raw and Davis for an inability to "pack the emotional punch that this crowd-pleaser needs to truly shine”.) with “But” as it reads slightly awkwardly to me as a transition.

Great work on the article. Once these relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. It definitely inspires me to work on another television episode article, as it has been a while since I have done so. I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed these last points. Thanks! Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: are there any more comments I need to address? Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I thought that I already supported this. I support this for promotion. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Gonnym

  • Whilst series one and two of Black Mirror were shown on Channel 4 in the UK, Netflix commissioned the series for 12 episodes (split into two series of six episodes) in September 2015,[1] and in March 2016, Netflix outbid Channel 4 for the rights to distributing series three with a bid of $40 million - I don't understand this. If Netflix commissioned the season 3 episodes in 15, why did it have to outbid Channel 4 in 16? I'm assuming Netflix didn't plan in 2015 on paying for a season to be shown on Channel 4 at the time.
    • Sorry about this—turns out I made some mistakes. The $40 million bid was in 15, not 16; and it's distribution in the UK under discussion. It is a confusing situation, but here's what happened: in 2015, Netflix commission the show for 12 eps. Now C4 could still get the right to distribute series 3 in the UK first, perhaps with it being released on Netflix later (not a rare deal—for instance, it's what happened with The End of the F***ing World). They bid on this and Netflix outbid them, the result being announced in 2016. Anyway, that's too much detail (and a bit of OR), particularly for a page about an episode and not the series/show itself. I've done a bit of rewording but let me know if you think there are still problems with it. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Alongside "Nosedive", "San Junipero" was first shown in 2016 ahead of its Netflix release at the Toronto International Film Festival. - You should mention that Nosedive is another episode from the season, as without it, it's not different than the many other TV shows/films shown in that festival.
  • Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series." - I have a problem with the word "Authored" as it isn't used in television and it's also not used by you in the article lead or infobox. "Written" should be good enough here. I've also have a problem with how the sentence is constructed. I don't know why but it just seems like it's cut short. Actually the whole paragraph seems off to me. See next point.
  • "San Junipero" was the first episode written for series three.[6] Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series".[7] The show previously focused on technology's negative effects;[8] this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible.[7] Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists.[9] He later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people. Having repeatedly thought of writing an episode set in the past,[6]Brooker wrote "San Junipero" as a period episode.[10] - These short rapid sentences make the flow seem off to me. As an example change Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists, but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people..
    • I've used your example and linked the first two sentences. Let me know if you think it's any better. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible - (maybe if the previous point is fixed this won't be an issue) - this seems like a response to someone saying it isn't possible, but all you have here is this statement which seems like we're reading half a conversation.
    • It's intended as a response to "The show previously focused on technology's negative effects". The full context of the quote is: "[Brooker:] Every show that I've done starts with a character in a trap, who stays in the trap. San Junipero was a nice trap. It proved to me that you can do an uplifting episode of Black Mirror." ([5]) How would you like this reworded? Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Brooker told The Daily Beast that in the rough treatment - I know you linked to the Daily Beast in the box on the right, but this is the first time in running text it's mentioned and could probably be linked here also. I didn't even notice the box while reading.
  • Director Owen Harris described the 1980s - could probably link to the director as that is the first mention of him since the lead.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays Kelly, had heard of the show but not seen it when she received the script, though she did watch "Be Right Back" before the shoot - similar to a previous comment. You should probably mention that Be Right Back is another episode from the series, as the context is missing.
    • It's mentioned in the paragraph below as "the series two episode "Be Right Back"" so I've just moved that description to this paragraph. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • on a bus journey from Oxford Circus to Brixton - I'd link these two. I'm not from the UK and I had no idea where these two are so no idea how long that bus journey was and I actually did search these here to find out, linking would have been easier and faster.
  • Davis first saw the show with a friend - You should probably write her full name as you did with Gugu Mbatha-Raw and as its the first time she's mentioned since the plot. I had to re-read the previous section to see if I missed who Davis was.
  • Elfring described it as the only episode with "warmth to it, and Jeffery called it the "most upbeat and positive. Handlen believed that the previous episodes' sad tone heightens the effectiveness of "San Junipero",[41] and Stolworthy thought that it was consequently the show's most ambitious episode.[42] Saraiya notes that technology is portrayed as good in "San Junipero", a rarity in the show.[43] Sims noted that the episode follows the season's darkest episode, "Shut Up and Dance".[44]" - who are Elfring, Jeffery, Handlen, Stolworthy, Saraiya and Sims? (probably critics/reviewers, but you should give them their full name and website/newspapper)
  • Its Emmy Award wins were considered by some to mark a cultural shift in relation to portrayal of lesbianism - should link to the Emmy Award ceremony.
  • They are not the focus of exploration in the episode, but its plot raises many philosophical questions,[45] including the nature of consciousness and experience[37][45] and the consequences of digitally simulated existence. - I don't understand who "They" are. If "They" are the philosophical questions, then please consider revising as it is not clear.
    • Yep that's what was intended—I've essentially just moved the first clause to the end of the sentence. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reviewers have questioned what San Junipero would mean to believers in an afterlife - is the "San Junipero" here the episode title or a place in the episode? If it's the title then its missing the correct style.
    • Nope, it's the place in the episode. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I stopped at Critical reception as this took longer than I expected, but I'll add notes about the table.

Thanks so much for the review! I've responded to each of your points. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Another table related issue - I don't see a reason why reference 87 should be using rowspan="2", as Category, Recipients and Result are all in one row, and it makes verifying more confusing compared to the other references.
    • I don't understand the issue here. Ref #87 has two links, one to Category/Recipients and one to Result, and each link applies to both rows. If I removed rowspan="2" then I would just have to cite ref #87 in both rows. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't know each link applies for both rows as you wrote For the award nominations, see Beachum, Christ; Dixon, Marcus James [...] For the award winner, see Montgomery, Daniel [...] which implies that one ref is for the first row and the other ref is for the second row. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact I don't believe I was the one who wrote that but anyway, I've changed it to "For the list of nominees" and "For the list of winners". Is that any better? Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think it is better worded now, but I still don't think there really is a real reason for that. Just stick the nomination ref to the one that was only nominated and the winner video the other, or if the video does does both, you could just use that (but I'd say cite the nomination list for the non-winner one, as it's much reader-friendlier to skim a written list than to see the video). Also, I just checked [6] and the website doesn't actually say who the winner is, the video does [7] so I'm not sure if Template:Cite web is the correct ref template, or maybe Template:Cite AV media is a better choice here, as it will allow adding the specific timestamp of when they actually say who the winner is, although I've myself not cited something like this in the past, so not sure how to handle this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
            • There was a real reason: when we use {{nom}}, it means "nominated and didn't win". Otherwise we use {{won}} (or {{pending}}). So the award which didn't win still needs the source announcing the winners. But I've changed the winners source to a text source, and as it also mentions the other nominees, I've removed the nom source which is now redundant. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure you need to find a source that proves a negative. You said it was nominated and sourced it as such. This isn't the article for the award which you need to also say who was the winner. Anyways, glad you found a source that makes this issue moot altogether. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: are there any more comments I need to address? Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks really good (except for my personal dislike of a missing cast section :) ). I have a few more comments, but for me the article condition looks ready. One major caveat though, I haven't verified any of the references, so take that into account.

  • The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories; it was popular with critics, and received numerous awards. - this is then repeated in the 3rd lead paragraph, so should probably be removed from the first paragraph as there is no real point to summarize the lead.
  • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California.[16] Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22] Harris said that, during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture".[16] Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23]. - this reads a bit akward as a "he->her->he->her" and could probably change to something like
    • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California,[16] and noted that during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture". Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22]
  • Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23] - Could also probably remove this. I'm not sure what it added really, seems a bit trivia (unless there is a significance to it, which isn't explained).
  • The episode contains hints leading up to the reveal of the twist. A factor considered during the editing process was how overt the hints should be. Annabel Jones says that "there may be visual signifiers that you think were going to work and then didn't, so you need more exposition in the edit". Adjustments were also made using sound design techniques such as sound effects.[11] - seems this paragraph is not related to either "Cast" nor "filming".
    • It doesn't really fit anywhere – I've given the paragraph its own section, "Editing". Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Marketing" and "Future" sections should change places as chronology the marketing should come first (personal note, not sure I'd put them in production, but rather in their own sections).
    • Swapped. After a bit of thinking, I've given both of them second-level headings, because they're not exactly part of the making of the episode. Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • San Junipero" is a highly optimistic,[29] emotionally rooted[30] love story and a work of science fiction. - maybe revise so it doesn't sound like this claim came from us (which reads a bit like original research) or is a universal claim, but from the people you are citing so something like "Reviewers have called "San Junipero" a highly optimistic..."
    • Yeah, these things aren't particularly controversial but done. Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The episode provides an example of bisexual lighting, as colours from the bisexual pride flag are used to represent the sexualities of Kelly and Yorkie. - This is in the flag box and is missing a reference (even if its in the article, the box doesn't have it)
  • Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised,[b] even by reviewers who disliked the episode. - are the people quoted later the ones that disliked the episode? It wasn't clear to me (without reading references) who liked their performances but disliked the episode.
    • This is referring to the next paragraph, which begins: "Mbatha-Raw and Davis also received praise in negative reviews." I've removed the latter half of the sentence, which hopefully solves the confusion. Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I think I've addressed all of these points. Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Good job! --Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this matters to the FAC, but while you are already at it, you should probably add a Template:Short description (Wikipedia:Short description) --Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not relevant to the FA criteria. If a short description is needed on Wikipedia (not just Wikidata), I would want descriptions to be standardised with {{Infobox television episode}}, so I don't think adding on a page-by-page basis is helpful. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64

I'll take a pass at this; expect comments by tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I recommend archiving your sources:
  • "Some critics believed it to be one of the best television episodes of 2016" → "Some critics considered it one of the best television episodes of 2016"
  • "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received"—"very" is virtually never needed; just let the verb speak for itself
    I defended this above (Aoba47's comments) but if multiple people are bringing this up independently then I'm happy to remove it. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like the "Future" section should be below the "Critical reception" section, as that's how I've seen most articles (film, BLPs, and video games, specifically do it)
  • "It has been very favourably received by critics"—see my point above
  • Most of the quotations in the "Critical reception" can be paraphrased. Quotes should only be kept when a critic says something so unique, particular, or just so well-written and fully descriptive of the episode that paraphrasing doesn't do it justice.
    I'll do another round of copyediting for this in a second. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, done. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On a related notes, the introductory statements in each paragraph (i.e. "The episode's plot twist, revealing that San Junipero is a simulated reality, was highly commended by critics") are generalized statements that should have direct refs as they can be challenged. A refbundle might be useful here
    They're really just topic sentences. A refbundle would just be a list of citations in the paragraph. The statements that I thought would not be covered sufficiently be refs in the paragraph are the three sentences with notes at the end. If you want I can go digging up a wider range of sources with all of them (plot twist was commended; visual style was well-received; praise of new genre), but I think these are less controversial statements. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Overall this is a really clean article. Nice work JOEBRO64 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Quietly watching this to help out since I worked on the article) - Archive run done. --Masem (t) 20:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I think they've all been addressed. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: just a ping in case you hadn't seen this. Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, was meaning to come back to this. Looks like you've addressed all my concerns (and if you didn't you explained why), so I'll lend my support. Great work ! JOEBRO64 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Black Mirror - San Junipero.jpg: Bunch of "N/A" fields in the rationale that should probably be filled in. Speaking of, I presume that the screenshot is of some key scene that is discussed in text?
  • Filled in, and yes it is. Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Bi flag.svg: License and use seem OK to me, doubly so given that the use of the flag is explicitly discussed.
Lead screenshot has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That's odd—the screenshot should have the alt text "Two women dressed in 1980s-style clothing." This shows up for me both in the edit screen and in the Altviewer tool. Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Huh. I generally search the page source for "ALT=". The NFCC#8 rationale in the first image may merit some expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded it a fair bit. (It's quite long now but tbh there's still more I could say about it if necessary.) Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Thanks to a recent edit adding archive links, the citations have become extremely bulky due to their each having three (!) dates—of publication, retrieval and archival. Since WP:CITEWEB suggests retrieval dates are only "required if the publication date is unknown", I believe they can definitely be removed.—indopug (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the sources at the moment. Accessdates aren't prohibited when the publication date is known, and as {{cite web}}'s documentation alludes to, they're important if the source can change. Many of these sources could change—the most obvious example is the Episode rankings, where many of the sources updated to include the series 4 episodes once they had been released. (This will happen again with later series and any of the sources which didn't update could update at any time.) More generally, a lot of sources are online news articles for which corrections could be issued. Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Archie Meets the Punisher

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1994 mash up between an All-American teenager and a murdering vigilante. The crossover started a trend of Archie meeting unusual guest stars the led to him being killed by the Predator in 2015, among other things. The article was created in 2004 and remained in poor shape until a rewrite and GA promotion earlier this year. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Media review

The fact this comic exists is amazing. Commenting on the only image:

  • The rationale says "300px size unsuitable to use for high end reproduction.", but the image is 255x391 pixels. Looks like it used to be 300px until DatBot resized it. Rephrase rationale please.
  • Alt text is great. Consider adding that the title is Archie meets the Punisher and to describe the font it is in. If you don't, that's fine too.

Fix the one small issue and we will be good. Could you maybe add any images of the artists too? Kees08 (Talk) 23:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Kees08: Thanks for the review. I have updated the alt text and rationale. I also added images for the writer and artists based on what was available in their articles.
  • Kidding - one of the artist's image was non-free and has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Batton Lash.jpg
    • Add an English description, remove the comment someone made in the description box
    • Add a personality rights warning
    • Hm. The current license is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (not okay on Commons) but a bot verified it as cc-by-2.0 (okay on Commons) at the time of upload. So I suppose it is okay..?
    • Caption is fine. Alt text is nice but not required
  • File:StanGoldberg11.15.08ByLuigiNovi1.jpg
    • License is fine
    • Caption is fine. Alt text is nice but not required

Let me know when you have addressed the above, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 05:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • The first sentence in the first paragraph of the lead is rather long. I think it may be beneficial to make everything after “with art by…” into its own sentence.
    • done.
  • For this sentence (In the story, the murderous vigilante Punisher mistakes all-American teenager Archie Andrews for his criminal prey.), I am not sure if “murderous” is needed.
    • I believe it is because it's one of Punisher's defining attributes. It's a significant contrast to most non-lethal superheroes like Superman or Spider-Man, and it the primary reason this particular crossover is so odd. It's a stark comparison to Archie meeting Adam West's Batman.
      • Makes sense. Thought I might as well ask. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (Lash came up with the plot after Archie editor Victor Gorelick suggested the general concept.) to something like this (Lash developed the plot from a suggestion by Archie editor Victor Gorelick) for more concise language.
    • done
  • I would revise this sentence (The script was written with the intention of remaining true to the spirit of both characters rather than focus only on Archie's humor or Punisher's action.) to avoid the repetition of the word “script” twice in the same sentence.
    • I think the second instance is spirit... Did you copy the wrong sentence?
      • Apologies; I misread the sentence >< Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The comic book was kept secret inside both companies until it was announced at a press function shortly before it was published), I would change “before it was published” to “before its publication” for more concise language.
    • done
  • I would revise this part (Although the announcement was initially believed to be a joke by news outlets and critics, ) to avoid the passive tense.
    • done
  • For this sentence (Many praised the odd pairing as an interesting narrative hook.), specify what you mean by “many” as you reference both media outlets and critics in the previous sentence.
    • done
  • For this part (During lunch one day in San Diego,), I would say instead (During a lunch in San Diego,) to avoid the vague wording of “one day”.
    • You know, I was really unhappy with that phrase when I wrote it, but couldn't think of a way to avoid it. Your suggestion is embarrassingly obvious.
      • No worries; I think that we all have been there before. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (Before Punisher and Microchip leave Riverdale the next morning, they say goodbye to Archie and his friends.) to (Before leaving Riverdale the next morning, Punisher and Microchip say goodbye to Archie and his friends.) for more concise language.
    • done
  • Do you have any information on the comic’s sales?
    • I may be able to locate something. Comic sales are reported as estimates at best, and prior to 2000 or so they only released data for the Top 100 sellers.
      • As a followup, the primary source for this type of information doesn't have details for this particular issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the responses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking the time to look! I have responded to all of your points. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

spotchecks not done

  • FN3 should include publication date
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names
  • Citations to multiple pages should use |pages= rather than |page=
  • Fn13 is missing publisher and location. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I wish I had read this comment before reviewing here, but well, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Batton Lash should be linked i the image caption.
  • The first paragraph under Development should not only end with a note, but also with a citation.
  • Hero Illustrated and Comic Book Resources are duplinked.
  • I sent you an email with some material that might be useful as sources.

Ludwigsburg Palace

Nominator(s): Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace, the "Versailles of Swabia," is a current Good Article and Did You Know subject. The palace has four distinct architectural styles, a massive garden, hosts musical festivals annually, and once housed a porcelain manufactory. This is my first attempt at a Featured Article as well as the article's, but I've had aspirations for the bronze star for a long time now. Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Other contributors: User:Farang Rak Tham (GA Reviewer), User:Jmar67 (copy editor).

Image review

  • 1889 plan should be scaled up
  •  DoneVami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements
  • The only image that I, a copyright novice, can think of that would violate FoP is the image of the porcelains in the museum. However, those are in the collection of a state-owned museum in a state-owned palace. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This applies to File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_27.jpg, File:J_C_W_Beyer_Celllospieler_KGM_img01.jpg, File:Ludwigsbg_mirror.JPG, File:Ludwisburg.jpg, File:RSLB_Riesen_im_Riesenbau.jpg, File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_17.jpg, File:RSLB_Kirche1.jpg, File:RSLB_Ahnengalerie4_Bildergalerie_gegenueber.jpg, File:RSLB_Schlafzimmer_Koenig_Friedrich.jpg, and File:238_Waschgarnitur_Ludwigsburg_c1805-1816_02.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Axed all images of the palace interiors. –Vami_IV† 06:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Residenzschloss_Ludwigsburg_floorplan_(numbered).jpg: if the creator of the source map is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • As it turns out, the author didn't; he died in 1938. Should I replace the image with the original work plan on the German version of Ludwigsburg Palace?Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Did this anyway and replaced. –Vami_IV† 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the source of the data underlying the new map? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Schloss_Ludwigsburg_1705.jpg: source links are dead. Same with File:A008318a.jpg
  •  Done First picture axed from article, repaired source link for the second. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the source of the data underlying the various Bluehender_Barock diagrams? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done They're original works, but I've added a reference and citation to the Blooming Baroque website's map of the gardens. The website's map is at an angle and looking from the northeast, however. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

  • built for the dukes of Württemberg. - I'd put this in the second sentence of the lead rather than at the end of the first where it is now. it's a bit clunky as is.
  • I've removed it instead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • arranged as it might have appeared in 1800 - "they"? aren't we talking about "gardens"?
  • There is no instance of the word "they" in the lead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It is currently "it" but as it is referring to the gardens (which is plural), it should be "they" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed
  • A porcelain manufactory - why not just, "A porcelain factory"
  •  DoneVami_IV† 05:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Frisoni should be wikilinked and mentioned by whole name on his first mention in the article.
  • Fixed
  • Several other people have the same problem.
  •  Done


Hi, I haven't reviewed the article's prose in detail, but here are a few comments:

  • What makes and reliable sources? As far as I can tell those are personal websites. I also think, might be a bit iffy.
  • I'm myself not sure how reliable Porcelain Marks is, because he doesn't cite sources, but Bieri Pius (Suddeutscher Barock) is legit. He's got his name, CC 2.0 license, and his library on his website. Region Stuttgart is a marketing company partnered with the city of Stuttgart, but I removed them from the article anyway because I only referenced them once. is also gone now. –Vami_IV† 21:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that Süddeutscher Barock has a free license, an author name, and a list of sources doesn't make it reliable in my mind. If Porcelain Marks isn't reliable, it probably shouldn't be used.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I can whittle down content from and then purge Porcelain Marks, but I'd like other opinions on Süddeutscher Barock's credentials. –Vami_IV† 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • According to the Süddeutscher Barock's impressum, it's Pius Bieri's personal website, and there's no indication anyone else is involved. That pretty clearly runs afoul of WP:RS, which deems sources "with no editorial oversight" questionable.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Understand, Pius Bieri was in the light in the dark here for me here and it would be very painful to throw him away, but I'll still bow to policy. I started looking into WP:RS/SPS's exceptions and then into Pius Bieri himself and found that he was fairly recently involved in a restoration of a Baroque building on Ufenau. –Vami_IV† 02:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have conducted further research. Pius Bieri has also been on the team that restored this church and he's mentioned by name as a "further reading" source in Daniel Fulco's book Exuberant Apothoses, page 503, footnote 5. He is also in the bibliography of this book (page 360), coincidentally for a page I cited in the writing of Ludwigsburg Palace. Here's a Google Books search result for "Pius Bieri"Vami_IV† 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The first paragraph of the "Porcelain manufactory" seems to be a very close paraphrase of the page.
 Done I've rewritten the entire section from scratch and in one paragraph. –Vami_IV† 06:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The references section contains a large number of sources that aren't actually cited in any of the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Every single reference in "References" is linked by at least one citation. –Vami_IV† 19:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I missed it because a lot of them aren't listed under the author in the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Quasi-oppose from Johnbod

All interior shots not of pieces of porcelain etc have been removed, following a comment above by Nikkimaria. This brings the article below the level where I can support. Fortunately I think her argument that "Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements" is completely wrong. All the elements in all the photos previously there are either original 18th century pieces or possibly in some cases copies or restorations. But in any case there is no question of intellectual property rights remaining. We have never taken copyright to this excessive extent now, and it is important that this copyright creep is resisted. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. I didn't say all of them needed to be removed, but tagged to reflect current copyright status. We have always required appropriate tagging of images where copyright has expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I had no idea where to start so I opted for an ax rather than a labelmaker I don't know how to use. –Vami_IV† 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't agree with this approach, but the tags requested on the Commons files are not difficult (normally). Looking for an example, I went through several FAs of historic buildings with interior photos (including Palace of Queluz, Oregon State Capitol, Pennsylvania State Capitol, Michigan State Capitol, IG Farben Building and others), without finding any tags of this sort at all. I don't believe that we have ever required tagging of this type in such cases in fact. Nikkimaria, perhaps you could supply examples of FACs where such tags have been requested (or were already in place), and indeed an example of what such a tag would look like? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't believe any of those would require such tagging - both Portugal and the US have freedom of panorama covering public interiors of buildings, and looks like the only Farben interior is utilitarian rather than creative (bookshelves). As to tagging, something like File:'Hiawatha's_Marriage',_marble_sculpture_by_Edmonia_Lewis,_1871.JPG would be a good model. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The US does not have FOP covering contents, works of art etc, just the actual structure, so is very comparable to the German cases here. Re Farben, if you think modern chair designs aren't copyrighted, you're very wrong! The Hiawatha image is of a single work. How many works do you think need tagging for in this, one of the images you complained about? Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a second run at FA for this article. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I believe this article is ready for another go. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Notifying Aoba47 about second run as the user was the most concerned for the first run. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Kees08

Placeholder, plan to review this when I have time. Kees08 (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, this nom could certainly do with further review so if you can find the time that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are we supposed to use decorative quotes at the beginning there?
  • Personal preference, but I like In the episode, NASA hoped to boost public interest in spaceflight by selecting an ordinary man, Homer Simpson, for a space mission. better than In the episode, NASA selects ordinary man Homer Simpson for a space mission, hoping to boost public interest in spaceflight.
  • This doesn't flow great: It was well received, with many critics and fans calling it one of the best Simpsons episodes; a copy is available for astronauts to view at the International Space Station.
  • Well, they were going to send people, but the program was cancelled before they did. Mirkin based the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project that sent ordinary civilians into space to increase interest among the general public.
  • Reword this: The writers focused more on the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero than on a linear plot.

Is there a place online I can legally stream this? I will review the plot section once I can view it.

The prose is not great so far, I would recommend trying to rewrite it to flow better. Things like As some writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line "second comes right after first" an insult, they wrote an alternative "first to take a soil sample"; Aldrin had no problem with the original line. could be written better. The paragraph does not make it clear which line they ended up using, and does not flow well in general. Kees08 (Talk) 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Fixed all of your issues stated. You can stream this on "FXNOW: Simpsons World" however you will need to enter a cable provider. They do give free trials to newcomers on the website though.

Those were examples of the issues, and not a comprehensive list. The article needs better prose and a better plot summary. It also uses a significant number of primary sources, it would be great if you could find more secondary sources. If another major rewrite is performed, ping me and I will check it again. Sorry, I know you have put a lot of work into this. Kees08 (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I'm probably responsible for some of the things you don't like about the prose and plot summary, as I copyedited the entire article very dramatically a few days ago. Can you give examples of why you don't like elements of those things? For example, what's wrong with the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Thank you so much for the ce and the backup. I have a similar message below to Kees as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you for your insight but I literally have spent over 50 edits these past few months improving the refs and prose. With the help of others, I completely redid the refs from its previous review in February. The prose has been massively changed thanks to Aoba47 (talk · contribs) as well. Can you please give examples of where you would want to see improved prose and refs? AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I brought up decorative quotes, but you only fixed the instance I noted and not other instances in the article. G-force should be g-forces (per the linked article). The reception talks about the episode being one of the greatest ever, while the Broadcast and reception section talks about it being rated lower than the episode the week prior, with no language used to describe the disparity. I was surprised when I was on the Simpsons site to find it rated around the same as the other episodes from the season. When the NASA employees ask Barney to be their astronaut, Homer takes credit. The next paragraph talks about Barney and Homer training, even though the preceding paragraph did not mention they were both selected, which is a little jarring. Again, just picking out a few things, without going into much depth. If a major rewrite takes place, please ping me and I will reread the article. Kees08 (Talk) 03:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I will perform a sweep of the episode and look for issues. The writers cite the episode as being one of the greatest. It does not say one of the most viewed. Just because ratings were lower does not mean the reception was not good. Personally, I feel your stance is too soon as you have not clearly stated what is wrong with the passage such as what Aoba did. Thanks again Popcornduff (talk · contribs) for the help. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I did a complete sweep and some copy edits but I still am not fully figuring out your reasoning for the oppose. The article reads fine and I would appreciate if you could give me specific quotes to work on similar to what Aoba47 (talk · contribs) did. Aoba47 (talk · contribs) provides countless quotes and advice for the article and still ended with a support vote. You have put an oppose vote up and have given minimal coverage on what you want fixed. Please give more insight. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologies for butting into this conversation. I just wanted to add my opinion as I have been pinged multiple times. Every reviewer has a different style for an FAC. I have seen users take a similar approach to Kees08, particularly during an oppose vote. He thinks the prose currently does not meet the standard for a featured article, and has voiced his opposition on that basis. I would suggest you look at the following essay (User:Mike Christie/Fix loops), specifically the following sentence (What each reviewer does is up to them, but it should be acceptable behaviour at FAC to oppose on prose and not be expected to give more than one or two examples, and not be expected to return and reread the article or provide a second round of examples) as it is applicable to this situation. I approach FACs differently as a reviewer, but I am by no means a particularly good FAC reviewer. I would actually say that I am pretty bad at it, which is one reason out of many that I will be no longer participating in the FAC process. I hope this message proves helpful to you. I am also uncertain if multiple pings will motivate Kees08 to respond. Good luck with this review, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:A screenshot of a famous news scene in the Simpsons Episode "Deep Space Homer".jpg
    • In the summary page, put a space before the parenthesis 'Simpsons World(Watching the episode and taking a screenshot)'
    • Not good for the purpose in the article. Rewrite that bit to be appropriate: 'I am doing this as a editor in the "Featured article" section asked for it. '
    • Say where it actually is, and use proper grammar: 'I will use it once either in "reception" or in the infobox. It will one of two photos in the article.'
    • I think you can fill out NFCC 1 and 2
    • In the 'Non-free media data' section, several things are capitalized inappropriately
  • File:David Mirkin by Gage Skidmore.jpg - doesn't match the license for his Flickr page. Not sure if it matters? Also not sure there is even a difference between the unported and generic licenses.
It matches as Flickr says to please attribute.
  • File:Aldrin.jpg - caption is fine, source is fine, license is fine. Too bad there is not a free image of him around 1994 that is any good (closest I saw were 1989 and 1999, and both low quality).
All good

@Kees08: All done. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems good now. Passes media review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments
  • References are normally discouraged in the lead, unless you are citing controversial information. I believe that the information currently cited in the lead should be present and cited in the body of the article, which would make the current citations unnecessary.
  • I would rephrase the first two sentences of the lead to something like the following (“Deep Space Homer” is an episode of the American animated sitcom The Simpsons. It is the 15th episode of the fifth season, and was first broadcast by FOX on February 24, 1994.) with the appropriate wikilinks where necessary.
  • The reference formatting for the books is inconsistent. There are instances where you use the page number and link to a bibliography (i.e reference 19) and there are other cases where you just cite the entire book (i.e. reference 17). I would revise the article to follow the first pattern.
  • Some of the references are incorrectly filled out for the work/publisher parameters. For instance, reference 1 should be a wikilink to as opposed to, and Vulture needs to be linked in reference 12. Wikilink Adweek in reference 21. I would make check all of the references for this.
  • Please be consistent with how dates are formatted in the references. Some do MDY and others do YMD; some have it all in numbers, while others write out the month. Any way is fine as long as it is consistent throughout the article.
  • I am uncertain about the reliability of reference 14. Using a source written by Wikipedia contributors as a Wikipedia source does not seem appropriate to me.
  • I am not sure why you mark reference 6 as “in Arabic” when it is in English when I click on it.
  • What makes the following sources (, Simpsons Archive) reliable sources? I am not saying that they are bad, but I was wondering if you could point to something that shows their reliability.
Aoba47 I fixed gentlemenofleisure but the Simpsons archive has information not attainable anywhere else. The couch gag and Piece are things very visually noticeable in the episode. I am not using it to expand the article, more as a way of proof. AmericanAir88(talk) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you can paraphrase this quote "inanimate carbon rod”.
Aoba47 The phrase is used in the episode very prominently. You still want me to paraphrase it? AmericanAir88(talk) 00:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I have not seen the episode in a very long time. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

*I would revise this sentence (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain" was recorded specifically for the episode containing some altered lyrics.) to (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain", containing altered lyrics, was recorded for the episode).

  • This sentence (He also sings You've Got a Friend.) has several issues. Who is “he” in this sentence? “You’ve Got a Friend” is missing quotation marks and a descriptive phrase in front of it.
  • I would revise this sentence (Although the episode was directed by Carlos Baeza, the potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman.) to avoid repetition of “was directed by”.
  • You could shorten the following sentence (At the Power Plant, it is the ceremony for the "Worker of the Week" award and Homer, believes he will win.) to this suggestion (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.) for more concise language.
  • I am uncertain about the comma placement in this sentence (His boss Mr. Burns, instead gives the award to an "inanimate carbon rod”.).
  • This sentence (Homer, feeling that no one respects him, turns to TV and comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased and needs revision.
  • I would revise this sentence (Due to the call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.).
  • I have two issues with this sentence (The episode was very well received with many critics and fans calling it the best episode of the Simpsons.) from the lead. I think you can avoid the repetition of the word "episode" and it should be "The Simpsons" as opposed to "the Simpsons".
  • The prose for the “Plot” section as a whole could use some tightening and revision to avoid awkwardly constructed sentences. I will go more in-depth for future comments. A copy-edit from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful.
  • I would revise the image caption ("Deep Space Homer" is the only episode credited as being written by David Mirkin (pictured in 2012).) to (“Deep Space Homer” is the only episode that David Mirkin (pictured in 2012) wrote for The Simpsons.).
  • Make sure that all of the references are placed in numerical order. One instance where they are not is (Several silly gags were therefore toned down to make the episode feel more realistic, including an idea that everyone at NASA was as stupid as Homer.).
  • This sentence (Some computer animation created using an Amiga was used in the sequence in order to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.) is very awkwardly worded and I would rewrite it. For instane you use “use” twice in the same sentence.
  • You never actually say or cite in the body of the article that the episode aired on February 24, 1994. It would also be nice to include the time that it was broadcast.
  • I believe you can revise this sentence (In his book, Planet Simpson, Chris Turner names the episode as being one of his five favorites, saying it is "second to none", despite listing "Last Exit to Springfield" as his favorite episode.) to avoid repeating “episode” and “favorite” twice.
  • Make sure the "Bibliography" subsection is alphabetized. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I can tell that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still think there is a lot of work left to be done. There are key issues with the reference formatting, and I have noticed issues of prose throughout the article. I think a thorough copy-edit would be benficial. I will provide more comments in the future if/when these are addressed, but I did not want to leave too long of a list. I hope that you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 All done. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for resolving my comments. I am going to do a more thorough review of the prose either this weekend or next week (as I am busy with off-Wikipedia obligations this week). Please ping me by the end of next week if you have not heard from me. Good job with the article, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Aoba47 Thank you for the help and praise. Talk to you whenever you are back. Good luck with the obligations. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The dates are still not consistent in the references section. For instance, reference 3 uses MDY, while reference 15 uses YMD. There are some inconsistencies even within the same reference (for instance, you use MDY and DMY for reference 10). The formatting should be consistent throughout each reference so please correct this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Aoba47 Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Below are comments/suggestions that I have just for the “Plot” section. Apologies for going slowly through the article, but I just wanted to make sure that I do a thorough review.

  • For this sentence (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.), I am not sure that “Power Plant” should in caps as it is not a proper noun. Unless you are going to include the full name of the power plant, then I would believe it should be in lowercase. I would use the full name of the plant (i.e. the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant).
  • This sentence (While watching TV, Homer comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased. A possible revision is the following: (Homer watches a space shuttle launch on television, but finds it dull and calls NASA to complain.)
  • I think you revise this sentence (Meanwhile, NASA, frustrated over its drop in the Nielsen ratings, decides to send an "average shmoe" into space as the solution.) to something like this (Meanwhile, NASA decides to send an “average shmore” into space in response to a drop in its Nielsen ratings.).
  • I would revise this sentence (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (NASA chiefs pick Homer after hearing his phone call.).
  • I would try to revise the following sentence (When they arrive at Moe's Tavern in search of Homer, Homer believes he is in trouble for making the call and blames Barney for the incident.) to avoid having “Homer” repeated twice right after each other.
  • I am confused by this sentence (However, when Barney toasts his victory with a non-alcoholic drink, he reverts to his normal alcoholic self and escapes.). How would Barney “revert to his normal alcoholic self” by drinking a non-alcoholic beverage?
Aoba47 Thats the joke. Barney is a drunk and is so addicted to alcohol that he reverted to his old self even with a non-alcoholic beverage. Reworked a bit. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Homer wins by default and is selected for space flight, but he becomes nervous about going.), I think you can remove “about going” as it is clear from the context.
  • For this sentence (He talks with his wife Marge on the phone, and she says that he ought to take advantage of the opportunity.), I would use “should” instead of “ought to”.
  • I would revise the following sentence (He agrees, and the launch, which is also a Nielsen ratings smash, proceeds.) as it reads rather awkwardly. I am also not sure what you mean by “also”, as you have not mentioned anything else being “a Nielsen ratings smash”, in previous sentences. I would also use different wording than “smash” as it is rather informal. The word “success” may be more appropriate.
  • I would avoid the use of the word “reveals” in this part (Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board). To avoid it, I would revise these two sentences (In space, Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board. He opens the bag, but due to the effects of weightlessness, they spread around and clog the instruments.) to (Homer smuggles potato chips on board the shuttle. While in space, he opens the bag, and the chips spread around and clog the instruments due to the effects of weightlessness.). I have also revised some of the language/sentence order in my suggestion.
  • For this part, I would say “his family” instead of “the family”.
  • For this sentence (Although Homer is a hero, the press only has eyes for the carbon rod that he used.), I would use a different word than “only has eyes for” as it sounds somewhat too informal.

Again, I hope you find this helpful. I will be going through the rest of the sections either this weekend or next week. I would also like to add that the original airdate does not need a reference in the infobox as that information should be present and cited in the body of the article. The infobox should also include the runtime, and that information should also be present and cited in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All done with your comments. The runtime cannot be added to the infobox as the Simpsons IBox template does not contain it. The main Simpsons article says that all episodes excluding specials are 22 minutes. Runtime seems pointless in the article. Thank you again. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will get to the rest of the sections in a few days. My comment about the reference for the airdate in the infobox was not addressed though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for this thorough review. I forgot to remove the Box ref but did mention it in the article. All good now. AmericanAir88(talk) 11:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Below are my comments and suggestions for the “Production” section:

  • I would revise this sentence ("Deep Space Homer" was written by then-executive producer David Mirkin.) to avoid the passive tense/voice. Also, please make it clear what reference is being used to support this sentence.
  • For this part (Mirkin had worked on the idea for the episode for a long time), could you clarify what is meant by a “long time”? It is rather vague, and it could mean anything from days, weeks, months, or years. If you do not have more exact information on this, then I believe you could cut it and have the sentence read “Mirkin based the story…).
  • I have two comments for this part (basing the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project to send ordinary civilians into space in order to increase interest amongst the general public.). Rather than “to send ordinary civilians”, I would say “that sent ordinary civilians” and I would cut “in order to” to just “to” to be more concise.
  • I think you can condense and combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production as some felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.[5][6] Matt Groening felt that the idea was so big that it gave the writers "nowhere to go".[4]) to the following suggestion (The show’s writing staff felt sending Homer into space was too large an idea, and Matt Groening said that it gave the writers “nowhere to go”.).
  • For this part (Several silly gags were therefore), I think you can remove the word “silly” and just say “gags”.
  • For this part (the relationship between Homer and his family and Homer's attempts to be a hero.), I think it should be “his attempts to be a hero”.
  • Unlink James Taylor and Buzz Aldrin as they were linked in the “Plot” section.
  • I would revise this sentence (Some of the writers were concerned about Aldrin's line, "second comes right after first", feeling it was insulting to Aldrin.) to the following (Some of the writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line, "second comes right after first”, an insult.).
  • I have two comments for this part (An alternative line was written: "first to take a soil sample", but Aldrin had no problem with saying the original line.). I think that the colon should be changed to a comma, and avoid repeating the word “line” so much.
  • For this sentence (Taylor also sings Carole King's "You've Got a Friend".), specify the year in which the song was released.
  • For this sentence (The potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman instead of the episodes director, Carlos Baeza.), it should be “episode’s” instead of “episodes”.
  • For this sentence (Some computer animation was created with Amiga and was used to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.), I would cut down “and was used to” to just “to” for more concise language.

The following are comments for the “Themes” section:

  • I have two comments for this sentence (The episode contains numerous references to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey:). I think you can use the episode title in the beginning, and I would end the sentence with a period rather than a colon. I would make each of the following parts into their own sentence to avoid having a run-on list.
  • I would revise the following sentence (in the space shuttle, Homer floats in zero gravity, eating potato chips (this echoes the docking scene in 2001, with the use of the music piece The Blue Danube)) to something like this for more concise language (The scene in which Homer floats in zero gravity and eats potato chips includes the musical piece The Blue Danube as a reference to the movie.). The source provided does not specify it is a reference to the docking scene.
  • For this sentence (tchy comes out to torture Scratchy in an EVA pod much like those aboard the Discovery craft), please wikilink Itchy and Scratchy (they are redirects to The Itchy & Scratchy Show). I am a little confused by the sentence as the plot section does not reference Itchy or Scratchy. I am assuming that Homer or someone else watches an episode prior to the space launch (again, it has been many many years since I have seen this lol). Some clarification would be helpful.
  • I would condense down this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).) to something like this (At the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker, that rotates in slow motion, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite. It is a parody of a similar transition between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra.)

I will get to the “Reception” section sometime this weekend. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate comments for my current FAC. It is not as popular as this episode by a long shot, but I would greatly appreciate any help. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All done with suggestions. Thank you again for this amazing help. Ill give insight on your FAC. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am just glad that I can help in any way. Thank you. It is a short article so hopefully, it should not be too much of a bother. Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Below are my comments on the “Reception” section:

  • Do you know the time that the episode aired? I would add that information to the first sentence of the first paragraph.
  • Add a few sentences on the formats in which the episode is available to watch (i.e. DVD, Blu-ray, digital download, and streaming) with appropriate sources.
  • Unlink “Nielsen ratings” as you already have it linked in a previous section.
  • Avoid using the episode’s full title in the first two sentences of the first paragraph.
  • Do you have information on the episode that aired directly before and directly after this to see how this episode’s ratings compared to the previous one, or if the next one had higher or lower ratings compared to this one.
  • I would recommend making the first paragraph into its own section (as it will be expanded with information about its release) called “Broadcast history and release”.
  • Link Fox as you have done so in the body of the article.
  • Why is reference 5 awkwardly placed in the middle of the sentence about MSNBC as it does not seem connected?
  • MSNBC should not be in italics. Instead of “Empire Magazine”, just say Empire and italicize it. IGN should not be in italics.
  • Add the year in which Planet Simpson was published.
  • There is not a clear structure to the second paragraph. It jumps around between these three points: 1) NASA loving the episode and including it on the ISS, 2) positive critical reception, and 3) the references in Tapped Out. I would make sure each paragraph has a structure/flow. Here is a good resource for copyediting reception sections (Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections).
  • The third paragraph also jumps around from talking about 1) the guest performances to 2) the staff response.
  • Link Planet of the Apes.
  • The Empire Magazine sentence is missing punctuation (i.e. a period at the end).
  • The sentences on Planet Simpson could use from revision as they are awkwardly phrased.
  • Some of the sentences say that X thinks that “Deep Space Homer” is one of the best episodes (i.e. Empire and The Daily Telegraph), but do they explain why they thought this?
  • Link Chris Turner.

I hope that this is helpful. I also just noticed that you reference The Right Stuff in the lead, but it is not included anywhere in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: All done. Thank you so much. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Apologies for the extreme length of the review. I support this for promotion. Great work with this, as I feel that this has improved a great deal since the last FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for all your help! Good luck on your FAC as well! AmericanAir88(talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Indopug

Comment Not sure what ref6 "Commentary, Simpsons World" refers to? The link is broken too.indopug (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Indopug: It is referring to commentary on the episode by the writers on the website of Simpsons World. I have fixed it. Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 22:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from FunkMonk

  • I'll take a look at this soon. Some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • David Silverman is overlinked.
  • You could give an example of an overlord meme, unless readers know about it already, they would have no idea what it entails. You explain a bit further in an image caption, but that is not the place for unique information; it should also be stated in the article body.
  • "created with Amiga" With or on an Amiga? Also, probably good to specify it is a computer.
  • Groening is neither lined or introduced in the article body.
  • You should spell out Homer Simpson at first mention in the intro and article body. A bit too esoteric otherwise.
  • "The writers focused more upon the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero" Than on what?
  • The astronauts (and everyone else, such as James Taylor) mentioned also need to be linked and presented as astronauts, both in intro and article body.
  • "A version of James Taylor's 1970 single" You don't need to spell names out after first mention in the article body.
  • "the musical piece The Blue Danube" Mention composer, as you do with other music pieces.
  • "with people replacing the ant photo" This is awkwardly written. Something like "wherein the ant photo is replaced with" would sound better.
@FunkMonk: All done. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, more below. FunkMonk (talk)
  • "which is lifted from Kent Brockman's line" Since the reader may not know what line you're referring to, could be quoted here.
  • "The term was used by New Scientist magazine" In reference to what?
  • "rule over humanity such as robots" Comma before "such as robots".
  • Could you add some dates for the various commentaries and events listed under reception?
  • Groening, Silverman, and possibly others, don't need their full names spelled out multiple times after first occurrence either.
  • "who was also the executive producer at the time." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
  • Barney should be linked in the intro.
  • "instead of the episode's director, Carlos Baeza" Seems a bit strange that the main director is only mentioned as an aside?
@FunkMonk: All done with new issues. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. I wondfer if you should explain why Brockman thinks giant ants will take over the world... FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thank you! He thinks that as when he is looking at footage inside the shuttle, a giant ant appears infront of the camera which scares him. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I wonder if it should be clarified in the article for context. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: That idea was in my head but I felt as it would not benefit the article as its implied in the plot section that ants broke loose. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, there's a bit of a leap from ants breaking lose and someone thinking they're giant, but it's your call. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I put a small mention in the plot on how it scared Kent Brockman. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

MOS:TVPLOT: "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." As I look at the article now, it has 484 words. This isn't just a matter of enforcing policy - the description of the hatch stuff is very wordy, for example. I've drastically trimmed several Simpsons plot summaries over the years, many of them FA or GA, and it seems to be a recurring problem. Popcornduff (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've edited this down now. Popcornduff (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update 2: I've copyedited the entire article, as I didn't think the prose quality as it stood was up to FA scratch. Sorry to create extra work for people, but the editors who've reviewed it so far might want to read it again to see how it stands now. I have a few further comments:

  • Should add something brief (like one sentence) to the lead to cover production (ie writers feared it was too wacky and toned it down)
  • NASA loved the episode and Aldrin's cameo Loved it why? Is there a quote we can add to expand on this? It's vague.
  • contains one of Groening's least favorite jokes, why doesn't Groening like it? Popcornduff (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we really need the long string of sources following the info about a copy being placed on the space station? Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Addressing. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I have Fixed everything. I removed the "NASA loved...cameo" sentence and strengthened the ISS sentence as it is implied that they enjoyed it. I rewatched the commentaries and found Groenings reasoning. Thanks for the help on the summary! AmericanAir88(talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Territorial Force

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Territorial Force was a British part-time military auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and yeomanry auxiliaries. Political compromise meant that it was confined to a home defence role rather than reinforcing the regular army in operations overseas as originally intended. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and on the outbreak of the First World War Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army. Despite these indignities, the territorials volunteered for service overseas, filled the gap between the effective destruction of the regular army in France in 1914 and the arrival of the New Army in 1915, and carried the majority of the British effort in the Middle Eastern theatre. The article has been peer reviewed and successfully completed a MILHIST A-Class review in which it received both a source and image review. Factotem (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Suggest adding county for Solihull. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Fixed silly error in bibliography order and added county. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Prose in the lead:

  • "but political opposition resulted in it being assigned to home defence"—not the most elegant wording. "its" would be grammatical, but maybe: "but because of political opposition it was assigned to home defence".
  • "Members could be deployed anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." could be, could not be. Why not simpler? "Members were deployed anywhere in the UK, but were not compelled to serve overseas."
The statement refers to the legal constraint on the force's use, not how it was actually used. I think it would be misleading to express that in the way you suggest because members were not actually deployed anywhere until the First World War.
I don't understand your argument. What is not legal about "but were not compelled to serve overseas"? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The whole point of that sentence is the legislation governing how the territorials could be deployed, not how they were actually deployed. In addition to my point above about not being deployed anywhere until WWI, they did in fact become liable for service overseas when new legislation was introduced in 1916. The sentence has already been re-written as "Members were liable for service anywhere in the UK but could not be compelled to serve overseas." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "transferred into the force"—here's an instance where you could cap the F (throughout). But I don't mind if you don't.
A similar issue came up in the ACR regarding the capitalisation of "territorials". I'm not sure it's approrpiate, in the same way that we write "army" when referring to the British Army.
  • "It was not well regarded by the regular army, which did not consider it an effective military body, and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription."—very messy logic, unless the regular army really was denigrated. If it was, the wording needs to be clarified.
Not sure I see the problem here. It seems clear to me that "it" refers throughout the sentence to the Territorial Force, and "which..." introduces a parenthetical clause, so I'm not sure how it could be construed that it was the regular army that was denigrated. I could write "...and it was denigrated...", but I thought this was discouraged as a word that should be removed in favour of ellipsis.
No, don't allow such an ambiguity to creep into your writing. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Already re-written as " It was not considered to be an effective military force by the regular army and was denigrated by the proponents of conscription." Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "by deploying some territorial units to imperial garrisons"—only use "some" if you want to mark the point that it wasn't a lot. Otherwise, just the plural is enough.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other? Four of the fourteen territorial divisions were deployed to imperial garrisons, so I'm not sure that "some" is all that much of an issue.
Why don't you specify "four", then? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Because that's not the whole story, which, for reasons of summary style, is not in included in the main body of the article. "Some" is now history. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Intended to release regulars from line of communication duties, the losses sustained during the initial German offensive resulted in territorial battalions being attached to regular army brigades and pressed into action."—This sentence is a train-wreck. Same grammatical awkwardness I pointed to in the first bullet ("battalions being attached"—use explicit causal items like "because" or "since"?). So it was the losses that were intended to release? And don't we need two hyphens in the first phrase? Chicago MOS says we do; New Harts says we do; so does our MOS.
Ha ha, yes. Sloppy writing from me there.
  • "They were credited with playing a key role in stopping the offensive and praised "—Who is they? I see three people-type plural items in the previous sentence, and it could even refer to "losses". Try to avoid keeping the reader hanging on the meaning until later in a sentence; and "were praised" would stop us momentarily wondering whether "they" did the praising.
More sloppiness from me.
  • "and as more arrived they began to be committed to offensive operations"—maybe. Consider "they were committed", unless you really need to mark its beginningness. And "committed" is ambiguous; "assigned"?
The professional army harboured a significant and long-standing prejudice and was very reluctant to rely on the amateur territorials, so the beginningness is intentional. "Assigned" conveys to me the sense that the territorials were allocated a role in plans. Doesn't "committed" better convey the sense that they actually did go into action?
Yes it does convey that better, but as a reader my first understanding was that they were "committed" by someone further up the chain. It's ambiguous. It would clarify matters if "their personal commitment grew", or some such, were possible. It's no good as it is. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Genuinely confused by this. Replaced "began to be committed to offensive operations" with "began to participate in offensive operations". Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That's much clearer, though you've changed your intended meaning a little. If you're ok, I'm ok. Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "most of which were later released for service overseas when a third line was raised"—you've lost me. I tried to identify in previous text where the first two "lines" were—whatever a line is.
First, second and third lines are standard terms for the subject, but perhaps stray into military jargon and could be better explained. It probably doesn't help that I refer to the Territorial Force as a "...second-line reinforcement..." in the first paragraph.
It doesn't. Please write for non-expert intelligent adults. Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Already completely re-worked. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Awkward ellipsis of "to": "such as the rights not to be compelled to serve overseas and not be transferred to another unit".
?? Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Also already re-worked and, just now, re-worked even further. Factotem (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gripping topic, with lots of tension, politics, drama. But is the rest of the article worded better than this? If spot-checks show there are problems more generally, I'm inclined to suggest Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. Tony (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It's much appreciated. I've commented above on most of your points. I fully understand that you're providing an opinion on the suitability of the candidate based on the quality of the prose in general, not suggesting a few fixes which, if addressed, will earn a support. This candidacy appears to be doomed, which is disappointing of course, but so be it. You've kinda left it a bit open, though, with the "If spot-checks show there are problems more generally..." statement. Would you mind doing a very quick scan of another section and letting me know what you think? I don't need any further examples of sub-par prose, just a simple yay or nay. The lead is, for me, one of the more difficult sections to perfect and I'm just looking for confirmation that in your opinion the main body of the article demonstrates the same need for improvement. Factotem (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Factotem, I will, tomorrow. Got a headache right now. It would be nice to have this as an FA. Let's also see what the other reviewers have to say. Tony (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Although not the main point of the comments made, I have, I hope, fixed the most serious of the specific issues listed above. Factotem (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Tony1, I'm reading this that you are NOT currently suggesting that this is withdrawn? I'm not entirely clear if you are opposing, but I'm happy to wait for input from other reviewers. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro and Factotem, sorry to lag in getting back. I shouldn't have bolded my "withdraw" comment, given that I was wavering ... and wavering isn't enough. But it does need work. Sigh, here's the next tranche—but I try not to get into the role of complete copy-editor. Up to the nominator (and collaborators?) to apply the lessons in this spot-check:

  • Caption for Haldane: no dot at end, I think. Fussy, isn't it.
  • "Militia representatives, however, refused to agree to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force, and after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane decided to abolish the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." It's longish with lots of bumps. This is only a suggestion. Disregard if you don't like it: "But militia representatives refused to be absorbed into either the regular army or the Territorial Force; after three attempts to persuade them, Haldane abolished the militia altogether in favour of the new Special Reserve." Bit of fluff removed, nothing wrong with a but or two at sentence openings; semicolon maybe, just to break it up for the reader ... but you decide.
  • This one is a stronger case for a semicolon: "The County Territorial Associations were chaired by Lord Lieutenants and run by traditional county military elites; but Haldane's plan to give civic, business and trade union leaders a major role in running them was significantly reduced in the face of opposition to civilian encroachment in military affairs."
  • "Most crucially"—Crucially is already very strong.
  • "To ensure their support, Haldane was obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role and emphasise instead its purpose in home defence." – Maybe gain. Is the subsequent streamlining ok? To gain their support, Haldane dropped all mention of an overseas role, instead emphasising its purpose in home defence." Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere.
  • Just checking that this proposition is in the right place: "The divergence between intended and stated role caused significant difficulties for the Territorial Force throughout its existence." If it's a summary statement, why not push it earlier? Or if it spins directly off the previous sentence, can that be made clearer in the wording?
  • There are 20 instances of "also". Do you need them all? Tony (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
No need at all for apologies, and I certainly don't expect you to get drawn into copy-editing the article.
  • "Look for ways of simplifying, trimming, straightening, making plainer ... everywhere."
  • I did. The article history and its litany of "ce" edits will demonstrate that. The result, I'm afraid, is what you are kindly giving some time out of your day to review.
  • I must confess I find it difficult to know how to respond. Notwithstanding the howlers I perpetrated in the lead, many of your observations seem to me to be different ways of making the point, rather than flaws in the prose that are significant enough to cast doubt on promotion.
  • Is "gain" really such an improvement over "ensure"?
  • I can accept that I might overuse the word "however", but if there's nothing wrong with a "but" or two at the beginning of sentences, couldn't the same be said about the occasional use of however within them?
When you say "overuse", do you mean you insert too many "corners" into your text (yet ...; but ...; however, ...; instead, ...; by contrast, ... etc), or do you mean you overuse one particular wording to indicate a corner to the readers? Tony (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I meant that one particular word, but I'm sensing a hint here. I took the opportunity yesterday to review the number of corners I put into my writing, and trimmed out a few buts and howevers. I still need to review my use of "and" to see if I'm not over-complicating sentences or committing(!) acts of inappropriate conjunction, but I've been busy over at the FQSR workshop today and need to get on with other things now. Hopefully tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Little later than planned, but I've run through another copyedit. As well as simplifying awkward/removing redundant prose, I've looked into cutting corners, so to speak. There are still 13 instances of "also", but five are WP's "See also" links, and not embedded into the prose. I've kept a single "however". There's still quite a lot of "but", but I think these are ligitimate contrasting statements. Whether I've done enough to allay any concerns about the prose is obviously not my call, but the article is now, for better or worse, the best I can achieve. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • And I will never, in a million years, see how changing one comma to a semi-colon improves that admittedly difficult sentence. What's more, to me, the semi-colon now makes that "but" stick out like a sore thumb.
  • Some other obervations you make seek to eliminate wording that I still think is important. Haldane, for example, was indeed obliged to drop all mention of an overseas role. It was such an essential part of his plans that he did not do so until eight days before he introduced the legislation he'd been working on for the past year. This compromise, more than any other, wrecked his designs and condemned the force to ridicule (which, incidently, is why I felt it necessary to reinforce the already strong and now unreinforced "crucially").
  • Please don't think I'm trying to be dismissive of your input; I'll fix those issues that are obvious to me, but I'm not sure how to move forward from here. It doesn't help that two of your comments seem to me optional, PR type suggestions rather than fixes for poor prose. I'm happy to put in some effort to address obvious problems, but if, in your opinion, the issues you have identified so far provide sufficient grounds to oppose and are endemic throughout (and I'm not asking for a complete list of problems; I fully understand the principle of sampling), then a) I'm not sure I have the eye to identify those issues, and b) I don't believe it's appropriate to undertake such extensive rework within the FAC process.
  • Note to co-ords I realise that an oppose from Tony1 at this stage of the candidacy would probably trigger archival, but if that is his conclusion, I hope that this candidate would have at least the opportunity to still garner further review. The subject is complex and involved a fair amount of effort to compile and present in summary style. I've already exhausted both PR and ACR for feedback. I'm hoping that fresh eyes will provide one final validation of the content, even if the style is found wanting. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I meant to review this at ACR, but unfortunately didn't get up to it. I'm pleased to do so now. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest that the first sentence make it clear that this was an element of the British Army
  • The lead is probably a bit too detailed: I found it somewhat heavy going. Rejigging it so that the first para summarises the topic (per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH), with the second and third paras providing key details would be preferable.
Really not sure how to respond to this, much less fix it. Can you bear with me? Need to look into what MoS says, and try and see the problems you see.
The first para should provide a stand alone summary of the article, with the other paras in the lead covering other key details. At present the first para covers about the first third of the article instead, which is a bit daunting for readers - this doesn't ease them into the article. I've tried to do this in the FAs I've taken the lead on if some examples would be helpful (not saying that they're perfect!). As an example, in the Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom article's lead I tried to cover all of the Australian forces sent to the UK in the first para and then expanded on this in the other two paras by explaining the main deployments. I tried to do roughly the same thing in the much more complex Air raids on Japan article - the first para is a very high level summary, and the others describe what the campaign involved and its consequences. This means that the structure of the lead is a bit different to the structure of the article as the first para cuts across the entire article, while the others summarise the key issues in a more linear way. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I've re-jigged the lead completely along these lines in my sandbox. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if it's any better? Factotem (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That looks better - nice work. I think that there's scope for some further streamlining though. In regards to the first para, I'd suggest cutting the second sentence, expanding a bit on the TF's wartime role, and noting its post-war fate (so that it fully stands alone). The other paras look good, but are a bit complex still. I'd suggest deleting the sentence "Territorial units were among the best in the British Army by the war's end, though by that time there was little to distinguish between regular, territorial and new-army formations." given that it's confusing: as there was no longer any difference between the make-up of the units, they can't be meaningfully compared against each other (I presume that most of the pre-war TF soldiers were casualties by this time as well). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Very few battalions had even a handful of originals left. How does that sandbox look to you now? Factotem (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Were the auxiliaries disbanded when the TF was established? If not, what was their role?
Yes. Both Volunteer Force and the yeomanry ceased to exist as separate organisations. I understand that one VF battalion remained on the Isle of Man, and there are still a couple of militia units existing to this day, but these are tiny details that don't, I believe, warrant a mention.
I might have missed something, but I got confused about the status of the various reserve forces. A clearer statement of how the TF replaced them would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The article currently states "The Territorial Force was established on 1 April 1908 by the amalgamation of the Volunteer Force and the yeomanry." I'm not sure how that does not make it clear that the VF and yeomanry ceased to exist in their own right. That's fairly standard for military units, isn't it? I could add "..., which both ceased to exist.", but it seems to me that's just being unnecessarily wordy. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The article discusses the various problems with the TF (real and perceived) before WW1, including its problems attracting volunteers, but doesn't explain what motivated substantial numbers of people to volunteer for the force and actively participate in it. Could this be discussed? The "Erosion of the territorial identity" covers this kind of issue during the war, and corresponding material on the period before the war would be very interesting.
I've re-read the chapter on recruitment in Mitchinson's England's Last Hope, which is the most detailed source, but he does not go into detail on what motivated men to join. The closest he comes is the boost to recruitment that occurred as a result of invasion scares in 1909, and I've edited the article to make this clear.
I've also found a few lines in another of his works which discusses how the associations attempted to recruit new members. It addresses the issue of what motivated men to join only obliquely, by emphasising how the associations focused on pride in a territorial (i.e. one's home area, not the force) identity, but does tie in with the later discussion of the erosion of territorial (i.e. the TF) identity. Factotem (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Social military history can be thin on the ground, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " because so few territorials had thus far accepted the Imperial Service Obligation" - could this be explained? Was the obligation something TF personnel needed to opt into before the war?
Members could accept the Imperial Service Obligation at any time. I'm not sure if there's much more that can be said about this. I've amended this to read "..because so few territorials had thus far volunteered for foreign service...". Does that make it any clearer?
What the obligation was and how it worked isn't clear at present Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. Struggling to see how this is not adequately explained in the "Formation" section by the sentences, "Members were not required to serve overseas unless they volunteered to do so. Haldane, who still regarded the force's primary function to be the expansion of the Expeditionary Force, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the force would volunteer. The option to do so was formalised by the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation in 1910." Territorials simply signed a form to say they would be willing to serve overseas. That's all there was to it. There was no other mechanism in place. It wasn't until war actually broke out that they started thinking about how it would work, which is where the second line comes in. Factotem (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe quoting the sources would help explain. Beckett: "But, after six months training upon mobilisation, the territorials would be ready for overseas service and Haldane hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of the territorials would volunteer for such overseas service in advance by taking what in 1910 became known as the imperial service obligation." Dennis: "Political presures from the Volunteer and Yeomanry representatives and from [Haldane's] his own Liberal colleagues, forced him to abandon his plan to make the Territorials liable to service overseas, an obligation that was fundamental to his concept of their proper role. Instead [Haldane] had to rely upon the hope that [the territorials] would voluntarily accept the imperial service obligation, and that if the occasion arose they would not shrink from the call." That's it. That's pretty much all the sources say about it. Maybe the capitalisation is making it appear more of a thing than it actually is? Someone else did that, and I just went with it. Not sure if it's correct or not, and I notice that neither Beckett nor Dennis capitalise it. Factotem (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the deployment of second-line units overseas was officially endorsed in mid 1915, but until the third line was ready, the conflicting demands to supply drafts, defend the homeland and prepare for deployment caused problems for the second line." - this sentence is a bit over-complex. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences.
  • "Despite the preference of General Ian Hamilton, Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces, for the Territorial Force to be deployed to the Western Front in complete brigades and divisions, individual battalions were detached to regular brigades" - why did this occur? Was it because not complete brigades or divisions were combat ready, while some battalions where, or was it something more ad-hoc?
The TF was supposed to be defending home shores. Individual units were sent because there was a desperate need for reinforcements in France, and the TF was all that was available. There wasn't much logic in the selection of units sent, other than they needed to have had enough men volunteer for foreign service. I think this is all explained in the article, albeit not in one place, isn't it?
Concentrating the material a bit more would help. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I've amended the last clause to read "..., it was deployed piecemeal. The pressing need for troops meant that individual battalions were sent as soon as they reached a degree of efficiency and attached to regular brigades." The sentence explaining that there was little logic to the choice of which units were sent has been moved up to follow it, and the footnote expanded with a detailed explanation of how little we know about why certain units were chosen above others. Does that look OK now? Factotem (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the 'Filling the gap' section, full TF brigades and divisions appear on the Western Front. Could the process through which they were sent be explained?
Sorry. Don't understand the question. I'm assuming it's not about how they were shipped, ports of embarkation and disembarkation etc. The deployment of full divisions was a continuation of the process begun when individual battalions were sent. It was driven by the severe losses suffered by the regular army and the fact that the New Army was not yet ready, which I think is covered already in the article.
I've moved a few sentences up from the following section, so that the appearance of the Northumbrian Division on the Western Front in the "Filling the gap" section is not so sudden. I've also added some preamble to explain that divisions began to be deployed once they completed their training and the threat of invasion had receded. Is this what you were looking for? Factotem (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What did the three TF divisions deployed to India do? Where they used for colonial garrison-type roles? (the Australian historian Peter Stanley has a forthcoming book on the subject)
Garrison duties. Is that not clear from the article?
Not really. Were they being used for policing-type tasks, or in a conventional role? As this was a significant deployment, a bit more material would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources I have go into any detail about the specific tasks undertaken by the TF in India, or any of the other garrison posts TF units took over. Factotem (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did so many men volunteer for the TF rather than the New Army?
    No information in the sources.
    Simpkins (1988), p. 100: "Of course, not everyone joined the Pals battalions in the autumn of 1914. The Territorial Force too had its attractions for men wishing to enlist with their friends in a local unit, and the creation of the second-line Territorial units from the latter half of August onwards gave them further opportunities to do so. 235,195 men volunteered for the Territorial Force in the first quarter of the war, and an additional 129,224 between 11 November 1914 and 3 February 1915. In October, 1914, thirty-six out of eighty-three recruiting districts in the United Kingdom recorded a higher number of enlistments for the Territorial Force than for Kitchener units and the Special reserve, and ten of those districts, mainly in Ireland, had no Territotial Formations." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question of why men volunteered for the TF in preference to the NA. Beckett touches on the issue. He mentions that the TF had wider age limits and lower height requirements, but does not link this explicitly to recruits' motivation for choosing the TF over the NA. He also makes contradictory statements about the attractiveness of the territorials' ability to volunteer for home service only. On the one hand, he states, "How far this [ability] was an important factor in territorial recruiting is unknown...", and on the other he states, "There is some evidence to suggest that home service had been an attractive option, incomplete returns for Caernarvon between September and December 1914 suggesting that the ratio of home to foreign service enlistments ran four to one...". Not sure any of these statements offer anything that could be used to definitively support assertions about men's motivations for joining the TF in preference to the NA. Factotem (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Might sources on the New Army discuss this? I suspect that there isn't a clear answer though: presumably people joined the TF because it was familiar, their friends were already in it, they didn't know there was a difference, the line out the front of the recruiting office was shorter, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I have the book Hawkeye7 quoted from above, but can find nothing in it that gives any insight on why men chose the TF over the NA. Factotem (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)–
  • The article comes across as rather sympathetic to the TF. Have historians commented on problems with the UK having, in effect, two or three armies during WW1, or whether the Government should have attempted to introduce conscription before the war rather than raise what was seen as a half-baked reserve? Has there also been any commentary on the negative side of regional recruitment? - while the article presents the views of those who opposed the dilation of TF units' regional characteristics, a key problem with this was that if such a unit had a bad day in battle (and in WW1 many units were almost completely destroyed in major battles) it resulted in utter disaster for the community from which it was drawn. As I understand it, the "Pals' Battalions" are regarded as having been a major mistake on these grounds, and the British Army rapidly mixed up their personnel after many of them were wiped out in the Battle of the Somme. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: sympathetic treatment. Not sure about this. I have only reflected what the sources say. I haven't held back on the ridicule or the poor reputation of the force before the war, nor have I glossed over any of it's failures.
  • Re: three distinct armies. I believe I have covered this adequately throughout the article. I'll have another look though.
Mallinson's The Making of the British Army does not appear to touch on the subject of the British having three (or four) different types of army during WWI. Simkins' chapter "The Four Armies 1914–1918" in Chandlers' The Oxford History of the British Army focusses on the issue, but it relates entirely to difficulties of recruitment. The sources I have used go into more detail about the issues encountered as a result of the territorials' distinct identity, and I'm fairly sure I touched upon all the key aspects throughout the article (though I have added a sentence on how the TF competed with the NA for recruits and how the NA was prioritised over the TA for regular training staff and equipment). Factotem (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The conscription debate as it affected the TF is covered in the article. Are there any specific issues I need to address? There's a lot to be said about the subject in general, as well as the various issues relating to recruitment leading up to conscription, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this article.
  • I'm aware of the issues with the Pals battalions, but this is not a feature that appears in the sources about the TF. I think, and this is only speculation, it may be because TF units' first experience of battle was spread over a longer time period. Some fought first in the initial German offensive of 1914, others at Ypres in early 1915, others still at Gallipoli and Loos later that year, etc. Even the 48th (South Midland) Division, whose first major action was at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, had spent over a year taking not insignificant numbers of casualties while serving tours of duty in the trenches.
Thanks for the review. Where I can, I've addressed the issues you raise in the article. Others I've responded to above – I will have another look at them to see if there's anything I can do to clarify, but I'm less sure about them. I'm really not sure what to do about the lead. Obviously I don't see the problems you do, otherwise I wouldn't have written it that way, so it's going to take some time for me to understand and address. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Any further thoughts? Factotem (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


I looked at this article back at PR, and I endorse it as FAC-worthy. It is a superb article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Heroes

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Two years after Sonic Adventure 2 brought Sega's days as a first-party publisher to an end, a new era began in 2003. Unlike previous Sonic the Hedgehog games, Sonic Team USA's Sonic Heroes was released for a large number of non-Sega platforms. It features a drastically different gameplay style from its predecessors—one that focuses on linear platforming and teamwork. Overall, it's simpler and more streamlined than its predecessors. Sonic Heroes divided the gaming press: reviewers wrote that it didn't address the major problems of its predecessors, even if its gameplay was closer to the classic Sega Genesis titles than ever. And yet it was the kind of success Sega hadn't seen in years, selling millions of copies and earning numerous sales awards.

I decided to work on this in December but didn't put in serious effort until March (here's where it was before I rewrote it) and got it promoted to GA in April. Since this was a pretty popular game, I had to go through a lot of articles, interviews, etc. and I now think this is the internet's most complete resource on the game. After doing a bit of copyediting and expansion, I think this meets the FA standards. JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For this part (Set six months after the events of Sonic Adventure 2, the story follows four individual groups of characters in their quests to find Doctor Eggman; meanwhile, Metal Sonic secretly manipulates these events.), I would avoid using “events” twice in such close proximity. I think you can just say (Set six months after Sonic Adventure 2) and convey the same meaning.
    • I should've caught this myself. Fixed. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (to complete levels, and collect the seven Chaos Emeralds in special stages.), I do not believe the comma is necessary.
    • Removed it. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Sonic Team USA handled development, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka.), something the placement seems off to me. Would it be better to revise it to the following (Sonic Team USA, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka, handled the development).
    • I actually think your suggestion flows nicer. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The image caption (Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in the Seaside Hill stage.) should not be punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
    • Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Something about the wording for this phrase (In the Sonic series platform game tradition) seems a little awkward to me. I would revise it to read better.
    • Revised to "Like prior Sonic platformers" JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (There are four teams: Team Sonic (Sonic the Hedgehog, Miles "Tails" Prower, and Knuckles the Echidna); Team Dark (Shadow the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, and E-123 Omega); Team Rose (Amy Rose, Cream the Rabbit, and Big the Cat); and Team Chaotix (Espio the Chameleon, Charmy Bee, and Vector the Crocodile).), I think that the semicolons should be commas.
    • Actually, the semicolons are correct. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Each team has its own campaign, called a story.), is the “called a story” part necessary? It seems rather standard for games to refer to a campaign mode as something along the lines of a story mode.
    • I think it's necessary because they're referred to as stories later in the section. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (With Shadow missing his memories and Omega seeking revenge against Eggman for sealing him away, Rouge, who wants to get a hold of Eggman's treasure, forms a team with them), do you think the last part would read better as this (Rouge forms a team with them to get a hold of Eggman’s treasure)?
    • Yeah, that's much better. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (someone is hiding behind the scenes, posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies), I think you can just simplify it as the following (someone is posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies).
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please make it clear what references are used to support this bit of information (to commemorate the Sonic series' 12th anniversary.).
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Critical reception to Sonic Heroes was "mixed or average", according to the review aggregator Metacritic.), please put the references in numeric order.
    • Huh? They already were JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • They are not in order when I look at it. They are currently 27, 29, 28, and 26, which is not the correct numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Aoba47: aahhh, I was looking at it in the Visual Editor and they were in order there and not the normal article for some reason. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (IGN thought rest of the sound was high quality,), I think you mean “the rest of the sound”.
    • Yep. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this statement (The presentation was generally well-received.) is entirely accurate as there are criticisms about the presentation (i.e. the graphics were not much of an improvement from previous games—comparing them to "a glorified Dreamcast game” and disliked the shiny models).
    • I've changed it to "The aesthetics and sound were generally well-received", which I think is more accurate JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (After working on a few more games, in 2008), the comma should be after “in 2008”.
    • Done, but I've rearranged the sentence a bit. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The “G” in “AllGame” should be capitalized.
    • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For reference 10, the word “interview” should not be in all caps. Make sure to avoid putting words in all caps for the reference titles. See references 37 and 38 for the same reasons.
    • Fixed 'em JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great job with the article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've implemented most of your proposed changes, and if I didn't I explained why. I'll comment on your FAC sometime tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! It was an interesting read. The only thing that needs to be addressed is the numerical order of the references in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. However, since that is a minor issue that I am sure you will address, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I've responded above JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Sonic Heroes cover.png - FUR is good, everything is good on this
  • File:Sonic Heros.jpg - Owner for this is listed as Sonic Team USA and for the other image is Sega. Is that right?
    • Source is dead, but archived here. Recommend replacing the dead link. On a side note, websites from 2004 look funny. Lots of animations.
      • Replaced the dead link with the archived one. I've added Sega as the copyright holder to the rationale (Sonic Team USA is the author; Sega's got the copyright. Covers only list the copyright holder). JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg - License is good, all is good

Very good alt text for all. Might recommend adding there is a shark and a whale island in Sonic Heros.jpg, but it is fine if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: thank you for reviewing! I believe I've addressed your point above. I also did add the island details to the alt text; I do think it's worth noting. JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Great, this article passes the media review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This article does not pass the media review - File:Sonic Heros.jpg has an IGN watermark. It's also just an awful screenshot that shows a blur where the characters should be. The alt text says they're pushing a car? What? - hahnchen 07:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kees08 and Hahnchen, I've replaced File:Sonic Heros.jpg with File:Sonic Heroes Grand Metropolis.png. I think it passes again now. JOEBRO64 13:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the published date supposed to be the game release date, or the date the screenshot was published? I beefed up the alt text a bit, please modify if I got it wrong. Could mention that sprites of the characters are in the upper right corner as well, if you want. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kees08: the day the game was released, but I've added the screenshot date as well. JOEBRO64 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Passes media review from me, others may have further input. Kees08 (Talk) 23:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MX

Great article! I checked the lead to make sure the info there was cited elsewhere and everything checks out. Sources look strong and complete. Prose is good too. Like we brought up in the WikiProject, I'm wondering what to do with the infobox, particularly now with the release dates. The Gamecube (Japan) version is cited in the body, but there is an inconsistency with the NA version (January 5 in infobox; January 6 in text). Windows release has only the month-year in the prose, but not in the infobox. PAL region is unsourced entirely, as well as Windows JP release. Shiro Maekawa is also unsourced. MX () 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also wanted to say that I don't think sources should be added to the infobox. Prose is fine. MX () 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@MX thanks for the review! I've sourced the Windows release dates and corrected the inconsistencies. Removed the unsourced staff because they weren't really important (writer isn't important because this isn't a plot driven game, and Hoshino has been a main Sonic artist for a while). The PAL release dates aren't unsourced—the European release dates are the PAL ones JOEBRO64 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I support this nomination. Nice job again! MX () 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Saw your bat-signal at WT:VG. Overall, the article is solid, but I think it needs some additional work. Thoughts as follows:

  • Images: File:Sonic Heros.jpg could use a beefed up rationale for its inclusion; as is it doesn't do a great job showing gameplay and I can't tell what teamwork aspects are being featured. There's also an IGN watermark. I think a different, clearer image with a stronger rationale would be best. (On a minor technical side, I'd also recommend uploading the gameplay images as PNG. Wikipedia's JPEG scaler is really not great and it tends to make gameplay screenshots not at full size look more jaggy and less clear than they could be. But that's just a preference.) Other images are fine.
    • Coincidentally, I just uploaded a new image that is not only a PNG, but removes the watermark and shows a much cleaner representation of the gameplay. If you think its rationale needs improvement, let me know.
      • The new image is better, but the FUR could use beefing up. I'd suggest using the image to demonstrate commentary on the graphics with specific points (such as the vibrant art style.)
  • Prose:
    • Six months after the battle aboard the Space Colony ARK—what is space colony ARK? Who is Doctor Eggman? In general there's spots throughout where I think a brief introduction is in order for some plot details. I don't know much about Sonic, but many readers might know even less. Other spots include no mention of who Metal Sonic is (the fact that he's apparently a robot Eggman created feels relevant) and a little more on what the Chaos Emeralds are.
      • I've gone and added some clarification. Axed the "battle aboard the Space Colony ARK" and replaced it with "the events of Sonic Adventure 2.
    • How many players can participate in multiplayer?
      • IGN says two to four.
    • all-powerful Metal Overlord I dunno what this means.
      • Clarified.
    • I went through and performed some minor copyedits as well as added nonbreaking spaces for the figures.
      • Yeah, thanks for that, really made the prose cleaner.
    • I'm not entirely sure about the legacy section. USgamer's retrospective alone doesn't feel like it deserves a paragraph, and the details about later appearances of the levels and subsequent games feel a little excessive for the scope of this article.
      • I've gone and entirely reshuffled the section. USgamer retrospective is now part of the first paragraph, and footnoted the level reappearances to better be digested by a general reader. However, I don't think it should be removed entirely—it is relevant to the game and shows it did have an impact on the series. And I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument but many other FAs, like Super Mario World and Final Fantasy VII, have information like this.
    • IGN considered Sonic Heroes a major improvement from Sonic Adventure, writing "Sonic Heroes does an absolutely sensational job of re-creating the intensely fast and unpredictable looping, corkscrewing stages from the classic games in 3D".[4] and GameSpy agreed.[2][32]—It's not really clear what 1UP and Gamespy are agreeing to here. That it does a great job of recreating the old games in 3D? That it's a major improvement on Sonic Adventure?
      • That it was an improvement from Adventure. Clarified.
  • References:
    • I would suggest axing the notes section. Knowing how many reviews went into an aggregate is mildly interesting, but if we're not calling them out I don't think it's necessary. Likewise, the detail about an event taking place in the previous game is better placed in the text for context. Readers shouldn't need to scroll to figure out that piece of information. The Japanese translation stuff I know is contentious and I defer to whatever the heck the project has hammered together in terms of what the proper usage should be.
      • I've removed the notes. General vibe in recent months is that the Japanese translation is sorta unnecessary for the general reader, and I totally agree with your other concerns.
    • I did a spot check of sourcing and statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 24, and 40, and found some issues that need to be addressed. (Based on this revision)
      • Sonic Heroes is a 3D platformer similar to previous Sonic the Hedgehog games.[1] cited to 1, but the source doesn't mention Sonic as a 3D platform and doesn't directly compare it to previous Sonic games besides saying "it is a Sonic game".
        • This is the only one on my reread that still doesn't seem adequately sourced (the second half now works with the IGN link, but not the platform description.) I'm open to this being considered trivial enough it doesn't need a source, but if it's possible it'd be best to source it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
          • @David Fuchs, added a new source that says it's a 3D platformer in the first sentence JOEBRO64 12:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Team Rose, Team Sonic, and Team Dark represent easy, medium, and hard difficulties, respectively, with harder difficulties featuring longer stages and tougher enemies.—the associated source can be used for the easy/medium/hard distinction, but doesn't cover harder enemies or longer stages, just says harder objectives.
      • Unlike previous games, which had been made using custom tools,—the source only covers the previous Sonic Adventure games, not all Sonic games.
        • I believe I've fixed all these.
    • I would suggest doing a runthrough of other references to make sure there aren't similar issues.
      • I took a look and didn't see anything.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: (insert this here) thanks for reviewing! I've responded above. I might not have addressed all the issues but did my best. JOEBRO64 23:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, no pressure to declare a position, just checking if you have anything to add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As my concerns have been addressed, support the nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

Excellent article, and I've not much to add.

  • "Teams contain three character types: Speed, Power, and Flight, which the player toggles between" – So, there's one character for each type? Have you listed them in that order above (e.g. Sonic is Speed; Miles is Power; Knuckles is Flight)? Perhaps a table of some kind would be a good way to present the information, since each character has two important qualities, Team and Type (and each team has a difficulty).
    • Didn't list them in the right order; fixed that. However, I don't think creating a table would be a good idea because I think it'd read like walkthrough-level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE-level material. It's better covered in prose. As a compromise, I've listed an example character for each. Since they're all in the Speed-Power-Flight order, I think readers will be able to figure it out themselves.
  • Is it worth describing the controls used to manage the characters? If this isn't a standard in VG articles, ignore me, but I would have expected a very concise summary of basic controls. Though I understand there's four platforms.
    • The video game MOS actually discourages explaining strategies like this because it also falls under GAMEGUIDE. I feel like saying "..which the player toggles between using the gamepad's buttons" would sound redundant, because practically every console game is controlled using buttons.
  • Were there any reviewers who commented on the difficulty of the game, or said that particular parts were too easy or too hard?
    • Yeah, there were. I've added it to the reception section.

Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, and I'm now happy with all of these. Support promotion to FA. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of 1327

Nominator(s): —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the Parliament of 1327—almost a revolutionary body, for the first time in English history, a reigning monarch was juridically removed and replaced. King Edward II—did he resign, or was he deposed?! Find out here today. Actually, of course, you won't because—naturally—historians do not agree, as usual, so for me to draw any conclusions would be an indulgence in bubblegum. The article's in (possibly) fine shape; it's been through an almost adequate GA review and a better peer review (now archived, many thanks to all who helped). Looking forward here, as usual, to all meticulous commentary and metaphorical canings. Thanks in advance all, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


There are good things about the writing, but here are a few queries about the prose in the opening para:

  • "Edward II had become increasingly unpopular with the English nobility through the course of his reign, ..." – Unless I've got it wrong, he was only Edward II during his reign. So why are the last six words necessary?
  • "By 1325, even his wife, Isabella, despised him." – A bit clunky with such densely sprinked commas. Could the two either side of "Isabella" be removed?
  • "probably entering into a relationship with him, and ultimately, the following year, invading England with him to depose her husband." – Does the "probably" also apply to the invading? Do we need "ultimately" when there's already a time phrase? Do we need to know that Mortimer wasn't just a good-looking servant? I'm unsure, but think about this: "Toward the end of that year she took their son the Earl of Chester to France, and joined and probably entered into a relationship with the powerful and wealthy nobleman Roger Mortimer, whom her husband had exiled. The following year, they invaded England to depose Edward II."

Tony (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tony1: Thank you very much, Tony, this is an unexpected pleasure. To summarise, I've taken on board your remarks, up to and including lifting your suggested sentence—cheers! If you notice anything else you think I ought to know about, feel free to make any suggestions you want. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding a legend to the map caption explaining the different colours
  • File:Edward_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • And thank you, Nikkimaria, for that. It's a good idea about the legend, and I would really like to use green/pink arrow symbols rather than text—but I think that kind of visual is a bit beyond me, so I had to go with text...also I replaced the link with a university website rather than the news one; any better? Thanks again! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the red dots meant simply to represent the locations associated with the text? It seems there are more dots than the text would suggest... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
True, a careful count shows (I think) an extra one on the "Welsh leg" of Edward's final tour; I wonder, would Hchc2009 be able to clarify, or even adjust their map, I wonder? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
'Fraid I've retired from the Wiki, SerialNumber. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • If "deposition" has a specific meaning, I'd link it.
  • and Despenser, a contemporary chronicler said, was "deeply hated by the nobles of the kingdom".[ - the active tense makes it scan oddly, why not "and Despenser was reported/said to be "deeply hated by the nobles of the kingdom".
  • Edward too was disliked by his nobility, not only because of his favouritism but because they felt abused by him. For example, the King had made repeated demands for unpaid military service from them - strikes me as unnecessarily wordy, why not just, "Edward was also unpopular for making repeated demands for unpaid military service from them"
  • In September 1324 she "had been subjected to the extreme humiliation of being declared an enemy alien", - this can be rewritten without directly quoting.
  • Modern historians agree that hostility towards Edward was general - I'd not use "general" in this way here - you mean "universal"?
  • They were both increasingly scathing in their remarks and eager to score political points off each other, - what do you mean "political points"? I'd be tempted to remove...
  • King Edward certainly alienated his son by putting the prince's estates under royal administration in January 1326. "certainly" redundant here
  • The following month, in a "startling" act of brinkmanship, the King ordered that not only the Queen but the Prince too were to be arrested the moment they landed in England - can we think of another word for "startling" that doesn't need quote marks?

Actually, looking over the Background section, I think it could be trimmed slightly with some of the speculation removed. Context is good but I think it might be a tad on the inclusive side. I can find examples later.

  • They failed in this mission: Edward did not just refuse to come but refused robustly - why can't we just say "he flatly refused"?

OK, I find that it is quite an engaging and entertaining article, so I think with a bit of prose-tweaking we'll get there. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking in, Casliber—I appreciate (and have utilised) all your suggestions. Just to clarify that "startling" was a quote (although should have been directly cited of course), as I wouldn't consider it encyclopaedic otherwise. In any case, I've replaced it with "unexpected"—although, on re-reading, I'm not sure it needs an adjective at all... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Right then...

  • They were uncertain, even, as to whether Edward II had abdicated or was being deposed. - isn't clear who "They" are here....
  • If Edward did denounce parliament in such terms, then he had severely underestimated his wife and Mortimer. - I don't get the point of this sentence really...
  • It may have actually enabled them to do so: - I'd argue this is redundant as it is repeated (in the opposite way) in the next sentence
  • Seymour Phillips suggests that if Edward had attended he may have found enough support to seriously disrupt their plans - "seriously" redundant here. If you want a stronger word than "disrupt", how about "stymie"
  • Following its recall, parliament returned to the more usual business of medieval parliaments - why not just, "Following its recall, parliament returned to usual business"
  • had led to widespread disturbances and illegality - err, this could be rephrased I think..
  • When parliament finally dissolved on 9 March 1327, it had been the second longest, at seventy-one days, of the period - what period?
    • Many thanks again Casliber, I agree with all your suggestions, although I reckon I can tighten the prose a little more,* so some of them may end up being moot? Remembering to strike this time...Incidentally, about the last point, Maddivott doesn't actually specify: so I changed it to "of the reign", which although not as extreme, is at least accurate (since it was). Personally, I think he probably means since c.1277 when parliaments started taking place on a semi-regular basis. But that's just my opinion and also, I think, OR :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
*Now tightened. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Seems pretty complete to me and is an engaging read. I do think some other folks might find some more to tighten as I tend to tune out stuff on repeated reads. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • PS: You were right the first time, it is the reviewer that strikes out their points if/when they feel they've been addressed...but no biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


I intend to support this article, but working through. As a general observation, I find 54129's subject matter very interesting, and his/her writing style highly engaging, they have a real feel for the political undertones and the impact of conflicting personalities on historical events. In part this is because of a highly attuned antenna, in part its because 54129 writing style is very down to earth, conversational almost, at times. While this exactly the kind of prose I most appreciate, in these articles it does lead to some redundancy, which my recents edits are attempting to weed out. I echo Tony's observation above that "There are good things about the writing", and am trying to put my finger on were there could be improvement, as I see this editor as one of our best. All in all, another fine piece of work, will post here again shortly, when done. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy now to Support. Note the nominator pinged me since about watching and learning re Tony suggesting etc; can see evidence of this in this very well written page. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "was instrumental in the transfer of power from King Edward II to his son, Edward III". Neither then had power. I would say transfer of the crown.
    • Absolutely right.
  • "predominantly because of his promotion of court favourites". All kings have favourites. Maybe "excessive influence of unpopular court favourites".
    • I agree; I wonder if that results in a slightly overlong sentence—thoughts?
  • "Despenser was said to be hated by English nobility" Why the "said to be"? He was.
    • I think I meant, by contemporaries. But that's tighter.
  • "Edward was unpopular for his repeated demands for unpaid military service". DNB and the FA article on him do not say this. He would not have been expected to pay the nobility for military service. It was rather his repeated defeats in Scottish wars, which are not mentioned.
    • I'll add & source them, and "paid" is probably anachronistic, so also removed.
  • I should have made clear that I was querying the "repeated demands". This is cited to a 1956 article by Powicke. I do not have access to Phillips's biography, but DNB and the FA Edward II article do not say that this was an issue and do not cite Powicke. Such demands were normal in the period, and although Edward's opponents sometimes supplied only the minimum number they they were required to send for political reasons, the demands themselves do not seem to have been a major issue. I also think that the Scottish failures should be specifically mentioned. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Clarified. Are you using the DNB or the ODNB? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
ODNB. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, just curious. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "in September 1324 Isabella had been publicly humiliated when the government declared her an enemy alien." According to DNB in Sep 1324 she was deprived of her lands, which you have in 1325.
    • Well spotted, thanks, I've corrected the chronology with a couple of (extra, hopefully not too many) details.
  • "The King was incarcerated by the Earl of Lancaster". He only became Earl of Lancaster later. It would be better to use his correct title of Earl of Leicester, especially as it avoids confusion with his uncle who had been executed.
    • Point; so I've linked him as Leicester and pointed out his relationship with Dead Thomas, so when he becomes Lancaster later it won't be a surprise.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Further comments
  • "The main priority for the new regime was what to do with Edward II." This is not grammatical. I would say deciding what to do.
    • Done, thanks.
  • "Roger Mortimer considered holding a state trial" Why the first name when you have referred to him just as Mortimer above?
    • I think just trying to prevent monotony...changed though.
  • "anointed his position by God." This sounds odd. Maybe anointed king by God.
    • Of course.
  • "Only 26 of the 46 barons who had been summoned to the October 1326 parliament also received summons to that of January 1327, and six of those had never received summonses under Edward II at all" I do not understand this. You refer to the Oct 1326 parliament, but above you say that this was the date of the summons for the Dec parliament which was postponed. Maddicott says it was the first parliament for 13 months, a point worth making. Also I assume you mean that 6 received summonses in Oct and Jan who had never had them before, but it is unclear.
    • Of course, they were summoned in Oct 1326, not to, many thanks. I clarified the sentence: "Only 26 of the 46 barons who had been summoned in October 1326 for the December parliament were then also summoned to that of January 1327". I've added the point about 13 months; it's not that I don't agree with it, just that it doesn't really fit.
  • " It differed, in that the concerted influence of outsiders and commoners such as the City of London's Common Council and ordinary Londoners." This is ungrammatical.
    • "Where it differed was in the greater-than-usual influence that outsiders and commoners had, such as those from the London" perhaps?
  • I assume that Lords and Commons met together, not separately as today, but this should be clarified.
    • The precise divisions are unknown. They were certainly together at some points (the opening and conclusion of the parlt, for example, and may have reconvened at various points. Little is known about this for the period; at this stage, the commons did not necessarily even debate as a unit: the burgesses often deliberated separately from the knights for example. It's not until the 1341 parlt that we see two distinctly cohesive houses with separate meeting places. No parliamentary roll for 1327, of course.
  • "reflected an underlying constitutional crisis, of which contemporaries understood." This is ungrammatical.
    • Corrected.
  • " how power was transferred" As above, the crown, not power.
    • "How could a transfer of power between living kings be accomplished in medieval England without violating the underlying assumptions about kingship and government, the elusive 'constitution'?"
  • "The fundamental question was how power was transferred between two living Kings" I am not clear what your point is here. My point, which you agreed with in the lead, is that neither Edward had power at that stage. The question was how to transfer the crown. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A historian has described how" You should name him or her.
    • Done.
  • "having provided no stable rule in his absence (as would be usual)" What does this mean? I assume that it was usual for a king to appoint a regent when he was absent, but it is not clear.
    • Yes, he could leave the realm, but he would be expected to make provision for its rule in his absence. Added "regent".
  • "Mortimer, making clear that he speaking on behalf of the lords". This is ungrammatical.
    • Well: a word was omitted; bt have simplified to "...speaking on behalf of the lords", which is much easier.
  • There are a lot of grammatical errors. I have picked up some but no doubt I have missed others. The article needs a thorough copy edit.
    • There are very few. But thanks very much indeed for your edits!
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Further comments
  • "The bishops gave sermons—Hereford" I think it is better to stick to calling him Orleton as some readers (including me) will not remember his diocese.
    • Done
  • "All of which was claimed to be so well known to the common people that it was undeniable." This is ungrammatical.
    • Tweaked
  • "They accused Edward's favourites of tyranny" "They" presumably refers to the articles but it should be spelled out.
    • Yes...I think at first it referred to the rebels, but the articles, of course, did the same
  • "Edward's father had, says Mark Ormrod left him "an impossible task", having started the war without making sufficient success with which to finish it." "making sufficient success" sounds odd to me. Also it is cited to Phillips, not Ormrod.
    • Tweaked
  • "by evil counsel and evil ward" What does evil ward mean?
    • I think counsel is self-explanatory (the ame word is used in the same context today), but I've added a footnote explaining "ward"
  • "A delegation consisting of the Bishops of Ely, Hereford and London, and around 30 laymen[10][73] (including the Earl of Surrey to represent the lords and Trussell representing the knights)." This is ungrammatical.
    • Split and reworked the sentence
  • "acknowledgement of memoranda" What does this mean? memorandum of acknowledgement?
    • Quite
  • "The delegation set back for London on 22 January" set back sounds odd to me.
    • Meh. I think it's OK, but having said that, reworded slightly
  • "Isabella, on the other hand, granted herself an annual income of 20,000 marks" How did she have the power to do this?
    • Because she was the mother and husband of Kings and lover of the de facto ruler of the kingdom? However, tweaked slightly to show that strictly it was a grant, even if at her request.
  • " (those who evaluated them." Missing bracket.
    • Bracketed
  • "This not only included the political—and often lengthy—petitions" These not only?
    • Yeees...again, I think the singular referred to the "business", but tying it to the petitions makes sense
  • "Their problem they faced" "The problem they faced"?
    • Yes
  • "this effectively involved having to rewrite a piece of history in which many people were actively involved and had taken place only two weeks earlier." What history? He had agreed to resign.
    • Only after a convoluted process which was effectively being made up as it went along: [QUOTE]"Edward II's deposers set themselves a much harder task, one that involved recreating an event involving over a dozen people and backdating it by two weeks, while erasing, or at least devaluing, the importance of a memorable ceremony in which over a hundred had participated, including representatives of the community of the realm who were supposed to report these actions back to their communities"[/QUOTE] If you can think of an improved summary of that, please be my guest!
  • "Michael Prestwich as described the latter" has described?
    • Well spotted
  • "the significance of 1327 for the development of separate chambers, in how it "saw the presentation of the first full set of commons' petitions [and] the first comprehensive statute to derive from such petitions"." I am not clear how this is supposed to have contributed to the development of separate chambers. Also, what is meant by "commons' petitions"? Does commons mean commoners? Presumably it does not mean house of commons since this did not yet exist. The petitions described above are by persons and bodies outside parliament, not just individual commoners.
    • There in
  • "No advance of democracy—nor was it intended to be—its purpose was to "unite all classes of the realm against the monarch" of the time" This is ungrammatical.
    • UNgrammatical! Ungrammatical! Tweaked.
  • "Professor Gwyn A. Williams" Why distinguish him as Professor? Other historians you cite are also professors.
    • Just for variety I suppose, but removed now for consistency
  • "Adam uses words that strongly suggest that had this precedent in mind" I think a word is missing.
    • Yes, "he"—inserted
  • "Says Curtis Perry, "contemporaries applied the story [of Edward's deposition] to the political turmoil of the 1620s in conflicting ways:" This is ungrammatical.
    • Well; the wording is fine, but I don't mind tweaking it. Check it.
  • "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start" This quote should be attributed inline. The same applies to other quotes in the notes, which should be attributed in the text, not just the refs.
    • I do not know what this means. If a quote is in the text, it gets attributed. If it is in a footnote it gets attributed. What mean ye?
  • An example: "This is at variance with the impression received from chroniclers writing under Isabella and Mortimer between 1327 and 1330, who tend to give "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start"." This is cited to L. B. St John, but not attributed to him inline as e.g. "This is at variance with the impression received from chroniclers writing under Isabella and Mortimer between 1327 and 1330, who, according to L. B. St John, tend to give "the impression that Isabella's relationship with Edward was dysfunctional from the start". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This article seems OK in content so far as I can judge with a limited knowledge of the period, but I am concerned at the high number of typos and ungrammatical statements (or in some cases excessively colloquial ones). Dudley Miles (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks again for your review Dudley Miles, we agree on much and disagree on less, although where we do, it is no doubt robustly...incidentally, feel free to be WP:BOLD if you find a great number of errors (I notice you found three earlier). Or just "Oppose" on principle, it's all good. Either way—thanks very much for for your edits as well as this review. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply above. See also my reply above on the crown being transferred not power - in the main text as well as the lead. I am going on holiday so it may be a week before I comment further. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129 I do not wish to oppose as I think the article is close to FA, but there are still a few issues. As I mention above you frequently quote in the notes without attribution to a named historian in the text (see example above). I think it is best to attribute inline in every case but it is not a deal breaker. An additional point which I have just noticed is that I do not think it is correct that he was deposed and his son proclaimed king on 13 January. Both ODNB and Prestwich in Plantagenet Engand pp 216-7 say that on 13 January it was agreed that Edward should be replaced by his son. He was then forced to abdicate on 20 January and the new king officially acceded on 25 January. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Thanks! I hope you had a good holiday. Just FYI, I certainly wasn't insisting you oppose ;) just letting you know that it wouldn't ever be taken personally. So, if I can sum up, your sticking points are inline attribution (I'll certainly do that, as I'm fully persuaded as to the benefit) and the transfer of the crown/power (which is certainly a discussion worth having). As to your latter query regarding Prestwich etc: I can probably tweak that, I just haven't got the sources before me atm (I'm now, ironically, also, on holiday for the week). Is that a good summary of your position? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On transfer of power or crown, you accepted this in the lead and I was just suggesting that the main text be brought in line with the lead. I have made the change myself in the main text, but you can of course reopen the question. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I noticed that. I'm not particularly wedded for or against. My thoughts are basically that a) it's not just the physical crown itself that gets transferred, but the moral and political authority it symbolises, and I think we should be careful not to suggest to the reader that it was as simple a "just" handing over headwear, as it were; and b) that the source refers explicitly to the transfer of power rather than the crown. However: your change is acceptable, as it's still a viable interpretation, if I might think a slightly narrow one. Cheers! Incidentally, I've also provided inline attribution to contemporary scholars' quotes where necessary, as you suggested. Although not to contemporaneous commentary, except where specifically identifiable (e.g., a chronicle). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Source Review

Just flagging up that this candidate has received a comprehensive source review at the FQSR workshop which, I believe, fulfils this candidate's FAC requirement for source reviewing. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. Detailed review at the link above. Factotem (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: Not sure what's going on with the FQSR workshop these days, but it occurs to me that this FAC page will be an incomplete record unless the source review linked to above is replicated here in full. Is there any way it can be transcluded, or do we just copy and paste? Factotem (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Nice article (from a quick skim), and I can only find minor points to pick at so far.

  • "to France, and joined and probably entered" the double "and" is rather jarring. Perhaps "to France, where she joined and probably entered..."
    • Stolen.
  • Gaveston? I bet he was sick to his stomach...
  • "they led to a further decline in his popularity. This declined..." perhaps a different word for the second "decline"?
    • "Diminished"?
  • "with the exiled Roger Mortimer". As this is the first mention outside the lead, perhaps "with the wealthy exiled nobleman Roger Mortimer"?
    • Stole, again.
  • "Along with Roger Mortimer": drop the "Roger"
    • Have done so; but I call him Roger M. a few more times throughout the course of the thing; do you suggest removing Roger completely except the first usage? The thing is, just to confuse things, there's an Ian Mortimer mentioned later too :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Uhhhh... I didn't see the Ian... Best left with both names then - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Done to the end of Background, more to follow. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers SchroCat! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done to the end of "Proceedings of Monday, 12 January" - one minor tweak made in the preceding text. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Proceedings of Tuesday
  • ”The bishops, too, gave sermons”. I’m not a fan of the “too” - it looks like others also gave sermons
  • ”the power of the word of god”: lower case G in the original?
  • ”seen the death of his brother)”: I cant see an opening bracket —

More to come soonest – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Ta! FYI, "god" was clearly subliminal atheist propaganda ;) and the "brother" sentence would work equally well either in or without brackets; I went with the latter—and put an extra bracket in—on the principal, really, that I never actually use them... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Final Batch!
  • You have Claire Valente linked, even though this is the third time you have mentioned her without a link! You've also full named her on the previous two occasions – I think we can do the first time only and surname the last two.
  • The boxed Prestwich quote ("To try to determine precisely") needs a source
  • "its purpose was merely": "merely" should be dropped – it looks like editorialising

I've made a couple of minor tweaks while going through it too.

@SchroCat: You're very kiind, I appreciate your edits too. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

James Wood Bush

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about James Wood Bush a Civil War soldier who saw service in the US Navy and suffered injuries because of it. He was uniquely recognized in later life for his service in the war with a US governmental pension when Hawaii transitioned into a US territory. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, J. R. Kealoha and Prince Romerson. It has been an A-list quality article for a while following the same trajectory of GA than A-class review. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. Copyedit was done recently. I’m gonna ping all the reviewers (non-closers) who have looked at this article or the previous three articles for an opinion. Comment if you have time... KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wb, Kavebear. FWIW, pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit that you ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor, Coemgenus, Wehwalt, Casliber, Maile66, Dank, Dudley Miles, Hchc2009, AustralianRupert, ErrantX, Sainsf, Nick-D, and Maury Markowitz:, thanks for letting me know, did that work? KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It worked, but I've retired from the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USS_Vandalia_(1828)_sketch.jpg: if the source is Harper's, why is this believed to be a US Navy work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It was a holdover from the original upload. Changed it. Image was published in 1861.KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 18 August 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) 03:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any obvious prose issues that need fixing and I suspect it is about as comprehensive as it can be (however I know little of the subject and context). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Support This seems to have been pretty well vetted before it got to FAC. I removed a few extraneous blank spaces that are inherent in infobox templates, but not a factor in any review process. Looks good to me. Nice job. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Most of the article looks really strong to me. I did find a couple of things worth bringing up, though:

  • Both in the lead and the body, the phrase "In recent years" pops up in referring to how Bush has received more recognition. This isn't ideal because such wording can became outdated over time. Imagine it's 10 years from now and the wording is still in the article; would it really be accurate then? Not sure if the sources will let you provide a more exact year range as to when the increase in recognition started, but if possible that would avert the risk of the wording becoming outdated. If not, perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the issue.
  • Minor point, but the Foenander and Milligan Hawaiians in the Civil War external link can be removed since it already appears in the bibliography. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

John Glenn

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, eighteen Air Medals. First American to orbit the Earth. Four-time Ohio senator. Oldest person to fly in space.

This article covers the good and the bad of his life. The article failed an A-class review, failed a FAC, passed an A-class review, and is back at FAC. I have greatly expanded his Senate career, got some images from the Senate Historical Office, and used a larger variety of sources. If you took a look at it last time or not, I would love for you to take a look at it this time! Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Here are my thoughts up to the start of the political career:

  • "He was one of the Mercury Seven, military test pilots selected in 1959 by NASA as the United States' first astronauts. " "the nation's" rather than "the United States' is easier.
  • "Glenn quit college to voluntarily enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps.[21] Never called to duty, he enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942." this is saying the same thing twice maybe three times. I would simplify to "Glenn quit college and enlisted as a U.S. Navy aviation cadet in March 1942"
    No it isn't. He enlisted in the Army, but was not called up. He then enlisted in the Navy. Your version skips his enlistment in the Army. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my bad. I might still cut "voluntarily", it seems implied.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "and learned that he had qualified for a regular commission.[30][23]" I don't know your views on refs in order.
    • I think they should always be in order, so that a bot could go through and clean up every page. Suppose that's neither here nor there... Kees08 (Talk)
      There was an automated script for it. The references tend to move around during the editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Suggest running the script as there are at least two out of order that I saw.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the script is? Otherwise I will do it manually. Kees08 (Talk)
Do it manually. There was a lot of angst about it. Some editors were opposed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Glenn, wrote Tom Wolfe" I might mention that it was in The Right Stuff.
  • "Shepard turned to Glenn and said: "Well, I'm glad they got that out of the way."[82]" I've read other versions of this ...
    • Hmm, I will see what I can find. Remember where you saw? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "A portion of the astronauts' training was in space science, but it had a practical aspect, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.[69]" Possibly rephrase, I think the reader might struggle with this sentence.
    • Rephrased to this: 'A portion of the astronauts' training was in the classroom, where they learned space science. The group also received hands-on training, which included scuba diving and work in simulators.' - I could also leave a footnote explaining what a simulator is, because that may not be clear to the layman. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to self/other reviewers: I found out that this particular portion of NASA's site is not reliable, per Colin Burgess (I can find a link to that if desired). I will go through and replace the citations. My mistake. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was a backup pilot for Shepard and Grissom" "a" or "the"?
  • It might be worth mentioning how close Glenn was to his target on splashdown, since this was sometimes an issue with Mercury.
    • Heh, I think I had this in there and someone removed it for excessive detail...I agree though, will find and add this. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Woops, just remembered it is in the footnote. Would you like me to bring it back to the text or leave it as a footnote? Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Do you have a preference here, footnote or in prose? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "honoring Charles Lindbergh and other dignitaries.[90]" I would say "heroes", or if that's too strong "popular heroes" for "dignitaries".
    • I am fine with heroes; also considered American heroes since they were not necessarily universally considered heroes. Leaving as heroes unless someone wants it changed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "His military and space awards were stolen from his home in 1978, and remarked that he would keep this medal in a safe." The second part of this sentence lacks a subject."
    • Added
  • The women in space and the later awards matters that come close after the 1962 spaceflight feel a bit out of place, and it would be worth considering moving them elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have considered removing it from the article completely but decided it was important enough to leave, considering he made a speech to congress about it. Chronologically it fits there, and I am hesitant to put it in a separate 'Views' section since that view likely changed later in his career. Long-winded way to ask: any place you recommend for it to go? Kees08 (Talk)
    • For the later awards, I could move them back to the Legacy section, I was trying something new. The legacy section has several paragraphs of awards that are won for specific missions, so I decided to move it inline with the mission, and leave the more general awards in the Legacy section. So do you think I should move them to the Legacy section unless they were won soon after the mission? Kees08 (Talk)
My view is a "Legacy" section should be about the effect the person had on the world. I would suggest viewing some Legacy sections on FAs to get an idea. They aren't always easy to write and require a little more than just putting in facts, but a little more analytical. Glenn undoubtedly inspired many people to take up space (so to speak) or sciences, his legislative service no doubt inspired others. This is separate from a section on awards and honors won.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You could put them as a list in a quote box.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I like them where they are. Let me know if you feel strongly about moving the information. Kees08 (Talk)

Thanks for the review; it is a very, very long article and I appreciate it. I will address other comments later. Hawkeye7, would you be able to address the second bullet point? If you are too busy I will make an effort. Also, as a note, the political career section will be the roughest. I rewrote it after the first A-class comments, after the first FAC, and again after the A-class comments. If you could look at it with an extra critical eye I would appreciate it. Thanks again for your time. Kees08 (Talk)

OK, resuming.
  • "Glenn was in consideration to be promoted to full colonel," "in consideration to be promoted" seems wordy. Is there a term used in the military for this?
    • Calling all Hawkeye7s Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Hawkeye7: Repinging, is there a term for this? Kees08 (Talk)
      No, but I re-worded the text to: "Glenn was on the list of potential candidates to be promoted to full colonel, but he notified the Commandant of the Marine Corps of his intention to retire so that another Marine could receive the promotion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did Glenn not seek the Senate seat that was up in 1968?
  • "During that time period, he opened a Holiday Inn with a friend, near Disney World. " Disney World did not open until the 1970s.
    • The book says "...near the site of the new Disney World south of Orlando, Florida..." It does not specify the year, but chronologically it is right before he starts talking about 1967. Construction for the resort began in 1967, so maybe they built and opened it before the park opened in 1971? Not really sure what to do about this, based on what I have in his book. Kees08 (Talk)
I would let it stand as is, on consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Glenn was with him in Los Angeles when he was assassinated in 1968," First, I think it unnecessary to state the year, given it is in the previous sentence. Second, I think a little more detail on exactly where Glenn was relative to RFK at the time of the shooting would be interesting to the reader. One's presence at a major assassination is worthy of a couple of sentences of detail, if possible.
    • I think I could write a whole section on his relationship with Kennedy. I added more detail of where Glenn was, that he went to the hospital with them, and that he took the children home to Virginia. Thought about adding that he was one of two people to inform the children of Kennedy's death, and that in his memoir he said it was one of the hardest things he had ever done, but had decided not to because I was adding a lot of detail to that section. I can add that in if you think I should though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "4:1" I would make sure MOS is cool with that or if it should be 4–1 (or some other dash).
  • "Metzenbaum later lost the general election to Robert Taft Jr.[1] " I should cut "later"
  • "Glenn continued to remain active in the political scene" I would shorten to "Glenn remained active in the political scene"
  • "In 1974, Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by President Nixon. The Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, resigned in protest of the firing during the Saturday Night Massacre." It was more that Richardson resigned rather than fire Cox as Nixon had demanded. And it was 1973.
    • A little embarrassed at how bad I messed up there. Fixed. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General, which freed up an Ohioan seat. In the wake of the new vacancy, Ohio's governor John Gilligan needed to appoint a new senator. Metzenbaum and Glenn both vied for the position." This could be shortened and some duplicative prose eliminated, "Ohio Senator William Saxbe, elected in 1968, was appointed Attorney General. Both Glenn and Metzenbaum sought the vacated seat, which was to be filled by Governor Gilligan." or similar.
  • "with the thought Glenn would ascend to governor when Gilligan was elected to a higher position." I would put a "that" before "Glenn". Glenn's reaction seems a bit extreme, just from the text of what I'm reading, which seems innocent enough.
    • True. The Democratic party backed Gilligan's proposal, which is where the bossism claims came from. Added that in there, as well as Glenn's proposal for a solution. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "in January" "in January 1974"
  • "Glenn challenged Metzenbaum again in the primary for the Ohio Senate seat.[130]" Possibly preface it that Metzenbaum was only appointed to serve the remainder of Saxbe's term, to January 1975
    • I made an effort, but had a different idea on how to phrase it if you do not like how I did it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "The campaign changed their focus," "their" should probably be "its"
  • "In the 1976 presidential election, Glenn was a candidate for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination." Probably more accurate and informative to say that Carter was the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, and Glenn was among several people he was reported to be considering."
    • I rewrote the first couple of sentences. Should be better now. Kees08 (Talk)
  • You might want to mention, in the 1980 campaign, what opposition if any he faced in the primary, and that Betts was a Republican.
    • Added that Betts was a Republican, and a paragraph on the primary Kees08 (Talk)
    • Note to myself and to you that I am adding the primary information into each election. Just taking some time to do so. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Ohio's result was the opposite of the national election, in which Republican President Reagan won a decisive victory.[142]" He was not yet president. I might mention that Reagan won Ohio in 1980.
    • Decided to remove the sentence, it is a bit more detail than needed for Glenn's article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • " his experience as an Ohioan Senator was ideal, since it has diversity." I'd like to avoid "Ohioan" as much as possible, since it stands out a bit. Maybe "his experience as senator from Ohio was ideal, due to its diversity."
    • Did it a little different, but pretty much as you requested Kees08 (Talk)
  • " receiving a reprieve from the Federal Election Commission.[151][152]" Is there a place in the article where the issue of campaign debts is gone through? Reprieve sounds a bit POV if people didn't get paid.
    • That was the exact word the NYT used. Not sure what I could use in its place. I do not go through it all in one spot, but starting at the presidential election it is mentioned in each section. I prefer that strategy; I can add it to other sections if you think I should. I would have to look at how big his debts were, I do not think they became a big issue until the presidential campaign though. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "After winning the race, Glenn remarked, "We proved that in 1986, they couldn't kill Glenn with Kindness."[154] He won the race with 62% of the vote.[155]" These sentences could easily be combined.
  • Since DeWine certainly tasked Glenn with his Keating 5 involvement in 1992, shouldn't something be said about that in the campaign section?
  • "during his inaugural year" I would say "freshman" for "inaugural"
  • "CFOs" I would at least link.
  • The latter portion of the governmental affairs section is a bit disjointed and doesn't tie well together.
    • I agree and am working to correct this. Will update you when it is more jointed. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Wasn't sure where to say this, but this slate article of him shows that we have covered the major points of his political career, which is good! Kees08 (Talk)
    • @Wehwalt: Would you be able to take a look at this section and see if it is going in the right direction? Do you think it needs more work? Kees08 (Talk)
It's better. More organized than it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " at the end of his term in December 1998.[186]" His term ended in January 1999.
    • Fixed. Was not stoked about that ref so I replaced it with a better one. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "He was an original owner of a Holiday Inn franchise near Orlando, Florida, which is today the Seralago Hotel & Suites Main Gate East.[205]" You mention this above, and possibly the link (with more information, perhaps) should be there.
    • Moved it from Personal Life to the section it is discussed the first time. Kees08 (Talk)
Done through personal life.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry about being so slow. Resuming.
    • No worries, sorry about taking a lot of time to address them. Speaking of, would you be able to collapse the comments that are addressed? Would make it easier for me to see how much is left. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to the memorial service at OSU, wasn't there one at NASA, I think at KSC, attended by many astronauts?
    • I only saw one astronaut spoke there, did not see anything about more. I mentioned that one occurred but did not add much detail, if I do I would have to expand the other memorial. Let me know if you think that is necessary. Kees08 (Talk)
  • All I really know about it was from adding this image to Apollo 15 postage stamp incident (my next FAC), and from seeing on Flikr that there were other images of astronauts who attended. Your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the thing about letting people view the remains really worth including? If you do, I wouldn't name the guy who did it. But I'd cut the whole thing.
    • Since it is still being reported on in 2018, I think so. If someone else disagrees I will remove it. I added the new information that came out a couple months ago. Since the official investigation showed he did make the offer, I think it is fine to have the name, but I can be persuaded. Kees08 (Talk)
I guess the feeling that having your name in a Wikipedia article should not be a reward for poor conduct. I agree, there are multiple ways of looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The legacy section seems more about his awards and honors. I would think a widely admired astronaut/longtime US senator would have more of a legacy of that, through inspiration and legislation if nothing else. Tell me what he left behind him that resonates for the good of humanity today. I'd rather see talk about that than some road in Ohio.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    We used to call the section 'Awards and Honors', but since it sometimes included other information we renamed it to Legacy. It was never really meant to recount his legacy. Perhaps renaming the section would be better than rewriting it? Maybe back to Awards and honors? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn was the only senator from Ohio to serve four Senate terms.[200]" This may be true since the 17th Amendment, but shouldn't be stated unconditionally because John Sherman.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    Weird, suppose the newspaper was technically correct, but since it is not the most by a senator from Ohio I removed it since it is not particularly notable. Kees08 (Talk)

I still believe you need a section such as I describe.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's right. I just finished moving and got internet yesterday, so should be able to take care of it soon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That's good. Could you ping me?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: What do you think of what I have written? Was that at least along the lines of what you were thinking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bolden comment is the sort of thing, yes. I don't know about the first two sentences, maybe you should switch that to quotes. Probably he inspired people to take up science, astronauts to join the program, spread goodwill through the world tours NASA sent him on in 1962. I suspect it's all going to be positive, but if you can find stuff that balances a bit, perhaps regarding the Keating 5, that would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Seems a well-written and comprehensive account. Support provisionally, subject to Wehwalt's comments above. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Argento Surfer

Initial thoughts:

  • Earwig shows some high results, but spot checks found them to be the result of unavoidable phrases ("Fighter Design Branch of the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics in Washington"). Others might be avoidable, but I'm comfortable with them as they are.
  • By my count, the article is ~9,600 words of readable prose. That's near the upper limit of WP:SIZESPLIT, so keep that in mind if other commenters request for some expansion.
    It is only 56 KB of readable prose. I did consider splitting his military career off into a separate article at one point, but decoded against it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    I considered the same for his Senate career, but would like to avoid it if possible. Kees08 (Talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. Unlike Audie Murphy, Glenn's three careers (marine, astronaut, politician) overlap, making a split very awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Friendship 7 flight supposed to be a subsection of Selection? I feel like that should be a level higher.
    No. Corrected the indentation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It'll take a while for me to read through and give more detailed thoughts. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No rush, thank you for taking the time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the opening sentence, there are wikilinks for engineer and astronaut, but not for politician. These all strike me as equally common, so I think they should all be linked, or none should be.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Early life says his dad "worked for a plumbing firm", then later "his father started his own business, the Glenn Plumbing Company". Are these referring to the same company? If so, I think the first instance should be clarified from worked for to owned and operated.
    No, they are not referring to the same company. His father apprenticed to multiple firms. In 1923, his apprenticeship completed, he went to work fort Bertel Welch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "and Annie majored in music" - Annie needs to be introduced better than this. She's mentioned three times before the article says who she is. I think the first paragraph (minus the last sentence) from Personal life should be migrated to Early life.
    Done. Moved this back into its chronological position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Some sports (Football, Volleyball, Swimming) are linked but others (Tennis, Basketball) aren't. This should be consistent, and I lean toward unlinking all of them.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Muskingum awarded his degree in 1962, after Glenn's Mercury space flight" - This isn't early life, and it breaks the chronology of the article. I suggest either turning this into a note or moving it to personal life.
    It breaks the chronology a little, but keeps the education information together. It also drums home the point that he did not have a bachelor's degree, and could have been passed over in 1959 for that. Moved to a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • World War II links to Kansas and Virginia but not Texas, California, or North Carolina. This should be consistent one way or the other. This list of states isn't exhaustive.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Some military ranks are linked (second lieutenant) are linked, but others (Major) aren't.
    Actually, major is linked later when Glenn obtains the title, but that isn't its first use.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " the staff of the Commandant, Marine Corps Schools" - is there a word missing here? Commandant of the Marine Corps doesn't mention a school. This may just be misunderstanding on my part.
    No, but changed to "Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools", which is also valid. The position of Commandant of the Marine Corps Schools was created at Quantico in 1920. It became the Marine Corps Development and Education Command (MCDEC) in 1968, and the United States Marine Corps Training and Education Command in 1989. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Any more thoughts? No pressure or rush, just checking in. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my job got a little busy and then I took a short vacation. I hope to finish looking through the article this week. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor from 161 to 180. He was the fifth emperor of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, as well as the last during the era of the Five Good Emperors and the Pax Romana. He was also a Stoic philosopher known for his writings Meditations. Among the events of his reign were the Roman–Parthian War of 161–166, the Marcomannic Wars and the Antonine Plague. Векочел (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Note Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1. There seems to be something wrong here. I can not see this nomination in the candidates list. Is it the bot's fault?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that the bot doesnt do this. Its the editor who should do it. What should happen with this now? put it at the top of the list or between the nominations of early August?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

Nominator(s): Constantine 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. A seminal event, as it heralded the fall of Constantinople, and showed the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large and determined land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review. first nomination earlier in the year failed due to me not having enough time to devote to the review, but the comments on prose and other issues made there have been addressed since, along with some minor additions. Any and all suggestions for further improvement are naturally welcome. Constantine 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Hi, Constantine, am I right in assuming you've launched a second solo nom because Battle of Halmyros looks close to promotion? Well, yes it does, so go ahead, but per FAC instructions pls run it past a coord first next time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ian, that's exactly the case. I wanted to have this up and running ASAP, so that I have time to respond to comments before September. I will definitely run it by a coord if the need should occur again in the future. Constantine 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the image in the infobox really the best we have to offer of the walls? It is unsharp, badly lit, and seems to have specks of snow all over. Seems Commons[8] has many superior images, Flickr probably too.
  • You are right, but there are not many good pictures in Commons (in terms of composition, i.e. showing the walls rather than simply a small section fronted by people, tourist buses, trash cans, etc). I don't really have time to look around Flickr, but I have replaced the photo with one that is somewhat better.
I think the new photo looks much more dramatic, with the perspective and the view to the sea. Maybe you can use the old photo under "Fall of the city" or similar? The article isn't exactly image heavy. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You give dates for some image captions and not for others, could be nice with dates for all.
  • Good point, fixed.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this up, and looking forward to your comments. Constantine 11:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "along with Christopolis (modern Kavala)" You don't mention the modern name of other cities listed, why this one?
  • No particular reason. Removed.
  • You don't link figures and places in many of the captions.
  • Fixed
  • "maintained good relations with the Byzantines, who had supported him" Any details on how they supported him?
  • Added a footnote on this
  • "But you are Latins" I am not sure if if the ancient meaning you have linked, Latins (Italic tribe), is the right choice. Perhaps the wider Italic peoples (which covers Romance peoples and Latin peoples) is more appropriate.
  • That wasn't me. Fixed it.
  • You could clarify that the Aydınids and Karamanids were also Turks.
  • Good point, done.
  • Not sure if this is UK or US English, but you mix ise and ize spellings.
  • Generally I prefer Brit. Eng. Fixed now, I hope.
  • "launched a μαξορ attack" Why Greek all of a sudden?
  • Typo error. Fixed
  • "by a coalition of Ottoman and Christian ships" What is a Christian ship here?
  • The source references the Morosini Codex, Vol. II, Fol. 165v. I have searched for a copy of it in its English or Italian translation, but couldn't find one. I assume that the Genoese are meant here (Venice's perennial rivals), but can't find any other source on this.
  • "ambitions of Timur's son" No link or presentation. In fact, you use the version "Tamerlane" earlier, this should of course be consistent.
  • Fixed "Tamerlane". I don't quite understand what "No link or presentation." is about
You don't explain who it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I still don't get it: "Timur's son Shahrukh", for whom "contemporary rumour ascribed to him not only a desire to restore his father's dominance" etc. Both the name, a link, and his motivations, are already present.
  • "and anti-Latin prelate who had opposed the handover of the city to the Venetians, fearing their "corrupting" influence" I guess this relates to Orthodoxy versus Catholicism? If it was a big deal, perhaps state it outright somewhere (you only mention aversion towards Latins, not Catholics, thouh I assume it is meant somewhat synonymously here)?
  • Good point, done.
  • "that the Venetians preparing to abandon them" Were.
  • Fixed
  • "As the civilian population was being massacred" Were they massacred? The later text seems to indicate the sultan wanted the to stay.
  • Not quite: there was a three-day period of plunder, where people were killed, raped, enslaved, etc. Only after these three days did the Sultan enter the city, and restore order. Only then did his efforts to convince those who had fled during the siege to return, and also ransom some of those enslaved during a sack. 10,000–13,000 were left in the city prior to the sack, and 7,000 were made prisoner and 2,000 remained, that still leaves a number unaccounted for...
  • "when it was captured by the Kingdom of Greece" Maybe add a setnence on what happened to the Turkish population there? I assume it was part of the population interchange between Greece and Turkey?
  • Good point, done.
  • The article body says "down from a reported population of 20,000–25,000." The intro says "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants".
  • Good catch; this represents the upper estimates for the city's population prior to the start of the siege. It was in the article, but got lost during one of the copyedit drives by other editors. Restored now.
Hi FunkMonk, I've answered or addressed the points you raised. Please have a look. Constantine 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I added one answer, rest looks good, I fixed a couple of typos too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the typo fixes, FunkMonk. I still don't quite get what is missing with Timur's son, though. Constantine 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Not his son, but Timur himself. The reader might wonder who he was. Something like "the Turco-Mongol conqueror" would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion, added it in the Background section where Timur first appears. Sorry I was a bit dense here ;). Constantine 19:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Done.
  • Where a specific map has been used, this has been included. Otherwise there are no specific pages, the information is spread over the book content.
    @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the double ping, but how would you do an image review for this particular case? Kees08 (Talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    Technically CITE requires more specificity if you want to push for that, up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • File:II. Murat.jpg - can we get the date in English too? Also the description has English listed two times. Also a dead link for source
  • Can't do anything about the dead link, and I don't see the double English entry anywhere. Date has been done.
    Here is an archived version Kees08 (Talk)
  • Done.
  • I think the date in the description is the user's signature and upload timestamp.

The US PD tag I may be wrong on; the files are inconsistent in how they do it. Could we make them consistent, in whichever way you prefer? Kees08 (Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Kees08, I thought PD-100 automatically covered US PS. Still, better safe than sorry, so I added a US tag as well. For the rest, I think most if not all the points you have raised are addressed now. Cheers, Constantine 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Do you know if we needed the extra US PD tag? Kees08 (Talk) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, per the wording of the 100 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

From Clikity

  • Support -I've been copy-editing for errors in the prose and honestly this is one of the best history articles I've read as far as prose concerns. I've tired myself out looking for errors and found none. The prose isn't stuffy and I had a good time reading this. The article is through and clear, and the sources look up to date. The images are very good, so I'd say this article meets all criteria, and it should be promoted to Featured Article status. Clikity (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)clikity
Thank you Clikity for taking the time to review, and for your kind comments. I am happy that you found the article interesting and accessible. If at any point you found anything that might be improved, however minor, please do not hesitate to say so. Cheers, Constantine 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (1a)—I had a quick run-through of the first part. Tony (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild

Declaration of interest: I copy edited this article for GOCE in January 2018. I also made some minor suggestions - see article's talk page.

  • "In the meantime, the conflict was mostly fought as a series of raids by..." May read better if started as 'At the same time...'
  • I suggest Wikilinking "pillage" in the lead. (It redirects to looting.) I would also link "sack" which is likely to be unfamiliar to a non-specialist reader.
  • The Background seems to start a bit arbitrarily to me. Where is Gallipoli, who are the Ottomans, why did the capture of one by the other (from whom?) initiate "a rapid Turkish expansion in the southern Balkans? (Is a reader assumed to know that Turkish is a synonym for Ottoman?) I think that that first paragraph needs rereading through the assumed eyes of a reader not overly conversant with the period.
  • "Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur". A block of three Wikilinked terms; a little confusing and I doubt that linking "conquerer" to Timurid Empire helps a reader much.
  • A monor and optional point: "with Thessalonica's local aristocracy jealously guarding their extensive privileges, which apparently amounted to virtual autonomy". "apparently" jars a little. It seems to beg the question: apparent to whom?
  • "Thus, Thessalonica and the surrounding region were given as an autonomous appanage to John VII Palaiologos." Either 'had been' in place of "were" or add the date that this happened.
  • "who was supervised by Demetrios Leontares until 1415." '... supervised by the Byzantine Demetrios Leontares...' may be a little clearer.
  • "if necessary with Western help". You are sharp on this, so it with a little trepidation that I ask: why is "Western" capitalised?
  • "assisted by the various Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans". The use of "the" implies that he was assisted by all' of the Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans. Do the sources support this? (If not, lose the "the".)
  • "both he and the Despot Andronikos". Either 'both he and Despot Andronikos' or 'both he and the despot, Andronikos,'. (Or, allowably but redundantly, 'both he and the Despot, Andronikos'.
  • "At long last". Marginally peacocky. 'Eventually'?
  • "The commander proposed..." 'This commander proposed...'?
  • "a group of aristocrats persuaded the Despot Andronikos". See above.
  • Who or what is "Pseudo-Sphrantzes"?
  • "they feared the disruption in trade that open war..." ' trade...'?
  • "from the collapsing Byzantine Empire, providing bases that secured the city's valuable trading links with the East." Is the city refered to Venice or Byzantium?
  • "but more immediately a secure flow of supplies". A comma after "immediately"?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces and later the Russian Air Force that had a 68-year career. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PM

  • in the lead, suggest "After the war, it moved to an airfield..." and perhaps indicate in what direction and how far Yaroslavl is from Moscow
  • Done.
  • IAP is introduced in the body without explanation, I assume from the lead that it means Fighter Aviation Regiment?
  • Added 2nd explanation, but Dank removed it.
    • What I removed was one of the two instances of "(IAP)"; the same abbreviation shouldn't be defined twice at the beginning and end of two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I was wrong about it. Kges1901 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • in the World War II section, are there any non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm any of the claims by the 177th?
  • No, unless one can match Luftwaffe loss data to kill locations.
  • I would put the Winter War before WWII when mentioning Talalikhin's victories
  • Done.
  • suggest "three shared victories each" for clarity
  • Done.
  • suggest "The 177th aircraft and crews returned", as only 20 had been detached, not the whole 177th, unless that was the whole regiment
  • Rephrased - it was indeed the entire regiment.
  • Did the regiment not engage in any combat after 1 Oct 1943? Were there no raids on Moscow in that time?
  • No, the Germans apparently lost the ability to make long range raids by that point in the war. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • was Fomin's victory confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?
  • Yes, the USAF reported an air-to-air loss on that date and mentions Kwaksan, which is near where the Soviet account mentioned the combat taking place[9].
  • how many of the regiment's claimed victories in December 1950 are confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?
  • Only the F-80 claim on 27 December and F-86 claim on 22 December. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • in general, it appears there is only one source for most claims in Korea, Seidov & Britton 2014. Are there other perhaps non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm these victories?
  • Yes, a relatively small number are confirmed by the USAF. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "the 177th IAP flew"
  • Done.
  • a pic of a Sukhoi Su-9 would be good, considering it flew them for 20 years
  • Done.
  • in general, the repetition of PVO after every regiment, division etc is jarring. I appreciate you are mostly redlinking, but I suggest piping to get rid of the PVO. The equivalent is RAF, RAAF or USAAF/USAF and we wouldn't usually append that each time we mentioned a different squadron of the RAF, for example.
  • Piped. Only two units mentioned are not PVO anyway. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, this article is in great shape. I'd like to see some corroboration of Soviet victory claims from non-Soviet/Russian sources to be completely comfortable that criteria 1c. and d. are met. I've requested a review of Seidov & Britton from Air Power History as I'm unfamiliar with its quality. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  • PM, please refer to my comments on the ACR for my interpretation of the Seidov and Britton. If there is any way I can further emphasize that these are only Soviet claims and uncorroborated by the Americans, feel free to suggest it. Kges1901 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • I'm not taking any position on the first paragraph ... it will be fine for some tastes, and not for others.
  • "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 jet fighters, which were swiftly replaced by the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 jet fighter.": Either singular or plural is fine, but don't flip back and forth.
  • Rephrased, also removed repetition of jet fighters.
  • There are more red links than people generally like to see at FAC. It would help if you could write some stubs.
  • Will do.
  • "providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign": That's perfectly good British English, but most Americans need to see a "to" after "from" to get that it means "beginning in", unlike in Commonwealth countries. So, is this AmEng? I see "familiarizing" later on. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. American English. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 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) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The changes look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • I have serious reservations about the book by Seidov and Britton upon which this article draws heavily. My concerns are drawn from a review of the book in Air Power History which I obtained through WP:RX. It is less-than-glowing, to say the least, stating that it is a poor excuse for an military aviation history book, "unbridled acceptance of North Korean, Chinese and Russian victory claims while vilifying and denouncing all American and British documentation of aircraft and aircrew lost as fallacious propaganda", that the authors overstate the number of Sabres shot down by Soviet pilots by a factor of more than 2.5 (650 vs. 224), a lack of source references for the "misinformation" in the book, gross deficits in technical knowledge about US aircraft and Korean geography, and concludes it contains 400 pages of misinformation, has a flawed premise and contains false conclusions. Pretty damning stuff. I don't think it meets our requirements for high quality reliable sources at FA. Happy to share the review, just send me an email. Also pinging Ian Rose who queried this text in the Milhist A-Class review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Can Seidov be used as a source for only the information that the Soviets claimed a certain number of victories (which is what the article uses it for), or should I remove claimed Soviet victory totals? Kges1901 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the review, I actually think that the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used at all in a FA. You could ask for an opinion at WP:RSN if you felt that is too harsh. However, if the consensus among other reviewers was that it could be used with care as a questionable source because it has "a poor reputation for checking the facts", QS are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others (including victory claims in this case). If other reviewers thought it was reliable, IMHO it would have to be explicitly stated in the article that Seidov significantly overstates Soviet victories, and all claims from Seidov would need to be attributed to him in-line thereafter. There is also the issue of the "supercharger", which clearly isn't right and needs to be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've reworded the sections to make it clear that these tallies were only based on the Soviets reports of themselves, and removed the supercharger part as well as any vestigial parts of Seidov's analysis of Soviet pilots' firsthand reports. Kges1901 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I don't think that is enough. I don't think Seidov can be used except for the basic material Ian Rose has mentioned, names of pilots, moves of unit, what engagements they were involved in, but his victory claims are so obviously overstated as to be unusable, as he hasn't even attempted to match them to US/UN losses in many cases. Without US/UN versions for these matters to contrast with, I don't think you can mention victory claims using Seidov on their own, as they are clearly misleading. Even if you do use him, you will need to attribute him in-text with a statement about the inaccuracies in his book, and really, that isn't consistent with sourcing standards for a FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties here, I reviewed at MilHist ACR and was okay with prose after copyediting, I've just tweaked a couple of things after checking changes since I last edited the article. One thing re. the lead:

  • "After completing its formation in July 1941, the 177th spent World War II providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign to the end of the war." -- I saw Dan's point about the initial version of this sentence and agree that the "from" part deserved a "to" clause. My concern now though is that the last part is redundant -- if it spent WWII doing something that implies it did it till the end of the war -- so might be better to just drop everything after "Moscow".
  • Entirely rephrased. I was trying to convey that it did not spend all of the war doing that since it was not operational until weeks into the German-Soviet War.

Re. sourcing, tks PM for getting hold of that review of Seidov and Britton. The issues with the book that I expressed at ACR were based purely on my own reading of various passages so it's useful to know that someone with more professional expertise than I has articulated concerns as well. In response to Kges' query above, I'm now dubious about using the book as the sole source for even ambiguously worded combat accounts. As the Air Power History review suggests, the book is probably all right for sourcing the unit's movements, commanding officers, losses and so on, as well as the pilots' personal experiences, but I think that's about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • In his review, which can be found for free here, Dildy did state, however, that Seidov supplies a wealth of detail and data regarding Soviet units, commanders, pilots, and operations.. As a result, can Seidov still be used for at least what patrols they made, and with a stronger rephrasing of the accounts of the claims, perhaps "their pilots reported that they had downed", "reported that they had engaged" etc. "uncorroborated by the USAF." I would rather not remove text if it can be avoided, because Krylov and Tepsurkaev, the only other detailed source, focus on B-29 combat and thus there would be a gap between 10 January and the end of their tour. Kges1901 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, some initial comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be unnecessary space between the intro and the table of contents.
  • Done.
  • You could mention the years in the captions of all the historical photos.
  • Done.
  • WW2 and Russian are duplinked in the intro, and NATO is duplinked in the last section.
  • Done. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Model names should be linked in image captions.
  • Done.
  • The caption that says "Three MiG-15s attacking B-29s in 1951" Could specify that the latter were American (isn't self-evident to everyone).
  • Done.
  • " Manchuria (part of China)" Perhaps specify eastern China?
  • Changed to 'northeast china' as eastern China means something different.
  • No insignia to show in the infobox?
  • The unit did not have a unique insignia.
  • "in late 2009, the 177th was disbanded during the reform of the Russian Air Force" Anything on what happened with its materiel and personnel?
  • I have not been able to find anything about it, the Russians would probably not reveal that. Kges1901 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - well-polished article, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism

Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the critical reason-based study of the Bible, its history, its major methods, controversies, and achievements, and its contemporary evolution. I believe this is an important topic in the area of religion, philosophy and history. This should be a 'flagship' article for Wikiproject: Biblical criticism, as well as being important to other Wikipedia projects, and since this is a controversial area that is often researched by the public, it needs to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. That's a very high standard, I know, but I am committed to doing whatever I need to do to get this article to measure up to Wikipedia's best. I am cooperative and willing to work hard and will deeply appreciate anyone who cares about making this article great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This article was taken through a thorough Good article review, which it obtained, then it went through the FA mentoring program where it was capably corrected and polished by one of the wonderful volunteers there, 'then' it went through a peer review where great people had great ideas, and finally, it was nominated here. This article owes many people, and is an exemplar of Wikipedia working together doing what it does best. This is a complex, detailed, analytical topic, but hopefully, anyone can follow what is said in this article. It is as non-technical a technical discussion as possible. Please don't feel "unqualified" to review it. Anyone should be able to do so. If not, we need to know that too. Thank you for any and all efforts! Jenhawk777 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support by Katolophyromai

Hello! I just noticed this article was up for "Featured Article" nomination and was disheartened to see that no one had commented on it already. I think this is an exceptional, well-written article that covers the subject quite thoroughly. I do have a few comments, though:

Extended content
extended resolved discussion

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed; full review moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Outriggr

Oppose [comments were addressed—no further review] on areas of prose. First, I'd like to say that this article has plenty of excellent passages, and that researching and bringing a topic of this breadth to FAC is a very impressive feat. I believe it could become a featured article. There are a number of spots where I found that the writing was of less than professional quality, re FAC criterion 1a. I am going to jumble various examples into one paragraph...

extended resolved discussion
From the first sentence there is "uses multiple different methods", an ungainly, redundant, and vague construction; "concerning how the Jesus of the Bible and how the Jesus of history are or are not the same" can be streamlined considerably; "already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts"—avoid these -ing words, in general, by easier-to-read constructions like "already used to investigate Greek and Roman texts"; the second "for" doesn't seem idiomatic in "Camerarius advocated for knowledge of context for interpreting Bible texts"; "Lessing made a contribution to the field" -> "contributed to" (concision; occurs again later); "The late nineteenth century saw the second 'quest for the historical Jesus.'"—an odd use of quotes, or scare quotes, in a topic sentence, and without attribution, if it is a quote!; "Nineteen eighty-five", a year spelled out?; "multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities..."—again with the "multiple" and "different"; "Near Eastern studies, globalization and other academic fields" calls globalization an academic field (the study of it is, as with everything); two sentences of "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..."; why not "many" instead of "variety of different"; is "data" the best word for textual records in "in terms of the sheer amount of data it addresses"; "most influential work, Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel, 1878) that sought..." needs ", which sought"; "represented by Rudof Bultmann its most influential proponent" needs a comma or an "as"?. I am not mentioning the very easily fixed deviations from the style guide ("'50s", "--", etc.)

Sidebar: The writing consistently fails to use "that" as a conjunction/complementizer, meaning [+that] phrases such as "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. In simpler cases this English dilemma seems to be a matter of taste, or dialect, or formality, or something :-D – but in formal writing I do find it very awkward, to the point of objective complaint, in cases like "Parry and Lord in 1978 demonstrated [+that] oral tradition does not develop...". The more complex the construction, and the more commonly the verb might taken an object, the more of a problem it is. The same happens in this article with the verbs "said", "argued", "asserted", "agree[d]", "believed", "demonstrated". (As an aside, the repeated use of "said" is kind of informal if what the person did was "write", IMO.) It also happens in a slightly different form, e.g. "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The article itself proves my point when it writes "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units" rather than "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units", and "scholar Paul R. House says that the discipline of linguistics..."—a-ha!

I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder.

Thank you for taking these comments in good... faith. Outriggr (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now made as many of these changes as possible; each is addressed individually below. All the changes, but two, have been done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is now all the changes but one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I do absolutely take them in good faith as intended to make the article better, which is what I want, so I am grateful. Thank you--not just for reading and commenting--but for genuinely thinking about what would improve this article. (In the meantime I get help becoming a better writer.) So definitely thank you. I will attempt to incorporate all your comments. I have no problem with most of them. So please understand that, when I do question some of this, I am not being uncooperative. I am just trying to understand those comments that, seem to me, to go against my education.
  • First, I agree multiple methods is a slightly awkward phrase. This is problematic, however, because I was extremely careful to get a definition from multiple sources. I needed to be able to put what the sources said into common English--with no theological or philosophical jargon--and I had to break it down into parts. Biblical criticism is an umbrella phrase. It really does incorporate multiple methodologies, yet it also has two basic ontological premises that provide a similar focus to all the different methods. If you could help me think of a better way to phrase that complex idea in a simple yet less awkward manner, I would be deeply and genuinely grateful. I struggled with it repeatedly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I tried redoing that first sentence--for the umpteenth time now--see if you think it's any better. Biblical criticism is an umbrella term for studying the Bible that embraces multiple methodologies which all have two distinctive philosophical approaches in common. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Outriggr: I have now redone that beginning sentence yet again. I took out the word philosophical and I think that actually helped. Also, I wanted to say, I agree the way my citations have the page numbers outside does clutter things up. Some time ago, I went on Teahouse and asked what I should do about different page numbers for references used multiple times, because it was freaking out at me going red, saying - error - reference referred to twice with different info. This method is how they told me to deal with that. If you can tell me a different, neater, less obtrusive way to use a reference more than once with different page numbers, I am volunteering to go through the entire article and change every one--all 170 of them. It would make it a lot neater and much, much easier to read. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Next, streamlining the sentence about the historic Jesus without effecting neutrality will be difficult, but I will take a stab at it.
I was unable to 'streamline' this without completely occluding all meaning--so I went for clearer instead. See if you like this better: The Enlightenment age and its skepticism of biblical and ecclesiastical authority ignited questions concerning the historical basis for the man Jesus separately from traditional theological views concerning him. This 'quest' for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, reappearing in the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Substituting used to investigate for my phrase in use investigating shifts that sentence from active to passive voice. I was taught passive voice is the number one sin of poor writing. This one goes against all my instruction. I don't understand the comment about -ing verbs either. I've never heard of such a thing. Active voice--often involving -ing verbs--is almost always better than the passive voiced-"to do" anything.
Don't think I can legitimately do this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "for" can go, "contributed to" is better, you're right. I will change those
removed 'for'--then it seemed awkward, so did this: Camerarius advocated for using context to interpret Bible texts. See if you like it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Lessing contributed to the field is now changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • the quotes around the "quest for the historical Jesus" are there because they turn up as copied text on the copyvio. It is the appropriate "Title phrase" found in the sources--everywhere--hence the reason the copyvio detector detects it--repeatedly. I thought including the phrase in quotes would give an indication it was not my phrase, while not actually being a quote as such. I can remove them if you think it's best.
There were only two uses of this (the third use is a chapter title in a book) and I rephrased them both to eliminate the phrase turning up on copyvio and eliminate the quotation marks. See if it reads okay to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nineteen eighty five is spelled out because numbers at the beginnings of sentences must be spelled out. (The Brief English Handbook, by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, Boston: Little, Brown and Co. isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 198, section 39e)
This one's correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: That "rule" seems to be completely specific to that one grammar handbook. I have never heard of such a rule and it is directly contrary to everything I was ever taught in school. Furthermore, WP:YEAR, which is part of the official Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically lists writing out the year in words as an unacceptable practice and states "Years and days of the month are not normally written in words." For our purposes here on Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy always trumps external grammar guides, especially ones that recommend obscure (and frankly rather bizarre) practices that do not seem to be known or advocated for anywhere else. Nonetheless, I think that this is a minor issue that should be very easy to fix. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai Okay then. I will make the change--but I wish there was some support for it beyond "Wikipedia says so." I suppose it's that "normally" that's bothering me. The beginning of a sentence is an exception to the other rules for writing numbers, so it doesn't fit the "normally" criteria. It is not just my grammar book that says this. This is a requirement of the Chicago Manual of Style, AP, MLA, and all other citation guides out there. There is no reference--other than Wikipedia apparently--that says otherwise. Check online--every site says the same thing: [10] says "Rule 1. Spell out all numbers beginning a sentence." This one [11] says "You cannot begin a sentence with a numeral." [12] has a list of "numbers that are spelled out" and second on that list is "Numbers at the Beginning of a Sentence." here is the CMS: [13] with "Numbers at the beginning of a sentence listed at 9.5. You have to sign up to access it, but it says the same thing all the rest of these say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather than having to pick between ignoring your concerns and breaking one of the rules of grammar--which does not look professional--I rewrote the sentence with the year inside the sentence where it can be appropriately numerical. It now says "The third period of focused study on the historical Jesus began in 1985 with the Jesus Seminar." If this is acceptable to both of you, it is okay with me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
All four of these are in one paragraph I have now rewritten.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities The source for this phrase takes two entire pages to say what this sentence says, and that source is already a synopsis of what's out there. (Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by Richard and Kendall Soulen, Third Edition, isbn 978-0-664-22314-4. page 21-22) It is a watered down statement, absolutely, I agree, but this whole article is an exercise in taking complex ideas and watering them down into simple English without using any of the jargon from the field. The only way to avoid "multiple different" is to list them separately.
  • "Variety of different" communicates something slightly "different" than the word "many" communicates. It's about the change more than the number. Biblical criticism was an almost exclusively white, male, Protestant enterprise for almost 200 years--then it wasn't. The "different" is what matters.
  • "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..." This isn't verbed, it's a pronoun in this case that references what came before in order to avoid repetition. I could use a semi-colon between the sentences if it would make that clearer.
  • globalization should be separated from "other academic studies" you're right.
Okay, I took a stab at these which are all the same paragraph; see if you think it's improved. It now reads: By the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, new perspectives from different ethnicities, feminist theology, Catholicism and Judaism revealed an "untapped world" previously overlooked by the majority of white male Protestants who had dominated biblical criticism from its beginnings. Globalization, and other academic fields such as Near Eastern studies, became active in biblical criticism. These changes created awareness the Bible can be rationally interpreted from many different perspectives. In turn, this awareness then changed biblical criticism's central concept from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the texts. By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer primarily a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The "other" used in front of academic disciplines is still appropriate since biblical criticism is the academic discipline the others were added to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • data--would you prefer information?
Changed it to informationJenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • that should be which, you're right, I will fix it.
That's done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bultmann phrase can go either way with the comma thing, but if you want one, I will put one there.
I added a comma.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I will fix my numbers to follow the style guide--
I believe this is done now, and the use of "twentieth century" is consistent throughout, and "50s" now says the 1950's as it always should have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Now, my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that." It is, as you say, personal taste to some degree, but there are some rules that do apply to the use of "that," and I want to point out that I do generally follow them. "That" is sometimes a conjunction, you're right, but it's also sometimes a definite article, and sometimes a pronoun, an adverb, or an adjective, and it tends to be overused in all its forms. "Thats" are occasionally necessary, say, when attaching a dependent and an independent clause. For example, "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". "That" was necessary. But it is a general rule that it's best to leave "that" out if the sentence is intelligible without it. For example, "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The meaning of the sentence is not affected by the absence of "that" nor is its meaning made any clearer with its addition. So no "that" is the preferred default. This one too: "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. But it is. The "Gospels" are the object of revealed. You got exactly what the sentence meant. That indicates the sentence is intelligible without "that" in it. So no "that" is the better more professional writing style. If "that" follows "say" or "says" (Richard Soulen says that...), I was taught, it is not good writing. "That" should also be omitted if it precedes a simple relative clause. I often catch myself falling into lazy habits, adding "thats" where they are not needed, so I usually go back and take them out--but I occasionally overlook one here and there. You caught one. "scholar Paul R. House says that is a mistake on my part. I will fix it. And though you don't like my writing style, and you are certainly allowed your personal taste, it is incorrect to say it is unprofessional.
Last but not least, I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder. As far as I am concerned, you have the right to criticize whatever you like. I just ask that, in fairness, you take into consideration some facts on the ground. This is a highly controversial topic. Some aspects of this will be even more controversial than others. Being sure that anyone who ever accesses this article has the ability to find multiple reliable sources seems to require including those multiple sources where needed. It does clutter up the reading, you're right about that, but sourcing seemed like a more important issue. I hope that when you have had time to consider, you will agree.
I will go and redo everything I possibly can to accommodate all of your comments the best I can. Tomorrow. Again, thank you, and I genuinely mean that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have now done as many of these as possible--only two weren't doable--and I do think the other changes you commented on have improved the article. However, I was unable to make every change. Please understand changes that violate rules of English (Nineteen eighty five) or principles of good writing (that) can't legitimately be made simply for personal preference. Please see my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that," and "Last but not least" above for my reasoning. I hope after reading, you will agree.
If there are any more objections to the prose, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to fix them, so please don't hesitate to tell me every and any problem you find. I want this article to be the best it can be. Your comments are helping me do that. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr I have now changed the sentence that began with Nineteen eighty-five so the number is inside the sentence in numerical form. I have done everything else--except add in 'that' where the sentence is intelligible without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Jenhawk777... In most of the examples I offered where I thought the writing could be improved, it now has been, even if I wasn't clear enough about the problem. (In one case, what I wanted to say was that two sentences in a row started with "This"—always a sign that the flow could be better—and they are better now.) Also, I was only referring to the citation style, not the need for citation, because the superscripts include page numbers and if there are a bunch of them in a row, it doesn't look good. But I believe that I am not allowed to criticize citation style at FAC, as long as it is consistent, so we can let that go. On the talk page where you pinged me, you included some links about the use of "that", and I felt that the first one supported my position.[14] Using "that" in complex formal writing lifts a burden for the reader, in cases especially where the verb could take a simple object. Looking at the verb 'demonstrate' in the article, we have:

  • Comparing what is common to Matthew and Luke, yet absent in Mark, the critical scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann demonstrated (in 1863) the probable existence of Q—perfect
  • linguists Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord in 1978 demonstrated oral tradition does not develop in the same manner as written texts—no! This is different. They did not demonstrate oral tradition, full stop. This is a complex construction that needs syntax clarification through the use of "that", in formal writing. If "that" were in the sentence, my "grammatical module" would not have to go back and establish that the words that follow the verb are not simple objects of the verb. (P.S. You wrote For example, ""theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units"". "That" was necessary--no, you are comparing exactly parallel constructions here and saying that one needs "that" and one doesn't. In your preferred writing style, what you want here is "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". Exactly the same as the "demonstrated" example I'm criticizing. You aren't on consistent ground when you say that the green sentence needs "that" but the others don't.)

I don't want to belabor certain things, as I said above, but I will say in good faith that I personally can't support an article with sentences like the one above. (I don't claim that I want every possible "that" inserted, such as "said that". The external link gives examples of verbs much in line with the ones I mentioned in my first comment, and says to err on the side of caution. There are probably five or ten that I would want to "fix" in this article.) You will have to believe me that my brain interprets these shortcut sentences as "slang" because they imply a familiarity with the reader's ability to parse the speaker's voice that cannot be assumed in this medium. OK, I'm done with this topic!

  • My concern about the sentence Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts and applied them to the Bible. I devoted a bunch of text to this but it's not worth it. You were worried about the passive in "used to investigate" but "investigating" is already passive because it belongs to no actor in the sentence. The reader can only parse "investigating" with assurance after the whole sentence is read. It's not hard to imagine a poorly constructed sentence missing a comma that says something quite different: Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use, investigating Greek and Roman texts ...[now it's Astruc investigating] The reader is on shaky ground with respect to the meaning of "investigating" in the original until he arrives at "and applied them". Anyway...
  • In summary... thank you for addressing most of the items I pointed out. I will take a look at the article again in due course with the hope of striking the oppose. Until then! Outriggr (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This is awesome, and I won't argue about "that." Double-meaning intended. I think you have proven your point sufficiently that I now think I am in the wrong here. I got sloppy. I have no excuse for those errors. You have my apologies and will have my humble compliance. If you can point me in the general direction of those sentences I will fix every one. I also apologize for pinging you unintentionally from J.'s talk page. I did not realize--I still do things like that on Wikipedia--things I don't fully understand that I am doing. I know--as my friends here will tell you--I have mostly learned here by falling on my face and deciding to figure out how not to do it again. It makes life entertaining. You're being really nice about all of this, and I am still grateful for your comments. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! (Pinging is ok, as it lets third parties know they're being mentioned somewhere they don't know about.) I was actually going to delete the last paragraph above as being way too fussy, but you got here first. I'll talk to you later, or perhaps leave room for others to review first... Outriggr (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reworked what was mentioned here--whether or not it's improved--I will leave to you to decide. The Jean Astruc sentence has been a burr under my saddle from the beginning. I have not felt 100% about it, ever, so I decided to take a different approach this time. I hope it worked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Before you go away, I don't suppose you could point me toward those sentences? Is it part of my restitution that I have to find them myself? (humor) :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr Would you mind please taking a look at the first sentence again? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I put in some thats... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I took part in the peer review, when many comments were take on board. Right now, I see a "in progress tag". For the moment, I'll look just at the sections I missed before.

Major methods of criticism

This paragraph is very compact and hard to read for someone without knowledge of the topic. I'll look again after reading what follows.

I eliminated two sentences, it should be more easily understood now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars.[56]:11-14 The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation. Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description.[6]:1-24 Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


  • "For example, a scribe drops one or more letters" - how about past tense, - no scribes anymore— done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " but especially for placing in question the entire concept of "original texts."" - perhaps just me who thinks that "placing in question" is a bit complicated.
It now reads For textual criticism, this has raised the question of whether or not there is such a thing that can be considered "original text."[6]:81-112Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "recension and emendation" - the terms are explained, but are there links?
For one and not the other; now linked.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, bless you! I think I fixed these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bit more:

synoptic problem

  • "no primitive source" - is there a link for the meaning of "primitive" here?
Dropped it rather than go into long explanation
  • "The theologian Donald Guthrie says" - says when? said when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Just dropped him too--didn't really dd anything significant that people can't figure out for themselves Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, again a few minutes:

Life of Jesus

  • "Patristics"?
linked now Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • " that this area of biblical criticism" - which? Better repeat the header, or explain how research gets criticism. Or begin with the second sentence, "The scholarly ..."?
  • "originaly" has a a typo, but I could also imagine the sentence without it.
  • Link Enlightenment, even if you had it before. A reader may just get here from the TOC. Not sure about the scholars, even they might profit from another link, if not as known as Schweitzer.
  • "interest revived"? ... was revived?
  • I'd drop the quotation marks around "quests", but if not, don't include the comma.
  • "Portraits of Jesus" vs. "portraits of Jesus"?
  • cynic please
much of this has now been moved to Historical Jesus per Jytdog's insistence. :-) The section is only three paragraphs now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Need to interrupt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Just so you know, the word "Cynic" in this passage is referring to a member of the specific school of ancient Greek philosophy known as "Cynicism" and, as such, it is supposed to be capitalized, just as we would capitalize "Stoic," "Platonist," "Epicurean," "Atomist," or "Peripatetic." If it were referring to just an ordinary "cynic," as in someone who is distrustful of others' motives, then it would be lower-cased. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd understand "Cynic" alone, but not "Cynic philosopher" where it looks like an adjective to me. Ready to learn, though.
I changed it--but it's gone now anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Jesus was only "authentic" where he was dissimilar from Judaism." - dissimilar in this context?
dissimilar using the criteria of dissimilarity
  • I would not begin a new sentence with "Whereas", but connect the two. Did this too
  • "limited contemporary consensus among historians" - what's a contemporary consensus? - "limited consensus among contemporary historians"? Fixed
  • If we seem to agree that "historical Jesus" is rather a term from a past, - to what extent do we use it?
  • can criteria be tools?
Yes that's exactly what they are--and the word can be both singular or plural--I will have to check context, but I think this is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the criteria was"? - "the criteria were"
  • confess that the following sentences remain Chinese to me
  • can criteria be a method?
  • "renaissance of Roman Catholic scholarship" is in quotation marks, why? why "Roman" if not a quote? (which would need a citation)
I fixed all of these—and now they're gone! But they look good in Historical Jesus! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Might as well just strike all of that--I'm sorry Gerda. You did unnecessary work there. The fight wasn't going to stop until I complied. And I've since decided he was probably right anyway. It did belong in Historical jesus. He moved all the criteria stuff there and then I moved the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary developments - Responses - not sure about the meaning of these headers

can you help me understand how to make them clearer by explaining what it is you don't get in a little more detail? Maybe? Contemporary means present day, modern, something not 200 years ago. It's the proper term for this--at least it's the term used in sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "... an example of an evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Christian Reformation". - can evangelical (Evangelical?) be linked to Evangelicalism? - If no I use Protestant. Does Reformation mean Reformation? - If yes, why "Christian"?
linked now reads is an example of a nineteenth century evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Protestant Reformation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "rabbinicist"? link?
godd idea--done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • general: after reading the section, I think some chronology might help, and defining what contemporary means, which seems to be used in more than one meaning.
added some--hope it's clearer Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary methods

  • "evangelistic activities" are what?
removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "theology from Germany" is what?
Is this any better? One of its goals was to challenge, subvert, correct, and replace the liberal Protestant theology, imported by scholars from Germany, that had been established since the early 1900s. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why give Freud the last word? ;)
Oh amen! What was I thinking?!? It reads now: It can be used in both a historical and a literary manner to examine the psychological dimensions of scripture through the use of the behavioral sciences.[157]:3 :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be away until Monday, all singing biblical texts in compact rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

okay--I'll pretend I didn't do anything till you get back Monday. :-) I hope it all meets your satisfaction then--but not before then. There is new material in this section that has not been reviewed before, So I am doubly and triply grateful. Please have a wonderful weekend thinking of nothing but beautiful music. Vielen dank, Gerda. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
All done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Axl

  • From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 1: "Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, and Richard Simon studied Genesis and found contradictions, parallelisms, and inconsistencies that indicated to them a single author, such as Moses, was improbable." It is unclear to me that the presence of [antithetical] parallelisms should imply multiple authorship. Is this really what Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon say? (The statement is referenced to Muller, RN Soulen & RK Soulen.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that Axl. This is a leftover from the original article that I did not even question. I am fixing it—carefully. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think I fixed it. I shortened the statement and gave a more specific reference to Spinoza. The real point here is Astruc, so I didn't bother to go into a bunch more detail on these three if that's okay with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It is now According to tradition, Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, including the book of Genesis. Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712) questioned that. Spinoza records references to Moses in the third person, references to his death, and other inconsistencies and anomalies and concludes "it is clearer than the sun at noonday that Moses did not write the entire Pentateuch."[1]:24[2]:140,404 Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 4: "Semler engaged critically to effectively refute Reimarus' arguments." I am unsure of the significance of the word "effectively" here. Perhaps "Semler attempted to refute Reimarus' arguments" or "Semler refuted Reimarus' arguments"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I can go with refuted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for reading and participating here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "These men all made contributions to the study of Jesus in history, but none more than Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)." I am unconvinced that this sentence is helpful. It could just be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I can see that, It is now gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added a link to "Albert Schweitzer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Ooops! Cut it out when I cut the sentence didn't I? Thanx for catching that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "Yet it is "one of the ironies of the history of biblical criticism that Schweitzer's picture of Jesus as a religious fanatic who died disillusioned on a cross" merely became an additional witness to the dubious assumptions of the nineteenth century 'quest'." Three references are provided for this statement. Given that "Schweitzer's picture" is part of the quote, I guess that Schweitzer himself did not make this statement; it is unclear who is being quoted. In any case, I am not convinced that the quote itself is particularly helpful. Can this be paraphrased so that no quotation is required? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Added "lives of Jesus" to first sentence so it can be referred to here. The last sentences now read: Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) revolutionized New Testament scholarship by proving to most of the scholarly world that Jesus' teachings and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook. He also critiqued the "lives of Jesus" as built on dubious assumptions reflecting more of the life of the author than Jesus.[19]:154[32]:257[33]:3–4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "The twentieth century", paragraph 1: "Bultmann's demythologizing said faith became possible at a point in history: the historical event of Jesus' death." Really? (I had some difficulty parsing the statement regarding the phrase "said faith", but I think I understand what it is supposed to mean.) Did Bultmann imply that faith was impossible before Jesus' death? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It now reads: Bultmann's demythologizing refers to the reinterpretation of the biblical myths (myth is defined as descriptions of the divine in human terms). It is not the elimination of myth but is, instead, its re-expression in terms of the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger.[37]:627 Bultmann claimed myths are "true" anthropologically and existentially but not cosmologically.[7]:46Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I added a wikilink to "demythologization". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The last two sentences from "History", subsection "The twentieth century", contain two long quotes from "Handbook of Biblical Criticism". Could these be paraphrased instead? As a general comment, I think that the article has too many direct quotes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
These two I just removed. They were added for DYK? and weren't used after all, so I just took them back out again. They didn't really add anything important. Are these better? At least they are not quotes--right? :-) Thank you again for participating here. I am genuinely grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"Too many quotes" is a criticism I have heard before. I have a weakness for direct quotes. It could be a character flaw... :-) I like them for accuracy--too many people paraphrase and slightly alter meaning when they do so. These particular quotes all got added after the GA review was done--where he made me take out most of my quotes. In response to other reviewers, I put some back, and I shouldn't have. I have no good excuse except "I like them." But you're right, of course, and I will see what I can do to deal with all three of these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
All done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome, and again, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "Major methods of criticism": "Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description." "Separating the [critical] methods" and "addressing the Bible as a whole" seem to be completely opposite approaches (both valid). Surely all criticism is "artificial"? In what sense could criticism be considered "natural"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The manner in which they are generally "naturally" used is treating the testaments separately but using all the types of criticism together. Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars. But it isn't really possible to describe them in an article like this in the way they are actually used--that would just be a jumble--but I did think how they are used should be mentioned. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 2: "Ehrman explains: "The errors tend to form 'families' of manuscripts: scribe 'A' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe 'B', and over time the families of texts descended from 'A' and 'B' will diverge further, but will be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together what the original looked like."" Surely this long quote isn't necessary? Can it be paraphrased? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That is a summary from Ehrman, a textual critic, and I doubt I could do a better job. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
How about this: "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus "families" of texts arise, with each family containing similar errors. Scholars compare the differences between families in order to deduce the original text." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite what Ehrman is saying. Remember these texts were passed around in the community, so if you got a copy with an error in it, "A", you would have no way of knowing that, and you would copy it in good faith and pass it on, and those you passed it on to would do the same. So, even if all of you subsequently copied accurately, that error would still be there, and there would be a whole set of texts that followed from it with that same error. They could therefore be identified as having come from that one with the original error forming a "family" of texts descended from "A". This does assume what the error is--that when and where the original error occurred can be identified by those other texts that do not have the error, "B", if it can be shown both "A" and "B" came from the same time and place. Those copied from "B" would be another family of texts that went off in a different direction. Any additional errors that might follow in texts copied from "A" or "B" would not necessarily prevent the original texts from being identified, but they would not aid it either because additional errors would form families of their own. Identification of "which came first" can be extremely difficult as this was going on for hundreds of years.
Locating time and place is done by various methods--but often by the scribe himself. Some scribes were helpful to us and signed their work, but most are identified by handwriting and vocabulary, both of which changed over time, and style of composition on the page, like how many words they would fit into a certain sized space, and individual characteristics like that--what it's written on, the ink itself--so it is often possible to trace a set of manuscripts to a time and place, but those characteristics are, also, often quite general. Some styles of writing were used for long periods of time, etc.
Comparing the copy with the error, and the copy without the error, sometimes assumes what the "error" is. Which one is correct and which one is the "mistake" can be based on how many "B"s there are that don't have it written the way it's written in "A" --and other characteristics that lead to long arguments that are difficult to resolve. Sometimes errors are really obvious. I know of an instance where one scribe copied text that was originally in two columns, but he copied it going straight across the page--an artist who did not read perhaps? Someone really sleepy? But it isn't always obvious what constitutes an error, and some famous ones are still argued over today. In John there's a text that translates differently based on one letter. And it's an important text doctrinally. They usually go with the text they think is the oldest, and any change is thereafter considered an error, but it is often very difficult to determine which that is.
It seems to me Ehrman's "A" and "B" clarify what can be very confusing. It didn't seem right to steal it without attributing, but I think that what's here is already a shortened version of what he says. I would have originally included ellipses where I removed words and another reviewer made me take them out for readability. I am reluctant to remove it entirely because of the likelihood of creating confusion without using his A and B, and I am reluctant to use his "A" and "B" without attributing. See--here--it took me a couple paragraphs to make it clear--if I even did! Ehrman is gifted at making complex concepts seem simple! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any contradiction between Ehrman's implication and the text that I suggested. Your detailed explanation is also compatible with my suggestion. Indeed my suggestion does seem to be a summary of Ehrman's position and your explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Axl! Welcome back. What has been suggested here may read slightly differently to me than it does to you simply because you know what you meant! "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus ... It's the "thus" that is hanging me up I think. It makes the development of families of texts dependent upon those "new errors" and that's incorrect. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism": "He discovered Genesis alternates use of two different names for God while the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 omits that alternation." Did Genesis really alternate between one name and the other name at every instance? Or was it simply that [two] different names were used in different places? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't say that I know what it "really" does. I don't really know how many times it went back and forth or if it alternated sequentially or any of the other details about it. This is all that was in the source. What you ask may be the basis of one of the many criticisms of Wellhausen's theory. Good insight! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we have a reference for the last sentence of the paragraph in "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism" please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
We certainly may. I thought doing so in the sections discussing them was sufficient, but I moved two of them up to that sentence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis", paragraph 2: "Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number and extent of those sources and their inter-relationship." More what was determined? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
How's this? Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number of those sources as well as their extent and inter-relationship Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review and other comments from A. Parrot

This is a whale of a topic, and an essential one. Whatever the outcome of the FAC, I commend Jenhawk777 just for tackling it.

  • The sourcing looks excellent. Seemingly all sources are either from scholarly presses or from theological presses with an academic bent. Practically every biblical scholar whose name I know, aside from those who are more archaeological than textual, is cited here, so I think it's safe to assume this is an extensive and representative survey of the literature.
  • In terms of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the text, the article looks solid, but my knowledge of most areas of this topic is superficial. In the one area where I have some detailed familiarity, there's a problem. Wellhausen's specific JEDP documentary hypothesis is of course outdated, but the article doesn't say that JEDP is simply a specific type of documentary hypothesis. It's important to clearly state that the hypotheses that replaced Wellhausen posit a more complex process of editing of multiple sources, especially because fundamentalists who defend the literal truth of the Bible like to crow that the documentary hypothesis is dead and don't realize the modern biblical scholarship undermines their position even more. Moreover, I know you link supplementary hypothesis farther down, but it seems like something about it, and about the fragmentary hypothesis, could go near the end of the section on Wellhausen.
Okay this one is done. I was right to be concerned about length--it added a whole paragraph--but I still think it was the right thing to do. I included a couple sentences in the other paragraphs to tie it together, but I think it's good. I hope you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The see also section in an FA should be minimal, but this one is very long. Many of these links look like they should be integrated into the article, while others, like parallelomania, really don't belong here.
The pertinent references have now been moved into the article, and the rest are gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The formatting of the citations is inconsistent. In some entries information that is usually included is missing; some entries for books aren't capitalized; individual studies are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not date formats are inconsistent; notable authors are not always linked. Especially weird is the entry for the Botha article, where the file name ("148148-390476-1-SM.pdf") is listed as if it were part of the bibliographical information. Correcting errors is made especially difficult because the full bibliographic entry isn't always found in the first citation of the book; sometimes it's the second or third. Normally I wouldn't make much of such a picayune problem, but I spent a lot of time cleaning up these small errors and know there's more to be done.
The location of the full reference reflects when the sections were written. It is particularly annoying when trying to go back and find them though! If you think it's important I will go move every one where that's a problem. (Aaaarrgghh!) I think the Botha citation was copy-pasted--I will check it. I'm sure it can be "Wikipedia-fied." :-)
I had some trouble with the ISBN converter. I was attempting to have all the isbns in the 13 digit format and in using the converter, inadvertently discovered it not giving the correct book! I worked at checking every one, but I may have missed one.
I am working on this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, you might think I'm a total idiot, but I can't find the problems with capitalization you refer to. I think I looked at every one, and every book title looks correct to me. I am obviously missing something--chapter titles are not fully capitalized in the same manner--is that it maybe? Or am I just blind? :-)
Also, the only missing information I can find is missing because it was unavailable. For instance, the copy of Spinoza had no isbn --it was an actual copy not a reprint, so the reasons for that are apparent. I could possibly find a reprint with an isbn if you think it is important to do so. Even when location information and other things weren't readily available, I took the time to hunt them down, so I don't think other references are missing info if it was findable. I could be wrong, but if so, I am missing it too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I plan to spot-check citations later today. I may not get around to it then, but I will do it soon. A. Parrot (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Bless you! Thank you. Thank you for showing up and for commenting. Your suggestion on Wellhausen is a good one. I felt like I under-represented it, but since there is a good quality main article on it, I thought its origins under Source criticism were the main point for this article, and I was trying to keep it short. So much for my excuse! But I agree with you, I think an additional line or two won't add that much length and the content is notable--so I will fix that immediately.
The "see also" section is a leftover from the article before I began work on it and I left it as it was and should have cleaned it up and didn't. I forgot it! :-) Thank you for reminding me about it. I will do that as well.
I apologize for the inconsistencies in some of the references. I have just put off fixing it. I have no good excuse! But I will start working on it immediately. I'll come back when these are completed. Thank you, thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
ISBNs are fixed. Haven't found the other problems yet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. I may have found and fixed the capitalization errors already. I won't have time tonight, but tomorrow evening, barring something unexpected happening, I'll look over the references again and do the spot-checking. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh good! That explains it then. Thank you for that. I am grateful for your efforts and will look forward to hearing from you again--keeping my fingers crossed you don't find anything--or at least much--wrong! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to say an across the board thank you for all you have done on BC. There are too many to send thanx for each individual one but I still want you to know I am grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've spot-checked maybe 15 citations, and although several are perfectly fine, I've come across enough problems to be concerned.

  • A recurring problem is that some citations point to books without specifying page numbers. I don't know whether these are simple errors, where you forgot to include the specific pages, or attempts to cite an entire book. Citing whole books isn't totally prohibited, but I don't think it's necessary except under certain unusual circumstances—if you want, I can give an example based on the one instance in my wiki-career where I did something like this. Even if you're using the citation to discuss the thesis of the whole book (e.g., in the current citation 147), it's usually possible to cite that to a specific page in the book or to some other source (citation 148 is to a review of the same book, which presumably states what the book is about in a more compact way).
Reference number 147 is the MacDonald book. I included it because I used it as an example of someone who used socio-scientific criticism--but I didn't really reference it--as such. It would be a primary source and any reference I used would be a secondary source about it. I referenced the article which discusses it, #148--which didn't have page numbers. MacDonald's book does have a whole section of the book dedicated to her discussion of her method and how she constructed it, its limitations, yada yada, and I could go back and add those pages--but it would be one of those multiple page references--or I could take the whole reference out--or I could move it down to 'See also' if you think that's better--or whatever you suggest--because it's only there in case someone wants to see for themselves what she actually did.
There are a couple other places where I do the same kind of thing--discuss something or someone and then include it in the references in case anyone wants to read what they actually said--not because I actually referenced it. I didn't use the primary source material for the article but I included it for others who might want to check it out for themselves. Is this bad? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation 11 cites a range of 20 pages. I understand wanting to cast a broad net when citing something that the sources refuse to say concisely, but a range this wide can almost always be whittled down. Unfortunately, some parts of this range aren't available to me in Google Books, so I can't tell which pages would work.
About half of these books are referenced from Amazon not Googlebooks because of exactly that problem. #11 can be whittled down pretty easily--or removed as it's a secondary reference--but page 38 is sufficient for that one. Again, I thought someone else might want to read more so I included it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Theologian C. H. Dodd pioneered the biblical theology movement, which can be seen as a rejection of the liberal views of the historical critics who had come before him.": The first two citations don't mention Dodd on the specified pages, and while the third citation is to an entire book about Dodd, a search in the Google Books preview doesn't turn up the exact phrase "biblical theology" except in the title of a journal it cites.
The Penchansky (# 12) page number discussion starts on page 11, but the relevant statement is actually on page 12 (under c.) almost to the bottom, where it references the rejection of liberalism. As to the other, I have no explanation. I can't find the page on either google or amazon now. I clearly read it somewhere since I can find other sources for it, but as to the inaccessibility of the one I cite, I have no clue what happened. I think I will expand this discussion of the B.T.Movement though, so I will switch sources. I'm sorry for this. I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "There is also material unique to each gospel. This indicates additional separate sources for Matthew and for Luke. Biblical scholar B. H. Streeter used this insight to refine and expand two source theory into four-source theory in 1925": Page 48 of the cited source only partially supports the first sentence (it mentions a Proto-Matthew but not a Proto-Luke) and does not support the second sentence.
Aargh--that's a typo, it should be page 148, not page 48.
Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "…'laws of oral development' cannot be arrived at by studying written texts." As this statement is specifically sourced to Long and the phrase in quotation marks presumably comes from his paper, you may want to remove the two other citations. If you want to make it into a general statement in Wikipedia's voice, which I think may be the best choice because it seems to be the current consensus, the quotation marks should be removed.
Sounds reasonable. I will do that.
Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Other evangelical Protestant scholars such as Edwin M. Yamauchi, Paul R. House, and Daniel B. Wallace have continued the tradition of conservatives contributing to critical scholarship": There's no citation for this.
They are linked--and their bios say they are evangelicals--is that not good enough since they aren't really a reference? Do I have to have a secondary reference mentioning them and stating that they are evangelicals? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that any of these statements are correct, but the citations don't adequately support them. I'll check more tomorrow, but I worry that an extensive reexamination of the citations and where they point may be needed. A. Parrot (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am feeling insecure now--I would have sworn all my references were careful--I think I will start going over them tomorrow myself. It's 1 in the morning here and I have been up since 6 AM, so--tomorrow. I will do more tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I am starting through all the references one by one. I explained ref#1's lack of an ISBN above.
  • ref#2: type in Spinoza, it's on page 140
  • ref#3: type in Astruc, start on page 119, scroll to page 122
  • ref#4: type in Moses (will also find Hobbs here) pages 212-214
  • ref#5: it's in the introduction, so just scroll to it; pages 2 and 3 discuss the "historical consciousness", page 5 the university students,
  • ref#6: type in enlightenment, page 39 discusses "important philosophical developments" and page 55 "early decades of 19th century characterized by..."
  • ref#7: type in biblical criticism, page 19 discusses "the desire to break the hold of ecclesiastical authority" and the Reill reference, page 6 mentions pietism in that vein

the next reference is back to number 6, type in rationalism, page 42 and also type in exegesis to get Turretin (Turretini here) on page 252 (and some discussion from 39-42)

  • ref#8: opens correctly
  • ref#9: type in deism, it's on pages 39-40
  • ref#10: these references are "Higher criticism" by Rogerson and "German Christian Thought" by Law, pages 298 and 261 respectively (ref #11)

I will continue on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • the next ref is back to #6(e) type in natural religion, it's there on page 41
  • ref#12: can type in religion or just scroll to chapter 6, "Biblical criticism and religious belief" pages 117-136 discuss it with particular mention on page 138 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

reference #13 has no page numbers because it wouldn't let me see anything from inside the book--so I used the information in the title and synopsis the next reference is back to 6 (f) type in Reimarus, it will get you pages 46-48;

  • ref#14: is about Semler's response and Lessing, type in Semler, and in the chapter on Biblical interpretation in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's on pages 348 and 349; it will also get you a mention of Lessing on page 266;
  • ref#15 type in Semler, the left hand column on page 356 mentions his "intellectual disputes" with Reimarus' writings

type in Reimarus and go to the bottom of page 45 and top of page 46

  • ref#16 type in Reimarus, remark on Lessing on page 102

I have to leave for a bit, but I will keep on when I get back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're finished to review further. Believe me, I know what it's like to have a nerve-racking FAC (they all are for me), and I know what it's like to think all the citations are correct and discover otherwise. A. Parrot (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I appreciate both the understanding and the time! It is very slow going, often involving multiple looks at Google and then Amazon, and reading through those long sections for the pieces that got paraphrased together and so on. It's only right that I should be the one to do this for you instead of the other way around. So--getting on with it:
  • reference #17, type in Johann Michaelis and get the ref to his work on the intro to NT; (type in H.S.Reimarus and get good discussion of entire topic on pages 343-346; page 348 has the "Fragments Controversy"); this section is also referenced to #6(h)--type in Michaelis and look at page 45
  • ref #18, type in myth, get page 117 and Eichhorn's "hermeneutic of myth"; type in Eichhorn and get Gabler and Bauer as well, page 149 has the "new approach" and "mythical method", page 150 has Gabler, pages 188-191 have Bauer.
  • ref #19 is the Soulen quote, type in historical criticism, it's on page 79, second paragraph
  • ref#20 type in Bauer and read the footnote on page 99; type in Antioch, and the "sharp break" is on page 79; type in Paul and get more discussion on page 67+
  • ref#21 type in Bauer, under section on "work" on page 286 will get a mention of the name of the work that discussion the break between Paul and Peter and the statement that "Bauer's understanding of early Christianity became determinative for later scholarship."
  • ref #22 is an addition by another editor that I am in frequent and regular conflict with. I have read this article that he references and while it's a good article and Levinson is an excellent reference, I have not found this particular statement in it. That early BC was anti-semitic is in many cases indisputable, so I am inclined to leave some form of this even though it is also in contemporary responses, but I cannot find this specific statement of "reading back in." It seems to be interpretation--but I dare not remove it because he will come after me for doing so.
  • ref#23 type in Holzmann and you will see the "unaccessible" page 82. I did the 'surprise me' function till I was able to see it! But it is also available in connection with other references, so if this is a problem I can get more.
I have to leave again for awhile--real life keeps interfering! But I will do more later tonight, and I promise I will continue till it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • reference #24, type in Biblical criticism, go to page 22
  • ref #25, type in Baur, it's on page 180
  • ref #26, type in Johannes Weiss, scroll backwards to page 222
  • ref #27, type in David Friedrich Strauss, go to page 365, second paragraph
  • ref #28, type in Theodor Zahn, get page 399 for a discussion of Von Harnack's conflicts
  • ref #29, type in William Wrede, he's on pages 1056-1059, the specific comment is under "significance."
  • ref #30 works properly
  • ref #31, type in Johannes Weiss, get 1026-1028, there is one part unde "Christian origins" and another under "Significance"
  • ref #32, type in Schweitzer, get numerous options, comments I used are on pages 31 and 257; there is also a reference on page 154 of reference #9
  • ref #33, just scroll to pages 3 and 4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I must have been an evil literary agent in a former life as I am now in referencing Hell...
  • reference #34, type in Barth, go to page 433, I think it's the third paragraph; this is also referenced to Soulen, type in Biblical Criticism, scroll to page 20, it's in right-hand column toward the bottom
  • ref #35, go to page 19, second paragraph
  • ref #36, no page number because I used the synopsis from the cover of the book
  • ref #37, type in Hans Jonas, go to page 627, second paragraph
  • ref #38 is Perrin, just scroll to it since it's on page vi
  • ref #39(a) type in redaction criticism, it's on page 443
  • ref #40--DSS--type in biblical studies and get page xxv and page 1 --type in impact and get more!
  • ref #39(b) type in Joachim Jeremias, pick page 495, scroll to page 498 and 499
  • ref # 41 has no page numbers because it is primary source material by J.J. and is only made available for those interested in pursuing what he actually said
  • ref#42, type in biblical theology movement, go to page 82--I removed the other references muddying the waters here
  • next reference is 7(f) type in biblical criticism, get page 21, it's there
  • ref #43, type in New Criticism, go to pages 8-13 and page 200
  • ref #44, type in New Historicism and go to page 60,
And that's it for today unless I can come back later tonight after everyone else has gone to bed--assuming I can stay awake for more punishment. :-) Thank you for being patient about this! I know it's slow, but I really am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ref #45, type in Structuralism, go to page 296, second column, second paragraph
  • ref #46, type in Paul, go to chapter 4, pages 69-92; type in Sanders and find those specific mentions within those same pages; on page 260, there are 'notes', referenced part is in (a);
Have to go, have to get up to attend a soccer match tomorrow morning and it's after midnight here. I'll be back with more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ref #47, just scroll since it's in intro, page xviii to xxi for full discussion)
  • ref#50 is the primary source, so no page numbers--just there if someone wants to check out Frei for themselves
  • ref #7(g), type in Biblical criticism, go to page 21, right hand column, bottom of first paragraph
  • ref# 51, just scroll as it's page 1, look for "untapped world"; type in "white male Protestant, get page 15, it's there
Really busy day today, should be able to do more tomorrow afternoon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a lot like doing the article all over again! I may have bitten off more than I can chew here but I am chewing anyway! :-) Please, please continue to be patient with me. My real life keeps interfering. I have to teach this week and have to write a lesson, so my time here will be very limited this week, but I will do as much as I can and will come back with a bang the following week. I knew this would take a while, but it is taking even longer than I thought, so please don't give up on me!
  • next ref is 7(h), it's in the right hand column under conclusions; type in ideologies an d get 53 as well
  • ref#52, type in bias, get a good discussion of confirmation bias, pages 19-20
  • ref #53, type in textual criticism, get page 47, third paragraph
  • ref# 54, is an article used aspects of the whole thing

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Johnbod

  • Support Not a subject I know (or knew) anything much about, but nothing struck me reading through, and it seems an impressive piece of work on a significant encyclopedic topic. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh thank you! Thank you thank you! Blessings upon you and all your progeny to the tenth generation!Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava river. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. This article had an abortive FAC back in 2015 where its structure was questioned, but since then it has been expanded and restructured, and its sister 7th Army, which is structured the same way, passed FAC in 2016. This article is part of a good topic that I hope to get to a featured topic eventually. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "subsequently": Search throughout, and make sure it's the word you want.
  • "The 8th Bomber Regiment at Rovine was even warned to receive orders": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • 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) 03:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Dan, thanks for the c/e (as always). Have varied the use of subsequently, and reworded the second point, with a link. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Brilliant, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Do the colours in the second location map mean the same thing as the ones in the first? If no, what do the colours represent in the second map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope, licensing looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • This has been sitting around with few comments for a while now for some reason, will give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It might look better if the images of the planes and the gun were right aligned so that they "face" the text. Would look more dynamic, and be in line with the guideline that states subjects should not face away.
  • Good idea, realigned a couple.
  • First footnote needs a source.
  • Done.
  • generalmajor is duplinked.
  • The image captions should also contain links to the subjects shown.
  • Done.
  • "defence of the Drava" Maybe add river, readers may not know what this is.
  • Done.
  • "on the Mura" Likewise, a bit esoteric, especially since you subsequently list towns, hard to know what is what.
  • Done
  • "with the Dravinja and Petrijanec" Likewise, the first appears to be a river, the second a town, you'd never know from reading the text.
  • clarified.
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study" I think it would be best to specify by who and when here.
  • Done.
  • "The Yugoslav historian Velimir Terzić describes" Why present tense?
  • "formation based on the headquarters" In? At?
  • no, it was based on the headquarters of the 1st Cavalry Brigade with units under command.
  • Does draught animal refer to anything but horses here?
  • I believe I read somewhere that heavy artillery was pulled by oxen.
  • Draught animal is linked long after its first mention.
  • Fixed.
  • Could be interesting to show some of these horses, if photos exist.
  • Sources for pictures of the Royal Yugoslav Army are scarce, unfortunately.
  • You mention "rebels" throughout, does this always refer to rebellious troops, or also to for example Ustaše? A bit unclear now.
  • Rebellious troops. Fifth columnists are referred to as fifth column or Ustase
  • "remnants of Yugoslav Army" The?
  • Fixed.
  • "Almost all of the Croat members of the 4th Army taken as prisoners of war were soon released by the Axis powers; 90 per cent of those held for the duration of the war were Serbs" Could this be elaborated? Was it because the Germans found the Croats more prone to cooperate?
  • The Germans used political promises to the Croats (in terms of independence) as propaganda during the lead-up and during the fighting. During the invasion they facilitated the proclamation of the puppet Croatian state which existed as an Axis quasi-protectorate throughout the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, hope some more reviewers will drop by soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kaiser matias

  • "On 8 June 1940, the Yugoslav Supreme Command had issued orders..." Was there any specific reason for the orders being issued on this day?
  • Not that I'm aware of, I mean nothing in the source provides that info, but I suspect that defensive plans were updated following the commencement of the German invasion of the Low Countries and France. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The troops of the 4th Army included a high percentage of Croats." Is there any quantifiable number to go with this?
  • No, that is as specific as it gets. Given the cities from which the army was raised had very high proportions of Croats, it would have been a significant majority though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "About 18:00, Makanec proclaimed that Bjelovar was part of an independent Croatian state." The "About 18:00" sounds odd to me (I'd say "Around 18:00"); is that an Australian thing I'm aware of? I see a similar usage later on in the article ("About 09:45", and a few more), but also what I suggested ("around 08:00"; "around 14:00"), so would suggest staying consistent with one.
  • I was always taught to use "at" or "about" with times, so it might just be an Australianism, or maybe a Peacemakerism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Other than these minor details, is overall good, and once addressed will support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Kaiser matias! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Great, mainly just wanted some clarification, which you got here. Happy with your explanations. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name (film)

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age film directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by James Ivory, starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. It is based on André Aciman's novel of the same name. I have been working on the article since October 2017; it underwent a copy-edit in May 2018 and has passed for GA two months later. I believe that it is ready for FA now. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant), I have never seen “graduate student” with a hyphen before. I have always seen it spell out as two separate words. I am American though so that could be why.
It's already gone when I revised the article. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a comment/concern about this sentence (James Ivory was initially set to co-direct the film but became the screenwriter and co-producer.). It could read that Ivory was set to co-direct the film, and then he wrote the screenplay and became a co-producer only after he dropped out as a co-director. I would assume that his decision to not direct the film is not directly connection to his role as a screenwriter and a co-producer, which the current wording in the lead suggests.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (At the 90th Academy Awards it received four nominations), there should be a comma after “Academy Awards”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In response to a note from Elio, Oliver leaves a note on Elio's desk telling Elio to meet him at midnight.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “note”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be a personal preference, but in the “Cast” section, I would place the note (Credits are adapted from Fandango.[6]) before the cast listing.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the note, I am assuming that you want the Fandango wikilink to go somewhere else.
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Call Me by Your Name is the final installment in Guadagnino's thematic Desire trilogy), please use the director’s full name and wikilink him as it is the first time that you mention him in the body of the article.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The film is a departure from his previous work because he took a simple, "non-aggressive" approach; he said this is the calmest movie he has made), could you clarify what he meant by “non-aggressive” and “calmest” as it sounds rather vague?
Those are the words he refered to during interviews. I added another opinion in paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless. "Words are part of what's going on, but it's not necessarily what's going on underneath. I think this film celebrates the underneath", he said.) as it has an underlying assumption that all literary adaptations rely on words (or I am assuming in this sense dialogue). I would instead include a part on how Guadagnino removed dialogue during the adaptation of scenes from the book to the film. This may seem picky, but I do not think that such a bold assumption/claim (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless.) should be made.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (As someone who considers sex in film a representation of the characters' behavior and identity,[17] Guadagnino was not interested in including explicit sex scenes in the film, to keep the tone as planned, saying, "I wanted the audience to completely rely on the emotional travel of these people and feel first love... It was important to me to create this powerful universality, because the whole idea of the movie is that the other person makes you beautiful—enlightens you, elevates you".[18]), I would make the quote part into its own sentence as the flow reads awkwardly to me.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (and described it as “devine”;), I am assuming you mean “divine”?
Another silly mistake. Yup I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this quote ("the need to make this into a movie”) is really needed. I think you can paraphrase this.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (During negotiations, the production's budget was reduced from $12 million to $3.5 million.), is there any information on why the budget was reduced? It seems like a rather sizable decrease.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I was confused by this part (In 2016, Ivory stepped down from directing to avoid conflicts,) when I first read it. Conflicts with what? You explain it somewhat in the next sentence, but it should be clarified here.
I removed the conflicts part, since such content is explained in the next sentences. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading this sentence (Guadagnino dedicated the film to his friend Bill Paxton, who died in February 2017.), I was wondering if there was any information out there on why he dedicated this particular film to his friend?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought was a metaphor for "sexual impulses and energy", and that it was too explicit.) is awkwardly worded/constructed. The last part (and that it was too explicit) is not fully connected with the rest of the sentence. I understand that you want it to connect with the verb “thought”, but the way that the commas are placed, it really connects with the beginning of the sentence and does not make sense. I would revise this.
I fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (describing it as "a metamorphosis of some of the strongest ideas in the movie" and the key to illuminating the character's "overabundant sexual energy”.), the references should in sequential order. Check the rest of the article to make sure that the references are in the correct order as I see a few other instances of this.
I revised and fixed the other references. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (LaBeouf had read for the film in New York City but the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles”;), I would add a comma after “New York City”.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the relevance of this sentence (Chalamet has acted since he was a child and co-starred in Showtime's Homeland (2012).) for this article.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Chalamet, who can speak fluent French and had played piano for years, arrived in Italy five weeks early to learn Italian, piano, and guitar.). You say that he had played piano for years, and then he had to learn it again?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you mean by this sentence (Guadagnino did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s ... when it becomes period.”) or what the quote even means to be honest. So Guadagnino did not want this movie to look like a period piece? Is that what he means? I am confused by this.
I fixed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Elio's polo shirt and Fido Dido T-shirt came from her husband's closet) reads strangely as the “her” does not match the subject “Elio”. I revise this to avoid it.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The pre-production in Crema was fast;), could you clarify how it was “fast”?
The director vaguely mentioned it the interview. I removed it out of the paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Post-production with regular editor Fasano in June and July took only a month;[9] the fastest Guadagnino had edited.[66]). What do you mean by “regular editor”? Do you mean that he has frequently collaborated with Guadagnino? Also, you imply that Fasano edited the film, and then later say that Guadagnino did it, so I was a little confused here.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would move the Sufjan Stevens image to the right as he is look down and to the left, which makes it look like he is looking away from the article (which is normally discouraged).
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there is a separate section on a potential sequel, I would include a sentence or a bit on it in the lead.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I would imagine that this would be a difficult article to work on given the amount of coverage devoted to the film. I still have not seen this film, but I enjoyed reading about it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your helpful review! Good luck with your current FAC and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include publication locations and publishers
  • FN38: Graduate Center is not a work
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FNs 48 and 63 are to the same source but are formatted differently. Same with 199 and 200
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Awards Daily a high-quality reliable source? Badtaste? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed sources from Badtaste. As for AD I replaced with a link from Attitude. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • In the "Plot" section, we mention Hanukkah celebrations in the last paragraph but have not previously ascertained in the section that the family is Jewish. Perhaps that could be placed into the first sentence. Similarly, when referring to "a 24-year-old graduate student, Oliver," we make no mention of his American nationality. These are pertinent pieces of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
One reviewer asked me to remove them out of the Plot during the GA nomination :( Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Damian Vo: I would definitely recommend adding them back in! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Credits are adapted from Fandango.[4] " I would find a way of rewording this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He considers Call Me by Your Name" - who is the "He" in question; the last individual named was Jordan Hoffman but I believe that the text is actually referring to Luca Guadagnino. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ", to keep the tone as planned." - I'm not really sure what this wording is trying to convey. Could you possible reword this bit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "need to make it into a film, which later became the first feature film"; here we have the word "film" repeated in quick succession. How about "need for a cinematic adaptation, which later became the first feature film"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process; Guadagnino was making A Bigger Splash (2015)." - a little clunky, perhaps. How about something like "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied making A Bigger Splash (2015)."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aciman felt the place was not familiar with the town square he pictured in the novel"; again, I find this wording a little unclear. Perhaps something like "Aciman felt that the town square selected for filming differed from that he had pictured in his novel"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "played a queer character" - might "LGB" or "LGBT" be a more appropriate term here given the rather amorphous and contested nature of "queer"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Replaced. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "discussing about AIDS"; this should either be "discussing AIDS" or "talking about AIDS". Also, might it make more sense to refer to HIV/AIDS as opposed to just "AIDS"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "He described the scene in which Elio conveys his feelings to Oliver as one of the story's most important moments that captures the "euphoric passion and nervousness" of their first love" - there needs to be some change around "moments that captures" to make this sentence flow properly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought it was too explicit". Bit clunky. Guadagnino wasn't removing a scene from the novel itself (as an editor might); he simply considered not using it in the film. Also, "thich he thought it was too explicit" should be "which he thought too explicit". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "cultivated his passion for Hammer and the movies he made afterwards" - I'd reword this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "she watched Friends with English subtitles" - perhaps just add "the American sitcom" before Friends, as not everyone will be immediately aware that a TV show is being discussed, as opposed to a film. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "she described the scene was filled with" - this needs correcting to either "she described the scene as being filled with" or something like that. The current composition does not work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "victims of battle of the Piave" - this should be "victims of the Battle of the Piave". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "In Korea, Sony Pictures released" - I doubt that we are talking about North Korea here, so best to specify "South Korea" rather than just "Korea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "commended the director for "broadens his embrace " - reword. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All in all, some excellent work has gone into this article and once these prose issues are addressed I would be very happy to support its promotion to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Happy to offer my support for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bilorv

Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "seductive courtship" – I'm not sure whether they're trying to seduce other people or each other at this point. Each other? But it doesn't look like either of them are deliberately trying to seduce the other. If it's a topic sentence, I don't think it's needed, and I think it would sound fine as "Elio and Oliver they swim together, go for long walks ..."
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "gay" movie seems like an inappropriate/Easter egg link. From the link, the term "New Queer Cinema" is used to "define and describe a movement in queer-themed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s". That's more than just "this is a contemporary film about queer people", and neither of the sources use the phrase "New Queer Cinema" (unless I missed something), so I think the link should be removed.
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied" – Took me a moment to parse. A comma between "process" and "for" might help.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Guadagnino was "talking about how he would do" the scenes with nudity involved" – I don't think the direct quote adds much. Maybe "Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity".
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The director did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise"." – Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?
The first two paragraphs are supposed to reflect the changes from Aciman's book. The last two are about Ivory's original script. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The production section needs to make clearer what languages the film is in. The infobox says English and Italian, so what exactly does that mean? The characters switch between English and Italian, or scenes in some locations are in Italian and others are in English?
Added in the Casting section (fifth paragraph). Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "His character, 17-year-old Elio, is fluent in three languages" – And these three languages are? Only French and Italian are mentioned in the rest of the sentence. Is English the other one?
Yes. Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Capriolo, who is not an actor" – I'd say being cast in a film makes you an actor. Maybe "was not an actor".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "even if it meant increasing a production's budget" – Should this not be "increasing the production budget"?
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "earned 29 million on-demand audio streams" – It's not really something "earned". Maybe "garnered" would be better.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "reportedly made due to the government's "consistent stance of intolerance toward gay content"" – Who is reporting this and where does the quote come from?
Added writer and publisher. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "The website's critical consensus reads; "Call Me by Your Name" – Shouldn't the semi-colon be a comma or a colon?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hammer confirmed about the sequel" – Not sure if the "about" should be here, but this isn't official confirmation, right? So maybe just "Hammer said about the sequel".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A sequel to the film was announced in January 2018." – Either this is too matter-of-fact or the body isn't clear enough. I'd say "planned sequel" if it's not actually been optioned/announced by a production company.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Overall this is an absolutely outstanding article, thoroughly comprehensive and with brilliant prose and sourcing throughout (the minor details above being exceptions). It brings to life what sounds like an excellent movie, and is easily understandable even to someone with no familiarity with the subject. I'll be very happy to support once the points above have been addressed. By the way, the website parameters in the references are not consistently linked or not linked, and I don't think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are needed as External links since they're mentioned in the body, but I don't consider these relevant to the FA criteria. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Damian Vo, I'd like to move this review along, are you ready to respond to Bilorv comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like they already fixed the issues yesterday, just without commenting here. I've made one small edit, and one of my comments has been unaddressed, maybe for a good reason ("Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?"), but I'm now very happy to support. Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I just had the craziest first week in college, and fortunately I saved all my edits based on your review right before the server switch yesterday. I addressed all your comments above—as for the website parameters in the references, I just linked all the available publishers. A big fat THANK YOU for your patience towards the nomination. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I think we still need an image review -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

OK ALT Text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Since I'm not sure about the copyright in those two images, I could remove them if necessary. Damian Vo (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Removed both pictures from the article. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The article underwent significant improvement since the last nomination:

  • Many of the old sources have been updated or replaced with more reliable ones;
  • Prose and flow have been improved;
  • Fresh details have been added without noticeably expanding the article or changing its structure;
  • Outdated images have been removed;
  • The lead section has been rewritten for better flow, but all the major points have been preserved.

In its present condition it is (arguably) better than some country articles that already have Featured status, so I'll be happy to get any feedback that might improve this one further and bring it the star. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the revolts map and both diagrams
Done; changed the map, even at 300px the revolts map wasn't clear enough.
New map needs a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's posted in the description: Map based on Lalkov, Milčo (1997). Rulers of Bulgaria. Kibea. ISBN 954-474-098-8..
  • File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg: no reason why uploader would have a copyright on this image, it's too simple to warrant protection
Only administrators can edit the license, I've posted an edit request on the talk page.
Replaced with PD-ineligible.
  • File%3AMila_Rodino.ogg needs a US PD tag and a separate tag for the performance
Removed it. The performance was downloaded from the website of the National Assembly, which has no licensing information for any of the content it has published, so it is presumed copyrighted. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all 3D works will need explicit tags for the original works
Removed the National Bank image as its architect died in 1957. The Rectorate and National Assembly building should be free (their architects died in the 1920s and 1930s).
When specifically did the architect of File:Sofia_University_"St._Kliment_Ohridski"_(37849719131).jpg die? The following images also need tags: File:National_Palace_of_Culture_(23997858848).jpg, File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg, File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg
According to the University's website, the Rectorate was designed by Yordan Milanov, who died in 1932. Removed the National Palace image, the chief architect died 19 years ago.
  • File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:BASA-3K-7-342-28-Boris_III_of_Bulgaria.jpeg
Will PD-1923 do? I don't believe they've been published in the US prior to 1923, especially the latter.
When and where were they first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any information on that. The author of the painting died 101 years ago so it should be PD everywhere. The Archives Agency released a number of materials under PD a few years ago, so I'm not sure which US PD applies to them. Same concern about File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg (Medieval building) and File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg (ancient item).
If we can't find information to support an appropriate PD tag, the images will need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure the relevant information can be found, what I don't understand is how the PD tags should be implemented in File:Sofia - Odrysian Wreath from Golyamata Mogila.jpg and File:20140621 Veliko Tarnovo 002.jpg. The former can use a PD tag under the FoP rules as the building is Medieval so there is no copyright on it. The latter is not a painting, has no author, is not a building and may or may not be considered a work of art. Either way, the images are released under CC2.0 and CC-SA 4.0 respectively, so a PD tag would contradict these licenses. My question is therefore, is the PD tag necessary for the item depicted, or Featured Articles are limited to using public domain images only? I'm sorry for the question, I'm just at a loss. The Commons pages aren't really helpful in that regard. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not a contradiction to have both a CC and a PD tag - it's a recognition that there is more than one copyright at play. For example, if you are in a place without freedom of panorama and take a photo of a copyrighted sculpture, even if you release your photo under a CC license we still wouldn't be able to use it here. You should be sure to indicate which tag applies to which copyright, but we do need to reflect both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I see, in that case I'll see what the most relevant PD tags are for the images and will place them. Unfortunately a user insists on placing a city population template with four images that are definitely outside FoP but I'm attempting to resolve that conflict in the direction of removing the template, so no action will be taken on those.
To add to Tourbillon's comment, i will ask the same question i asked him, are you sure that freedom of panorama applies when in the law it is stated that "Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". " ( As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is a non-commercial informational website, and uploading images to wikipedia is a non-commercial activity. What do you think? - Bowler92 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, any license with a non-commercial requirement is considered non-free. See WP:NFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
ok, understood. -Bowler92 07:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Done on the above mentioned images. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Tourbillon Why isn't File:Bulgaria-demography.png up-to-date? I could not get the source to load. Is that the most recent data available? Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also strongly suggest working on citation formatting before someone comes to review that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on the formatting issues? Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Similar sources should be formatted similarly. For example, some books include publisher locations while others do not, newspaper names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Tourbillon (inserted here) UGH! This is so, so true. I have a FAC article here too, undergoing review right now, and an advisor made me go through my references--and my article had 179 references to begin with--five separate times to be sure every reference had all the correct information: chapter headings for collections with different authors, names of the locations of all publishers, and accurate isbn numbers all written in the same formatting style--for me that was 13 digits. Source disparity was not an acceptable excuse in his view. I spent hours and then more hours using the isbn converter, checking for accuracy, looking up publisher locations on the web--as I said, 179 references--5 times--eventually eliminating nine references I couldn't find info on--so, NOT an easy requirement, but absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia. I want to encourage you to go the extra mile on this one. I'll help if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Book references here are not that many - about 50 when I last counted them, and journal references are only a handful. I'll go through them again and find whatever additional information I can. What worries me more is that in some past country FACs, Encyclopedia Britannica was not considered a good enough source for some reason. It's practically the only good, up to date and easily accessible general source on Bulgaria. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for the review! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Right, noticed that earlier, working on it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
{{cite book}} and {{cite web}} have been standardized, a few {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} remain, working on them now. Also replaced or removed a few redundant sources. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Updated those too, will make another pass if I've missed something (likely). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Done, standardised journal, book, news and web citations. Some parametres (volume, ISSN) are not available for all sources and I've left those blank, so there may still be a discrepancy but it's because of source disparity. A few poor-quality or outdated sources have been scrubbed or replaced with better ones. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

  • I would suggest a clarification in the following sentence: "Flora includes more than 3,800 vascular plant species of which...", because that number includes only the vascular plants; mosses, lichens and algae are not included.
  • In the "Religion" section it should be noted that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church gained autocephalous status in 870, and became a patriarchate in 927. --Gligan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
All sources I read point to 927 as the year of autocephaly, and 870 (circa) as the year of autonomy. The former seems to be the correct year. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the correct year is 879. I am citing in Bulgarian the text from "История на България. Том I. Божилов, Гюзелев", стр. 191: "На заседанието на събора от 24 декември 879 г. обаче било взето решение, което имало голямо значение за придобиването на автокефалност на Българската архиепископия; то било формулирано така: "Отсега нататък константинополския патриарх да не ръкополага в България, нито пък да изпраща омофор. Дори като те [българите] се откажат от това и дойдат при негово светейшество [константинополския патриарх], да не получат благоволение." Чрез това Константинопол се оттеглил от върховенството си над Българската архиепископия и й предоставеил автокефалия." --Gligan (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually the passage states that a decision was taken in 879, however it seems like the recognition by the Byzantines and therefore actual autocephaly was not attained until 927. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 prose review -- Support

This is a genuinely interesting and well done article. I support this FAC. I believe it deserves to be a Featured article.

extended review completed with all issues addressed
The second sentence in the lead that begins with "organised" in the British spelling: that's certainly okay, and consistency is the only real requirement concerning that choice, but you might want to consider changing it to "-ized" even though it is not actually wrong. In the body of work coming out of Britain since 2002, about 60% use -ise but 40% use -ize, and it looks more correct to anyone who learned American spelling and not French, so -ize can please everyone while -ise can only please some. This has a good discussion of it: [[15]]. I don't count it against you whichever way you go--it's entirely a style thing--and would, of course, mean changing it throughout the whole article.
Changed, although I fear that it might serve as a hook for someone else to perceive this as inconsistent use of British and American spelling.
Yikes--consistency is the most important thing. Well, if someone else comes along and complains, you can revert the changes. And be doing this back and forth till it's accepted! Hah!
  • Organised prehistoric cultures appeared in Bulgarian lands during the Neolithic period should more accurately read: "In the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." They can't appear in something that isn't there yet even though you know it's coming.
  • In Antiquity, the region was a battleground... give dates in parenthesis for when "Antiquity" was. Yes, we all know--but the sophomore doing a paper probably won't.
Added, however I've only added the centuries when most of this warfare occurred, generally the time span discussed further down in the History section.
I don't see why that won't be perfectly okay.
  • The Eastern Roman Empire lost some of these territories to an invading Bulgar horde, which founded the first unified Bulgarian state in 681 AD. which one founded the state? The ERE or the Bulgar horde?
  • Be careful of pronouns: It dominated... when they refer to a whole sentence in front of them. Better to be specific with nouns.
  • For the sake of clarity, you might consider dividing these two sentences somewhat differently. Taking the first part of the previous sentence, and putting a period where the comma is now, then beginning the next sentence with the second half of that first sentence "The Bulgars then founded..." and connecting the next sentence with the "which" so it reads "The Bulgars dominated...etc" would be clearer, less ambiguous, and yet no longer.
All corrected, I also clarified Eastern Roman and Byzantine as the latter is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • After numerous exhausting wars and feudal strife, the Second Bulgarian Empire disintegrated in 1396 but...but...when did a second Empire appear? Remember your two guiding principles of writing are clarity and specificity--the research provides the accuracy--but it's the writing itself that has to communicate clearly. Assume your reader doesn't know what you know.
Added a new sentence about the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's an excellent sentence! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the rest of the lead is good and will pass my inspection with these few adjustments.

I will move on and do more if these are responded to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. More later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I like everything you did in the lead, except we created a new problem doing it: now that "In the Neolithic period" begins the first sentence, there are two sentences in a row beginning with "In..." Making one change often leads to another. In this case, I like altering the beginning of the second sentence--maybe--"By the 6th-3rd centuries BCE, the region had become a battleground..." You decide. You can go back and put the "in the Neolithic period" in the middle of the first sentence, with commas, if you prefer--it was the "Bulgarian lands" that was the issue with that one, and you have fixed that. But one of them needs adapting to the other one now. Try not to be too frustrated--I have one sentence that has been rewritten about 14 times I think. :-)
Been there already, the previous (failed) FACs were harsh, but the article has improved this much largely owing to that. I just changed it to During the Neolithic period... which should be fine!
Saw it--it's better than fine. That paragraph is a really good short synopsis of the history section. It reads well.
This is a very interesting and informative sentence: The meaning may be further extended to "rebel", "to incite", or "to produce a state of disorder", i.e. the "disturbers". In my view it might read a little better if it said " rebel, incite or produce a state of disorder, i.e. "the disturbers." That's entirely personal preference though. I placed the period inside the quotation marks because it ends the whole sentence, not just the fragment.
Corrected, was a bit choppy anyway.
It does read better without the extra "to"s. I personally don't like all the quotation marks either. Those are single common words so I don't think they are necessary--but don't change them if you think they are needed. That's entirely personal preference on my part.
In the last sentence beginning "Alternate etymologies..." There are three groups mentioned between this sentence and the last mention of the Bulgars--perhaps clarify that last sentence about which you are referring to without depending on the reader to make the right assumption.
Clarified that.
"Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." Excellent sentence.
What does gold exploitation mean?
Linked to goldsmith, which is where "gold working" redirects. It's metallurgy specifically focused on gold and jewels.
I think that needs explaining. Maybe something along the lines of "... with inventing goldworking and the metallurgy necessary to work it." Something like that--feel free to put that in your own words--but for the ordinary reader, it's generally better not to use jargon (words specific to a field). Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to gold metallurgy, that should be clear enough - otherwise a lengthy explanation will have to be added, and that will look out of place.
Except the term "exploitation" is still there with no explanation. People won't know what it means, and it's a cardinal rule of good writing not to use specialized words you don't explain. It's confusing to the reader. If they have to stop and get out a dictionary and look a word up, what are the chances they will bother to finish reading? Either remove the word "exploitation" or explain it. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Is the treasure not monetarily valuable as well?
In current gold value, comparatively not so much - it's less than seven kilograms in weight.
Hmmm-I'm not striking this one yet either. I want to know that--"While it is not valuable for its gold, which is less than seven kilograms in weight, it has been highly valuable for..." or some such thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the monetary value is of marginal importance in a historical subsection, which is why I decided to leave it out.
I follow your reasoning, however--your reader doesn't know that and will wonder. This isn't about what you know and think as much as it is about what your reader will not know and wonder. It's an interesting piece of information too. So I don't agree this is a good decision. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The Iron age--which was when?
Difficult to say. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. I've added an early before Iron Age because the late Iron Age in Europe goes as far as 800 AD.
Then you can't say it. Even adding 'early' makes a claim you can't back up. If it's difficult to say, then say that. Actually, the two sentences you have right here would be perfect. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Early Iron Age" is the most accurate approximation of when they appeared; the alternative would be to remove the era of origin entirely, which wouldn't be exactly informative.
No, the alternative is not to remove it, the alternative is to say it accurately. You really must do this one. It effects the accuracy of the article. You must explain "early iron age" (with years) is the best approximation--you can't just claim it is when it happened if no one really knows. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Prehistory and antiquity: I know nothing of Bulgaria and I followed this whole section easily. Well done.
Thank you! I added one more sentence about the Thracians that clarifies the link between their kingdom and the Persian invasion.
First Bulgarian Empire: I got a little confused here. I had to go back and think through The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains as referring to what you've been talking about--I hope--but is that modern Bulgaria? That first Bulgarian empire? The territory the tribes fought over? All of the above? Or what exactly? And this is the first I've heard of "Old Great Bulgaria"--where did that come from? I think this first sentence needs to be reworked with some additional explanation. The other two sentences are clear and informative.
The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes fought; the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is part of that region. That's where the First Bulgarian Empire was established. Old Great Bulgaria is a previous majority Bulgar polity in what is now Ukraine. It is politically unrelated to the First Bulgarian Empire, where the Bulgars were a minority. I think the confusion also stems from the fact that Bulgar and Bulgarian are not quite the same thing; the former refers to the Asian tribe, whereas the latter refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. I changed it to something slightly more detailed, hopefully it's clearer now - but let me know if otherwise! Also, spotted three ISBN-less cites at the end of the first subsection, looking for additional data. Added one to the FBE subsection. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are going to have to add some of this in. You have three sentences here that are pertinent, provide a broader foundation for understanding what you are talking about, and seem necessary for clarity. I understand wanting to leave out everything unnecessary due to length, but when that absence creates confusion, length is just unavoidable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
What about something like you have here: "The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes had fought. The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is the section of that region that became the First Bulgarian Empire. It was that area, between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains, that was again invaded in 680, this time by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects. Bulgar refers to the Asian tribe, whereas Bulgarian refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. " Or flip things around, as you wish--but it needs fixing because it is not clear enough the way it is.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I made a slightly more subtle change: Added a new sentence in the second paragraph specifying the locale of Moesia, and then changed the first paragraph of FBE to refer specifically to Moesia as the region that the Bulgars invaded. The reason I abstained from adding the Bulgars as a leading ethnos and generally avoid delving into the "ethnic" topic is that it often becomes an edit battleground. Let me know if it is clear enough as it is now.
Following the arrival of the Slavs, Moesia was invaded by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh.[39][40] The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire.[23] The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects.[34] This is worse, not better I'm afraid. First, a reader will wonder "Who the Hell is Moesia and why are we talking about them now?" You completely removed the geographic connection which was a good inclusion--it just did not explain what it referred to--that's all you needed to add for that one. The rest of it is choppy and disconnected now. It jumps from "Old Great Bulgaria" to "Byzantine" for no apparent reason. This is not a good revision.
I do understand it is difficult to write for someone who doesn't know what you know, because you can't "un-know" stuff, and it's hard to imagine and put yourself in their shoes. That's why reviews from people who don't know your topic are important in a different way than reviews from those who do know it are. Some high school kid will use this to do a report for school, and that kid will not be able to make sense of this paragraph--and will move on over to Encyclopedia Britannica instead. The rest of this is too good to lose over a couple of rough paragraphs.
Please, try this instead: "The entire region of the south-eastern European continent had been settled by the Slavs, including the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan mountains, that was the cause of so much tribal war. This geographic area, which would become the First Bulgarian Empire, was once again invaded in 680, by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh fighting for the Byzantines. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity, situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects."
I said European continent instead of just Europe because there is no Europe at this time, but there is a continent. It adds back in the valuable geographic information--with explanation and connection--that did not need removing. Is "fighting for the Byzantines" correct? Without that, there is no explanation as to why a treaty with the Byzantine empire would stop a war with OGB. And it avoids the ethnic discussion and isn't too long. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I followed all the rest with no trouble. It was clear--and really interesting!
More after this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Moving on with next section.
  • payment in kind best to say what that means
Linked to tax in kind, which explains it in a simple way.
OkayJenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • Ottoman rule really good! I personally would like a very short--maybe one sentence--explanation of why the Battle of Shipka Pass is important. Providing the link is good, so I can go read more if I want--after I know why it matters. But if it isn't possible to explain in a sentence, just leave it.
Expanded the sentence, should be clear now!
Perfect! Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • the executions of thousands of war criminals and dissidents Adding another sentence as explanation might be good--Stalin killed millions in Russia --how many "dissidents" and "war criminals" died in Bulgaria?
Specified and also rephrased the first two sentences.
It reads well and is clear and specific now. Well done. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
These are such picky little points, I almost hesitate to mention them because overall this whole section is brilliant. It's easy to follow and interesting--really, really good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In the section that opens: The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on 3 March 1878 by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and included a provision to set up an autonomous Bulgarian principality roughly on the territories of the Second Bulgarian Empire This is a good clear sentence--but notice it assumes we know what the territories of the empire are--showing yet again the importance of explaining that "Danube and the mountains" phrase up in the First B.E.
Addressed that - the territories in question are Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia; the Berlin Treaty state only included the first one.
No, you didn't address it--you just changed the name as though any reader will know where Moesia is, and what it means, without explanation from you. This change made things worse not better. Jenhawk777 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me rephrase--it did add clarity here in this section--it is the previous section--the FBE--where the addition of Moesia made things muddier and less clear Jenhawk777 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and moving on to the next section because of time. I did some minor copy-edits--things like commas and prepositions--but I don't want to rewrite your material without your agreement. This paragraph in politics needs a slight reworking.
  • Political parties gather in the National Assembly, a body of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote. The National Assembly has the power to enact laws, approve the budget, schedule presidential elections, select and dismiss the prime minister and other ministers, declare war, deploy troops abroad, and ratify international treaties and agreements. The president serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the authority to return a bill for further debate, although the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament.[100] Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments.
  • It would solve its problems if the third sentence became the opening sentence: "In addition to a Prime-minister, Bulgaria has a President who serves as the head...etc." Then go with the sentence you have as the opening: "The National assembly is a body of 240..." The reason for this is that you refer to the President before you say there is one. Add a sentence either in this or the previous paragraph that explains the difference--(if there is one, or say so if they're the same)--between the Parliament which you refer to here, and the National Assembly, as Parliament has not been defined. Don't make references to things that aren't defined. Is the Prime minister the head of Parliament? Is the President the head of the National Assembly? I do not have a good idea of Bulgarian government from this yet.
  • I would move the last sentence-- Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments--from the end of the second paragraph to begin the next paragraph as it opens a new idea which is discussed in the next two paragraphs. The rest of this section is good.
Good points - reordered those sentences. Now it flows better. Also clarified that the prime minister is head of government.
That is a definite improvement. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm down to 'economy' but I have to quit for awhile--real life interferes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The changes you made to these sections are excellent. Jenhawk777 07:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section, Jenhawk777, prose review continuing

all issues resolved
This has gotten too long, so I created a new section. It does not mean the things left undone in the previous section no longer matter.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Economy

but the social consequences of these measures have been "catastrophic" please explain. A single sentence will do.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of info on that one, should be clear now.
  • Infrastructure

Biomass has become the primary source of renewable power after more than a decade of growth in the sector.[285] I know it's linked, but include an explanatory phrase anyway. Biomass, fuel produced through biological processes, has become the primary source ... Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Demographics

Clarified this one as well.
  • The PISA study of 2015 found 41.5% of pupils in the 9th grade to be functionally illiterate in reading, maths and science.[315] Average literacy stands at 98.4% with no significant difference between sexes I don't see how these two statistics can fit together--perhaps think about what percentage of the population 9th graders are--and/or--make sure and say "However, the literacy rate of the overall population stands at..." Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
They're related. The 98% have basic literacy (which is reading), but a large percentage lack functional literacy (reading with understanding). I rephrased it in a way that relates the two,
  • Culture

with millennium-old folk traditions. one millennium? If so, it should say "a" millennium-old folk tradition. If it's older than one thousand years, it should say millennia-old folk traditions.

Millenia* corrected!

Many of these are personified as witches, I would have changed this one myself, but I had to assume you mean the spirits referred to in the previous sentence, and I am unsure if that assumption is correct. Once again, pronouns ...

These actually refers to both spirits and diseases. Both are personified as witches or other kinds of creatures/phenomena. I'm not sure what the correct word to emphasise that would be, though.

The Middle Ages were marked by the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid does this refer to their founding? Some accomplishment of some kind? How many people went there? What?

It referred to their body of work, which consisted of both Bulgarian-language translations of Byzantine religious texts and original works. Those were the first scriptures in a Slavic language so they served to bring most Slavs under Eastern Christianity.

extended rhythmical time is it possible to explain this without going into too much detail?

Unfortunately no, and I've long considered this one problematic. It's a very specific detail of Bulgarian folk music, but it can't be explained without delving deep into musical terminology. A fair use audio file would be great as an illustration, but it's beyond risky.
  • Sports

when it was represented by Charles Champaud who played what? Did he win anything? Whether he did or not--he went--an achievement by itself. Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

He was a gymnast (linked to the 1896 gymnastics events), but did not medal. Which isn't such a big issue, those were the first modern games after all. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now finished the article. It is truly good with only a couple rough spots. It made me admire much about your country and want to visit! Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: We have one support so far, but I think we need to see something happening in the next week or so as this has been open for a month now. I will add it to the urgent list, but if nothing happens this FAC will be archived. Sarastro (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "During the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." I do not think you need the word "organized". What is an unorganized culture? Also the statement is too vague to be useful. I would suggest something like "The Neolithic Vinča culture in Bulgaria dates to around 5000 BC." (assuming you can find a cite for this.)
Changed it, hopefully it makes more sense now. I replaced Vinca here and further down the text with Karanovo, which is centered on Bulgaria, unlike Vinca, which is largely on Serbian territory.
  • "a tribe of Turkic origin that established the country" I think founded would be better than established.
It is.
  • "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." This is again too vague to be useful. See [16] for paleolithic Bulgaria.
  • "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to 100,000 BC, or the Middle Paleolithic." I see that the link I gave you was not very helpful. This clarifies that early occupation goes back over 100,000 years and was by Neanderthals, not modern humans, which should be stated. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I did read the link though I didn't notice it mentioning Neanderthals. Cited the paper you provided and changed that sentence somewhat, hopefully it's less ambiguous now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Organized agricultural societies, like the Vinča culture, arose in the Neolithic." I suggest deleting organized and adding an approximate date.
Both clarified.
  • eneolithic - few readers will understand this term. It is usually called the Chalcolithic or Copper Age.
  • "appeared on the peninsula" This is the first time you have mentioned the peninsula - presumably you mean the Balkans but this should be explained.
  • "Even though they excelled in metallurgy and gave the Greeks the Orphean and Dionysian cults, Thracians remained tribal and stateless." I would not say "Even though".
  • "The Achaemenid Empire" The Persian Achaemenid Empire would be clearer.
Corrected all of the above.
  • "The first Christian monastery in Europe was founded in 344 by Saint Athanasius near modern-day Chirpan," The source looks like the website for the monastery. This is not a reliable source for such a claim.
Used a Bulgarian National Radio source, which should be more reliable.
  • Bulgarian National Radio is not a more reliable source. The Oxford Dictionary of Saints says that he was patriarch of Alexandria and was in exile in Rome in 344. It does not mention any connection with the Balkans. This should be deleted unless you can find an impartial and reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a more heavyweight source confirming it, at least not online. Athanasius was in the area at the time, he took part in the council of Sardica. The monastery claims the statement is based on documents from the Vatican, but I'll remove it until I find a more reliable source to back it up. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Moesia should be linked.
  • Ref 37 needs a page number.
Could not obtain it - the book is available in Google Books but no page numbers are displayed. Furthermore, the other sources support the same statement so I removed this one.
  • "The Asen dynasty's downfall in 1257" You refer to the downfall here as if you have previously described it.
Changed, also broke up the sentence.
  • "Domestic defence is the responsibility of the all-volunteer Bulgarian army, branched into land forces, navy and an air force." I would say "composed of" instead of "branched into".
Changed it.
Looking forward. Thanks for the review. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "Bulgaria also has the third-lowest public debt in the Union at 28.7 per cent of GDP in 2016.[211] Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008." This is confusingly arranged. Maybe something like "Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent of GDP in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008. It then increased to 28.7 per cent in 2016, but this is still the third lowest in the EU.[211] "
Should be fine now.
  • "It includes the capital city and the surrounding Sofia Province, which alone generate 42 per cent of national gross domestic product." This is not much help without stating the proportion of the national population.
Pointed that out - it's 22% of the total population.
  • "a per capita gross domestic product (PPP) of $26,580". This is PPP but the salary figures above are apparently not. Citing figures which are not comparable is confusing, although I realise this may reflect the sources.
Wages and GDP per capita are different indicators altogether. The latter shows the value of goods or services produced per person, not how much they get paid.
  • "Although cereal and vegetable yields dropped by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2008,[248] output has since increased, and the 2016-2017 season registered the biggest grain yields in a decade." I assume you mean production rather than yield per hectare. I think it is better to avoid the word yield if you mean output.
Corrected, it was referring to total output and not yield per hectare.
  • "death rates are among the highest." The figures in the international death rate table look strange and may reflect the age structure of countries more than the health of the population. Life expectancy is a more reliable measure and Bulgaria comes in the middle.
  • "Mortality rates may be amenable with timely, adequate health care" Presumably this means may be improved, but this is true of every country. I would delete.
Mortality rates in Bulgaria are three times the EU average and among the highest globally precisely because of an uneven, dysfunctional healthcare system. I've rewritten that part to better reflect the impact of poor health services on death rates.
  • I am not questioning that there is a dysfunctional healthcare system, but you would need a much better source to prove that the death rate is one of the highest in the world taking into account the population structure. The source has a death rate for Germany three times higher than Gaza, West Bank, Syria and Libya - and only 24% lower than Bulgaria. The figures appear to reflect the proportion of young people more than the quality of the health provision. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The figures on religions do not look right. 75% orthodox, 10% Sunni, 3% other religions, 12% no religion and 12% do not say. This is well over 100%.
The 21% who refused to answer are not part of the final mix, so I've removed them. Interestingly enough the sum is now 99.9% - there's a 0.1% lost someplace in the official statistic.
  • "Ivan Vazov - it would be helpful to give his dates.
  • "Bulgaria's first Olympic appearance was at the 1896 games" This sounds odd as 1896 was the first Olympic games.
  • " Grigor Dimitrov is the first Bulgarian in the Top 10 ATP Rankings" You should say tennis.
Both corrected.
  • This needs some more work but it seems to me not far off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the time taken to review. If you have any other recommendations to improve the article, I'll work on them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Dudley Miles, was there anything further here? I'm minded to archive this, but if you were happy it was close to FA standard, I would keep it open a few days more to see if we can find another reviewer. Sarastro (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I think it is close to FA but there is still one issue which seems to me crucial. The article says that Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world - which is extremely unlikely - and cites a nonsensical table which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. The nominator has not replied on this. I would however keep the FAC open for a few days both for a reply on this point and to see whether other reviewers can be found. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I think if we give this until after the weekend then. But after that, I think we would have to archive if nothing is happening. Sarastro (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, had some research and travel to do and didn't really have much time to check in meaningfully. I wouldn't refer to the CIA table as nonsensical; arguably their methodology may not always be the most accurate, but it is true that Bulgaria is close to the top in terms of death rates. According to OECD stats, Monaco ranks higher (9th) than Bulgaria (10th). However, many of the developed countries with high death rates also have high median ages and exceptionally high life expectancy rates; Monaco's median age, for example, is nearly 54 years, and life expectancy is a staggering 89.4 years, while in Germany median age stands at 43.7 and life expectancy 80.8. This isn't the case in Bulgaria, where life expectancy is among the lowest in the EU, even though median age is actually lower than the EU average. A relatively younger population that lives less is a direct result of uneven healthcare provision; according to the European Commission health report, cutting down avoidable cardiovascular deaths (which are three times the EU average) alone would drop general mortality rates to sub-EU average levels. This is a great indicator of just how dysfunctional the healthcare system is, hence the liaison between the healthcare paragraph to the previous one describing the demographic crisis. The sources on that section are universally reliable (European Commission, World Bank, FT, CIA), so I'm not sure if there's anything better they can be replaced with. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Your arguments compare Bulgaria with other EU countries and it is no doubt true that it has one of the lowest life expecancies in the EU. That is different from saying it has one of the highest death rates in the world and citing a source which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I pointed out life expectancy figures only to explain the (seemingly) unusual death rate figures provided by the CIA source, specifically your example with Germany and Gaza. My point is, the CIA source isn't unreliable. You will find similar death rate results in all other reliable sources. The World Bank has one of the most in-depth statistical databases out there, and its crude death rate table also ranks Germany higher than Gaza in terms of crude death rates. In fact, Germany's death rate here is almost four times higher, and Bulgaria is ranked first. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I said that the table is nonsensical, not unreliable. Saying that the death rate is one of the highest in the world without providing the context - Bulgaria 14.5 per thousand per annum compared with Gaza 3.1 - wrongly implies that the crude death rate is an accurate measure of the health of the population. List of countries by life expectancy#List by the CIA (2016) provides a reasonable measure with a life expectancy of 74.5 compared with an EU average of 80.2 - low by European standards but well above the world average of 69. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not a direct indicator of the health of the population, but it is related to both demographic decline and quality of healthcare. Do you have a proposal on how it could be stated otherwise? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest using the CIA figures on life expectancy as in my previous comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here: high death rates often occur when the population is aged; it is, for example, also quite high in Germany. The article mentions it together with the low birth rates, which makes sense in this context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
That is OK so long as the high death rate in Germany is mentioned as well. Otherwise, someone who is not an expert on demographics will be given the impression that Bulgaria is comparable with third world countries which do not have a functioning health system. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
How about "Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world due to combination of many elderly people and a weak health system. Average life expectancy is 74.5 years compared with an EU average of 80.2 years and a world average of 69 years." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping in for a minute, that's a good proposal. I'll take it into account, and will address the rest of the comments below tomorrow morning. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added comparative life expectancy figures and reworded the section somewhat. It should be less biased as it is now.

Thank you!- ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Reading through now, prose is good, queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Bulgaria has a dynamic climate - what does this mean?
One that is not steady or firmly cyclical, but often shifts because of terrain features and geographic position. Maybe "diverse" would work better? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The word I would then use is "changeable" - it sounds like Melbourne, they say, "if you don't like the weather then wait five minutes..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Haha. Changed it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

  • There is no proper map in the article, making it difficult to get an overview over the geographical features of the country. The featured article Germany, for example, includes a nice physical map. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added a topographic map and removed one of the images to avoid clutter. Labels on the map aren't very visible at this size, but increasing it sufficiently for that purpose would take a lot space.
Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "To mix" or "of mixed stock" is a disputed interpretation of the word referring to the supposed mixing of the Oghurs and the Huns that initiated the Bulgars' ethnogenesis. – Reading flow would be slightly better if it would be clear from the beginning that this is a different, alternative interpretation. One possibility would be to start the sentence with "Alternatively".
  • Scholar Sanping Chen – Regarding the overview character of the article, I would mention his name only when the person is very notable regarding the topic; at the very least I would link him.
Reworded those two and removed the scholar's name - he has no Wiki page and it seems like he's narrowly specialised in the history of Inner Asia, so it would be better to leave the name out of that section.
  • a proposed division within the Utigurs or Onogurs ("ten tribes").[13] – I can't follow this part, can this be made clearer? I would also add a brief explanation who those tribes are.
I tried explaining that without elaborating too much - let me know if it's understandable now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, understandable now, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Fauna is primarily represented by owls, rock partridges, wallcreepers,[125] red deer, pheasants and jackals.[128] – This sentence has to be replaced. This is more of a random list of some species which occur there, but they are for sure not the primary components of the fauna. Wallcreepers, for example, only occur in some regions in the mountains. Instead, a sentence stating the total number of species of some major groups (maybe mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) along with numbers of endemic species would be much better, and the same was done for plants and fungi.
IUCN figures unfortunately don't cover fungi, but they give a good idea about biodiversity. Formatted the fungi source.
  • Normally, the prime minister–elect is the leader of the party receiving the most votes in parliamentary elections, although this is not always the case.[106] – Question: Is the president elected directly, or do Bulgarians only vote for a party?
Directly, which I pointed out.
  • Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments – As you write "governments", you seem to be referring not only to the current one. Maybe give the approximate time frame?
That's a good question. With the exception of Boris III and Zhivkov, few governments in Bulgaria's modern history have been stable. Borisov is the only one since 1990 to win a consecutive mandate and that says a lot. Most other cabinets either resigned before their mandate ended or never got reelected. Maybe add "unstable governments since 1990"?
  • However, his first government resigned on 20 February 2013 after nationwide protests caused by high costs of utilities, low living standards, corruption[147] and the failure of the democratic system. – I would be more prudent here: A resigning president is not characteristic for an democracy that literally "failed". It obviously did not fail yet.
That was the premier resigning. Then-president Plevneliev (previously part of the Borisov cabinet) assembled caretaker governments which prepared the elections Borisov won, and some of the interim ministers went on to serve in subsequent Borisov cabinets. Of course, it's not just him abusing authority, the amount of political fraud and violations is large enough to make a separate article of this size and more. But since all of this would weigh too much relative to the rest of the section, I've just added "perceived" before "failure of the democratic system" to add a nuance that can be elaborated on elsewhere.
  • The legal system is one of Europe's most inefficient, and the lack of transparency and corruption are pervasive. – Puh, here again, I would be more careful. Disregarding if true or not, I would always say that this is the opinion of somebody, e.g. "is regarded … by both national and international media". I doubt that the government itself is of the same opinion, or that there are official EU sources stating this? This should not stand as fact, as this information is subjective since there is no objective measure for inefficiency, or is there?
The government doesn't really have a position on corruption. The current premier has consistently downplayed corruption allegations. Some government ministers go further by saying that corruption is merely a "newspaper item" in the country. Some former ministers in the Borisov cabinet admitted there is corruption and set up bodies to counter it, but Bulgaria has already set up an arsenal of such bodies that either don't investigate fully or ensure that judicial procedures don't go through, resulting in a disproportionately high number of acquittals. Either way, in a country where a tenth to a third of the population have, in some form, been associated with corrupt transactions (as consumers, benefactors, initiators or others), I think foreign media sources and analyses are far more reliable than anything the government would come up with as a statement or policy. But I've changed the statement to clarify that we're talking about opinions.
  • EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it is not seen by Brussels as a "problem country" like Poland or Hungary.[229] – Here I would not repeat the polemical language of the media ("problem country") and formulate it more objectively.
" EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it supports Brussels on a number of issues, unlike Poland or Hungary." - kind of softer.
  • of whom 6.8 per cent are employed in agriculture, 26.6 per cent are employed in industry and 66.6 per cent are employed in the services sector. – No need to repeat the "employed" here.
  • Mortality rates can be significantly reduced with timely and adequate access to medical services, which the current healthcare system fails to provide.[310] – Again, I would take a step back and reformulate with a bit more distance. This wording ("fail") is not used by the EU source. The wording is quite absolute, and thus can't be precisely true (it might by substandard and not as good as it should be, but it surely does not fail completely in providing access to medical services).
As per above, I've changed wording in the paragraph to follow the source more closely. It does state that mortality rates can be slashed to sub-EU averages, which would be quite something if the system provided them adequately - but it does not.
  • while death rates are among the highest.[308] – can you link "death rate"?
  • Education in primary and secondary public schools is free – But it is mandatory?
Yep, added "compulsory".
  • I think population density would be good to add; also how population compares to other European countries.
Quite low for Europe, it's mostly Nordic countries that have lower densities. Added.
  • All in all, a well-written article, and one of the better reads I saw lately here on FAC. I learned a lot and feel well-informed. I do not think this norm was premature, as the remaining issues are of a sort that is difficult to detect without input from more extensive reviews. There are some issues with neutrality and subjectivity in some sentences as specified above. I however think that these are relatively easy to fix, and would therefore suggest to leave this nomination open for a little longer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm fully open to any further recommendations and remarks! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the quick and throughout addressing of the points! Looks very good now, and I'm happy to support. Only one more thing: The partridges are a larger genus containing many species. Could you specify which species is meant? Is it the Grey partridge which is common throughout Europe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! The source doesn't say. This article lists several types of gamebirds of which Grey partridges (яребица) are the most numerous. I did a search but no reliable sources come up other than the Statistics brochure. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


1a, lead:

  • "Since the adoption of a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has functioned as a unitary parliamentary republic"—how can it be simplified? "Since adopting a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has been a unitary parliamentary republic"?
Sounds better.
  • The lead tells us twice that Sofia is the capital and largest city. Why not just "Sofia" the second time?
  • "The predominantly urbanized population of seven million people mainly inhabits the primary cities of the 28 provinces."—What are "primary cities"? If it's a technical thing (like state capitals), can you use a simipler wording? What about "mainly" instead of "predominantly": English is more elegant when it's plain and simple. Do we need "people" in this context? We're not referring to pet dogs, right? "inhabit" -> "live".
Those are provincial capital cities. Removed those words,
  • "is largely based on services, agriculture, and a sizeable industrial sector focused on mining and machine building"—I'm going to be fussy here. Convince me that "largely" is needed; "based on" doesn't mean it's totally the list. Why is the industrial sector "sizeable"? Is that compared with what you'd expect as a proprotion of GDP/employment/whatever for a similar economy? By "industrial" I guess you mean "non-service", which is a good epithet nowadays.
Considering that services, agriculture and industry are the only three GDP composition markers, "larger" wouldn't be needed so I removed it. Same goes for "sizable", it arguably makes up a good chunk of GDP, but nothing unusual for an industrialised country. I reformulated the entire sentence, but kept industry and agriculture separate to keep in line with the rest of the article.
  • "It is also notable for its biodiversity, its achievements in sports and science,"—we could dump "also", right? The claims on biodiversity, sports, and science are relative to other, similar countries, are they? "Notable" is a strong claim. Convince me its biodiversity is strong compared with Turkey's or Macedonia's.
Sorry for jumping in: According to this article, the biodiversity seems to be higher than average but not outstandingly high, I would therefore also suggest a slightly more prudent wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The IUCN source points out that 26% of European species and 2% of world species can be found in Bulgaria, which is a decent percentage. But it's still a bit peacocky. While Bulgaria did punch way above its weight in space exploration and the Olympics, that's relative to other countries and not an absolute value, so I've removed those from the intro. Cyrillic script is undoubtedly a significant contribution so I kept that but moved it in the historical paragraph.
  • "However, it continues to struggle with crippling corruption and severe demographic decline." Is this proposition unexpected coming after the "notable" claims? Let's be precise about logical flow here.
Broke down that sentence and put the statements elsewhere.

How good is the rest of the prose?

It's been here for six weeks, with 123 edits by 23 unique users. Methinks it was a premature nomination. But that's water under the bridge now.

Just a meta-comment: I looked at articles on a few of the neighbouring countries and found evidence of templated, standardised structure, sequences of propositions, etc. ,,, at least in the leads. It would be nice if WP worked toward making country-articles less stratified. But that's not a formal part of my review. Tony (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Manual of Style. It's not the first time I'm nominating this article for FA so I've decided to follow the template and make it similar to other prefabricated FA country articles. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire with the minority Bulgars forming a ruling elite." Comma required before "with", unless there was more than one such empire. More seriously, though, is the claim that the Bulgars formed a ruling elite. Not all of them, surely. Every ethnic group has the usual human inequalities. Do you mean that the ruling elite comprised (?exclusively) members of the minority Bulgars?
Not all Bulgars were equal or at the helm, of course. But considering that they went as far as building their own settlements separate from those of the Slavs is telling. Bulgars were essentially a superior caste that governed a much larger, but poorly organised, ethnic Slav majority. Replaced it with "The minority Bulgars formed a close-knit ruling caste".
  • "pushed the country into political turmoil as the war turned against Germany and the communist guerrilla movement"—to avoid our need to read on to get the right meaning, perhaps a comma before "and"?
  • "Bulgaria suffered little war damage and the Soviet Union demanded no reparations; however, all wartime gains, with the notable exception of Southern Dobrudzha, were lost." It's not a crime to use "but", even at the start of a sentence (not too much, though). You know you're itching to. The one after "royal elite" would be plainer and nicer for readers.
A bit too much? Maybe the first one should go.
  • "political repressions were lessened"—bit clunky. they "eased"?
  • "Both national and per capita GDPs quadrupled by the 1980s,[96] although severe debt spikes took place in 1960, 1977 and 1980." Quadrupled from what year-baseline? And both just happened to be quadrupled? Was there no population growth? Does this account for inflation? Suggest scrutinising the source(s) critically.
Compared to WWII levels. GDP per capita quadrupled, but upon reviewing the source more closely, national GDP increased five-fold. The figures are in 1990 international dollars, and over a population increase of some 20-25%. The source is based on Madison's work (the Historical Statistics segment), where similar growth rates are shown.
  • "The Communist Party gave up its political monopoly on 10 November 1989 under the influence of the Revolutions of 1989." No one in history has ever given up power just because something influenced them. Rulers either die or are forced to give up power.
"Forced to give up"? Will address the other two in a bit.
  • Ref 109: is "Voice of America" a reliable source? Whose concerns about corruption: I suppose Brussels' concerns?
  • "The Constitution of Bulgaria also ..."—you could pipe it to "Constition" to avoid yet another iteration of the country-name.
Replaced it with another source and clarified that - the European Commission has been grilling all governments on that issue, to no result. Done. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As above, I do believe this should have been withdrawn and resubmitted ages ago. But now it's this far, power ahead (quick as you can, please). There are good things about the article. Tony (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Streamlining text whenever possible, but any additional feedback is more than welcome.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

  • It looks like some work has been done by reviewers re. source reliability and formatting (e.g. by Dudley Miles) but is anyone prepared to sign their life away on that?
  • I have checked when I had a query on the text, but not a general source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Also -- and I should've picked this up sooner -- I gather that this would be the nominator's first FA if successful, so I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Again, if any reviewer has done this to their satisfaction already, pls let me know.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I can add a quote to each citation if that would help with a source check. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

I do not intend to provide a full review and give a support or oppose. Just a couple comments as I read through it:

  • Per cent and percent are both used, probably best to choose one.
  • Rewrite this "information and communication technologies sector" to this "information and communication technologies (ICT) sector" since you use the acronym later
  • I am a space nerd, and I did not recognize B1029 at a first glance. You could remove it from the caption since it is a bit of excessive detail for this article. If you want to leave it you can, personal preference. "using a B1029 reusable booster, 2017"
  • Did I miss something? Any reason this has five citations? "Bulgaria is also the largest producer globally of lavender and rose oil, both widely used in fragrances."

Let me know when (and if) you have addressed the issues. None are major, just some nits as I read through the article. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these, looking into the demographic chart now. It seems to be going up until 2013-2014, which is fairly recent for reliable data, but I'll try updating the chart if newer data is available. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Antiochus XII Dionysus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History is a witness to countless moments where a leader was so close to victory then lost all due to a miscalculation and perhaps stupid courage which lead him to fight in the front lines, getting killed in the process, leading his army to disband and his enemy to prevail. This is the summary of Antiochus XII's mistake. This king was an energetic ruler who seemed to be on the path of regaining the Seleucid Empire’s long lost prestige. He defeated Judea and came close to defeating the Nabataeans. This article will be interesting for anyone who have a soft spot for the Seleucids. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Different people take different approaches to lead writing. Checking the history of WP:LEAD will give you a flavor of what the arguments are (although that's impractical for just about everyone). To help you get through FAC, I recommend not listing two very long, nearly identical names before you even get to a verb, so I removed the second one, the transliteration. It would be fine to put it anywhere else ... the start of the first section, some infobox, etc.
  • Consistency is needed in the notation for Seleucid years: "88-87 BC", "85/84", "230", etc.
  • It would be best to create stubs for Alfred Raymond Bellinger and Horvat Uza, rather than linking to the Italian and French Wikipedias.
  • "a certain Philotas": probably just "Philotas", or "a [something] named Philotas", or "Governor Philotas".
  • "Alexander Jannaeus as a retribution for the defeat mentioned by George Syncellus": After the first mention, here and elsewhere, don't use their first names.
  • "6th-century": probably sixth-century. At any rate, consistency is needed (for centuries under 10).
  • "Josephus called Antiochus XII the last Seleucid king, which is echoed by Malalas, according to the translation of Glanville Downey, but Antiochus XIII is generally considered to be the last Seleucid king.": Please clarify.
  • 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) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I corrected everything. If you think anything still needs adjustment, please tell me.
Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note

Attar-Aram syria, I must've missed something, when did you obtain leave to open a second solo nomination while Philip I Philadelphus is still running? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ian, I actually dont have a leave! I thought you are allowed two nominations at the same time. Now I think Im mixing the rule of copy editors guild with FA. It is fine to close this and I will nominate it again later since in any case it didnt get enough reviews to pass or fail. CHheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the FAC instructions are pretty clear on that point and I figured you'd been around here enough to recall them... Thing is, when an existing nom seems close to consensus for promotion, and the nominator requests leave to open a new one, the coords generally agree. That was probably the case with Philip at the time you opened this one. Because of that, and the fact that I didn't pick up on the situation until now, when someone had already taken the time to review, I think we may as well leave this open -- but pls keep the instructions in mind for next time! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I was also confused by this, which is why I didn't comment yet, but I will return at a later date to review now that it obtained leave. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right Ian, will be more carefull in the future

From FunkMonk

  • Might as well start my section, but it will take a bit before I can review. Some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey FunkMonk, sorry for the late response. Im on a vacation and dont have any PC, only my phone and any editor knows what a pain it is to edit through a smart phone. I will work on your review as soon as Im home.
  • One thing I noticed about this and most other articles about Seleucid rylers of Syria, none of them are tagged as part of Wikiproject Syria. Any reason for this?
Not really, I have tagged it
  • Josephus is not linked or presented. Other historians mentioned are not presented either, only Bellinger.
Those old historians are famous, for history students. Somtimes I forget that they are not actually famous. I introduced him and the other non introduced historians
  • This[17] Citebot edit was reverted, but it does have some valuable changes, such as adding dois, correct dashes between numbers, and abbreviations of Google Books links, which should be retained.
I restored the bot's helpfull edits.
  • Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body at first mention.
  • Link Hadad in caption.
  • "Nabataeans' oil industry" What kind of oil?
Petrol, I added this to the article
  • "This is possibly related to Philip I's attack on Damascus, but this supposition has little support" Then why was he portrayed as bearded?
It can relate to the campaign against Jannaeus or the Nabateans
  • "stretched 28 km" Convert.
  • "and it would logical for the king" Be?
  • "the last Seleucid king was in fact Antiochus XIII" Give date for when his rule ended here?
  • "plain stretching 4 km" Convert.
  • "his Egyptian wife" Only stated in intro.
  • Is this image of any use?[18]
Used for the last section
  • Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CPA-5

Greetings the page looks good still (I think) I can see some issues in the page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • First, I can see a mix between American English and Britsh English like the words

"emphasize" (US English), "honour" (UK English), "kilometres" (UK English), "defenses" (US English), "patronised" (UK English) and posible more. Which English should the page use?

All turned to US English. kilometres is not my writing but the result of the convert template and cant be changed. 28 kilometres (17 mi). I dont think its a problem.
  • Second, titles like in this case "the Nabatean king, Aretas III" should be capitalised or in this case "the death of the king" it should be too.
  • Third, I also see alot of historians who're not capitalised before their names like
"Byzantine monk and historian John Malalas", "historian Glanville Downey", "eighth-century historian George Syncellus",
"numismatist Oliver D. Hoover" and more. Which is weird because other historians or other scientist titles are capitalised like,
"Archaeologist Nicholas L. Wright", "Historian Uranius of Apamea", "Historian Aryeh Kasher" and more, is there a reason why they are not
This is where Im not sure what to do. In the current version, academic titles are capitalized when they occur in the beginning of a sentence, and thats why some are capitalized and some are not. As for capitalizing all of them, I cant understand what should be done because the policy isnt clear: Do not add academic or professional titles to names, as in Professor Colombo or Sam O'Brien, PhD. An occasional exception is made for clarifying that person's qualifications with regard to a claim attributed in an article. Any thoughts?
  • Fourth, the date Seleucid era (SE for short) is not used in alot of years why not?
Some examples 125 BC, 111 BC, 113 BC, 98 BC and more of those dates were used in the years 88/87 BC as 225 SE, 85/84 BC as 228 SE. Is there
a good reason why they shouldn't be used on those years?
I only add the SE when the source mention it. Sometimes, a scholar does not know when an event happened precisely as he only have a coin as an evidence. This coin will be dated by an SE, meaning two Gregorians, so the scholar will mention the SE and two Gregorians. Some other times, the historian write an exact Gregorian date, and then I use this date.
  • Support It looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: CPA-5, do you have more to add here? This FAC has been open a long time now and I think we need to see something happening soon or we will have to consider archiving, even with two supports. In the meantime, I think we still need a source and image review. Sarastro (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sarastro. What is the minimum number of support votes for an FA ? Now that CPA-5 supported, the article have three.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Three comprehensive supports (meaning not supporting simply on prose, or on sources, but across the FAC criteria) has been the historical minimum but consensus for promotion is not supposed to be about the number per se. In any case, as Sarastro mentions, we need image and source reviews before considering promotion -- you can request them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

No ALT text in most images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. I added the alt

Comments from Constantine

The usual thorough work I've come to expect from Attar-Aram syria. I made some copyedits going along, as well as introducing the {{ill}} and {{Reign}} templates. I have a few parts that are not entirely clear:

  • "targeted at the south but not towards expansion within Syria" what exactly was the southern target then?
  • "maintaining a good relationship with the Semitic population of Damascus, who comprised the majority of the inhabitants, in order to avoid tension with Greek settlers." This also leads to some questions: Was there pre-existing tension between the Semitic populace and Greek settlers? Were the Greek settlers the mainstay of Antiochus, and he wanted to appease the Semitic inhabitants? Did Antiochus try broaden his base of support or shift it entirely?
  • "that he alone had a higher command" what exactly does the "he alone" here mean? That Phanias was the sole high official of the kingdom?
  • Currently the first paragraph of the "First Nabataean campaign and the incursions of Philip I" section is a bit unintegrated into the narrative. I strongly recommend moving the "Antiochus' first Nabataean campaign ... writings of Stephanus of Byzantium." part first, then explaining where Stephanus got his info from (the current 1st paragraph), and then modern scholarly views on this account, from Roschinski to Józef Milik.
  • "who betrayed Antiochus XII and opened the gates for Philip I" can be shortened to "who opened the gates to him"; the context is clear.
  • "as evidenced by coins dated to this period" redundant, again, the context of his portrayal on coins is clear.
  • "managed to rally his troops and weathered the attack, although he was killed" is a bit contradictory, I suggest rephrasing to "managed to rally his troops, but was killed..."

Once these are taken care of, I'll be happy to support. Constantine 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Constantine, Sorry for the delay. I did all the suggested edits. As for the Greeks in Damascus, what we know about the history of the city in this period is very scant. Practically nothing but few coins and mentions in Josephus and other later historians. So we dont know what was the case between Greeks and Arameans. Based on the appearance of Semitic gods instead of Zeus on Damascene coins, historian Kay Ehling proposed that this was an act by the side of the king to avoid any possible tension. I made it clear in the article that this is the hypothesis of Ehling. As for Phanias, the tone of the letter, according to those who studied it, indicates that he was the highest official, kind of a prime minister?


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which has had historical eruptions and is currently considered to be the most active volcano there (not sure if it has been supplanted by Sabancaya at any point). Apparently before 2006-2007 the region was ill-prepared for eruptions at Ubinas and the issues were remedied in a very short time frame. It is close to Huaynaputina and geologically related to it as well; these two volcanoes have had large historical eruptions, including Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption that is the largest in South America during historical time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - Went through and did some final copyediting. Convinced this is comprehensive and well-written. Great work. ceranthor 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments support - taking a look now.....notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In light of its activity, Ubinas is monitored by the Peruvian geological service INGEMMET, which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas as well as a regular volcano activity report. - this sentence is unwieldy and should be split or reworded.
...a history of usually small- to moderate-sized explosive eruptions as well as larger eruptions such as in 1667,... - the word "usually" is redundant I think...
also, if you're covering its activilty in para 2, the "active" in the first sentence makes it a little repetitive and could be removed...?
The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. - umm, then what is it from?
which on the northern and eastern side of Ubinas is covered by volcanic ash and some lava flows - I am confused here - what does the "which" refer here to?
The summit of the volcano is truncated by a - can't we remove the "truncated by"?
The magmas erupted by all three volcanoes appears to originate... - shouldn't this be "magma"?
I am confused, you mention, a period of dormancy lasting until 25,000–14,700 years ago...but then in the next sentence say 5,000-21,000 years ago volcanic activity restarted....
and persistent smoking - doesn't seem to make sense grammatically

These are the most obvious examples. I think there are more - but will give it another read tomorrow. Also, I made these changes, if you can check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Got these issues done. Regarding that notch it is kind of implied but not explicitly stated in the source(s) that it is a landslide scar - says something like "Examination of this features with field glasses and from a study of aerial photographs (but no field studies) suggests to the writer that it is the result of rock avalanches and mud flows rather than an eruptive center. ". I don't think the magmas are exactly identical, hence I preferred the plural form. Your edits look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok - need to read and digest....more later... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Casliber Any updates? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ubinas is a volcano in the Moquegua Region of southern Peru, close to Huaynaputina and not far from the city of Arequipa. - "close" and "not far" are vague - put the distances in and let the reader decide
Activity at the volcano commenced in the Pleistocene epoch - put approximate time in MYA

Nothing else is really jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Did rewrite the lead section. Didn't specify which time in the Pleistocene because it is not known for certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Right then - tentative support, but I would not be hugely surprised if other reviewers found prose issues as I find I don't have the best eye for detail. Still, I can't see anything else and it seems pretty complete....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ya, I wouldn't surprise me either since my prose skills are only so-so. Which is why I always ask someone else to take a look before sending an article of mine to FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything.

  • Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano indicate that glaciers developed on Ubinas during the last glacial maximum. Is this saying that there are two things that indicate glaciers: 1 - Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, and 2 - cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano? If so, they should be joined by an "and" before "cirques", and I'd suggest a comma before "indicate" to help the reader parse the sentence.
  • Peruvian volcanoes including Ubinas belong to the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: all Peruvian volcanoes are in the CVZ? If so I'd put "All" at the front of the sentence.
  • the marginal faults of this graben are the sites of the volcanic vents: why "the" in "the volcanic vents"? It sounds as if you're indicating that these have already been referred to.
  • the average temperature is 11–9 °C (52–48 °F): any reason why you give this with the highest temperature first? There's no requirement not to do this, but it's unusual and I think it would be less jarring if reversed.
  • pajonal which also consists of shrubs and grasses made up by high Andean vegetation: does "made up by" mean "consisting of", or "with additional contributions from"? If the former I'd make it "made up of".
  • Small lakes and waterlogged soil contains wetlands...: suggest "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands...".
  • Animal species are mainly described for the National Reserve: I think you mean something like "descriptions of animal species in the area mainly give their habitat as the National Reserve, rather than Ubinas specifically". If so I think the phrasing should be clearer.
  • The last activity of Ubinas I generated more than four units of pyroclastic flows, with a total volume of about 1.8 cubic kilometres (0.43 cu mi) and possibly an old caldera before 261,000 ± 10,000 years ago: can we just say "more than four pyroclastic flows", or perhaps "more than four separate pyroclastic flows", or is there some subtlety of meaning that I'm missing? And if the "total volume" is related to the flows, but the old caldera is not, as I think is the case, I'd put a comma before "and possibly".
  • How can a volcanic explosion cause an epidemic?

I've finished copyediting; I'll read through again once the above points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie I think I got them all. "The volcanic vents" is deliberate since the statement refers to the aforementioned vents Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina. I don't think that we can assume that "one unit of pyroclastic flows"="one pyroclastic flow". Good question on the epidemics especially given PMC 2725828, maybe in this case it's due to ash intoxication of starvation after ashfalls have destroyed crops. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck all but one point above. What does "unit of pyroclastic flow" mean, in that case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Stratigraphic unit. Added a link to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple more points on another read-through.

  • The section on name and mythology gives two similar words in two indigenous languages, but doesn't assert that either is connected to the name of the volcano. Can we be more direct about this?
  • Is there a good reason to mention the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina? It seems to be a non sequitur. If it's because of the connection with Ubinas it should perhaps be repositioned, as the article doesn't mention the connection till the next paragraph.
  • The external links don't look particularly useful -- have you reviewed them?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of explanation. Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption is mentioned because it was the largest historical volcanic event in Peru and I do write a bit about context. I've removed the broken external links; I was thinking that the other three sources are stuff that a reader would probably be interested in knowing but don't have a place in the prose for WP:RS reasons (or in case of the Volcano Observatory, being too generic). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
How about moving the sentence about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption to the end of the following paragraph, where it could be combined with the observation that the magma chambers of Ubinas, Huaynaputina and Ticsani are connected, and with the comment about de Espinosa, which is related to that observation? OK on the external links, so I've struck the comment, but the Rivera Porras is really just a book reference, so you might consider moving it to a "Further reading" section instead, and making it a cite book with a link to this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I got these changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Any idea why? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    I've pinged the user to see as they didn't give an edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    Didn't get any response, so removed the map again per WP:IUP#RI. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    I see that it was added back again without explanation, and they haven't responded to a question on their talk page. They haven't edited this weekened, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    I've removed it, with an edit summary link to here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous, every article that is now FA or GA has a map, why the sudden tight ass approach here? I oppose the FAC without a proper topographic map. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    Tisquesusa, are you saying that this map meets the image policy, despite Nikkimaria's comments above? Or are you saying that another map could be found instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Christie: Maps are an essential part of geographic articles and for mountains specifically we use topographic maps everywhere. I have read, reviewed, edited, promoted and linked many of @Jo-Jo Eumerus:'s excellent volcano articles and all have maps. This topographic map clearly is not "public domain", as all our other topographic maps are not and are widely used in infoboxes; that means the original uploader simply clicked the wrong license and it is just a matter of changing the license to something acceptable for FA standards. On top of that, the map is an .svg file with overlays, so obviously made by the user him/herself, probably in Inkscape. The only difference with the other topographic maps of Bolivia and Chile, used in the other volcano articles, is the legend, which is a good addition anyway. The problem lies also in the location map template, that always should link to a map that can be used everywhere on Wikipedia, including FA and GA articles, so with a proper license. No map for a FA mountain article is unacceptable to me (hence my oppose to FA until the map is included) and the solution is quite simple. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    Coming back to this as it's been inactive for a while. Tisquesusa The problem isn't quite the template, but rather the topographic information - how does it know what a certain area is over 4000m high, for instance? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Option 1
    • Greyscale, so you would have to convert to color (unless you are happy with grey scale).
  • Option 2
    • Be smarter than me and figure it out. If I have time, I will try harder to figure out it. Seems that is where the Shuttle data is stored now. Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Request's already there and here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, seems like someone else will have to do the source review then. And summoning Frank R 1981 to see if they can resolve the image source problem that Nikkimaria highlighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Asking around if someone has time for a source review as I don't know which people to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, Tisquesusa, and Mike Christie: It seems like according to the uploader the topographical information comes from the SRTM and would thus be uncopyrighted. Would it be enough to edit File:Peru physical map.svg so that it says "topographical information from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission" to satisfy copyright/source concerns? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • Geography. It would be interesting to know how near the Equator Ubinas is.
  • "a lava flow was emplaced inside the crater" Is there a link which would explain 'emplace'?
  • "Peruvian volcanoes include both stratovolcanoes, which are typically active for less than 500,000 years, long-lived clusters of lava domes[2] and monogenetic volcanic fields. " "both" means two but you list three types.
  • "The formation of their magmas is caused by the dehydration of the down-going slab and the melting of the mantle; the magmas often undergo fractional crystallization and absorb crustal material.[38]" I think this sentence belongs in the first paragraph of 'Geology'.
  • "This collapse took place early in the history of the volcano" As you have not yet discussed the history I think you should indicate the period.
  • "The volcanic rocks define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." What does "define" mean here?
  • "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite." You have said this above.
  • fumarolic-seismic. Fumarole should be linked here, not below.
  • "In addition, the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption was at first localized in Ubinas before its actual vent was identified." I would say "was first thought to be at Ubinas" - "localized in" sounds odd to me.
  • A good article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure that the equator thing is of common interest? As for "emplace" I think that "to place in" is a clear enough connection. "Both" I think is also used for when there are three rather than two discussion scopes. Regarding "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite" it's explained again because the earlier mention is qualified as "often". Actioned the other things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but I agree with Dudley re "both"; there may be a style guide somewhere that says it's OK to use for three, but it's jarring for many English readers and I think it would be best to change it. "Emplace" is technical jargon; perhaps I've read too many volcano articles now, because I pass right over it, but I recall that this (and "edifice") both sounded odd to me when I first read them. I don't think there's a good link for it, unfortunately, and I do think it's interpretable from the etymology, but it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Whe, no big. I've pulled "both" and "emplaced", fixed a maintenance tag added in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Dudley Miles do you have more to add here? Also, just as a procedural point, Tisquesusa your oppose would not be taken into consideration when considering promotion for this article as it is not actionable by the nominator and is not related to the FA Criteria. However, I would like that issue cleared up before we promote if at all possible. Sarastro (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There are almost 1900 pages at Wikipedia using this map. This is a bigger issue than just this FAC. The license simply needs to be changed; topographic maps are not "public domain", we use them all the time in FA and GA articles. The Russian user who uploaded this particular topographic map of Peru has uploaded a lot of diagrams, maps and other files. And apparently that is done more often using the "public domain" license. It shows we should assume good faith that (s)he made this map (clear from the .svg file anyway) him/herself and the license simply needs to be updated. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that, which is why the issue does not relate to whether this article meets the FA criteria; it is an issue with the map itself, and the nominator cannot address that. It is not an FA issue, so cannot affect whether the article is promoted or not. Sarastro (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jens Lallensack

Sorry for the late review. I feel the article is on a good way, but still has some way to go.

  • Title picture: which side of the volcano is shown?
    I dunno, paging Poco a poco. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The historian and geographer Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán relates the name Ubinas to two terms in two different languages. – But what does this mean? Why two terms, are these two separate hypothesis where the name could have originated from, or does he think the name evolved from both names?
    Source does not specify this. I am guessing they know these languages and concluded that either language may be the source of the name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In the indigenous language Quechua, uina means "to stuff", "to fill", and uiña is translated as "to grow", "to increase". – Now you are mentioning two words for the first language? There is no explanation, and I'm not sure how to interpret this. Again two alternative possibilities where the name could have originated from?
    I am guessing so, as with before the source does not really detail the thought process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The volcano is also known as Uvillas or Uvinas. – Where are those names used; are these English names or local ones?
  • Do you know the first written account of the volcano? Anything on early research history?
    There is a little info dispersed through the article. The problem with these South American volcanoes is that their history is usually very poorly documented so there is not much info on such details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. – When reading this, one necessarily will ask "from what is it then?". I now see that the second reviewer asked the same question, but it seems to be still unresolved.
    Specified this a bit. I think that this notch was created by the collapse discussed in the section titled "collapse" but irritatingly none of the source explicitly says so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The upper sector of the volcano has a weathered appearance. – Could you be more specific? I first thought you might mean the rugged appearance of the upper margin of the caldera, but then I noticed that the top layers are partly eroded, is this what you mean?
    Specified this too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Ubinas and Para valleys border the volcano[19] in its southeastern sector; the difference in elevation between these and the plate