Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, !xt, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

1962 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. The first FAC in late-2017 was closed due to the lack of attention, apart from Harrias. Twofingered Typist at GOCE gave it a copy-edit before the first FAC. Since the closure, the only significant edits have been recent suggestions from a GA review by Sportsfan77777. There was no opposition the first time round. BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

1989 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a three-week stage cycle race through France. The 1989 edition is known as one of the closest fought and more memorable in the history of the event. The article passed its GA review in late October. Apart from alt captions, not much more work has been done to the article since I felt it met the FA criteria as it is. I am very much looking forward to your suggestions and comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cape May County, New Jersey[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Cape May County, which is at the southern tip of New Jersey. I worked on this article last year and submitted it for GA review, hoping for some feedback on how to improve it, only the GA reviewer didn't find anything of note. I believe this article is the most comprehensive source for the county. It would be only the third county to be a FA, if successful. Please note that this is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Planet Nine[edit]

Nominator(s): Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC), Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the hypothetical Planet Nine. This is a specific hypothesis about a specific planet with a projected mass, size and orbit. It is not to be confused with Nibiru cataclysm, an imaginary planet that is the subject of pseudoscientic conjecture (and also an FA candidate at this very moment). The Planet Nine article has cleared a thorough review by several colleagues (in archive 1, and at Talk:Planet Nine). Due to the highly technical nature of many of its sources, I emailed Mike Brown (one of the two authors of the hypothesis) and asked him to review the article for factual accuracy and completeness. Because I am not a professional astronomer, I wanted to make sure we didn't misrepresent or omit anything. He replied, "It's quite good! ...what you have here is remarkably complete. Well done!"

The last planet discovered in our solar system was Neptune on 23 September 1846. Unofficial reports from one of the search teams indicate that there's approximately an 80% chance they have photos of Planet Nine from their recent visit to the Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea. These photos are being processed and analyzed. We expect an announcement, possibly by the end of January. This could be a once in a lifetime discovery. It would be nice if the article was Featured in time for the announcement so that it could appear on the home page during an intense moment of public interest. The actual discovery announcement would not include much additional information, only the location in the sky and distance. It will take about a year to develop detailed information about the orbit. I anticipate that we can quickly update the article to include a discovery announcement without compromising quality; this event should not make the article unstable. Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment about the more technical aspects of the article which were often mentioned in previous Feature Article Review, that I did not locate until it was archived. First, many of the technical terms are used because they refer to specific things and often there is not a simpler term available. Since the original review they have been better defined and their use reduced. I think including those terms and some of the more technical details included in the article are useful and necessary because they will aid those readers who do have some familiarity with astronomy that decide to follow the links to the cited articles, which are often much more technical than this article. Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I have some real concerns here. I've mostly just been looking at references and reference formatting. I usually bullet-point these, but I feel that would be extremely unwieldy right now, so I've opted to go over my concerns in prose. All reference numbers are as they appear in this revision of the article.

First, there are a TON of self-published sources here. Now, that policy permits the self-published sources of "established experts" in the appropriate field to be used as references, with certain restrictions. However, it also encourages editors to do so sparingly and with caution, preferring independent reliable sources where possible. And while it may not be precisely explicit, I'd argue that the policy's penumbra prefers non-independent reliable sources also (for example, citing an actual peer-reviewed paper rather than a blog post by the paper's authors discussing the paper's contents). The FA criteria mandate "high-quality" sources, so I think the replaceability of many of these sources is an issue for promotion. That's not to say that there can't be any of these; that expert exception exists for a reason, but... I think there are far too many for the 1c criterion. On an first-pass inspection, I could identify the following sources as "established expert" SPS: Batygin and Brown's joint blog (2, 28, 36, 45, 62, 66, 76, 77); Raymond's blog (11, 53); Brown's blog (21); Plait's blog (34); Brown's YouTube channel (35); Malhotra's TED Talk (105); Glister's blog (113 – although this was originally published in connection with the Tau Zero Foundation, at the point where the entry in question was written, this is just Glister's personal writings, and to be entirely honest, I'm not certain that Glister is a sufficient expert in this sub-field of astronomy to warrant the exception); and Brown's Twitter account (123). Additionally, reference 123 is to a YouTube channel that I didn't immediately associate with a published expert; I think this one might just be non-RS.

There are also a lot of references that have badly incomplete bibliographic information. Missing authors, dates, even publication names. These include, but probably aren't limited to: 9, 10 (missing the author), 94, 118, 128, 154, 155. I did not check all sources that lack a byline to see whether they were published with one. There are two further sources where I'm a bit confused about what's being cited. Both 24 and 145 look like they're referencing conference papers or presentations of some sort. For the former, I can't find the listed source at the linked location; the link for the latter source goes to the Batygin/Brown joint blog. Are either of these published in a proceeding or something? Reference formatting is also a significant problem, especially with the names of works and/or publishers. For 81, it's properly just Astronomy. In reference 136, Discover. Quite a few references conflate the url of a web resource with the title of that resource. For example, spacetelescope.org is the url of the Hubble Space Telescope site and scientificamerican.com is the url of Scientific American (but Space.com is correct in that regard). Whether or not a website name should be italicized (as a website) or not (as a publisher) is a matter of some art; general tradition has been that italics are reserved for sites which actually are (or, arguably, function as) a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical. So it's Scientific American, but Space.com. The best advice I have there is to see whether our article uses italics or not (needless to say, although this is something that would need fixed before promotion, it's not the most pressing issue here).

I didn't give a very thorough look at prose. But there are a lot of choppy, tiny paragraphs, especially in §History and §Reception. I also noticed that the first mention of Renu Malhotra gives her name only as "Malhotra"; then, on the second mention, her full name (and link) are provided. I suspect that this article went through some substantial revision and re-ordering prior to nomination, but was not properly proofed for this sort of thing afterward. The duplicate link detector provides quite a few hits also, for what that's worth.

For the most part, the SPS use here is a criterion standard issue, not a policy one, and I do think many of the SPS sources could be replaced with the equivalent academic papers, many (perhaps all?) of which are also already referenced. But it's not as simple as just changing the citations because care needs to be taken to ensure that the sources selected include the same claims. All of the references need to be audited to ensure that they're cited properly, given the amount of missing information. And the prose almost certainly needs examination by editors better at FA prose reviews than I am. Overall, the impression is that this article is just not ready to meet the FA standard, and my inclination is to lean oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What is a more reliable source than the website of the two primary authors of the hypothesis when we are writing about their hypothesis? Contemporary news is mostly garbage and often riddled with errors. Let's just focus on that one issue because if we can come to an understanding about it, we can surely fix any formatting issues you might find. For what it's worth I ran the article through the duplicate link checker a month ago and fixed every single one of them. It took hours. Also, you've complained about 17 SPS out of 155 references. That does not seem to be an excessive number. Bear in mind that these SPS sources are fairly accessible to the reader. The same info can be found in all the cited papers (because we've literally cited every single one that's been published anywhere), but these papers will be fantastically difficult for the ordinary reader to understand. Think of the reader. Which reference will help the reader more in each situation? I'm sure User:Agmartin could go through the article with his eyes closed and replace any citation you dislike, but would that make the article better, or worse? Jehochman Talk 21:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised by the mention of the self-published sources that were often written by the authors of the technical papers in a way the layman could understand, I was just suggesting in the talk section of the article that less technical sources should be looked for to be cited where possible next to the technical ones so readers with less background could look there for more details. I'll look through the list to see which of the 'lower quality' sources don't have 'high quality' sources adjacent to them. Agmartin (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Doing a quick skim of the article, not just a list of the references, most of the less technical sources I spotted are backed up by technical sources, though sometimes in the following sentence, or discuss the least technical details like radius or the orbit of Planet Nine. I suspect if I followed the links most of the authors would be quoting Batygin or Brown. I'll look for the missing authors tomorrow. Agmartin (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Philosophically, at least, I do understand the argument that "less technical" sources may not necessarily be "lower quality" sources and may, in fact, serve readers as more approachable alternatives. However, my responsibility as a FAC reviewer is to evaluate articles with respect to policies, guidelines, and the FA criteria. At least currently, a challenging and highly-technical – but peer-reviewed – source is preferred to a self-published source by the same authors making effectively the same claims in more easily-read language, because the peer-reviewed source is considered both "higher quality" and preferred on policy grounds. And frequently, that's with good cause; this situation, where the same authors effectively self-publish "for public consumption" versions of their journal articles is relatively unusual. But it's not in my purview as a reviewer to determine that policy should be handled differently in this specific case (and, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't believe it should; I think that proper use of the technical articles is preferable to the SPS content if the same claim can be correctly cited to both). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Generally the lower quality sources (SPS) came out first and the technical papers followed. We can run through the article and replace virtually all of the SPS sources if that's what it takes. The ones we won't be able to replace perhaps are a few recent details where the academic paper is still pending publication. We also know (from direct correspondence with the authors) what publications are in the pipeline and are not adding that info to the article until it comes out. I get your point. We will replace all SPS sources whenever there is a better source available. When there isn't the SPS source will remain.
A question. Should we keep the SPS or more accessible sources as additional sources for the sake of the reader? We could cite to two sources sometimes, one technical and the other targeted to a lay person. Jehochman Talk 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
My personal interpretation of current best practices would be: reference the article using the highest quality sources available for the relevant aspects (so, peer-reviewed sources when available, experts' SPS if they provide substantive information not otherwise present), do not provide duplicative citations, but do include The Search for Planet Nine blog in an External Links section (as perhaps the archetypal example of WP:ELMAYBE#4). Others may want to weigh in; not all aspects of this situation are precisely described by current policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable plan. Let's start moving in that direction and see if anybody else has ideas. Unfortunately this type of feedback only seems to come out when we get to FAC. No other review process is as thorough. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Could the lay-url/lay-source/lay-date cite template parameters be appropriate for this? I suppose it might be a problem if the "lay summary" isn't actually based on the technical reference. --Ørjan (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: we greatly reduced the number of SPS's used and filled in as many missing cite parameters as we could find. I also copy edited the short paragraphs and wikified the first instance of Malhotra instead of the second. diffs Could you take another look at the article, please? Jehochman Talk 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies.

See what you think; get stuck in. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Your references and bibliography are beautiful. Nicely done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I have very little to complain about here. Reviewers' work would be much easier if all candidates at FAC had this level of exhaustive research and preparation. A few quibbles, mostly with reference formatting (with a couple from prose). I will note that older material (such as Nicolas) and the two doctoral dissertations cited appear to be used in a responsible manner; authoritative modern sources carry most of the weight, as appropriate.

  • Davis (2004) appears to be missing a space in OxfordDictionary.
  • Dunham (1907): gGnealogy?
  • Griffiths (1981) has "Berkeley". Most of your US publisher locations have a state abbreviation (and you may want to make sure I didn't miss any others).
  • And actually, I see you have just New York for Zimbalist (2012). That one can go either way, generally speaking, but you do have "New York, NY" for Logan (1979).
  • There are two citations to doctoral theses: Ross (1952) and Stansfield (1987), but they're formatted slightly differently. If the Stansfield thesis is published (insofar as the other one is "unpublished"), then it would be better to find and cite the published version. But I suspect that's not the case, and they're both just being cited as theses (and you can probably drop "unpublished" from Ross for consistency).
  • Wiggins & Richardson appears out of alphabetical order.
  • Should the work authored by "The Greyfriars Research be alphabetized under "G" rather than "T"?
  • "The duke was buried shortly after at Grey Friars Abbey in the Northampton." I'm not always competent to judge British English, but should that last "the" be there?
  • The order of a few of the sections confuses me. We open with the bulk of his history, concluding with his death, then have a section dedicated to his "Character", then an "Aftermath" dealing with his estate after his death, then a discussion of "Family". As a result, in reading order, poor Humprhey is: alive, dead, alive, dead, then alive again. Perhaps it would be better to move §Aftermath between §Last years and §Character?
  • He left instructions for the foundation of a college. Were those carried out, and if so, was that college anything we can link to?
  • That lost play is interesting. Assuming it's the same Duke Humphrey attributed to Shakespeare, it's my understanding that most scholars think the titular character is Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (see its entry in the Folger Lost Plays Database – although the LPD is probably not actually a reliable source in and of itself).
  • And, my least favorite FAC quibble: you have at least a couple spots where multiple citations are used, but the reference numbers are not in numerical order ([26][1] in the bit about Joan of Arc; [114][110] in the Battle of St Albans).

I don't see anything that would preclude my eventual support, as I'm certain these are all minor issues that are easily resolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Squeamish Ossifrage, for those suggestions: I've actioned all of them with this edit. The main thing, among all the typos and tweaks, is that I re-ordered that section—which reads much better in its new seat—and added a footnote about the college, which hopefully provides more background and detail; including the fact that his wife seems to have been more interested in remarrying than executoring! :) I hope this is all OK for you; let me know what you think. Incidentally, your points about the out-of-order ref numbers was also attended to, in subsequent edits. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Duke Humphrey, the Folger Shakespeare Library's Lost Plays Database is definitely a WP:RS reliable source, and the entry in question was written by David McInnis who is the Gerry Higgins Senior Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies at the University of Melbourne and has published books in this field. The LPD has an editorial board with similar experts: see their About us page. And Wiggins and Richardson are not in conflict with the LPD: they both think Gloucester the most obvious choice (especially if by Shakespeare: "Duke Humphrey" there is Gloucester), Buckingham a second choice, and a fictional "Duke Humphrey" a possibility. Both also say there is insufficient evidence this play even existed, what its actual title was (the Warburton list may well have contained descriptive "titles" bearing no resemblance to any published title page: e.g. "That one where Falstaff got drunk"), much less determine its subject. IOW, our article was simply off by two words: "May be", not "was probably". --Xover (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Nibiru cataclysm[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a longstanding and frankly infuriating public panic that has seemingly only grown over the years. As I have kept track of it, I think it has grown to the point at which it might be considered for FA status. Please note, all references to the site Zetatalk are in reference to that site. Zetatalk links there. Serendipodous 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Serendipodous 13:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • File:ZECHARIA_SITCHIN.jpg: I've nominated this for deletion as copyvio on Commons - it's from a 2010 New York Times article
  • File:Statue_of_Virgin_Mary_in_the_Cathedral_of_Strasbourg.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work
Doesn't it have one? It's listed under {{PD-user}} Serendipodous 01:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That applies to the photo. Because France doesn't have freedom of panorama, we need a separate tag for the work being photographed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The statue was made in 1858, so presumably public domain applies. Serendipodous 11:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Presumably, but we still need a tag indicating why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Added. Serendipodous 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Composite_image_of_Comet_ISON;_April_2013.jpg: does this meet the restrictions around Hubble images as identified in the NASA tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The copyright page doesn't work on the linked HubbleSite page so I assume yes. Serendipodous 01:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, which link are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the link to the source on the image information page, and scroll to the bottom, you will see a list of links away from the page, all of which are clickable, except "copyright", likely meaning that copyright doesn't apply. Serendipodous 11:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That link seems to be clickable for me... it leads here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 8 without);
  • Carl Sagan (1977). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Govert Schilling. Missing Year/Date;
  • i dunno how much you care about " Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)". You have 12 of them.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Serendipodous 11:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Meade, David (2013), COMET ISON portends the Apocalypse, p. Goodreads, Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN. What does "p. Goodreads" mean? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
All other issues resolved. Serendipodous 13:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Looking at sourcing and reference formatting; no examination of prose at this time. All reference numbers are based on this revision of the article.

  • In general, your reference formatting is very inconsistent. I see both First Last and Last, First for authors. I see at least three ways you've formatted citations to ZetaTalk (Zetatalk, zetatalk, zetatalk.com) – and more on that momentarily. And so forth.
  • Several references conflate the url with the website. For example, telegraph.co.uk is the address of the online publicatons of The Telegraph.
  • You cite unreliable primary sources. A lot. I suppose, based on WP:SPS, that Lieder's posts on ZetaTalk are a reliable source for the unique purpose of showing that Lieder said something. But you depends on them well beyond what policy allows, especially at the FAC level. These operate in an intersection of several policies and guidelines: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE, and I think on the whole the article runs afoul of threading that intersection.
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • #2: This article is bylined (Jesse Emspak) and has a publication date (2015-12-15). Additionally, Smithsonian should be in the website parameter because it was actually published via Smithsonian (the magazine), not the website of the museum itself. That also means the publisher link goes to the wrong place, but that's a separate issue, because you're very inconsistent with what you link in these references.
  • #3: This article is bylined (Avi Selk) and has a publication date (2017-11-18). Washington Post should be the website, not the publisher, so that it is correctly italicized.
  • #5: This article is bylined (Natalie Wolchover).
  • #9: Extraneous equal sign. I'm not really certain this cites all the necessary bibliographic information for this citation either.
  • #12: Phil Plait is a recognized expert, so although Bad Astronomy was self-published, it is an acceptable source for astronomy commentary per WP:SPS. However, that policy states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," (emphasis in original) which seems to preclude any use of his writing there to directly comment on Lieder.
  • #16: This does not include sufficient bibliographic information to serve as a valid reference. You need to cite the information about the actual interview before introducing its archival location.
  • #17: Fortean Times is a traditional publication as well, as so should be italicized via the website parameter.
  • #21: This appears to be a random document created by a doctoral candidate (but is not a doctoral thesis), and self-published on the author's website. I can see absolutely no reason why this constitutes a reliable source.
  • #22: This article is bylined, and has a publication date, and isn't titled what you have it titled in the reference, but none of that is relevant. Because as far as I can tell, The Skeptic's Dictionary is self-published (by Robert Todd Carroll) and is not a reliable source.

...and I'm done here, although I'm quite certain that problems persist all the way down the reference section. Frankly, based on the quality of sourcing – with large passages referenced exclusively to ZetaTalk or to the work of Sitchin – this would be impossible to support at FA even if the reference formatting was immaculate. Indeed, because of the problems with WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE, I'm not at all convinced this is a GA-quality piece either. This is a very firm oppose (1c, 1d, 2c, and policy compliance); any revision sufficient to remedy these concerns would be a different article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hang on a secFixing reference formatting is a wee trivial little thingie. Like washing dishes. And as you stated, there's room for sorting out the SPS issues. I am not at all saying I support. I'm saying your +O is a wee bit premature and more than a bit too forceful. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the formatting issues are relatively minor (although things like missing bylines are concerning because they tend to indicate a lack of due diligence with source handling). The reliability of sources is not. I don't believe I stated there was "room for sorting out the SPS issues" other than rewriting passages to avoid relying on the sources that are currently being used in a manner contrary to policy (and there's enough of that needed that doing so would raise criterion 1e stability concerns). I'm an admittedly picky reviewer, and proud to be, but I don't like directly opposing candidate articles. I stand by my statement here, but, as always, if the FAC coordinators feel that my stance is unduly harsh or out of sync with the expectations, they are welcome to discount it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It;s decidedly past my bedtime here and I won't be able to do anything for several hours. But after reading the article and your comments, I conclude: 1) I respectfully disagree that reference formatting is reason enough for Oppose. All can be fixed with elbow grease and nor too much time. 2) More importantly, I respectfully disagree that this article in any way shape or form runs afoul of FRINGE, It is an article about a fringe theory; its principal thrust is very much in line with mainstream thought. Emphatically so. 3) SPS needs time to percolate a bit, but initially I am not at all seeing it the way you are. 4) WP:RS.. you mention one source that seems to fail RS but I need to look at this tomorrow. Is the whole article framed by unreliable sources? I don't think so. Let this FAC breathe a bit. It is very much something that can be worked out, and not with too much trouble. Good night. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm relying on three inter-related policies for the strength of my opposition. WP:SPS prohibits most self-published sources. There is an exception for "established experts" (such as, here, Phil Plait in astronomy), but such sources can never be used for information about living persons, per policy. The policy also encourages the use of reliable independent sources in place of SPS; my reading of criterion 1c's "high-quality" requirement is that replacement of SPS references with reliable independent sources, when possible, is an expectation at the FAC level. WP:ABOUTSELF says that self-published sources even by non-experts "may be used as sources of information about themselves", but not about any exceptional claims, claims about other people, or events not directly related to the source. Additionally, the article may not be "based primarily" on such sources. I argue that the FA criteria also mandate applying this policy more stringently here; I consider any sections (or significant passages) cited exclusively to sources of this type to be suspect. Finally, WP:FRINGE says (at WP:FRIND) that "points ... not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

Large sections of §History are incompatible with these policies. The NYT article can replace some of the claims in §Nancy Lieder and ZetaTalk, but the last two paragraphs in that section are cited almost entirely to Lieder (the other source there, the Fortean Times, isn't exactly going to satisfy FRIND either). Much of §Zecharia Sitchin and Sumer cites exclusively Sitchin for his own fringe claims. The VOA source in §2003 Hazelwood claims is a dead link, but that material is available here; although it briefly mentions Nibiru in the context of the Pana Wave (and is a reliable source), it makes no mention of Hazelwood; the Lieder source used to discuss him has impermissible BLP implications. The entire second paragraph of §2012 and the Mayan calendar also violates the SPS/BLP prohibition. The §2017 revival section is... better (although we can debate whether Unilad is a reliable source), but some of Meade's claims here are still an issue as referenced. Elsewhere in the article, in §Misappellations, neither Rabolu nor Lieder is an acceptable independent source for §Hercolubus.

To some extent, I regret having even considered reference formatting issues for an article with policy-level problems ("arson, murder, and jaywalking" as it were). Otherwise, I'm open to the possibility that my interpretations of policy and the FA criteria are too expansive. If the @WP:FAC coordinators: think I've strayed from reviewer expectations or been unnecessarily harsh in my reading of sourcing requirements, I'll be happy to reconsider some of these objections. Otherwise, I feel I've given more than enough time to this nomination, and will not be revisiting it in future. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed all the issues he raised. That said I'm not sure that third party sources exist for the very beginning of this. It took a long time, and a few suicides, before anyone "credible" took notice of this. Serendipodous 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where someone throws out a multi-part argument, asserts he/she is correct in every step of that argument, folds arms over chest and says, "See, ha ha, I'm done." Squeamish keeps mentioning BLP but I struggle to see any BLP violation of any kind here. If John Doe from Peoria says the moon is made of green cheese, is it a BLP violation to say that John Doe said the moon is made of green cheese? I think not. SPS would prefer that we have highly reliable sourcing that says that someone reliable repeated John Doe's assertion and attributed it to John. These are not hard to find, as forex Rob Hafernik, a NASA aerospace engineer, discusses Sitchin's 12th planet claims, see http://skepdic.com/essays/sitchin.htm. Mike Heiser,who earned an M.A. (1998) and Ph.D. (2004) in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/. Hmmm, Ian Lawton may not be as high-quality a source as we might hope for, but... maybe. And on and on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably the most significant BLP issue is citing Lieder to say that Lieder accused Hazlewood of "being a confidence trickster". I'm reasonably certain that passage is actually problematic under WP:BLP rather than just WP:SPS. But regardless, SPS sources cannot include claims about third parties. This isn't a rule that I'm making up. It's WP:SELFPUB#2. So citing Lieder to reference Lieder's claims about Hazlewood, or Obama, or (arguably) "the establishment" is problematic even before considering that WP:FRIND also prohibits doing so. The same goes for at least one of the "better" sources you have provided; Sitchin is Wrong is a self-published source (by Heiser). Regardless of his credentials, it cannot be used to source claims about Lieder or Sitchin (who is not alive, but is still a "third party"). However, I have stricken the objection to The Skeptic's Dictionary above; despite my substantial concerns that it doesn't have a real editorial policy, the bulk of the historical discussions at WP:RSN seem to favor accepting it as a reliable source (note that the print version of The Skeptic's Dictionary was published by a reliable publisher, and is unquestionably acceptable). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: I suggest that the entire 2003 Hazlewood section be deleted, and his name removed from the infobox. He's a very minor character. I also agree with Squeamish that we probably shouldn't have mentioned the confidence trickster bit in the first place. I was confident that I would find that mentioned elsewhere, but I looked for.... maybe 30 or 45 minutes... and didn't. It's a peripheral bit of trash-talking in addition to Squeamish's concerns. Delete entire section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. Serendipodous 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

""@Squeamish Ossifrage: Further concerns? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Userkaf[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Userkaf founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt and pharaoh for 7 to 8 years during the early 25th Century BC. Userkaf built a pyramid of himself in Saqqara, however his main claim to fame is his sun temple, the Nekhenre, the first of his kind, a construction that set in motion a long tradition of building such temples during the subsequent Dynasty. This temple was essentially a mortuary temple for the setting sun. Its construction, separately from the king's own mortuary temple, shows a novel distinction between the king and the sun god that did not exist so clearly in the preceding Dynasty.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

The article is excellent overall.
  • I don't understand this sentence in the lead "He had at least one daughter and one son, who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" - hesideancy followed by a statement of fact.
Ceoil So what is the issue with the sentence ? Is it that the first part reads like something uncertain while the second is an affirmation ? Would "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" be clearer ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cults performed in the temple were primarily concerned with Ra's creator function as well as his role as father of the king - not sure what "cults performed" means. Should we mention rights.
Done I changed it to "cultic activities performed". I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Should we mention rights" ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would use and link the word rite, rather than the vague and needlessly suggestive "activity". Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Contrary to his probable immediate predecessor, Shepseskaf, as well as the other pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid for himself at Saqqarah-North, at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex. - This a stated a bit backwards (contrary..as well as...) - maybe "Contrary to other pharaohs..." Drop "for himself" (this informality is my main issue with the prose here).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm editing as I read through, please feel free to revert as the changes are mostly trivial. Hope to undertake a full review next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude[edit]

I mean... obviously I'm going to help with the review process for this article. I'll get a start on tonight. Just finished work, will be heading home soon. I haven't before, but I can do the source review for the article too. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
The general sourcing standard of the article is excellent and uses primarily authoritative sources. I do have a few specific comments on sourcing.
  • There are a few potentially outdated sources used: Breasted (1906), Daressy (1912), Gauthier (1906), Mariette (1889), Petrie (1897) and (1917), and Sethe (1903).
  • Breasted citations 56, 84–85 and 109. None of these appear remotely controversial, and the first cite is to Breasted's opinion.
  • Daressy citations 57, 68, 83 and 88. Cite 57 is to Daressy's opinion. I feel like cite 68 can be replaced with something more recent, will check my sources for such. Citations 83 and 88 are backed by other sources. I'm not sure Daressy is needed for these, and I'd almost certainly remove cite 88 which is backed by two other sources.
Done, I have removed 88.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Gauthier citations 123 and 133.
  • Cite 123 is to the image caption. I'm going to call the caption into question here. Currently the caption tells the reader that Sekhemkhet, Teti and Userkaf own each of the cartouches from left to right. Gauthier says of the first cartouche that the pharaoh to whom it belongs is "absolument inconnu par aillers" (pp. 6–7) meaning "absolutely unknown". The second cartouche can refer to either Sekhemkhet's other throne name, listed in the Abydos King List as Teti ("Teti de la IIIe dynastie"), or to Teti ("Teti de la VIe dynastie"). The third cartouche is definitely Userkaf. The first cartouche reads, I think, (D45-D21-Y1-S12) transl. dsr-r-md3t-nbw or djeser-medat-nebu. I have no clue who that might be, and neither Leprohon 2013 nor the Abydos king list turned up anything even remotely similar. In any case, the caption is incorrect, the first cartouche is an unknown, the second is either Sekhemkhet or Teti (but not both), and the third is Userkaf.
  • Addendum comment: Actually, I think it might be Djoser in the first cartouche. It'd make perfect sense. Userkaf's pyramid is inside Djoser's pyramid complex, and guess who else is near by... Sekhemkhet. Hence Djoser, Sekhemkhet, and Userkaf. It wouldn't be the first time a transcription error rendered something unreadable. I'll see if I can dig something up on this image. More: Well, still going through Gauthier and one of his proposals is indeed Djoser: S'il ne faut pas y voir simplement, ecrit avec une variant orthographique, le roi Djousir de la IIIe dynastie (anquel cas Teti serait egalement le Teti de la IIIe pyramide), nous devons essayer de lui assigner une place dans le serie des souverains. He has much more to say bringing in the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties up as well, but again, straining my abilities in French. In any case, as Gauthier says, "ce n'est la cependant qu'une pure hypothese" meaning "this is purely a hypothesis".
Mr rnddude I fully agree with your second reading, because the cartouche actually reads Djoserit Nebu, which is definitely Djoser. I don't know why I wrote Sekhemkhet since I meant Djoser since the start. My apologies for this strange mistake. Note that at the time of Daressy, these names of Djoser weren't well known and Sekhemkhet was completely unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cite 133. Gauthier mentions the Ramesside origin for the tomb, but I can't find anything relating in Gauthier that fits with the rest of the sentence. Presumably Wildung 1969, pp. 74–76 is the main citation for this sentence, so perhaps it should come first.
I agree but per MOS the order of the citations must be numerical, hence I cannot invert the two references. This point was raised in previous FACs, always to have me put references in numerical order. I too regret that the order of the citations cannot reflect the order of importance with respect to the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
... *Looks at citations* Given that Gauthier is cite 133 and Wildung is cite 134, and neither cite is used elsewhere, if you switch their order Gauthier will automatically become cite 134 and Wildung cite 133. The order will remain numerical. That said, not all your cites are in numerical order as is: The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.[25][10][26] There are a couple other instances that I'd noted, but I'm focusing on sources atm.
Fixed Actually Gauthier is also cited in 123 so I cannot switch them. All other cites should be in numerical order so I am fixing this as well.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
... I've done it myself because we're miss communicating here. Gauthier is now cite 138, and Wildung is cite 137. Numerical order has been retained. You can look at cite 28/29 and 30/31 for a perfect example here. Cite 28 is Grimal, Cite 29 is Rice. Cite 30 is Rice, Cite 31 is Grimal. They retain numerical order. Revert if there's a problem, because I don't understand the concern.
  • Mariette citation 129. I'm not sure why this citation is here. Also, the name marked at the top of the page in pencil reads Ra-ne-kau, which fits with the hieroglyphs there, rather than Nykuhor. Wrong page?
Fixed I found a more recent and more reliable sources with more details about Nykuhor : Hayes 1978 book freely available. See p. 102 -103. I have replaced Mariette with this cite. Thanks for spotting Mariette's oddity!Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that you've replaced the citation, Mariette isn't cited in the article anymore. You can move it to a "Further reading" section, remove it from the article, of find a random place to use it as a supporting cite. Up to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I have added back several references to Mariette, citing ancient officials who served in either Userkaf's mortuary temple or in his sun temple.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Petrie citations 71–73
  • Citation 71a appears to check out against the source.
  • Citation 72: The seal is now in the British Museum cited to Petrie 1897. 1897 it's been 120 years who knows where that seal is now.
Fixed I wrote the factual "The seal was in the British Museum at the end of the 19th century".
  • Citation 71b-73 are cited to an image caption. The image is definitely of a seal from Userkaf. As to translation, I couldn't find it in Petrie 1897 and don't know where to look in 1917, but I'm personally of the philosophy that translations don't need to be explicitly cited (if they did, that would present challenges of their own). I note that Petrie dates Userkaf's reign to 3721–3693 B.C. Quite interesting how different they'd calculated the dates to be.
Old Egyptological dates were very much in the wrong, see e.g. Champollion's estimates for widely wrong dates. These shows how much the discipline has progressed ! As for the translation, it is sufficiently straightforward I think to be quoted as such. It is a very typical formula on seals.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Voẞ (2004) is a PhD thesis, however the Gutachter (expert/assessor) for the dissertation is Hartwig Altenmüller, a recognizable expert. It is cited to two statements.
  • Statement 1:This observation is contested by Goedicke[100] and Voß for whom "the supposed proximity to Heliopolis for the choice of the site hardly played a role".[101] - Appropriate attribution of opinion for both Goedicke and Voß, but is Voß's opinion significant enough to be included? Also, what's the procedure for attributing quotes that have been translated? I typically put a footnote that a quote has been translated from the original, but, as this is already in a footnote, that's not going to be possible.
Yes since we are in a footnote and since the quote is not of primary importance to the article, I propose that we leave out the original non-translated version. I removed the name of Voss in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Statement 2: The sun temple of Userkaf first[106 - Voß] appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century.[107 - Verner/Zemina] - I recognize that Voß is cited at "first" because "erstmals", but she does basically say everything else that's in the sentence. The designation for the sun temple appears on p. 7 footnote 38 in Voß's work, but not in Verner/Zemina 1994. You can refer to p. 131 of Lepsius' Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien for more information, albeit he wouldn't have known what it is.
Ok I added the reference to Lepsius original work, but I don't see the issue with the other two citations. the point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it, while the rest of the sentence is in Verner and Zemina. Is that ok or not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
[T]he point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it - Are you sure about that? The sentence in question is: The sun temple of Userkaf first appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century. Voß says Das Sonnenheilig tum des Userkaf taucht in der Literatur erstmals auf LEPSIUS‘ Pyramidenplan ... [footnote 38] and [footenote 38] LD I, Bl. 32 mit LD Text I, 131: Pyramide XVII. That seems to me to be basically the whole sentence as written in the article. That and Voß gives the designation of the pyramid explicitly in the footnote, but Verner/Zemina doesn't (not that I saw anyway). Mr rnddude (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the problem : the sentence is not a copyvio in any way, it isn't the same sentence after all. The info is correct and cited, what should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I... never said it was a copyvio. What? The point was simply that as Voß gives all the information in the sentence and also the pyramid designation, which I can't find in Verner/Zemina, then I don't see why Voß is cited at the first half of the sentence instead of at the end of the sentence. Nothing else, and certainly not calling it a copy-vio. Hope that's clear? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's only one source that appears genuinely questionable here: IMDb which, per WP:UGC, is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. It's not used for anything controversial, but it would be highly advisable to find a better source.

Initial comments on sourcing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I picked this soruce because it gives the exact dialogue were prince Sahu says he is the son of Userkaf in the Sesame Street episode. I haven't found this quote elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks
  • Sources that I'll be spot-checking as I have them readily available: Grimal 1992, Clayton 1994, Verner/Zemina 1994, Verner 2001abc, Altenmüller 2001, Dodson/Hilton 2004, and Lehner 2008. This should be sufficient for a spotcheck as it covers about 20-30% of all citations.
  • Grimal 1992: cites 22a–g on p. 75, cite 28 on p. 68, cite 31 on pp. 72 & 75, cite 32 on pp. 70 & 72, cite 33 on pp. 72–75, cite 53a–f on p. 76, cite 76 on p. 78, cite 114 on p. 116, and cite 116 on pp. 76–78
  • Well... this is daunting. Cite 22a–d check out. Cite 22e covers the location of the tomb for Nykaankh, but either there's another page or there's a missing cite with regard to the royal decree. Cite 22f and g check out. Cite 31 checks out. Cite 32 generally checks out although "now recognized as non-historical" is merely a statement of the obvious. Cite 33 checks out. Cite 53a-f all check out, although 53d isn't needed since 53e is cited to the same sentence. Cite 76 checks out. Cite 114 checks out, though you might clarify that it's "Table 3" as you do in other cites. Cite 116 for making it the second smallest built during the Fifth Dynasty after that of the final king Unas. Mmm... needs a minor clarification. It's the second smallest, by volume, king's pyramid. It's definitely not the second smallest overall from the Fifth Dynasty. By height it's the third smallest behind Sahure's at 47m (Lehner 2008 p. 17) or 48m (Verner 2001 p. 463). For clarity change "the second smallest built" to "the second smallest [built for a king/king's pyramid built]".
  • Clayton 1994: cite 7 on p. 60 and cite 36a–d on p. 61
  • Cite 7, cite 36b–d check out. Cite 36a appears to be a mistake cite. Clayton states directly that Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother. I believe Dodson & Hilton, 2004, p. 65 is the desired citation.
  • Verner/Zemina 1994: cite 38 on p. 118, cite 40ab on p. 119, cite 43 on p. 126, cite 47 on pp. 102 & 118, cite 49 on pp. 68 & 85, cite 51ab on p. 68, cite 93a–e on p. 102, cite 101 on pp. 53, 102 & 111, cite 106ab on p. 217, cite 113 on p. 50, and cite 119ab on p. 53
  • Cite 38 checks out. Cite 40a and b check out. Cite 43 augmented by other citations but does mention Nyuserre and Khentkaus in relation to each other. Cite 47 checks out. Cite 49 checks out, but I'm not 100% on the "Most Egyptologists" thing since I've seen both versions claimed in the same book ten pages from each other (Altenmüller 2001 on p. 598 says brother, while Verner 2001d on p. 588 says son – and this source is 7 years more recent than Verner/Zemina 1994). Cite 51a checks out, but 51b needs to be modified to p. 67–68 as the sentence starts on the preceding page. Cite 93a-d check out, cite 93e extends onto p. 103. Cite 101 checks out. Cite 106a and b check out, but it's a little bit weird to say "[i]t's true nature was recognized by" xyz when "the results of the excavations were something of a disappointment for" xyz. Cite 113 checks out. Cite 119a checks out but "[t]his might be due" is a poor paraphrase of "was almost certainly". Cite 199b checks out.
  • Verner 2001a: cite 59a–c on p. 386, cite 60 on pp. 388–390, cite 62 on pp. 386–387, and cite 65 on p. 385
  • Cite 59a checks out, but it's in transliterated Old Egyptian, so good luck if you don't read it (heh). Cite 59b should be pp. 386–387 as the statement regarding its unfinished state is on the next page. Cite 59c checks out.
  • Verner 2001b: cite 2a–f on p. 588
  • All cites check out. Minor comment with regard to cite 2e: that Nubia is south of Egypt is common knowledge, but not explicitly stated in Verner 2001b... presumably because common knowledge.
  • Verner 2001c: cite 3ab on p. 91
  • The first instance [3a] appears to be a mistaken citation as it should be Verner 2001b p. 588, but that's already there. The second instance [3b] is fine.
  • Altenmüller 2001: cite 4a–m on p. 598
  • Cite 4a–f check out. 4g I'd drop "might", as Altenmüller is adamant that he did. Perhaps replace "might" with "either", i.e. "either commissioned or enlarged the temple of Monthu at Tod." Cite 4h doesn't check out for me. Wrong source? I didn't see it in Grimal either. 4i checks out, but I think you're missing a cite for the previous sentence: Further domestic activities may be inferred from the annals of the Old Kingdom, written during Neferirkare's or Nyuserre's reign. 4j–m all check out. For cite 4m, I assume the other translations are in Janak, Vymazalova and Coppens (2013).
  • Dodson/Hilton 2004: cite 20 on p. 288, and cite 34a–d on p. 65
  • 34b and c check out. 34d is a bit more complicated than presented. Dodson and Hilton argue that Khentkaus I was mother to either Userkaf and Sahure, but list her as a possible wife of Userkaf. I think adding a qualifier (e.g. "may have been" or other) to that sentence would more accurately represent Dodson and Hilton's views. Cite 34a should probably be presented as an example, rather than as a citation, but meh.
  • Lehner 2008: cite 16a–d on p. 140, cite 95a–d on p. 150, cite 110ab on p. 151, and cite 118a–c on p. 141
  • Cite 16a, b and d check out. Cite 16c: I'm sure it is Manetho's invention (in fact I'm not, but I'm sure I've read that), but Lehner doesn't make this comment on p. 140. He just states the simple fact that Manetho lists him as the first king of the Fifth Dynasty. Cite 95a and b check out. Cite 95c: The four phases are attributed to Userkaf (phase 1), Neferirkare Kakai (phase 2), and Nyuserre Ini (phase 3) in Lehner 2008. Sahure doesn't receive a mention. In as far as this is concerned, Lehner 2008 isn't a suitable standalone citation to this sentence. Cite 95d is a supporting cite to the fact that slaughters were conducted there. Cite 110a checks out to the sentence it's applied to, but the preceding sentences appear to be missing a citation: It served primarily as a place of worship for the setting—that is dying—sun and was closely related to the royal mortuary complex with which it shared several architectural elements. These include a valley temple close to the Nile and a causeway leading up to the high temple on the desert plateau. Cite 110b checks out. Cite 118a should be to p. 140 not p. 141. Cite 118b and c check out, but a citation is missing for The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid, consisting of three horizontal layers of roughly hewn local limestone blocks and gypsum mortar. The core was covered with an outer casing of fine Tura limestone, now gone. The pyramid was so extensively used as a stone quarry that even its internal chambers are exposed which must have been taken from a different source. I checked Verner 2001d pp. 278–279, but I can only cite that the pyramid was made three levels high and encased in fine Tura limestone. That and that the pyramid has near exactly the same dimensions as Queen Khentkhaus II. Nothing on technique or its use as a stone quarry.
  • I'll fill the above out as I get around to checking them. Anywhere where more than one citation has been applied, I'll assume that the second citation contains any information that is not relayed in the source I am checking.
  • The above may look a bit daunting, but it's a lot less than it looks. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Based on this revision:

References and reference formatting

  • I think there are some template shenanigans going on? There's a lot of content apparently intended for the infobox that isn't displaying. I'm not going to get into the weeds here, but among other things, it means that quite a few references don't actually connect to anything in the article. For example, I don't think any of the Leprohon 2013 references actually resolve (and more on that source later). Whatever is going on in this sense needs to be cleaned up.
  • I'm guessing, but it may be something else, that you're getting tripped up the formatting of the IB. The royal titulary section of the IB is by default hidden. You need to click on "show" (right side) to open it. It's closed by default because it takes up a lot of space. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No one likes fixing this, and I hate to be the bad guy about it, but you have a lot of examples of multiple references where they do not appear in numerical order ([25][10][26], for example). Sorry.
  • Any time you cite multiple page numbers, the reference should read "pp." rather than "p.". See: #8, 31, 32, 33, 47, 52, 60, 62, and so forth.
  • You have some page ranges with the wrong dashes. Page ranges need endashes. At the very least, #33 is an emdash. I didn't audit these very carefully, you may want to do a pass through all of them.
  • Reference 96 has very odd formatting, and I'm really not sure what you're citing exactly.
  • Reference 108 is malformed.
  • For web sources, the "website" should ideally be italicized only if it is also a periodical in some fashion. Historical practice has been to list the responsible entity as "publisher" otherwise. For example, the Arnold 1999 and "Head of King Userkaf" sources should not have their publishing museums italicized.
  • Breasted 1906 is actually a work in 5 volumes; the Internet Archive scan contains all five, but you should amend the entry in the bibliography to indiciate which volume you're actually citing. That should also let you just use normal page numbers for your references to this work, instead of the weird page/section (but really page) system that Breasted apparently thought was a good idea back in 1906. Also, this is a (non-French) book-form work, so it's (admittedly, long) title should be in title case.
  • David 2001 should have the title in title case.
  • IMDb really just isn't acceptable as a source. However, Don't Eat the Pictures is definitely notable (and Emmy-nominated) and I wouldn't want this cultural use to be cut from the article. Because this is a plot element, you should be able to cite it to the television program itself (as is generally done for film plots).
  • El-Shahawy and Atiya 2005: title case.
  • Grimal 1992: You can safely omit "publishing" in the publisher here.
  • Leprohon 2013: The title of this book needs to be in title case, as does the series title. I'm sort of going to AGF that a work published by the Soceity of Biblical Literature is a reliable source for an Egyptology article, at least for now (which I guess also applies to Strudwick 2005).
  • Magi 2008: title case.
  • Mahfouz 2006: title case.
  • The Mariette 1889 source in the Bibliography appears unused. If you do wind up retaining it, this title needs to be in sentence case (while watching for proper nouns) because the rules are different for French titles.
  • Nuzzolo 2007 should have the book title follow French titling rules.
  • Petrie 1897: title case
  • Petrie 1917: title case.
  • Quirke 2001: title case
  • Rice 1999: title case
  • "Sahure's Causeway": I don't think this reference is complete. The "Sahure's Causeway" section appears to be p. 9 of "New archaeological discoveries in the Abusir Pyramid Field" by Miroslav Verner, with a publication date of 2007-09-03. Also, for what it's worth: ISSN 1973-2953.
  • I'm not really sure the "Wikipedia entry" note is necessary in Sethe 1903. I'm also not sure whether it's technically disallowed, mostly because I've never seen anyone do that before. If retained, capital-W Wikipedia. Also, it's possible that I'm just being dumb here, but I don't understand how the section-number citations to this work (or the linked web page) work.
  • So, for the "Digital Egypt" thing, what I would do here is make Digital Egypt the "work" parameter, and add University College London as the publisher, which helps make it clear that this is a reliable source.
  • Verner 1994: title case.
  • Wilkinson 2000: title case.
  • I have explicitly made no comment about whether capitalization needs to be adjusted on some of the German titles, because I'm not personally confident I know the rules.

Prose

  • The sentence about his daughter and son scans awkwardly for me. The "would" seems superfluous; perhaps instead: "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who succeeded him, ruling as pharaoh Sahure."?
  • The lede calls the obelisk at his temple "distinctive", but there's fairly limited discussion of why it is so (any more than any obelisk is rather distinctive, I guess). I'm going to assume that the obelisk isn't extant, because otherwise, "distinctive" things are great choices for images.
  • "...identified as a Neferhetepes..." is there more than one?
  • link mastaba and Ptahshepses (unless we actually have an article specifically on the mastaba of Ptahshepses, but I couldn't find one)
  • pipe a link for Hellenized to Hellenization (and capitalize it)
  • The George Syncellus / Africanus / Aegyptiaca sentence is awkward, although perhaps unavoidably so. Maybe consider something like: "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that the Aegyptiaca included the succession..."? I don't know, there's only so much we can do here, I think.
  • "a substantially higher approximate" is technically correct, but reads poorly. Maybe even "reign" in place of "approximate"?
  • would it be appropriate to link "state-god" to national god?
  • There is a citation needed tag remaining, regarding Userkaf's pre-ascension role; this must be resolved.
  • I put the tag there, but subsequently forgot to mention it. The sentence in question is Userkaf's position before ascending to the throne is unknown, Grimal states that he could have been a high-priest of Ra in Heliopolis or Sakhebu, a cult-center of Ra mentioned in the papyrus Westcar. The only cite in the paragraph is Petrie 1897. I figure you meant to cite Grimal 1992, p. 75. Although, I think that comment in Grimal's book is about Userkaf's father, not Userkaf. Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother according to Grimal, and her husband may have been a "priest of Ra, lord of Sakhebu". Though perhaps a different page was meant. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "...he was an older upon becoming pharaoh" needs work; in general, this sentence also does too much. Consider splitting it in two.
  • "Userkaf might to have commmissioned"
  • "...alterations of the temple in particular during..." needs a comma after temple. This sentence also probably does too much, and I'd break it at the colon. Is the source uncertain about its nature? Because whether it was or wasn't a "small mud-brick chapel" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that "seems to" be one way or the other, unless that's following sources.
  • There's a "where" instead of "were" in a note about cattle counts.

And stopping my prose review there. In general, I think this is well-researched, but I get the overall impression that it could do with the services of a good copy editor (which I shan't pretend I am). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz[edit]

Nominator(s): buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

The article recently passed an A-class review. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered comments so far, including Gog the Mild, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, and HJ Mitchell. The source review at the A-class nomination should be sufficient, but additional image review is needed since some images were added. I'm hoping to get this at TFA for the 75th anniversary of the escape, which is 5 April. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just on those images; there certainly are plenty, but as a result you now have MOS:SANDWICH issues. At minimum they require rearrangement, but perhaps consider whether you need some of the slightly more tangential images. Good luck with this in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I think I have fixed this issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Righto; there's also a couple of locations missing from your bibliog—worth a double check. ——SerialNumber54129 22:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I double-checked, and the only locations missing are for two academic journal articles, for which location is not typically provided. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Image review:
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. I'm not sure what you mean by "firsthand source". I consulted the publication Zdrazilova (an open-access master's thesis linked in the image description), who credited the photo to Vlcova's publication. Other than that, I don't know anything about the provenance of the image.
  • Both non-free images could use a better WP:NFCC#8 description as the case for "without this image the article would be much poorer" isn't very strong.
I've removed one of the non-free images. It was decided that Lederer would not get his own article for WP:BIO1E reasons, so for all intents and purposes this is is his biography. Including fair use images in biographical articles is standard, so I'm not sure how the fair use rationale could be improved.
Seems like they are all pertinent and well licensed, beyond these two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Pitta[edit]

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Another WP:BIRD nomination (not WP:BREAD - does that exist?) this one of a lovely and hard to see bird family found mostly in Asia and Africa (and a bit of Oz). Has an astonishing 6 featured images! Have at it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

...Yes; re: those featured images, may I gently draw your attention to MOS:SANDWICH...? ;) Good luck with this though. ——SerialNumber54129 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There are only two places where that might crop up, I've moved them further apart. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Aa77zz[edit]

Taxonomy and systematics

  • Need to expand the history between 1816 and 2006. Strike my comment as not correct.
  • "Pittas were first described scientifically by Carl Linnaeus in 1766 in his revised 12th edition of the Systema Naturae." This is misleading as Linnaeus described the Indian pitta - not pittas in general and he wasn't the first to describe the Indian pitta - he relied on earlier descriptions which he cites. For the Indian pitta these were Edwards, Ray, Albin and Brisson. Linnaeus's contribution was to introduce the binomial name Corvus brachyura. This article should at least cite Linnaeus and Vieillot:
    • Linnaeus, Carl (1766). Systema naturae : per regna tria natura, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (in Latin). Volume 1, Part 1 (12th ed.). Holmiae (Stockholm): Laurentii Salvii. p. 158.
    • Vieillot, Louis Jean Pierre (1816). Analyse d'une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire (in French). Paris: Deterville/self. p. 42, Num. 137.
  • I have rewritten it based on this point, I think it is correct now. Thanks for the refs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Who first established the family Pittidae? The Taxobox credits Swainson 1831 but this is an error by Bock.
  • So it should be Vieillot?

-Aa77zz (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • For the etymology of the word "pitta", the article cites Whistler and Jobling's key. Whistler gives "small bird" but Jobling gives "pretty", "bauble" or "pet". Jobling gives the same on page 308 of his book. _ Aa77zz (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Any idea which is more accurate? Shyamal replaced Jobling's explanation with Whistler's but left both cites, meant to remove Jobling one since I assumed Shyamal would know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider indicating in the lead how many species are recognised in the family (currently 42 or around 40)
  • Done.
  • In the list of species Siao pitta should be Siau pitta (the name of the island)
  • Fixed
  • The list of species should cite a source (the IOC web site):

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A fabulous group of birds, I'm disappointed that I've only seen Indian and Rainbow. I'm pleased you mentioned Goode's excellent book. A few minor quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not ashamed to admit I picked a hotel in Bali later this year specifically because it has Javan Banded Pitta in the grounds! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • He placed the Indian pitta in the crow family and genus Corvus. Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family, due to similarities of morphology and behaviour, before being placed in its own genus, — three "placed"s
  • Changed when I rewrote the begining
  • The checklists of Sclater and Elliot at the end of the 19th century contained 48 and 47 species each. —"respectively", I think
  • Fixed
  • One species not recognised by the Handbook—I think Handbook should either be italicised or lower case
  • Fixed.
  • stout bodied—hyphen
  • Done
  • In general however the sexes '—I'd lose the "however", but if you keep it it should be between commas
  • I'm happy with those changes, and I see that the more significant queries by the previous reviewer are being addressed, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review soon, but first, I'd think all higher level taxon articles should have cladograms. A good deal of higher taxon articles go into the relationships within a group, and the group's relationship with other groups, so though some people might not like them due to taking up much space, cladograms are essential for making such understandable. If you know of a recent stable cladogram, you can request the code at: WP:TREEREQ FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate them cause they take up so much space, but I'll see if there are useful cladograms of their relationships to the broadbills to ask for. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
They don't really have to take up much space (you can determine the text size), and you can format them in various ways. They can also be aligned the way you want, in for example Archelon, it is left aligned and framed, and creates space for more images on the right. Coupled with the fact that they're the best way to show interrelationships, I'll say that I love them, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a good deal of duplinks, this script can highlight them:[1]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Green-breasted_Pitta_at_nest_-_Kibale_Uganda_06_4667_(16925037065).jpg is unfortunately quite blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Annoyingly it's the only nesting photo I've seen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "Within the Eurylaimides another 2006 study placed the pittas as a sister clade to two clades of broadbills and asities." This doesn't really work - the study wasn't/isn't "within the Eurylaimides".
  • "oon afterwards, Philip Sclater's Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum brought the number back down to three." Reference?
  • Could I recommend including specific names at first mention of a species in-text? I note a few in the last paragraph of taxonomy section. Or if you're not doing this, could I recommend not doing it consistently?
  • "although authorities like the IOC have recognised only 10.[15]" Authorities like the IOC, or simply the IOC?
  • "This varies in the fairy pitta across its range, it can be found up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but stays at lower altitudes in Japan." It's unclear what the this refers to, and this looks like a comma splice!

I read up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", editing as I went - please double-check. The species list strikes me as a little bare. I've seen it done before with common name, specific name, authority, range, and picture - that might be worth considering? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Australasian gannet[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I buffed this article in a fit of patriotic pride after northern gannet was promoted to Featured status. I reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

  • Structurally, why are displays split off from breeding by feeding, when the two are closely linked (the displays relate to breeding)?
moved display material into breeding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As an Aussie and a Kiwi, I'm complaining and not complaining about the difference in detail re: colonies in the lead. Why detailed Kiwi colonies (like a third of the whole lead) and no Aussie ones?
largest aussie ones added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also why is breeding only summarised as being about coloniality in the lead? And no summary of displays
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The head is yellow, in lead I'd say tinged in buff yellow
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No indication of general range in lead, only breeding sites
whoops! now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the migration section it simply describes the movements of NZ birds - is anything known about Australian birds?
I don't recall seeing anything but will look again. The NZ ones appear to have been much better studied overall... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Some indication of what this involves (location of these obscure islands or distance from Oz) would contextualise this
  • Sorry, the above comment is in relation to this section which I somehow didn't include Far-wandering gannets are occasional visitors to Marion Island and the Crozet Islands, . Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
ah ok. was pondering this..annoyingly HANZAB doesn't elaborate and many of the vagrant mentions are rather obscure articles I am having trouble tracking down..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Though implied, start Gannet pairs may remain together over several seasons, until one member dies, although they have been known t with a statement re: their monogamy, ie Gannet pairs form monogamous and long term bonds, and pairs may....
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This is generally good, with just the lead needing some work, will do more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Would be nice to have an image in the breeding section, so I uploaded one of mine here that you can use. Or there are others of chicks and nests. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
great! thanks! added... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Mostly looking at sources and especially reference formatting:

  • Is it worth mentioning records of vagrancy in the discussion of its range? I know it has been reported from Brazil and southern Africa, and the IUCN Red List page suggests that a vagrant breeding population may have been present in South Africa at some point in the past?
added South Africa mention. Brazil not mentioned in HANZAB...will search Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There has to be more to say about the gannet in culture than one line about the Maori using them as a food source. Traditional use for the feathers, maybe? Art? Heck, appearance on postage stamps if you have to.
I know! I have been frustrated by the lack of cultural material on it. I will look further. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe use the "relationship with humans" section header instead and find something on the tourism of Cape Kidnappers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
that is a very good idea - I couldn't find any reliable sources with gannet stamps from an initial look.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Give me a few days, I bet I can come up with something there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's one starting point - Te Ara mentions Maori use for food, the bones for tattooing implements and feathers for decoration. Nurg (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Aaah, choice bro'! Duly added :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As promised. The gannets' presence on New Zealand stamps is easy to source because the New Zealand post has one of the most collector-friendly websites of any nation in the world. The Cape Kidnappers gannet colony has appeared at least twice: in 1958 and 2009. I'm still hunting for a RS for gannets on the stamps of Norfolk Island; I don't have a Scott Catalogue immediately on hand at the moment or I'd just cook up a citation there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
cool! will add! The irony being the main sulid I see on Norfolk Island is the masked booby rather than the Australasian gannet... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Australian Biological Resources Study source is formatted like a citation to a book, but seems to be a citation to a website? There's either missing bibliographic information here (if this is a book), or the wrong sort of bibliographic information (if this is a web cite).
I removed the location as surplus - otherwise is using the cite web format. Not sure what else you feel is surplus to needs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This looks better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OCLC for Gray 1843?
err, how would I find that? I have never used them before and google isn't coming up with anything... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
OCLC 457835439 for the edition that was used to make that scan. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the Nelson source, I'm pretty sure it's okay to just have Oxford University Press as the publisher; this longer form strikes me as nonstandard.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the Ismar source, Miskelly is an editor, not the publisher.
Corrected. Nurg (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Angel et al. source is missing bibliographic information. Specifically, PLoS One gives that citation as volume 10, number 12, page e0142653, doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0142653
has been added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the Stephenson 2007 source, this seems to be web-only material. Or at least being cited that way. So I don't think it needs a publication location. If this is actually a print-form report just being linked to an online copy, is there a report number, ISSN, doi, or any other sort of identifying value to aid in locating copies?
changed to web format - no book identifiers found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Parks Victoria source is missing the apostrophe in "Pope's".
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Frost 2017 needs some sort of publication information to indicate why this is a reliable source.
added. an NZ gov't publication under the auspices of the Department of Conservation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Fake gannets" article isn't actually bylined to the "Department of Conservation". Instead of the current approach, it's probably more accurate to have no author, and make the publisher be "New Zealand Department of Conservation". Or something along those lines.
tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks like it might have something to add about breeding?
yes and added. I'd seen this somewhere else but Nelson puts it nice and succinctly this time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This has a little blurb about gannet flight physics that might not be sufficient to make the cut?
yes this is good too and added. Just pondering if and where to add the bit about rising air currents assisting with lift... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, I'm a bit surprised to see only two book-format sources for a well-studied, widely-recognized bird species. That doesn't mean this isn't a comprehensive review of literature, though. Was there nothing important to add beyond what the current sources already handle?
HANZAB and Nelson are by far the two most detailed book sources. Other than that there are lots of guidebooks, but actually alot of journal papers cover the information better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of this looks pretty good. I've got a bunch of minor quibbles about reference formats that don't affect the overall article quality. But that Culture section is so thin that it really stands out. Clearly, I'm not asking for one of the insipid "in popular culture" sections of old, but... there's assuredly a happy median to be found. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This article is in good shape and I can find little to quibble about that hasn't already been mentioned.

  • Description: link Cape gannet and masked booby
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Breeding and courtship: 73.15 grams - this is unnecessarily precise -> 73.2 is more than adequate.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Like the previous reviewer, I can't find much amiss with this. I note that if someone writes a GA or FA for Cape Gannet, we'll have a Featured Topic! To show I've read it, a few quibbles follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • solan goose.—I'm surprised that a term long obsolete in the UK appears to be still current in Oz, which is what the sentence implies
this is frustrating as the term is still bandied about in texts (but no-one ever calls it that). I've not seen it tagged as such. Will see if I can find so I can avoid OR... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Breeding season is generally from July to February — to a Brit, starting with "The..." would be more natural
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Maori were reported to have harvested young gannets for food—the source implies this was mainly before European colonisation, if that's the case, perhaps add that.
it's not clear when it stopped, but it does appear to be historical Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Image review - since this already seems to be getting the necessary support, I'll give an image review. The licensing and sources of the present images are good, but I will give some suggestions for additional images below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
the other images don't specify "commercial use allowed" so I'd have to ask..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean the others I linked? They are all Commons compatible, I specifically searched for commercial licences on Flickr, and the Flickr upload bot will accept them automatically. If an image isn't compatible, the bot just doesn't upload them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You should definitely show the chick, here is a good photo of one being fed:[2]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the breeding section is empty, you could show what appears to be rival males:[3]
  • A closer look at a colony which could maybe be an additional image in the colony section:[4] or this of an interesting colony cliff:[5]
  • I personally think this is a better photo of a flying individual:[6]
  • For flavour maybe, an adult grabbing nesting material:[7]
  • As an additional comment, I see some duplinks... FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
problem is, duplink tool does not distinguish between lead and body of text (though I did find and remove one) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you are using the old version, the new one does:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
aaah thanks for thatCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Fall of Kampala[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the fall of Kampala, the capital of Uganda, to Tanzanian and Ugandan rebel forces in April 1979. This marked the first time an African state had captured the capital of another African state, and meant the overthrow of Idi Amin's murderous regime. If this article passes FA (particularly before the 40th anniversary of the event) then it would herald a great improvement of our coverage of the Uganda-Tanzania War and Africa topics overall. This article has passed a MilHist A-class review (including a source review). Most of it was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin, with additional information from contemporaneous newspaper reports. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Arch of Remembrance[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For my first nomination of 2019, I bring you yet another war memorial. We're getting towards the top of the tree, as evidenced by the fact that this is Lutyens' largest war memorial in the UK. It's certainly impressive, the result of a healthy budget and careful planning, but its gestation was far from easy—a story documented in this article. I hope you find it interesting, and I would be most grateful for any constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text for images
  • File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg: per the given tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the exact designation date, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
Hi Nikki, thanks for your review. I'm not sure alt text text would add anything not covered in the captions and detailed physical description in the prose. I don't know what tag would be best for File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg; I trusted the Internet Archive's declaration (I would assume, given that it dates from 1921, that it's PD-old, and PD in the US because it's pre-1923). I've added a link to the NHLE in the infobox and found an archived copy of FN18. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Another very interesting and readable coverage of the UK's war memorials. A very minor quibbles to consider, none of which will get in the war of a support, I think:

Lead
  • "Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral, which was accepted by the committee". I'm not sure a "tree cathedral" is common enough to leave unexplained in the lead (I had to do a Google search to check!) Perhaps "Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral—crossing avenues of lime trees—which was accepted by the committee".
    On review, I've trimmed the mention of the tree cathedral (tree cathedral is a red link ripe for a nice little project for someone, but it's not my area of expertise).
Commissioning
  • '"Arch of Remembrance".[1][12][13][14][15]' That's a long string of blue links! Any chance of bundlingthem together? (Ditto the two or three other strings lower down)
    I've bundled one and moved some around so there aren't so many of those strings (I tend to group them at the end of paragraphs); the ones that are left are right at the end of their paragraphs so at least they're not interrupting the prose.
Setting
  • "Sir Jonathan North": do we need the full name again?
    There's been a bit of a gap, but perhaps not.
Sources
  • Any need to link the publishers?
    I normally do. It seems harmless at worst and could be helpful.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gavin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure - and thanks for another very readable and interesting piece. I'm happy to Support: the article covers all the main points I would expect, is well-written, nicely illustrated with pertinent images and passes the other FAC criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • ..from the main routes out of the city to the south - why not ,"from the main south(ward) routes out of the city"?

Damn I am finding little to complain about.....a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas, thanks very much. I made the edit you suggest in the lead, where we want concision, but in the body I think it's clearer the way it is. Happy to discuss if you don't agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No probs, variation is the spice of life....and FAs. support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Allison Guyot[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a seamount again. This article is about Allison Guyot, a seamount in the central Pacific Ocean and part of a group of sunken mountains known as the Mid-Pacific Mountains. Its history in some aspects resembles that of my previous FACes Limalok and Wōdejebato; it originally formed as a volcanic island that eventually was eroded down and became an atoll or atoll-like structure. Notably, fossils of vertebrates including crocodiles have been found, indicating that during its 12-million year atoll phase. About 99 million years ago it drowned for reasons unknown and lies underwater ever since. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, my first thought was which kind of crocodilian fossils have been found, are the sources any more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently the fossils consist mainly of crocodile teeth and the sources do not specify further; probably it's difficult to get an exact taxonomy from just that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Could state they're mainly teeth then? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Added one mention. The sources seem to be confident that they can infer that they are crocodilian teeth; given all the extinct animals you have written about you are probably better qualified than I to say whether that's a reasonable assumption or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It should be possible to classify teeth below the level of just "crocodilian", but as the abstract you used doesn't seem to do so, not much you can do. But since it is only an abstract, it is possible there will come a paper that goes more in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That's probably something we might wait for, but on a quick search I didn't find anything more specific. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pelagic is duplinked in the intro, and Albian is duplinked in the article body.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Allison Guyot was formerly named "Navoceano Guyot" What does this mean, and when/why was it changed?
    It was apparently an informal name given here but that source does not specify much. I did look at the GEBCO gazzetteer to find out and apparently it doesn't know any "Allison Guyot"; and now it redirects from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/gazetteer/ to the helpful http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect" Why is it incorrect, and who has called it that?
    The source is not terribly specific; from reading other sources discussing "Hamilton Guyot" it seems like it has inconsistent coordinates, which are spread out and thus may refer to more than one volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "These drill cores were part of a larger project to investigate and clarify the history of the flat topped submarine mountains in the Pacific Ocean" when and by who?
    According to this page it was apparently a multinational project and according to it seems like it ran between 1983 and 2003 which is endorsed by the timeline here. Worthy of a whole sentence or as a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Worthy of a mention, you can do it any way you like. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Added it to the footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems odd the name section doesn't mention what "Allison" refers to.
    Same problem(s) as with "Navoceano" above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " in what is present-day French Polynesia" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
    Changed to "Southern Pacific". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Volcanic activity has been dated to have occurred" Has/have looks clunky here. Is dated?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "located in hostile waters" Seems a bit loaded, like sailor terminology. But does it really make sense in this context?
    Yes, in the sense that the waters (nutrient rich, overly hot etc.) were unfavourable for coral reef persistence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "pelagic sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition of pelagic sediments" Not sure you need the last "pelagic", when you already established it is about pelagic sedimentation in the beginning.
    Got this one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Making a note for myself to act on these comments, as I missed them this morning during my watchlist pass. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, though I wish there was more context for the names. But if the sources don't explain them, not much you can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

To add to Funkmonk's quibbles, a few of my own Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Trapezoidal—link?
    Link added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A number of hotspots such as the Easter hotspot, the Marquesas hotspot and the Society hotspot—perhaps reduce the repetition by piping to read A number of hotspots such as the Easter, Marquesas and Society hotspots?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • manganese has accumulated in the upper layers—manganese compounds, the pure metal never occurs native
    Sure, but manganese can still accumulate even when not pure and the source does not specify this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What's a "rudist", nether linked nor explained?
    Um, it is actually linked at the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz[edit]

  • It seems very likely that the Allison guyot was named after Edwin Chester Allison (1925-1971) a geologist at San Diego State College. A bio is here: http://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/memorials/v03/Allison-EC.pdf He was involved in naming the Darwin Guyot. A species of molluscs has also been named after him. I hope this helps in your search for a source.
  • What is the depth below the ocean surface of the Allison Guyot?

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. @Aa77zz:Tried that source, but no luck: There is nothing readily findable that connects this Allison with this seamount. I guess it might be contained in some gazzetteer but the only ones I know don't discuss the toponym or are offline owing to the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019.
It's probably less than 1500m considering the map in http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Mutterlose2/publication/230892248_Calcareous_Nannofossil_Biostratigraphy_of_Site_865_Allison_Guyot_Central_Pacific_Ocean_A_Tropical_Paleogene_Reference_Section/links/57a84a4608ae455e85478c44/Calcareous-Nannofossil-Biostratigraphy-of-Site-865-Allison-Guyot-Central-Pacific-Ocean-A-Tropical-Paleogene-Reference-Section.pdf but there is no explicit value. The oft-quoted number "1530m" refers to the drill core, not the minimum depth. So, would "less than 1500m deep" work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • twelve instances of "Missing pagenums for book chapter". They all seem to be Proceedings. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingzhi2: Yes, but that's because I am using more than one page from them; the page numbers are given in the actual ref. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oh. What I meant was, in each article's entrance in the Sources section you might wanna list the page range for that entire article. For ex ample: Baker, Castillo, Condliffe (May 1995) seems to go from 245 to 261. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingzhi2: Ah, OK. Added some pagenumbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Good, tks. Sorry I was unclear, ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Auberoche[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Eight years into the Hundred Years' War the Battle of Auberoche was one of the first decisive land victories by either side and a significant humiliation for the French. For some reason the battle is little known and there are relatively few sources; nevertheless, I think that there is enough here to merit the nomination. Having recently gone through an ACR I am hopeful that the article approaches FA standard and invite you to have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Lacey, Robert (2008) is showing a HARV error. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a good start. I thought that I had removed him as non-RS. Apologies. I have now. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, CPA-5, Maury Markowitz, Nikkimaria, and Sturmvogel 66: Greetings to you all. You were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. It is now up for an FAC and I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN, and was impressed. It is now better still. Since GAN the article has been expanded by more than a third, making it more informative (and interesting) without any excessive detail. The new location map is a distinct plus point.

I am taking a modest bet with myself that someone will query "routed" as an intransitive verb as I did at GAN before I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary. Struggling to find something new to carp about, I find the map/plan in the Bergerac section hard to read. Of course one can click on it and see it at a scale convenient for elderly eyes, but could it perhaps be displayed on the article page just a little bit bigger?

That quibble apart, on rereading the article I found it clear, interesting and well proportioned – good logical movement from stage to stage. A wide, and to my layman's eye, impressive array of sources, ancient and modern. Happy to support promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: I see Gog the Mild's FAC for the Siege of Berwick is still open. Has there been a false start with this new nomination, given that the rules say only one FAC at a time per nominator? Happy to put my comments on ice if so. Tim riley talk 23:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tim riley: is a comment in these rooms merely a gin? Take it off the ice, he gained the necessary here. Good times. ——SerialNumber54129 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Tim riley Keep the ice, place in the gin, sit back, relax, enjoy. Serial Number 54129, bless him, is being both helpful and generous regarding my newbie errors at the outstanding FAC. Thanks for your support, and for your input at GAN, which gave this article a good base to move forward from; you flatter me with your opinion of the prose. It received a reasonably thorough review at ACR, so I am hopeful re FAC. Note that "routed" was not commented on :-) . I did comment re the map at the construction stage, but I didn't commission it, so it is what it is. I have played a bit with the compromise of making it large enough to read without clicking on and not taking over the page and have cranked it up a couple of notches - see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks better. Thanks for that. Point taken that you can't let it take over the whole screen. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a minor note, Gog. You may have already done this, and apologies if you have, but you really need to get papal (FAC coord) dispensation if you want to nominate a fresh FAC (on your own) before your last single nom one has been closed. Usually that is only given if the previous one is ready for close (three supports, image and source reviews). Just ping the coords. I'll take a look at this once that has been sorted out. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker: They already did. See my link above. ——SerialNumber54129 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that. Wouldn't have hurt to have explicitly stated that when he nominated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Np. Rookie error. Rotate him back to the Island now! ;) On a lighter note, it means you can start earning your chow and get on with that review :p ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for the heads up. However, the Supreme Beings have already smiled upon me, as SN54129 points out - they are on commission, which accounts for their enthusiasm. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't push your luck, dear boy! Tim riley talk 20:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Um. "they" was intended to refer to SN54129. Oops. I can see that some propitiation is in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Hm why not? If I can help you in your Hundred Years' War's serie than I'll do that with pleasure.

  • The Gascons had their own language and customs. Hm some scholars says it is a dialect of Occitan. So I think you should use the word "claim" in the sentence.
Done.
  • See some English and French crowns which are not capitalised. or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord.
Done.
  • There was no formal border between English and French territory. Significant landholders owned a patchwork of widely separated estates, perhaps owing fealty to a different overlord for each; or holding some rights from the French crown as the monarch and others from the English crown as their liege lord. Each small estate was likely to have a fortified tower or keep, with larger estates having castles. Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region. has somehow no citation.
How embarrassing. The cites had wondered off. I have retrieved them.
  • They anchored off Sluys in Flanders until 22 July, while Edward attended to diplomatic affairs. I think the "Sluys" part should become "Sluys (Sluis)".
Um. I see what you mean, but when I make the change it looks clunky and (IMO) breaks the flow of the prose. It is Wikilinked if anyone cares. Could you live with it as it is?
  • @Gog the Mild: Yes indeed, it is wikilinked. However it looks a little bit odd to me. I mean in this sentence The Earl of Northampton would lead a small force to Brittany (known at the time as Bretagne), a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony (Guyenne) under the command of Henry, Earl of Derby and the main force would accompany Edward to France or Flanders. says the older version of the name Brittany called Bretagne and Brittany itself are listed in the article. Which is strange to me, the article use the current Brittany and old one too. But the current Sluis can't be listed? I mean the article could use Bretagne instead of Brittany and having a wikilink to Brittany's article or make a note, with the current or old name in it, same with Sluis right? Do you see the odd part? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Fair enough. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is already a "(40 km)" above this sentence in the another French army of some 9,000–10,000 men under the Duke of Normandy was only 25 miles (40 km) away.
Done.
  • "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War", --> "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War",
Oops. Done.

Hopefully this was useful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: It is very useful. Thank you for once again running your eagle eyes over this. They are very good. All of your comments above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: I've a last question to you? Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres of wine. How much is that in U.S. gallon? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) Far too much :) a hundred million litres?! Crikey :) those armoured trousers must've worked them up a thirst! @GtM, I couldn't find that on pp.39–40 of Sumption which it's sourced to, can you double-check? When you lose the jetlag of course ;) ——SerialNumber54129 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My bad they were U.S. quarts instead of U.S. gallons. But, when I found out that the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 use U.S. quarts (which were 110 million U.S. quarts). I thought why they aren't in the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Typing this off a wonky airport internet. Well spotted. The quantity is correct (!!!) The reference is Rodger, at the end of the paragraph. My bad. Once I am back in the land of decent internet connections I will put an extra cite in, and add one to (hopefully) nail it down. It does smack of the incredible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5 and Serial Number 54129: Right. I now have a cite at the end (Rodger, 79-80) which supports the whole paragraph; and cites for the two statements I think are "likely to be challenged". Ie, Bordeaux being more populous than London and the 100,000,000 litres of wine. The latter is on Rodger 79, but I think it bears sticking right next to the claim. The source gives it in tuns, a standardised volume (and the ancestor of the modern ton and tonnage to indicate a ships capacity) so I have done the maths, which I believe is allowed. The xix-xx bit is Rodger helpfully giving the number of modern (imperial) gallons in a tun. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Hmm may I ask you to put in the article? The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 uses 110 million U.S. quarts. So I think we've to go that way or we use U.S. gallons instead of U.S. quarts in both articles. If we use quarts than it is 110 million quarts if we use gallons than it should be 26,417,000 gallons. I think we can choose which one the article use. So which one should it be? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Done. I have gone with quarts. I am trying to use the common unit closest to the size of a modern wine bottle, to give readers a feel for how many bottles of wine this represents. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Happy to see this. I've no comments anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in really great shape, Gog. The only comment I have is that the lead says this was a decisive victory for the Anglo-Gascon force, but I couldn't find that description or words to that effect in the body, although it is self-evident from the Aftermath section, I think "decisive" should be used in the body and cited if it is going to be used in the lead. Alternatively, you could just more fully describe the aftermath in the lead rather than call it "decisive" per se. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi PM, high praise indeed. I don't really like the word decisive, if only because it is overused. I haven't been self-critical enough there, so thanks for stepping in. I have rephrased the lead. Perhaps you could see what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
That is what I meant, those changes are great. Nice job on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from MM[edit]

I read this during the A and loved it then, and its even better now. I particularly like the additions to the "During the first half" part.

I did some very minor GS and WS edits, mostly some vertical whitespace, and all I have left is...

Hi MM, thanks for the copy edit.
  • "The French in the camp to the north" - I assume this is the second smaller camp, described earlier? If so, "The French in the smaller camp to the north...", just for clarity. And I'm not sure about "the french", that sounds odd to these Canadian ears. "The French men..."? Hmmm, not much better. "The smaller French force camped to the north...", ahhh, that one maybe?
Reworded.
  • There's no cite in "There was no formal border", not that I personally care.
I think that it needs fixing for FA. Sounds like a job for Sumption, but I am temporarily away from my hard copies. I shall add a cite or two next week.

Clearly not enough to hold up the FA, so good to go as it is IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine[edit]

I reviewed this at ACR and was very pleased with its quality. I don't really have any quibbles with it now, whether in extent, coverage, prose quality, except one: the lack of French-perspective sources, at least at first glance. I am not well versed on the topic's historiography, but what I have glimpsed from it occasionally (and from what I know of how the conflict is treated in English culture historically), there is more than a bit of triumphalism on the part of the Anglo-Saxon authors. Not that this necessarily impedes their scholarly qualities, but one does occasionally get the impression that they root for one team in particular, especially among the older generations. This may be reflected in texts in innocuous ways, e.g. where the French side are simply "the French", whereas on the English side, the commander(s) are mentioned by name, given agency, their motives (and errors) explained, whereas "the other side" is almost an impersonal force. This inevitably seeps through to us when we rely on them, and I've come across this often enough in my own work (I do write on the Balkans and the Middle East, after all) to think that I can detect this influence here. Now, it is of course possible that on this battle, the contemporary French sources are silent or not as detailed as the English accounts. It is also likely that the sources cited (which are all very reputable) do make the best possible use of this limited material and can be assumed to present a fair and comprehensive treatment of the topic, or that the modern French scholars have not dealt with the topic in the extent the British have. The point is, I don't really know, and, long story short, I simply would like Gog the Mild's opinion (or of any other informed reviewer) on this, as the one who has read the sources in question and has a grasp of the bibliography. Constantine 15:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) To be fair, even the French article uses solely English (and far fewer!) sources; but to adhere to—and prevent anyone opposing on—criterion 1b, may I suggest that GtM inserts a small section—a level 3 under "Aftermath" suggests itself?—dealing with the approach different chroniclers took to the battle. Hint: Froissart is your go-to guy on this one (remember how, for your last one, at least Scottish chronicle was used? Same thing). ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I am currently travelling. I had started a lengthy discussion of Constantine’s point, which I think is a good one. However, SN−54129 has put a it much more succinctly. I shall try something along the lines they suggest, which at worse will give us something concrete to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Constantine. I noted your comments at ACR, and put this forward for FAC regardless, although I agree that you raise sound points above, and they need to be addressed. I have five articles on the Hundred Year’s War in Gascony in 1345-46 which I would like, eventually, to submit for FAC. All rely on substantially the same sources. So, at some point, the adequacy of them as a group needs to be addressed.
The short response to your point is that there simply aren’t any modern French sources which deal with these campaigns. Come to that, there are precious few English ones: two specialist books (Fowler and Gribit) and Sumption’s general, but very detailed, book. A slightly outdated summary (1999) of the sources by Vale can be found here. P 69, ignore the first paragraph, 71 and nearly all of 72. Essentially he says that pre-1360 there is French (er, the British professor, not the language) and nothing else. Things have improved slightly over the past 20 years.
Can I point out that I am not shy about incorporating foreign sources where they exist. I recently nominated the great French victory of 1312, Battle of Bouvines, for GA. It incorporates, I think, a reasonable spread of French sources and its spine is drawn from a Belgian author. In my five Gascon articles I have been so desperate for French sources that I have included Guizot in one which I wrote from scratch, in spite of it dating to the 1870s. User:Newm30, who is knowledgeable about things French and late Medieval found one I had missed – here. Note that it covers eleven campaigning seasons in its brief summary and dates to 1895. I was excited in spite of this, until I realised that it was actually one of Froissart's (see below) versions; no doubt new in 1895, but not today.
The theatre is under-represented in all of the literature, overshadowed by the Crecy campaign and the siege of Calais. Additionally, French historians tend to concentrate on their successful periods: before, eg Bouvines, or after, eg the Carolinian phase of the Hundred Years' War, rather than the period of incompetence and abject defeat. This does, as you point out, mean that much examination of the French forces and commanders is missing. I don’t doubt your points about authors having unconscious national biases, but if the source material is not there for them, it simply is not there – they have to do the best they can with what they have.
Regarding contemporary sources, well obviously they all wrote in French. The main chronicler, as User:Serial Number 54129 points out, is Froissart: a French speaker who came from what is now France and was then the Holy Roman Empire; much of his work was commissioned by the English court, but was widely accepted as an accurate record across Europe in its day; although Rogers, in the work cited next comments "Froissart is not reliable". Other Medieval sources – see Rogers p 93-94 for a summary – include William of Dene (English), the St Omer Chronicle (French), Chronique de Bazas (French), Chronique de normande (French) and another French source now lost but copied independently in three slightly later compilations. In sum, the contemporaneous sources which the modern authors use are mostly French. (The nation, not the language.)
I had agreed above to include a section on the sources, even to quote direct from them. The more I think about the latter, the less happy I am about quoting 650+ year old sources, unfiltered through modern experts; considering that a filtered version is available. Could I invite discussion on this? I am also feeling unhappy about writing a separate section on the sources. This is normally only done when the sources fundamentally disagree. Here, for the most part, they don't. Sure, there is room for scholarly debate, but there is more divergence between Froissart's three versions than there is between him and the other chronicles. (I would be happy to quote modern scholars on this.) This being the case I don't see that it would add to the article for the average reader, and would be there purely as a fig leaf of purported national balance. I would welcome comment on this too. (Where the chronicles do diverge on details I prefer to cover it as it arises, as in the first paragraph and a half of Battle of Bergerac#Battle. Apparently it was a confused running battle and no one could work out what the hell happened - one can hardly blame the chroniclers for also being confused.)
Gog the Mild (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild. Sorry for making you going through all the trouble, but you are right, at some point this would have to be addressed. The situation you present on the sources is more or less what one would expect, and one that appears frequently in other eras and regions as well. Regarding a source section, I generally find them useful, perhaps not for the average reader, but certainly for anyone more interested in getting a quick and ready overview for further study; indeed, if there are divergences in the primary sources that affect modern (or not-so-modern) scholarship, or if you are forced to quote primary sources because either no modern sources cover the events in the same detail, or because the modern sources essentially follow the primary ones verbatim, or because you need to illustrate the differences between two or more traditions of primary sources, you really have to discuss their relative merits in a dedicated section first.
For the present article, I agree that it probably would be overkill; however, it would IMO be pertinent for the overview article Gascon campaign of 1345, unless you also plan another, broader article on the Gascon theatre in general (and as long as the group of sources for 1345 is the same for the region throughout this phase of the conflict) or you can point to a relevant section elsewhere (we really should at some point have a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article).
For the record and for the benefit of this review, I support the nomination without reservation. Constantine 11:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Constantine. Yes, you did make me go to a lot of trouble. But Face-wink.svg, as you say, it needed to be thrashed out at some point. It took me a while to get there. Partly because I wasn't sure what my opinion was re the details; partly to try and source what I was saying rather than spout self serving OR. I think that you see where I am coming from. I am content to go with your proposed solution. I shall write a section on sources. If I put it in Gascon campaign of 1345 that covers Bergerac and Auberouge, but not, theoretically, Aiguillon nor Lancaster's chevauchee - in 1346. However, I have an article planned - Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 - where I think this would fit reasonably naturally. See the third "topic" down in User:Gog the Mild/Tasks#Targets for the coverage. Does this sound reasonable?
The modern sources for this are (much) more varied than those for the Gascon articles, but the core is the same 6-8 scholars and there are almost no new contemporary sources. Yes, we could do with a Historiography of the Hundred Years' War article. I would be hesitatingly willing to write the 1345-49 section. If pushed, 1337-49. That leaves a lot of years to be picked up. When I do the proposed sources section, could you remind me to revisit this?
It is reassuring to have you keeping an eye on this series. Please be as free with advice, on anything, as you ask me to be with your wannabe FAs. (I suspect that is a redundant request.) Ditto for any TPWs or editors referred here. All comments and suggestions gratefully received.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The proposed solution would be perfect from my point of view; indeed such sections are better suited for articles discussing a broader and self-contained period/set of events. Looking forward to your next pieces of work :). Best, Constantine 14:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Constantine Good. Thanks. Well, I am having a short break to work on some First Punic War naval battles, but I shall return. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Xixiasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a troodontid dinosaur, a group noted for their comparatively large brains and well-developed senses (to the extent that they were once suggested to have evolved into reptilian humanoids if they hadn't gone extinct). This particular genus is not a very remarkable member of the group, but I chose it because, unlike more famous troodontids, it has many free images, and a pretty simple taxonomic history without much controversy. Having been named relatively recently, and being known from few remains, not much has been published about it, so this should be a very complete account of the subject. If anyone wonders, what appears to be the same skull image is used twice because one version includes interpretative lines that obscure details, and the other (used in the infobox) doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I think I've said before that you make something of a rod for your own back with so much technical language. I appreciate that's unavoidable to some extent, but one example that struck me is "orbita", unlinked and unexplained. I assume it means "eye-socket", so why not say so instead of using a Latinate term? I also note that maxillary process opens three consecutive sentences. More comments may follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, one problem is of course when something is linked an explained far earlier, will the average reader remember what a word they never heard of before means after first explanation? In this case, the word is explained in the description section: "The rim of the orbit (eye socket)" But I think I can maybe stick to more informal language after the description section? Without making the article look too inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I replaced "orbita" in the biology section, and made one of the "maxillary process" sentences begin differently for variation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Hendrickx, C.; Hartman, S. A.; Mateus, O. (2015). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Added ISSN, but I see no other identifiers to add. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Reference formatting all looks nice. Well done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Wading through now - looks okay, I can see where Jim is coming from with worries about technical language, but I am struggling to see anywhere that any plainer words can be slotted in (e.g. "maxilla" isn't quite "upper jaw") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll see if there are more things I can somehow simplify, otherwise feel free to make suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I glossed "secondary palate", "nutrient foramina", "postorbital bones", and "lacrimal bones". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is some repetition in places, e.g. in lead we have "Unlike other troodontids"...."Unlike in most troodontids" ...."It was unique among troodontids". However I can't see an easy way around this.
I changed one to "Uniquely among troodontids". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ..100 millimetres (3.9 in) long - should that be 4 in?
Added sigfig=1, which did the job. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the front end of the dentary of the lower jaw was downturned - this is hard to visualise - does one of the images illustrate this?
It is actually shown in the image next to that text (fig b is the front of the lower jaw). It gives it a little "chin", and though that would be an easier way to describe it, the source doesn't say it like that. I also tried to show it in the restoration, though it is pretty small. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Troodontids had some of the highest encephalization quotients among non-avian dinosaurs, a measure of the ratio between predicted brain size and body size. - I'd put the meaning in parentheses right next to "encephalization quotients"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Little to complain about overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
ok then support on comrehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Georgetown Car Barn[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Georgetown Car Barn is a historic building in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. that once served as a hub station and storage facility for the city's trolley cars. Construction of the building required excavation of a massive amount of earth, leading to the construction of the Exorcist steps. Gradually, it was converted into office space, housing the International Police Academy, and is now used by Georgetown University. Today, it is one of the most prominent buildings of the Georgetown skyline. Ergo Sum 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

  • I think the film should mentioned by name in the lead, before the blue link to the steps. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Done. Ergo Sum 04:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Car Barn was purchased by Douglas Development Corporation in 1997, which continues to own the building, and it was renovated the following year. The Douglas Development Corporation was renovated?
    • @Ceoil: I do believe that's a grammatically correct sentence; the direct object of the last clause refers back to the subject of the first independent clause, which is the Car Barn. Nonetheless, to be extra clear, I've replaced the commas with dashes. Ergo Sum 02:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Then after the word tenant appears twice. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Reworded. Ergo Sum 02:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note am leaning support but will probably be next weekend before have read it all. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

The article looks in very good shape. Just a few points for consideration below:

Lead
  • "Designed by architect Waddy Butler Wood" - to avoid the false title, perhaps, "Designed by the architect Waddy Butler Wood".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
History
  • "Thereafter, the site was used to store horse-drawn trolley cars" - this puzzled me a little as we've been told three sentences before that the building had already been converted to hold horses and trolleys from 1861?
  • The warehouse was used for horses in 1861. The Car Barn was not built until 1895. Ergo Sum 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Construction
  • "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs commonly known as the Exorcist steps" - not at the time of construction, obviously. Perhaps, "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs now commonly known as the Exorcist steps". And car barn is capitalised elsewhere.
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "including the well-known cottage of E. D. E. N. Southworth" - what is it about the cottage that makes it well-known? It's not specifically mentioned in Southworth's article. I see Source 7 mentions it. Move it to the end of that sentence to cover it?
  • Added a clarifying footnote. Ergo Sum 00:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The three-story, 180-by-242-foot (55 by 74 m) building" - ignore if, as I suspect, it's an AmEng/BrEng thing, but "storey" in this context has an 'e' in BrEng.
  • Pretty sure story is the standard spelling in American English. Ergo Sum 00:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion" - perhaps, "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow for trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion"? Or "to give access for trolleys coming across..."
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Redesign
  • "the Car Barn thereafter began its long period of deterioration". This puzzled me a bit, as did the lead line, "Not long after its opening, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair". Did it deteriorate because it was poorly designed, or because its design rapidly became unsuited to the changed needs of the time? I think the latter? I wonder if this could be clarified, although I'm currently stumped for a suggestion as to how.
  • Probably a mix of the two, but the way I read the sources, it seems to be primarily the former. Certainly by the mid-20th century, the building suffered neglect. I think I've clarified it in the body of the article. Ergo Sum 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Further conversions of track space was converted to office space in 1921 and 1922" - "Further areas....."?
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Later uses
  • "In 1992, the owner of DC Transit System, O. Roy Chalk, was foreclosed against" - the ending sounds a little clunky, but it might be the correct legal term. "was made bankrupt"? "went into liquidation"?
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources
  • I've no knowledge of the building, but the sources look recent and representative. The online ones are also accessible, which is a boon, and will help the Source review.

It's an interesting read. I hope these suggestions are of some help. KJP1 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @KJP1: Thanks for your comments. I've gone through and incorporated them into the article. Ergo Sum 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Georgetown_seal.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed. The image was transcluded by {{Georgetown University}}. I replaced that image with the svg version, which works better. Ergo Sum 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • New version is also missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Mostly looking at sourcing and source entry formatting here, per my usual habit:

  • Websites and italics. I hate this, and the templates don't really help. The "website" parameter applies italics, but that's not always what you want. Historically, best practice on the project has been: 1) if the website is primarily known for a print-format work of the same name that would be italicized, then italicize; 2) if the website and its publisher have the same name, and that's not a name that would typically be subject to italicization in a reference, use the "publisher" parameter instead to avoid italics; 3) otherwise, use the website's name in italics and only include the publisher if it is necessary for clarity. For example, in this article, the reference to The Georgetowner is correctly italicized because that was a magazine before it was an e-magazine, but "Library of Congress" and "Douglas Development Corporation" shouldn't be italicized in their respective entries.
  • Speaking of HABS, I note you cite the document selecting the structure for the Historic American Buildings Survey but never mention that in the text. Should you? Has it received any other designations along those lines?
  • Just about anything would be a better quality source than Krepp, a book about "haunted places" in Georgetown. You may want to check, but on first glance, I think that may be replaceable with Mike High's The C&O Canal Companion: A Journey through Potomac History?
  • That Jack Anderson source is a mess. The pdf you link to is apparently something like the scanned result of a FOIA request? Based on its appearance, I'm 90% sure that what we're looking at there is a scan of an article clipped from some newspaper. The FOIA document is not a reliable source. The newspaper would be, but that's not what you're giving a citation to. In any case, it's not immediately obvious to me where the Washington's-Merry-Go-Round title originated.
  • It would be nice if we could do better than the DAVIS Construction source (the commercial website of a general contractor).
  • Picky moment of the day: ideally, your ISBNs should be properly hyphenated.
  • I don't have access to it, but the American Institute of Architects appears to have a two-page discussion of this building in their book about the city's landmarks. Perhaps that's work investigating?
  • Is there anything to be gained by looking for sources contemporary with any of the building's major events?

A lot of this is just FAC minutiae, but I'm concerned that the quality of a few sources (especially Krupp and, as currently presented, Anderson) don't meet the FAC standards. I'd also like to ensure that this does in fact represent a comprehensive survey of the available literature. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the thorough source review. This is helpful. I'll go through and see if I can rectify those concerns. Ergo Sum 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that served in two wars under four different flags, and ended its career during a run-in with some British motor torpedo boats in the Adriatic in 1944. It is the fourth one of its class to come to FAC (in addition to the class article), so hopefully I have ironed out most of the kinks by now. It is part of a Good Topic that I'm gradually moving towards a Featured Topic. I think I've hoovered up everything available on its career, including in Serbo-Croat, in terms of its comprehensiveness. Especially looking for prose improvements that could be made. Thanks to all who take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

What we've here, our first FAC in 2019. Wow! Great start! Let's see how I can help you PM.

  • Is there a link for the Naval Technical Committee in the Austria-Hungary Naval Technical Committee initiated?
  • No, and when I looked for sources some time ago, I didn't find enough to assume notability and redlink.
  • Shouldn't the "Bocche di Cattaro" be Italicised, because it comes from Italian?
  • on the Italian enclave of Zara --> on the Italian enclave of Zara (Zadar).
  • Is the "0 in" that important in a beam of 5.8 m (19 ft 0 in)? I don't think it is, or am I wrong?
  • Is the ".0" that important in Her guns were replaced by two 76 mm (3.0 in)? If not please remove it.
  • In the opened fire at 150 yards. how much is 150 yards?
  • In the At a speed of about 12 knots how much is 12 knots?
  • Shouldn't be there a citation in the note?

Hopefully this was useful. Again great start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, CPA-5! I think I've addressed all your points? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Lead caption needs editing for grammar
  • Suggest scaling down the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Emesa helmet[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Were it not displayed in Syria, let alone hidden in an undisclosed location, the Emesa helmet would be a much more famous archaeological treasure. This rich helmet is crafted so finely as to depict its owner’s face; it is so fine, in fact, that it is unlikely its owner would have risked damage to it for anything other than combat. Between the endpoints of its tumultuous modern history—dug from the earth by looters, only to be placed back underground to protect it from them—the helmet has gained some international attention, but remains an overlooked gem.

This article is concise and comprehensive. It uses all relevant literature, much of it relatively obscure. Already in good shape when it passed its good article review in February, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things
  • " an acanthus scroll" I've run into acanthus wreaths now and then but what is such a scroll? Made of or depicting?
  • Depicting. The sources don't go into depth on the scroll other than to say it resembles acanthus decorations on Syrian columns. Linked scroll to scroll (art) ("Although forms are often based on real plants, especially the acanthus ... [image caption:] Late Anglo-Saxon scrolls in a Beatus initial, drawing on classical acanthus scrolls"). I think the only publicly available images of the back of the helmet are copyrighted black and white photographs from Seyrig 1952b; I'll check the sources when I'm back home in a few days and perhaps add one as a fair-use photo.
  • Yes, the acanthus scroll was one of the most common motifs in Roman art - the many Commons files with the term in the title include this and this for example. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The helmet was then secured for the state collection by Emir Djaafar Abdel Kader, then curator of the National Museum of Damascus.[14]" I might cut "then". I think it is understood that he does not still hold the office.
  • Done.
  • You mention the several unsuccessful restoration attempts twice in as many paragraphs.
  • Largely removed the first. What remains is there to preserve the chronological treatment of that section.
  • "burnt rust" Isn't rust itself the product of oxidation? Can you further burn it?
  • Good catch, changed to "blackened." Here's what the source says: "The silver was now darkened, partly by the burning of the stopping of rust and wax that had been used in a previous restoration to fill the cracks and partly by the blackening of residual rust that remained attached to it. The rust was removed by brushing with 9 per cent oxalic acid."
  • "or manufactured in Syria to the likeness of helmets seen during Roman tournaments.[29][34][11] " are you doing refs in numerical order?
  • More by chronology/importance. There are a number of these in "Function," where Seyrig 1952a is cited before Seyrig 1952b.
Sources
  • Martin-Clarke. Is an ISBN or OCLC available? Ditto Plenderleith?
  • Both are too old for an ISBN, but I added an OCLC for Martin-Clarke (and an ISSN for Bruce-Mitford). Plenderleith already has a link to the book, and I typically only include an OCLC if there's no other identifying information or online copy, since an OCLC is really just a way to find a library with a particular book.
Otherwise everything, including the sources, looks to be in good order.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've added a photograph of a neck guard and expanded the description section with a new source, which I believe addressed your remaining point above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support all looks good. Thanks for the ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Nice little article.

  • It has been exhibited internationally, although as of 2017, due to the Syrian Civil War, the more valuable items owned by the National Museum are hidden in underground storage. – Maybe add "including the helmet" for extra clarity in the lead.
  • The sources about the museum don't explicitly mention the helmet, hence the article not making this link explicit. The museum appears to have reopened in stages—articles from a few months ago speak about it reopening more fully. There's a decent (but by no means absolute) chance the helmet was placed back on display within the last few months, but I would be quite surprised if it were one of the objects exhibited in 2017.
  • modern-day city of Homs in 1936; I would add Syria here, it can't be expected that all readers know where Homs is located.
  • Changed to "Confiscated by Syrian police soon after looters discovered it amidst a complex of tombs in the modern-day city of Homs in 1936"
  • The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa, and, considering its richness, – reads like "its" would refer to the helmet, but instead it seems to refer to the tomb?
  • Rephrased: "considering the lavishness of the silver and gold design"
  • notch was carved into each of the central holes to increase the afforded vision. – I assume the "central holes" are simply the eyes? Maybe state for clarity.
  • Rephrased: "Holes are drilled between the lips and as nostrils; the eyes each have a narrow slit, with three holes in a trefoil design, two round holes outside and a heart-shaped hole in the middle, underneath each eye to allow for a greater range of vision. These apparently were not enough, for a small and rudimentary notch was carved into each of the heart-shaped holes to increase the wearer's vision."
  • Description is rather short while the restoration part is more detailed, but I guess that is owing to the sources. I was wondering about the neck guard (is there an article/glossary to link it, btw?): Was this a separate piece or an extension of the top piece?
Gorget
  • I've substantially expanded this section based on another source (Seyrig 1952c). I've clarified that the functional (iron) neck guard was part of the head piece, but that the decorative (silver) part was placed on top. Serial Number 54129, thanks for the gorget suggestion. They seem to be more about the front of the neck, however, than the back of the neck. Interesting point though, I'd never thought how a neck guard could equally mean protection for the front of the neck. Neck guard, incidentally, is about ice hockey equipment.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Interesting as always, will comment soon. I suspect Attar-Aram syria would be interested in reading this one. FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review, FunkMonk. Just waiting to receive a copy of this article for your point about context of Emesa/Homs—hope to have it in a day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool, does it exist yet, though? That page says "Full text document will be published online on December 2019." FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, it was published in print in 2017, and I got a scan from my library. (Jstor doesn’t even have it yet, probably the journal believing that they preserve their subscriber base if their articles wait two years before being placed online.) Based on the article, I’ve added this line: "Known as Emesa at the turn of the millennium, the city was at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire, and ruled by a client kingdom of the Romans." —Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Linked in "Function": "Although classified as a cavalry sports helmet..."
Should also be linked in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "and and back" Looks like a mistake.
  • Fixed.
  • "three holes underneath each eye-slit allow for a greater range of vision" Why present tense? The succeeding sentence which talks about its use it past tense.
  • I've changed this section to be almost entirely in the present tense (except when discussing how a hasty modification was made to the eye holes). With old helmets there's a bit of a balancing act between describing what remains and what once was; the Benty Grange helmet's horn plates could hardly be described in the present tense, for example. It's easier with this helmet, which is in remarkable shape all things considered.
  • "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" I actually thought this referred to the bodies of the looters, perhaps specify "bodies in the tomb"?
  • Changed to "the burial shroud of one of the bodies," which I think makes clear that the body was buried.
  • "underwent a number of unsuccessful restorations" In Syria?
  • Added information about the first restoration, in Paris. There was probably at least one more restoration, since the Kansas City Times article states that "After several failures at restoration, it was taken to the British Museum" (emphasis added), but I haven't found a source that says anything more specific.
  • It's already linked at "Digging near the former site of a monument to Sampsigeramus," and I've added it to the lead at "The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa".
  • I think you could make it clearer what Emesa was.
  • Do you mean "a previous name for the Syrian city Homs," or do you mean historical and contextual information about Emesa?
Both, but last part doesn't have to be so detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since you mention bodies in the tomb, is it known which the helmet belonged to?
  • Do you mean which person?
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The acanthus scroll ornamentation seen on the neck guard recalls that used on Syrian temples" Do we have a picture of one that could be shown?
  • Added a fair-use photograph of the neck guard, showing the acanthus design.
  • I wonder if there would be Arabic sources that give some more context. Again, perhaps Attar-Aram syria knows.
I will try to review it soon. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, the only addition I can think of is if there is something relevant in Arabic sources. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

Another fine piece on an interesting object. Very well written, with a good flow. A few minor suggestions for consideration, none of which stand in the way of my Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and comments, KJP1. I've responded to all your points, adopting most of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • "covered in silver and molded into an individualised portrait of a face" - Tim's really your man, but if we're using BrEng, and the inline header says we are, isn't this "moulded"?
  • Good catch, changed.
  • "considering its richness, may have belonged to a member of the élite" - considering its richness and cost, could it have belonged to anyone but a member of the élite? I appreciate we don't know, but I'd suggest "would have".
  • Changed to "likely belonged." Perhaps it's overly cautious, but I'm hesitant to speak in certainties about inferences.
Minor point and sorry for not catching it but I agree with SO re. the need/lack of need for an accent on elite in BrEng. KJP1 (talk)
Description
  • "Around the sides runs a diadem in the image of a laurel wreath" - link diadem?
  • Done.
  • "Other features—the eyes and eyebrows, and the chin—are more conventional. These features suggest..." - Isn't it actually the distinctive features, mentioned earlier, that suggest....? Perhaps, "The distinguishing features suggest..." or something similar, "particular", "distinctive"?
  • Good point, changed to "The distinctive features..."
Function
  • "in order to withstand the rigors of ceremony unscathed" - the rigours (BrEng) of ceremony don't sound very rigorous to me. "rigours of contest"?
  • Done and done.
  • "Tournament helmets were robust and manufactured without finesse" - not sure about this. Does it mean they were made in a "crude/basic/work-a-day" way or does it mean they were made without "decoration/elaboration"?
  • It means they less delicately ornamented. Much as the iron core of this helmet would protect its wearer, its with thin silver and gilt exterior would be easily marred if hit. Less so with a bronze piece such as the Ribchester helmet.
Discovery
  • "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" - not sure what the "itself" is doing there?
  • It was because two sentences earlier, it says "The helmet was discovered". Changed to "Their looting was uncovered".
Restoration
  • "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith" - do we need a little explanation as to who he was/why he, rather than Maryon, was writing about the restoration? Was he a colleague/collaborator?
  • Done: "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith, keeper of the museum's research laboratory."
  • "cracks that had been filled in by a dark stopping substance" - what is a "stopping" substance? An adhesive/a filler?
  • Probably a filler. The source just says "the major cracks had been filled with a dark stopping material in an effort to reinforce the silver".
alt text
  • I'm no expert but I'm not sure the alt text for the two images would be that helpful for a VI reader. They describe what it is, "a colour photo", but not what it shows- "A helmet with a silver face mask and an iron headpiece. The headpiece is decorated and has a central hinge holding the facemask." That said, your very detailed description in the text may mean this isn't an issue.
  • Can't argue with you there, especially for the other photographs (Nijmegen helmet, other grave goods). I've added more to them.

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Fascinating article about a really distinctive artifact I was totally unfamiliar with. However, there are some prose segments that I'm not at all certain meet the FA standard, and a cursory check for sourcing comprehensiveness suggested a couple further questions.

  • You have "élite" in the lede, complete with accent aigu. At least in American English, "the elite" is well-established without diacritics. I'm unaware if British English holds otherwise, but to my eye, this is hypercorrection. "Richness" also reads awkwardly there for me. Although I'm aware that it can be used to mean "the result of being rich", I think it's more commonly used as "the state of being rich". For example, I would write that crown jewels contribute to the "richness of kings", but I wouldn't describe the "richness" of the jewelry pieces themselves.
British English is the same. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • I might retitle the Discovery section, perhaps to "Discovery and Display", as a substantial part of the section covers museum ownership after its discovery?
  • Sounds good then. Far be it from me to interfere with well-established sectioning precedent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "extricated the objects": No "objects" have been mentioned in this section, but the use of the specific article here implies a reference to previously-discussed material. Also, "extricate" typically implies freeing something with difficulty, and may not be the verb you're looking for.
  • Changed "extricated" to "removed", and expanded the section significantly so that it now encompasses the other objects.
  • The next sentence also needs some work. As written, the "small golden plaques" covered the body, not the shroud, which probably isn't what was intended. "Shed onto the earth" is unnecessarily poetic.
"Shedding" is a technical rather than poetic term, I would have thought. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly not qualified to make expert pronouncements regarding the field of archaeology, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it's certainly not being used a technical term so far as I can quickly determine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Changed to "flaked." It's not a big deal either way, and it isn't being used as technical term: the source (which is more poetic than me) just says "One circumstance, however, deprived them of the fruit of their efforts. Working in the night they came upon a grave whose occupant had been wrapped in a garment studded with small golden plaques. The fabric had decayed, thus setting loose the plaques and letting them mingle with the earth that filled the tomb."
This sentence still reads rather oddly to my ear. I don't usually like to recommend specific wordings at FAC, but perhaps something like:"Their looting was uncovered because the burial shroud of one of the bodies was covered with small golden plaques that flaked off when disturbed."? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I might reorder the parts of the museum history, as they're currently achronological, with the Damascus museum reopening introduced before the Syria: Land of Civilizations exhibition. Also, since the helmet started out in the National Museum, it seems a little awkward to say that it is "now" in that collection (implying that's a new state of being); I might instead note that it "returned" there after restoration, or something along those lines.
  • Done.
  • Not to dig on my local newspaper's reportage, but is a Kansas City Times human-interest article the best quality source for the helmet's restoration history?
  • The main source for the restoration is Plenderleith 1956. The Kansas City Times piece is used for two discrete facts: that Herbert Maryon carried out the British Museum restoration, and that there were multiple restorations before the helmet was taken to the BM.
  • Sure. Just seemed weird to have to go to a Kansas paper, when there's no obvious connection. But whatever, it's a reliable source, it has useful information. All is good there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair point, but it's the only source that I could find for those two facts.
  • Seyrig suggested that there was originally attached fabric. Is it worth mentioning further scholarly opinions on the type of non-metallic ornamentation that may have been associated with helmets of this type? A possible place to start might be: Bartman, Elizabeth (2005). "The mock face of battle". Journal of Roman Archaeology. 18: 99–119. doi:10.1017/S1047759400007236. In general, I think this is the highest-quality source you've overlooked.
  • Are comparisons to any other pieces warranted in the context of the Typology section? There's a suggestion that the Emesa helmet is stylistically related to a helmet from Plovdiv, made in: Negin, Andrey E. (2015). "A bearded face-mask helmet from the collection of the National Museum in Belgrade: An example of mutual influences of armament traditions at the Roman frontier". Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 45 (4): 535–547. ISSN 0342-734X.
  • The Plovdiv helmet: another underappreciated helmet, that has quite a history and deserves its own article. I've held off to this point because the sources (see footnote 12 of the article you mentioned) are primarily in Bulgarian and German. I've requested the German sources (unlike the Bulgarian sources, the postdate the publication of the Emesa helmet) from my library and should have them in a day or two (I'll read Bartman 2005 in that time too). I think you're right that it's stylistically the most similar to the Emesa example, but I'm not sure how much the sources will go into it, as it's also an underpublished example.
  • I ran across a single source claiming that the Emesa helmet may have actually been a funerary mask. However, despite clearly referring to the same mask based on sources cited, it claimed the mask was gold rather than silver (I guess that gilt was really important to the authors?). Simply on that grounds, I'm willing to concede that it can be safely discarded. But if you'd like to look further: Despini, Aikaterini; Schürmann, Wolfgang; Gisler, Jean-Robert (2009). "Gold funerary masks". Antike Kunst. 52: 20–64. JSTOR 23296850.
  • That's a related find, found in the same complex. See here and here.
  • And that right there is why I don't write archaeology articles! Out of curiosity, though, is that other piece (and perhaps others?) related enough to warrant a brief mention in this article in the context of, broadly, "other stuff from the same place"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so. I've added some more information about the excavation and the finds from tomb 1 (where the helmet was found), as well as two photographs of other finds.
  • Any idea if the National Museum itself has any commentary on the piece? Their website is entirely in Arabic, and I'm entirely illiterate in Arabic, so I'm afraid I'm no help there.
  • The helmet is shown on their website, but with probably incorrect information (Per Google Translate: Bronze mask of Homs 1. Bronze mask dating back to the first century AD, found in the city of Homs, probably used to cover the dead face.) It's possible there is more information elsewhere on the site. Attar-Aram syria, is there a chance that you would be able to quickly search the website? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have entered keywords in Arabic in the museum's search engine and found nothing. The google translation is more or less correct. The website does not have pages dedicated to particular pieces sadly and I dont expect to find any.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Can't say I'm surprised, but had to ask. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Attar-Aram syria.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, good to have you editing again, and thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think I've responded to everything above, with the most significant change being an expansion of the "Discovery" section. I may also add a few lines elsewhere in the next few days, once I take a look at the article you mentioned, and the literature on the Plovdiv helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It's good to be back to editing. Especially when that means I can help improve interesting articles like this one, which I think is in quite a bit better state than it was just a couple of days ago. One prose question based on the updated content. Is there a reason to prefer "oxidisation" over the rather more common "oxidation"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Spaghetti House siege[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Spaghetti House siege was an interesting hostage situation of the mid 1970s. It marked the first use in the UK of technology to create a live surveillance feed, and the first use of a forensic psychologist who advised the police on their negotiating strategy. The men all claimed that they were acting for political reasons; the police and courts did not believe them, and said it was purely a criminal act. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

The name sounds like a good candidate for 1 April! A few things.

  • three black males entered the Spaghetti House. Presumably the Knightsbridge location? Also suggest this sentence start a new paragraph.
  • It strikes me that rather than divide the action, with the armed entry separated from what staff did in reaction, you might put them together and postpone the robbers's CVs until their individual actions are written of, perhaps make that the final paragraph of the section.
  • "Davies informed police that he was a captain in the BLF;[13][c] a subsequent message said that they were members of the Black Liberation Army, a Black Panther splinter group.[14]" perhaps, if Mr Davies was the source of the subsequent communication, change the semicolon to a comma and add immediately thereafter "and in" or "but in".
  • "Only the request for a radio was granted to them.[6][15]" consider cutting "to them"
  • "but his offer turned down.[1] " I suppose a "was" is missing here before "turned"
  • "one of the hostages was released was a sign of good faith." no doubt the second "was" has a surplus "w".
  • "to kill the hostages.[20][19] " just checking reference order.
  • "One was threaded through the wall alongside a hot water pipe; the second way was through a vent, after acid was dripped onto it using an eyedropper, in order to make a small hole. " I imagine the "it" refers to the vent, but it might be taken to refer to the camera.
  • Do we know the result of the re-trial?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All your comments addressed per your suggestions. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if anything else springs to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt – I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • We have, respectively, "Anne Mchardy" and "Anne McHardy", though I imagine it's the same person
  • The "Real-life Crimes" journal source should be listed with journal articles rather than news articles

In general the sources seem well chosen, are of the required standards of quality and reliability and entirely appropriate to the subject and, apart from the minor points noted, are consistently formatted and presented. A couple of spot-checks produced no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian! Your points both addressed. Cheers, - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:The_spaghetti_house_siege.gif: the "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is significant. Is anything more known about the provenance of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up on the review. I've swapped over the tag to something (hopefully) more appropriate. The image appears a few times on the internet, but not with any indication as to the first publication. I've searched around to see where it could have come from, but without success (although I don't have access to every news source that would have been operating at the time). I've updated the FUR to show the searches I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay. Suggest expanding the purpose of use, and I wonder if there's a mistake in the minimal use section? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, done both, thanks- SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

MOD[edit]

The police used technology as a live surveillance technique, and had audio and visual facilities which monitored the actions and conversations of the gunmen. Is there a missing word? As it stands it doesn't make sense. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I edited this; what do you think? I think it's a bit clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked again, just to clarify a little more. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • In the mid-1970s, the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch. – Based on the "in the mid-1970s" and the following, I assume regularly, each Sunday? Would be good to specify.
  • making it look like he was selling the information to the newspapers – which information? I do not fully understand.
  • In 1976 Horace Ové, a Trinidadian-born writer and filmmaker, wrote the play A Hole in Babylon, which was later broadcast on the BBC's Play for Today series. – What precisely is the link to the Spaghetti House siege?
  • A fictionalised account, The Siege of Babylon, was written by Farrukh Dhondy in 1978. – As above.
  • Otherwise a very good read, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jens, nice spots: I've tweaked them accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments and your support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell[edit]

Another interesting subject! I love these bits of British history you keep picking up! I have a few books that might be relevant; I'll see if they contain anything useful. Some other general comments from reading through:

  • We could perhaps use "police officers" rather than policemen? The Met certainly had female officers in the 70s, and "officer" is more formal
  • Is it worth naming the unit the specialist firearms teams belonged to (which at the time would have been D11 I believe), and maybe something very brief about British police officers not normally carrying guns (Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom exists to link to if desired)?
    • Now added; I've dropped it in the footnote, much as the Embassy siege article does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Was there something they wanted the radio for in particular, or were they just worried about missing The Archers?
  • Introduce and link Robert Mark on first mention
    • I thought I had, but I see it was via a footnote, so added into the body too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You cite Mark's opinion that the perpetrators were common criminals but I wonder if including the blockquote from him isn't biasing the article against their claim to have been acting out of political motivation (you and I and Commissioner Mark might have our own opinions, but the article should let the reader draw their own conclusion). Is there any evidence in support of their claims?
    • Good point. I like Mark's quote as the official line, so I'll see if I can find a counter claim to balance it out; if not, I'll trim his down to balance it that way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a separate quote about their motivations by someone who knew them, which should give an indication that they were "activists" in some sense. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • How did the Italian consul general get involved, and do we need Mark's opinion of his actions?
    • I can't find a reason (outside the obvious inference that the hostages were all Italian (or of Italian extraction)), but I'll keep looking. I've taken out Mark's opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • it's a lynching party." You need a reference right next to a quote
  • Maybe mention the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege (not to shoehorn my own FA in!); although that's more famous for its messy ending, the police used much the same tactics up until the point that a hostage was shot.
    • Yep - used Waddington for that, and his quotes too - they tie up the three parts rather nicely. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • There's a nice quote in Waddington that you might want to use; he brings this and the Balcombe Street siege together and says the British police's "reputation for restraint received dramatic vindication by the way in which two highly publicised sieges were handled by the Metropolitan Police", and "if there was any criticism of the police it was that they showed excessive disinclination to resort to force in such circumstances"
    Waddington, P. A. J. (1991). The Strong Arm of the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0198273592.
  • Waldren's Armed Police: Police Use of Firearms Since 1945 (2007) contains a section on the siege, including accounts from police officers who were involved, and claims (as he's wont to do, being the former head of the Met's firearms unit) that it justified the need for specialist armed police units. Happy to send you the relevant pages if you shoot me an email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Harry, both for the review and for sending through the Waldren and Waddington information. I've dealt with your comments in these edits. Please let me know if there are any further tweaks left, or if you spot any more points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. I'm more than satisfied that my comments have been addressed and the article is in outstanding shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Harry - I'm much obliged to you for your help here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

As Harry says, another fascinating piece of only vaguely-remembered history, very well told. Just a few comments.

Attempted robbery
  • "the managers of the London-based Spaghetti House restaurant chain would close the various branches every Sunday night and meet at the company's Knightsbridge branch" - isn't this actually Saturday night? The robbery starts at 1.30 a.m. on Sunday, which suggests the managers had gathered, and the takings collected, the previous night, i.e. Saturday? I think this would also have made commercial sense. Even though the pre-1994 Sunday trading laws didn't cover restaurants (I think?), Saturday was most likely the busiest night of the week.
Siege
  • Pump action shotguns - don't think this needs capitalisation.
  • "Initially the police considered that the siege was a terrorist incident, but were then dismissive of the potential political element, and insisted throughout that it was only ever a criminal action" - don't have the sources, but this reads slightly oddly to me. As there wasn't actually a political aspect to the robbery, at least in the "official" view, perhaps, "Initially the police considered that the siege may have been a terrorist incident, but were subsequently dismissive of any political motivation, and insisted that it was only ever a criminal action"?
  • "Lord Pitt, the former chairman of the Greater London Council who was also West Indian-born, also attempted to negotiate with the men" - not sure what the first "also" is doing here?
  • "Two cameras were used to observe what happened" - for clarity, perhaps, "Two cameras were used to observe what was happening in the basement storeroom"?
  • "shot himself in the stomach with a .22 rim-fire revolver"- should rimfire be hyphenated? It isn't in the main article.
  • The OED has both, but the hyphenated seems a little older than the non, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Aftermath
  • "were cornered in a London flat, leading to a six-day siege by police" - for ease of recognition, I wonder if you might mention Balcombe Street explicitly, e.g. "were cornered in a London flat in Balcombe Street (, Marylebone)....", or just "in Balcombe Street"?
  • "the use of the Special Air Service to assault the building" - does one assault a building? "storm the building"?

See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1, All your suggestions adopted. I'm not sure "storm" is better than "assault", but I've gone with it for now, and will mull it over. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely fine - it's a matter of preference, nothing more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Not sure why the Daily Mail and the Daily Express but The Times and The Guardian. The latter form seems to me clearly preferable.
  • "While on remand, Davies went on hunger strike." The reader might wonder – well this one does – when he stopped his strike.
    • I've not found any information on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "When asked how they pled" – did what? I think you mean pleaded.
  • I assume because you haven't mentioned it that we don't know when the three criminals were released and what happened to them after that.
    • There is very little information, aside that they all died after their lengthy prison sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

and obiter dicta

  • Mervyn Griffith-Jones – if you get hold of Bernard Levin's The Pendulum Years you will find the most breathtakingly obscene index entry about this hapless lawyer, but that's entirely irrelevant.

That's all from me. Minor points. A clear and well documented account of an incident I remember well, and I look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim, your suggestions taken on board where I can, but there is only limited information on the fate of the men. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I didn't imagine you'd have omitted those points if the information were available, but as it's an FAC I thought I ought to ask. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a v. good read, evidently comprehensive, neutral and – though there are only two illustrations – as well illustrated as possible, one feels, given WP rules. Sourcing looks impressive: a wide range of book references as well as press articles. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Many thanks Tim, for your comments and support: all are gratefully received. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Great article, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • 400 police officers were involved, including dog-handlers and the deployment of D11, the Metropolitan Police's marksmen isn't grammatical, should say ... and D11... was deployed
  • after acid was dripped onto the vent — I assume the vent was metal, perhaps this should be stated, also the type of acid if known
  • Davies, Dick and Munroe died after being released from prison—I don't understand this. Immediately? Within a year? Within ten years?
    • Many thanks Jim - much appreciated. I've tweaked per your suggestions. The type of acid isn't identified, so I've skipped that, and I've added a little more onto the deaths. That's about all the information I have found on them (from reliable sources, that is). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought the acid would be a long shot, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jim - I am very much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Following on from Eastern Area a few months ago, I present its northerly neighbour, North-Eastern Area (NEA), which was right in Australia's frontline of the Pacific War in its early period. You'll find, though, that after an action-packed first year (during which NEA was the recipient of the most memorable two-fingered salute in RAAF history, via a signal by Wing Commander John Lerew) the level of detail in the article tapers off, which reflects the sources and the diminishing importance of NEA in the war effort. The Americans took direct control of USAAF units in the area from mid-1942, and the RAAF formed No. 9 Operational Group (Northern Command from April 1944) soon later, denuding NEA of its forces in New Guinea. NEA continued to operate after the war but had little to do until being consigned to history by the RAAF's reorganisation into a functional command-and-control structure beginning in 1953. As ever, I look forward to any and all comments! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • All sources appear to be from official sources or reliable presses. NewSouth Publishing is also known as the University of New South Wales Press, which might be a better name to list because it is more obviously reliable.
  • ISBN: sources are inconsistent between listing 10- or 13- digit ISBN.
  • A search for additional sources did not turn up anything useful.
  • No source checks done because nominator is an experienced user with several FAs already.

Fix the ISBNs and I will give a solid support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks for looking, Catriona. While I'd agree 13-digit ISBNs should be used where available (and I've changed one where my source used both), the remaining 10-digit ones are all that was available in the editions I used, so I think it best to stick with them rather than convert to numbers my editions didn't employ. Similarly, I've piped NewSouth Publishing to UNSWP since the former is what's printed in my source (tks for pointing it out). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tks for that, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape, and I only have a couple of queries:

  • was there a reason for the USAAF not being under NEA control after the Battle of the Coral Sea? Did something happen during the battle to cause this? Was it the fault of NEA?
    • Just seems to be a facet of the Americanisation of operational tasking at this time (initially raised earlier in that para re. the establishment of Allied Air Forces) -- I've added a bit to reinforce that.
  • I'm left wondering what role NEA had in an air defence sense responding to Japanese air raids within the NEA in 1942–1943, particularly those on Australian soil, Horn Island and Townsville, for example. Could a mention be made of these raids and their targets within NEA during its existence?
    • Added a bit on Horn Island and Townsville raids -- I've kept the detail level fairly high as I think that's consiistent with the rest of the article but let me know if you think more is appropriate.

That's all I have, great work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking a look, PM. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • The chronology of the first two paragraphs World War II jumps back and forth a bit. I understand the flow though and can't see an alternative in making it more chronological without muddying the prose so not technically a deal-breaker as such. Might have a think about this.
    • Yes, in a history such as this I think sometimes it's best to follow a train of thought, as it were, even if it means occasionally jumping a little bit ahead (and then back) chronologically.
  • Also - doesn't state who decided to establish it...?
    • I felt it best to leave the details to the parent RAAF area commands article. The short answer is simply "the RAAF", and I've spelt that out now.
  • Any reason given why the Aus Govt rejected going from 5 to 3 areas in September 1946?
    • It's not much clearer than that, I'm afraid. The source says the Secretary for Air of the time may have been trying to maintain close control of things, but the way it's expressed this could be referring to a general proposal (again unrealised) of decentralising command and control.

Otherwise reads well with no prose-clangers outstanding. I am a neophyte in the area but can't see any glaring gaps in comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Tks for looking it over, Cas -- it definitely helps to have a mix of MilHist and non-MilHist eyes on the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - a nice clean short article that I can't see anything actionable to improve. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Marquesan Dog[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an obscure variation of the domestic Polynesian Dog from the Marquesas Islands. It's also an important look at the cultural significance of the native dogs and later dogs to the Marquesan people. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Was this translated from the German Wikipedia?

No the article was translated into German. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • link totem in lead
  • Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols – "a" too much?
  • they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. – this would mean the breed was widespread in Polynesia? Is "they" referring to dogs instead?
  • Modern dog population on the island are – populations?
  • Millerstrom noted that a majority of dog petroglyphs – a majority of what? Or do you mean "the majority"?
  • Linguistic – Linguistics?
  • They were totem animals associated with the Nakiʻi tribe. – Needs background and clarification. The sentence reads as all Marquesan Dogs are associated with this tribe?
  • The "Characteristics" section is a bit poor. Isn't there anything known from the bones that have been found? Not even the size?
  • The citation in the "Characteristics" section needs explanation. What is the "early post-contact dog"? Could the Marquesans of the past have forgotten what the dog looked like or did it matter how they depicted the dog – Does that mean that the stone carvings were made after the dog became extinct?
  • the first tiki was a megalithic stone head – the oldest tiki or the first discovered? If the latter, why use past (was)?
  • who is believed to have carved both statues – only one was mentioned. Or do you mean "both statues and tikis"? But then, what is the difference between the two?
  • He was informed that – who is "he"? Still von den Steinen? Who informed him?
  • Only one of the dog carving – carvings?
  • The second statue – when discovered, and by whom?
  • Only two carvings are mentioned; these cannot be the only ones?
  • link "canine"
  • article contains both British and American English
  • roles of dog – dogs?
  • "found guilty of sheep stealing about the year 1797 and was banished for the above crime" – citation needs attribution.
  • with a local ruler Keattonnue – "with the local ruler"?
  • another American Captain Brinell – similar language problem to the above point.
  • in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". – I would not give the title of a paper in the text; this is non-standard in Wikipedia.

All in all, the article does not appear to meet FA standards yet. Prose issues will be easy to fix, but there appear to be larger omissions in content (e.g., the petroglyphs are completely lacking from the "Archaeological evidence"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Josh Milburn[edit]

Very interesting.

  • At first glance, the lead feels a little short. For example, it has no discussion of the breed's appearance, and no reference in the lead to at least some of the sections in the article (e.g., on language).
  • Do we capitalise breed names? I.e., why "Marquesan Dog" and not "Marquesan dog"?
  • "Similar to other strains of Polynesian dogs, it was introduced to the Marquesas by the ancestors of the Polynesian people during their migrations. Serving as a tribal totems and religious symbols, they were sometimes consumed as meat although less frequently than in other parts of the Pacific because of their scarcity. These native dogs are thought to have become extinct before the arrival of Europeans, who did not record their presence on the islands." This is not clear writing. You keep switching (grammatical) subject, making it tricky to follow who or what is being talked about.
  • Is it normal to start an article on a dog breed with a section entitled "Linguistic"? It's honestly not clear to me what purpose it serves.
  • "although pero was an alternative for dog (kurī) in the related Māori language" Is it not any more?
  • "They were introduced to the Marquesan Islands by the original Polynesian settlers" When?
  • "The dog is thought to have become extinct prior to the arrival of Spanish explorers in 1595, although some might have survived beyond this point.[5][6][7][8][9] No European accounts were ever written about them. They were thought to be fairly rare and "never numerous in the islands" even before the arrival of Europeans." Again, this doesn't strike me as clear writing. It's a little weaselly (note the passive voice!) and doesn't flow all that well.
  • "Many petroglyphs or carved images of dogs were found near religious centers and chiefly residential areas indicating their venerated status and importance in the culture" Vague.
  • "wondered if they were meant to be realistic." Informal
  • General comment: Don't be scared of redlinks. I wonder if there are a few wikilinks missing where they would be appropriate because we don't have articles on the subject?
  • "There are disagreements[note 1] if the statue should be set in the reclining position as it was discovered or the prone position as it is currently displayed." Grammar.
  • "its original spot" Informal.
  • "In 1956, Norwegian adventurer and ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl later claimed the reliefs on Tiki Makiʻi Tauʻa Pepe were llamas or pumas instead to bolster his theory that Polynesia was settled from South America." Grammar; you don't need later and a year.
  • "Later unidentified writers and rumors have insinuated that Heyerdahl deliberately altered and defaced the images in his process of restoring them." You make it sound like you're reporting gossip.
  • "many dog bone fragments and one dog burial across a few sites" Vague.
  • "Millerstrom summarized these earlier findings and personally analyzed many of the petroglyphs of dogs left by the prehistoric Polynesians in her 2003 paper "Facts and Fantasies: the Archaeology of the Marquesan Dog". She noted that further research needs to be done on the linguistic evidence tracing the movement of dogs within Oceania, the socio-economic roles of dog in Marquesan and Oceanian cultures, and a study into the morphology of the bones and dog burials found in the Marquesan archaeology sites." I don't feel that you're really telling me much, here. Tell us about this analysis!
  • "Dogs of different breeds were later reintroduced by European settlers and visitors to the Marquesas." Later than what?
  • "the Marquesans attempted to steal one of the small dogs on their ships" Unclear. What's the significance of the ship?
  • "Anthropologist Katharine Luomala noted that nothing suggested that these dogs were left by the Spanish." What dogs? Or am I misunderstanding? Generally, this section could be much smoother. It seems to just become a list of mentions of dogs on the island.

Oppose. Based on this first reading, I get the impression that this article is not FA-ready. Sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cretoxyrhina[edit]

Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This is also my first FA nomination and that I will be away from any internet in the next two days (camping), so I will not be able to respond to anything until them. Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Temporary inactivity due to final exams[edit]

FunkMonkJens LallensackCas LiberPraemonitusLingzhi I probably should have said this earlier. I am currently very close to final exams and have been taking time to study for them since a week or two ago, which is why I have not responded to anything at those times. My exams are this week, so I'm giving a notice that I'm going to be inactive in this FAC until they are over by the end of this week. Apologies for the inconvenience, but I'll try to get right back into it when these exams are over. Macrophyseter | talk 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Thanks for letting us know. Praemonitus (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me, I'll continue my review once my comments below have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I will have a look soon. As I stated on the talk page, I think you could go into some more details about that Pteranodon feeding association (now it is only a single sentence with very few details). FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • How much more detail of the Pteranodon association would you envision? I'm not sure what I should add, and am kind of hesitant of adding too much details as it might overshadow the other information. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, for example that it is unknown whether it represents scavenging or hunting, which species of C. is involved, and which formation it is from. Also, the tooth is not embedded in the vertebra: "Though the tooth does not pierce the vertebral periosteum, the intimate association of the fossils—in which the tooth is wedged below the left prezygapophysis—suggests their preservation together was not mere chance". FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I added another sentence about how pterosaurs like Pteranodon were probably easy targets for Cretoxyrhina. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It would still seem quite relevant that it is unknown whether it represents hunting or scavenging, as well as the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It is generally preferred that the subject of an image should "face" the text, and here I'm thinking of the life restoration. Perhaps it could be right aligned, and some of the other images in the Morphology section left aligned. The shark cross section photo could then be right aligned, so it doens't clash with the headers on the left.
    • I've decided to replace the image with Damouraptor's new restoration (which is much, much better than the current one imo), which faces the opposite direction. So I don't really think any change is needed now. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, moot point now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The very long, vertical images also take a lot of space (which makes image placement less flexible), perhaps add the upright parameter without any number, so that they become smaller in general.
  • Kazakhstan and white shark are WP:duplinked.
  • "may have also provided competition." Needs citation.
    • They have citation, but I cited each reference to the certain competitors behind their names as I believe it would be a bit more confusing to cite them all under "may have also provided competition" as it would give the impression that all the sources mention all mentioned in each of them although they don't. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Only thing I wonder about, though, do those sources specifically mention competition with Cretoxyrhina? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I've reread the sources. The paper regarding Dwardius does say that there is likely competition between it and Cretoxyrhina. The abstract itself even says, "The strong numerical dominance of either Cretoxyrhina or Dwardius in late late Albian to early Cenomanian selachian faunas indicates competitive exclusion in these similar-sized, apex predatory sharks." However, it turns out that the paper citing Cardabiodon doesn't actually say anything about competition between the two, but merely that they probably both shared similar ecological roles as apex predators. I've decided to modify the sentence to mention Cardabiodon but not say that it may have provided competition while stating that Dwardius does and we have evidence of it. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The footnotes need citations too.
    • Added. Do you think footnote b seems too obvious to note?
No, statements like "Although this is a clear misspelling" are too strong to be left uncited. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It's already cited under ref 13 (Cahuzac et al., 2007). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This seems to be written in US English (paleo), but you also say "metres", which should be fixed throughout. Probably due to the conversion template (you can add a parameter so it uses US spelling).
  • You don't seem to have added this nomination to the FAC list[9], it seems.
  • "by the famous" A bit too loaded.
  • "with the then Oxyrhina hastalis, Oxyrhina xiphodon, and Oxyrhina desorii" A bit cryptic, you could make it clearer by saying "with the three species then classified in Oxyrhina, O. x, O. y, and O. z."
  • Link Oxyrhina. Perhaps state it is now a synonym of something else.
  • "and placed the shark under the taxon Oxyrhina mantelli" Seems a bit indirect, why not just "sicnetifically named it Oxyrhina mantelli", and why not add "in honour of Mantell?
  • "the third volume of Recherches sur les poissons fossiles" Might as well give the date too.
    • Date of original publication? I can't find any record of the exact date, just the year, which I added. However, in the volume there is a specific date on the preface, however I am not certain if that is the date of publication or merely the date Agassiz wrote that preface. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright, but since you cite it as well, the date must be known? What do other papers that cite it give as date? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Usually, the papers simply cite the years of publications of all the volumes (1833-1843), with some of them also citing the year of the volume used, although not always specifying which volume. Apparently, Quenstedt (1963) titled "Louis Agassiz: Recherches sur les poissons fossiles (1833-1843 "Tableau general":1844)" is said to have the "dates for publication of individual parts" by Lindgren et al (2013). However, I am unable to locate a copy online and the only way I know and to get it is that I have to get it from one of few universities that own a copy (which I physically cannot do). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "describe numerous species that are now synonymized as Cretoxyrhina." Species are not synonyms of genera, so perhaps specify "that are now synonymous with Cretoxyrhina species", or mention mantelli specifically.
  • "According to some, there may have been as much as almost 30 different synonyms of Cretoxyrhina at the time" Likewise.
  • There is also an issue of chronology, I wonder if it's best not to use the name Cretoxyrhina until the part of the text where it is actually named? For example, sentences like the following are a bit misleading, because they use a name that was not yet in use: "This all changed with the discoveries of a number of exceptionally well-preserved skeletons of C. mantelli".
    • Based on the scientific papers I've read, when dealing with a taxonomic mess such as a generic dispute, some authors prefer to refer the species by the original scientific name. Although I don't see this being done when laying out the taxonomic history of an undisputed species, I could try that and see which the general audience (in this case you?) would find least confusing. I also removed the direct mention of species or replacing them by terms like "the shark" as an alternative to ease some of the uncomfortableness. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
It is a judgement call of course, and up to you in the end. In Stegoceras, for example, I did it chronologically (so that when the species included were moved to Troodon, I refer to them as such afterwards, until Stegoceras is resurrected again). In Istiodactylus, I use the original genus name Ornithodesmus, until the new genus is named. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you could spell out and present Charles R. Eastman (he does have a German Wikipedia page) first time outside the quote.
  • "and consist of a partial vertebral column" Consists.
  • "of a "Portheus" (Xiphactinus audax)" Do we really need that many confusing taxonomic details about another species here? I would just give the current classification.
  • Perhaps you could mention specimen numbers of some of the important skeletons in the history section; since you only give the numbers in later sections and captions, it is now hard to correlate them.
  • This is more of a personal opinion maybe, but I usually find it frustrating that etymologies are not given in the text when the naming of a new taxon is mentioned. Now you have it grouped in an "etymology" section, but I wonder if it would make more chronological sense to distribute it to the relevant parts of the history section. For example after: "and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina". Adding etymologies to these sentences would also make more logical sense to me: "He separated the taxon from Oxyrhina and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina.[14][19] He also identified a second species of Cretoxyrhina based on some of the earlier Cretoxyrhina teeth which he named Cretoxyrhina denticulata".
  • As an extension of this, I wonder if the taxonomy section should become a subsection of the history section. They seem to be somewhat arbitrarily split now (the history section deals with naming and placement of new species and genera, hence taxonomy).
  • "Zhelezko (2000)" Present with full name and occupation.
  • "This species would also be moved into Cretoxyrhina" By who and when?
  • "shed new light on the understandings of the shark and, through his new methods, other extinct animals." Is an "and" missing here?
  • "meaning "from Agassiz", named after Lake Agassiz where the species was discovered" It might be worth noting that the Lake itself was named after Louis Agassiz, which is kind of mind blowing, since he named the type species too...
  • "The common name Ginsu shark is a reference to the Ginsu knife" By who and when? I guess it is a relatively recent name.
  • "Vraconian substage of the Albian stage" Links needed. Also goes for many other geological times mentioned in the article.
  • There are a lot of bald statements without attribution under Phylogeny and evolution. For example "These species represents a chronospecies" and everything in the paragraph, and "Cretoxyrhina is most like the modern great white shark" and so on.
  • Also, it is still very inconsistent whether you give full names or not to authors mentioned. You should check this throughout the article.
  • "Tooth size peaks around 86 Ma during the latest Coniacian and then begins to slowly decline" Why sudden change in tense?
  • "by Isurus appendiculatus (Cretolamna appendiculata), which evolved into Isurus denticulatus[c] in the Mid-Cenomanian, then Isurus mantelli (Cretoxyrhina mantelli)" Seems confusing with all these alternate names without explanations. You should state specifically if it is because this particular study referred to the species that way.
  • "The study claims that the absence of corresponding fossils during the Maastrichtian (72-66 Ma) was not a result" Unnecessary present tense. Arbitrary tense shifts seem to happen a lot, check throughout.
  • "Traditionally, Cretoxyrhina is grouped within the Cretoxyrhinidae" Any reason why you lump together the entire history of classification until recently in one sentence?
  • Now you jump from the affinities of the genus to discussion of chronospecies, but then back to affinities of the genus again. Perhaps better to order it so that the two paragraphs on affinities succeed each other.
  • The life restoration could state what it is based on in the Commons description page.
  • You could link terms like Tylosaurus and Cretodus in then image captions.

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 3: link does not seem to go to the stated source article. I'm getting a message, in French: "Lien permanent vers cette page" and an "address blocked" pop-up
    • Probably site got banned at your location, because it works fine for me even using different IP sources. Still changed to an alternative link. Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 6: 1159=1181 should presumably be 1159–1181
  • Ref 14: p. range is whole book. Can you be more specific?
    • Specified. But when citing books you're only supposed to cite the pages that you are sourcing from contrary to journals which cites the pages of the paper's place in the journal? Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 37: source is student thesis
I think the question with this and the dissertation below is whether they are considered reliably published sources. I have used theses too, and though it is iffy, if they are cited and discussed in peer reviewed published papers, it would establish their importance. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a reason not to cite PhD theses (though Bachelor and Master theses are a different matter). PhD theses are high quality sources and are frequently cited by other academic papers; we cannot ignore them. We could think about indicating the type of source in the text though (e.g., "in a 2003 PhD thesis, …"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 42: publisher information missing. Top Predator Publishing Company
  • Ref 55: publisher information incomplete. ISBN links to a specific book publication
    • Changed link to an actual paper copy. Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 58: give date rather than year of publication
  • Ref 62: source is student dissertation
    • Isn't it already cited as one? (Wikipedia citation templates treats dissertations as a type of thesis) Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: What makes ThoughtCo. a high-quality reliable source?
    • I had doubts about it myself, but my GA Reviewer thought that the author of the cited articles could be reliable as he was a well-known paleontologist and an author of three books related to that field. If that still doesn't cut it, I'm happy to remove the section altogether. Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources seem to be of appropriate scholarly quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Interesting topic. However, the prose is not yet of the high quality expected for a FA. I did a copy edit to the lead trying to resolve some imminent issues there [10]. I may go on with the remainder of the article, but it takes time, of which I currently have very little; I thus cannot promise anything right now. If you could get a good copy-edit, that would be awesome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll try and look at copyediting in the next day or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Cas Liber[edit]

looking now....

  • ...as a close relative of the then three species and named in honor of Mantell - does losing this lose any meaning?
  • In para 2 of Research history - if we make the first sentence mention the 30 synonyms we can delete the last sentence of the paragraph (reduce redundancy)

Praemonitus[edit]

I found most of the article to be a decent read, with the exception of the lead. For me it has too much of a "gee whiz" tone. The first two paragraphs need to adopt more neutral tone and the apparent hyperbole and unnecessary vagueness needs to be cleaned up.

  • "The common name of the type species, C. mantelli, is the Ginsu shark, first popularized in reference to its theoretical feeding methods being comparable to that of the rapid slicing and dicing when using a Ginsu knife." This sentence is an awkward read. Can it be improved?
  • It seems like there are instances of unnecessary vagueness, redundancy, and/or hyperbole in the lead: "many exceptionally well-preserved skeletons", "most extreme hydrodynamic features", "powerfully kinetic", "very large eyes", and "grew extremely rapidly". In all of these cases, relative to what?

Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • 19 instances of "CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al." If you wanna limit the number of authors, you can use the display-authors parameter.
  • 17 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Courbet (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Courbet had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. The article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and I believe it to meet the FAC criteria. That said, I hope that reviewers will catch any infelicitous prose and unexplained jargon that might remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size - suggest scaling up the deck plan using |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

  • I'd put the date she was launched in the lead - it does look odd that there is "(1911)" in title but then is 1914 in lead...
    • I don't think that it confuses readers as you're the first person ever to say anything about that sort of thing in any of my ship reviews.
  • After the war ended on 11 November, Courbet and her sisters returned in succession to Toulon for a refit; - why "in succession"?
    • I was trying to establish that they were refitted one after another, but it's really not relevant to the ship's history. So deleted.
  • The first sentence in the World War II is pretty long. I'd split it.
    • Done.

Otherwise reads well. I am not an expert in the area but there don't appear to be any glaring gaps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Moise[edit]

Hi Sturmvogel. I'll start a review of this article in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(First read-through) Background and description:

  • "By 1909 the French Navy was finally convinced of the superiority of the all-big-gun battleship like HMS Dreadnought over the mixed-calibre designs like the Danton class which had preceded the Courbets." There may be missing context here. Why "finally" and what had been their reasoning for taking the opposite point of view until then? Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Previous doctrine used a mix of a few slow-firing, heavy-hitting guns to penetrate armor and lots of lighter, faster-firing guns to damage everything else. Problem was that the latter were becoming larger themselves and misses were harder to distinguish from the main armament, so controlling them was more difficult. This will have to be discussed in more detail in the class article as it's not really relevant to this ship's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, how about at least removing the word "finally"? It gives the sentence a possible subjective feel, and it raises questions for the reader that are not answered within the article itself. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right that it does sort of invite a deeper discussion of the topic. Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Construction and career:

  • "The ship was ordered on 11 August 1910[7] and named after Admiral Amédée Courbet." Feels like a bit sudden introduction to the subject, as the ship hasn't been mentioned yet in the main text, and until now there has only been mention of the Courbet class of ships in general. Possibly in this sentence you could say something like "A lead ship for the Courbet class was ordered on..." Or "Courbet, the lead ship for the Courbet class, was ordered on..." By the way, is it common for classes of ships and their lead ship to have the same name? This could be confusing for laypeople like me, and if there is clarifying info about this that you could include in a footnote, it could be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added her name to the beginning of the Construction and career section to better orient the reader. The description section is intended to be generic for all the articles about the ships in the class, with only differences being specifically called out, as they were for Courbet's boilers in the first paragraph of the section. The class name is usually, but not always, the name of the first ship laid down or launched. Some classes have a theme or all use the same letter of the alphabet like A-class destroyer or Weapon-class destroyer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • May I recommend "The ship Courbet..." to begin the sentence so it is clearer you are moving away from discussion of the class to the individual ship? Also, how about a footnote saying that the class name is usually the name of the first ship laid down or launched? As I mentioned above, this would be less confusing for people who don't know much about ships. If you can't find a source that says so explicitly, another option would be to say in the footnote: "The ship Courbet was the first ship launched in the Courbet class. Other examples where a class name is the same as the first of its ships are XXX, YYY, and ZZZ." That way readers can understand there's a trend behind it. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I dunno, all that's explained in the lead ship article. I don't think it's something that needs to be elaborately explained in an individual ship article as people can simply click on the term if they want more detailed information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I’ll take a closer look at them and type up some more comments soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

World War 1:

  • May I suggest a wiki-link for metropolitan France? I didn't know what it meant, maybe other readers don't either. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Good idea.
  • "On 1 July the Armée Navale was reorganised with Courbet, Paris and Jean Bart assigned to the 2nd Division of the 1st Squadron on 1 July." It looks like one instance of "on 1 July" needs to be removed. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Interwar years:

  • "On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western Mediterranean Squadrons (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale)". The French-in-parentheses is after just "Eastern" in the first instance, but after the whole phrase "Western Mediterranean Squadrons" in the second instance. May I suggest one of the two solutions below for a parallel structure:
  • On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and Western (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale) Mediterranean Squadrons, or
  • On 1 July 1919, the Armée Navale was disbanded and replaced by the Eastern Mediterranean Squadron (Escadre de la Méditerranée orientale) and its Western counterpart (Escadre de la Méditerranée occidentale). Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I like it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

World War II:

  • ”After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training until after the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940.” Two instances of after in the sentence. May I suggest “From the beginning of World War II...” Moisejp (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I like it. Do you think it would be better combined with the following sentence as per PM's suggestion below or is it better in its current state?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead "that same month" isn't closely enough associated with August 1914 in the text. I suggest "She helped to sink the Austro-Hungarian protected cruiser SMS Zenta[Note 1] that same month, and spent the war in the Mediterranean."
  • I think Note 1 is unnecessary in the lead, most readers will assume it is a ship prefix used for Austro-Hungarian ships.
  • after introduction, should Boué de Lapeyrère just be Lapeyrère per the usual treatment of the German "von"?
    • I don't think so as I believe that they're more a like hyphenated surname in English. Jordan and Caresse use the full version consistently, so I've followed their practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "them a range of 4,200"
  • suggest "which were mounted singly in casemates in the hull"
  • the TT conversions don't match between the body and infobox
  • where were the TTs located?
    • Added.
  • Boué de Lapeyrère is the same one that was the Minister? Perhaps explain that he retired as Minister and returned to sea service as a Vice Admiral, as when I read it I assumed he was a brother or something until I went to his article to check.
  • suggest 1st Squadron→1st Battle Squadron for clarity, there is another example
  • rather than sometimes use the French name for a unit and sometimes use the English, I suggest sticking to one or the other. ie 1st Naval Army and 1ère Armée Navale/Armée Navale
    • Yeah, I hadn't realized that I'd switched between them so often.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "cruiser Zenta in off Antivari,"
  • comma after "after sinking Zenta" to break up the sentence
  • the italicisation of the guns irks me for some reason, particularly when there is barely any French involved, or it is mainly an acronymn ie 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G. The article titles aren't italicised, so I don't think the links should be.
  • do we have a first name for Charlier? Redlink given he was an admiral?
    • No, one of the frustrating things about Jordan & Caresse is that they have a list of all the admirals who used the ships as flagships with dates, but no first names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "2nd Battle Division" if that's right?
    • The French Navy didn't differentiate them at all, unlike squadrons which were "du ligne", etc. Usage is inconsistent. An OB for 1914 didn't have them, but one for 1920 did, so perhaps things changed. At any rate, I've decided to standardize on Battle Division, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • do we know where she underwent her 1920–1921 refit? Toulon?
    • Oddly enough, it seems that I confused Courbet with some other ship for this bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • some guns aren't linked, and I can't find an article on them. Redlink them?
    • I think that I found enough inferences elsewhere to link them to existing guns, though the best sources don't have anything on either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • just for consistency, perhaps No. 2 turret→forward superfiring turret?
    • Not my preferred solution, but since I have no idea how the French designated the wing turrets, it will have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Courbet and Paris continued training, but following the German invasion of France of 10 May, they were mobilised on 21 May 1940 with augmented crews and assigned to the command of Vice-Admiral Jean-Marie Abrial for the defence of the French ports on the English Channel."
    • That's originally how I had it, but one of the ACR reviewers suggested that that was too long a sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest " by the Allies during Operation Aerial."
  • suggest "Dambuster Raid, also known as Operation Chastise."
    • I think that flipping those is better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest stating that she was successfully scuttled as a breakwater (if that is what happened) and what landing beach she was scuttled off?

That's me done on primary review. I'll also take a separate look at the sources etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the thorough review. I think that I've covered all of your comments, so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All the sources used are of high quality and reliable, and what one would expect on a French ship of this vintage. Formatting looks fine. Spotchecks not conducted (AGF'ed given Sturm's long history at FAC). My main queries relate to the Further reading section, in that two articles specifically about this class haven't been used as sources, and that the latter Gardiner and Chesneau source doesn't have anything extra to say. For that reason I'm wondering if this is actually comprehensive in terms of reflecting the available scholarship on this ship. I am also left wondering about what relevance to this ship the Curtis source has? Finally, the EL - is netmarine.net reliable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See my respons on the article's ACR
I think that netmarine.net is reliable because it's not generally editable and doesn't appear to be the work of any one person. But the key thing is the photo of the monument commemorating Courbet's service at Normandy which acts to further confirm the dates on which she was attacked, etc.
I've deleted Conways as its more of a general reference.
Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 15 postal covers incident[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... an unfortunate incident during the space program. Since its previous appearance here, it's had a rename, a GA review, a copyedit by the GOCE, several philatelic sources added, and the extent to which it relies on government sources diminished. I haven't tried to eliminate them though because although the Winick and the Faries sources follow the transcripts, they fuzz on detail I'd like to see in here, but in combination with the original sources should eliminate any OR concerns. As I said before, I am trying to be very careful on BLP issues as Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden are alive. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • the astronauts of Apollo 15, who carried about 400 unauthorized postal covers ... One hundred were sent to Eiermann (and passed on to Sieger); the remaining covers were divided among the astronauts ... Worden had made arrangements to carry 144 additional covers — How many covers? It starts out sounding like 400, but ends sounding like 544.
I see your comment below. I'll respond to both together (I want to look at the article and think about it)
I've added it to the lede.
  • that the Herrick covers were being sold — Is the passive voice (which I don't mind personally) intentional, i.e., was Herrick not the (only) one selling the Herrick covers?
It mentions that he placed some on commission later in the article, so yes.
  • The Sieger matter became generally known in June 1972. — How?
Clarified.
  • One of the covers given to Sieger sold for over $50,000 in 2014. — Surely that isn't the only one that has sold?
It's the highest price. Nine have now come to auction, undoubtedly others have been sold privately.
Posting just the highest price seems a bit misrepresentative. The market may have shifted between 2008 ($15,000 for one of the 298) and 2014 ($50,000 for one of the 100), but I think it would be better to state a range, or at least note that it is the highest.
I see it as more as highlighting the exceptional over the relatively ordinary. I find it is best not to have things in a way that you have to update when another cover is sold. Do we say "highest as of 2018"? I could say something like "highest auction price to that point" if you like.
Either way works. I get what you mean. My concern is that Wikipedia is full of both ordinary and extra ordinary things, and sometimes it is unclear which is which.

Background

  • Cancelling them became a major duty of the employees of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) post office on space mission launch days. — Perhaps a sentence or clause here explaining why collectors like(d) postal covers to be cancelled
Maybe I'm wrong, as postal mail is going out of style, but isn't it self evident the collectors would want a postmark of the date and place of launch?
  • they were not offered for sale until 2018. — How about a footnote with sale prices?
I just included it in the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Die proofs, perforated by hand were used rather than actual stamps. — This could easily stand being put this in the main text.
Possibly, but what I really want is a very brief summary of Apollo 15, with a nod to the philatelic angle, so I don't have to mention it much later. This slows things down and isn't greatly relevant to the covers this article is really about: the 400 and the 144.
  • Scott catalogue numbers 1434–1435. — At this risk of slight redundancy, it might be worth including the catalogue as a reference here.
The use of Scott catalogue numbers is pretty widespread, including on the Internet. I don't think I have a Scott's catalogue around, I could source to web pages that mention the relevant numbers, if you like, but I think they are OK on their own.

Preparation

  • Sieger's name was not mentioned in the approach to the astronauts. — Perhaps "Eiermann did not mention Sieger's name when he approached the other astronauts."
Done, but I've omitted the word "other"
  • To ensure their families were provided for given the severe risks and dangers of their profession — I'm sure that's what they said, but it seems a bit generous for the article to assign to them without qualification a single, benevolent, motive.
That is what they said, and NASA, in the press release that announced the reprimands, mentioned it. It's also mentioned in the Justice Department opinion (1979). This is an area where we have to be careful due to BLP.
See what you think about my working, attributing it to the press release. I don't mean that the article should suggest they were lying, simply that we should be careful with the idea that we know what people's thoughts are.
  • Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235. — From their jobs as astronauts? It's unclear.
The source does not go into greater detail. They were, after all, active duty military on assignment to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Irwin had concerns about the deal — Again, this suggests knowledge of an individual's thoughts.
It is his autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
All we know is that he said those were his thoughts; we don't actually know for sure whether what he said were his thoughts were indeed his thoughts. George W. Bush's autobiography says that he didn't notice the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and that in any event it was not a proclamation of victory but simply referenced the crew of the ship having finished a long deployment. Could be true; could be false. (That's a long-winded way of saying this sentence would be fine as "Irwin later said he had concerns about the deal".)
Actually, my mistake, it's the Chiakin book, not the autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to cut that. Chiakin interviewed Irwin, but the sourcing in that book is not very clear, and without that it is hard to say he said it later. Better just to cut it.
  • See Chaikin, p. 249. — Why not just a normal reference?
Because then it would give it a footnote number, based on its position in the text. I feel that looks odd numerically so try to avoid it by using the Harvard Reference.
As long as it's cited it's fine, so no worries if you're varying formats. For the record, vying for consistent footnote numbers is a bit of a losing battle, since idiosyncrasies occur every time a footnote is reused. The article currently goes "[37] ... [22] ... [38]" and "[52] ... [4] ... [53]", for instance.
  • Because the Apollo 14 crew had accepted no money, they were not disciplined. — Then why did they fly the medals/give them to the Franklin Mint?
They got to keep the ones that were not given back. However, they did not sell them. At that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Slayton reduced the number of medallions each member of Apollo 15 could take along by half. — From how many to how many?
Doesn't say. There were two types of medals on 14: the Franklin Mint medals, and the usual Robbins medals. There were 200 of the first and about 340 of the second. But that leaves what 15 was allowed to carry a bit unclear.
Perhaps then change "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied the medallions" to "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied 200 medallions" with a footnote after "medallions" stating that about 340 Robbins medals were also flown.
The relevance of the Apollo 14 medallions is that they put NASA on notice of the problem of commercialization and caused Slayton to warn the 15 astronauts. The Robbins medallions were not commercial and really aren't very relevant to the story of the postal covers.

Creation and spaceflight

  • a commercial artist — Who?
Added.
  • Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface — Saying "the cover" rather than "a cover" makes it sound as if this was already mentioned in the article (it wasn't) or that it was a regular occurrence. Was it? Additionally, a transition (such as "Additionally,") might be warranted to lead off the sentence.
It is included in the background section.
Where?
The one he cancelled on the Moon.
The first day cover? Nothing in "Background" says that the first day cover came from the USPS (other than in the technical sense, e.g., how one could say of all American stamps that they come from the USPS). Instead, in "Background" it sounds as if he cancelled a random first day cover, and in "Creation and spaceflight" it sounds as if he had been given a specific property-of-the-USPS cover (and not specifically a first day cover) to cancel. If you're just trying to find a place to link United States Postal Service, there are probably less-confusing places to do so, or you could mention it in both sections.
Oops, good point. I will clarify it was from the USPS.
  • Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12 — I'm getting confused by the numbering. These are part of the 400, or in addition to?
I've hopefully clarified a bit. It's 398 (or 400) plus 144 plus 97 plus 2.
  • Scott catalogue number C76. — Same as above re: reference.
Ditto response.
  • Like other items being placed in the pockets on Scott's space suit (for example, his sunglasses) — I'm really hoping this was so he could forever after rock sunglasses that had been in space. Yes/no?
I would think it was so he would know what was in his pockets. The sunglasses was given as a specific example.
I mean the reason for bringing his sunglasses along for the flight.
I believe it was NASA equipment. I've read elsewhere that the pocket for the sunglasses were on one of his arms. Presumably there would be glare from the Sun.
Shame, was rooting for the Space-Bans.
  • about 641 covers aboard. — This is what I was looking for. Perhaps state this in the lead, and differentiate between those that were authorized and those that were unauthorized.

Distribution and scandal

  • Sieger offered the covers to his customers, selling them at DM 4,850 (about $1,500 at the time), with a discount to those who bought more than one. — How did he market them? What is $1,500 in 1972 dollars equal to in 2018 dollars? What was the discount? Also, might be worth reinforcing here that the agreement was that the covers would not be sold for some time.
I do not have anything that really says this was the deal, only that the astronauts said that was the deal. I have very little coming in from the Sieger/Eiermann side. I asked NASA if they have the investigative file, they say they don't. Presumably they would not ruin their own careers intentionally, but I don't feel I have anything definitive on the Sieger/Eiermann view of things.
He sent out a mailing. I don't know about the discount. I will add the bit about the mailing. I'm not thrilled about inflation templates. I think the monthly pay gives the reader enough context to appreciate the prices.
  • Herrick sold three himself, at a price of $1,250 — Each, or total?
Each.

Aftermath

  • See August 3, 1972 hearing, pp. 15–16. — Why not a regular reference?
See above re reference number.
  • In 1978 the department issued a report indicating that while the government might have some claim to the Herrick covers, it probably did not to the others — Why? It would seem that since the Herrick covers were the only authorized ones, they would be the ones the government would have least claim to.
The official writing the opinion felt that there was greater evidence of commercialization re Herrick. There wasn't any evidence that the astronauts planned to sell the 298, they said they were for gifts, and went about getting the covers made very openly. It's fairly thick legal prose.
Perhaps worth a half-sentence explanation
  • An Apollo 15 postal stamped cover that was one of the group of 298 impounded by the government — Any word on how many of these the astronauts still have>
No one, except I imagine Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden, know, and I gather from Col. Worden's autobiography that they are not on speaking terms because of this incident. Colonel Irwin is dead and I really looked for info about his selling his covers, because as a evangelical minister, he led expeditions to find Noah's Ark and I would have loved to be able to tie that in.
  • A Sieger cover sold in 2014 for over $55,000 — Are the Sieger covers more coveted than the 298, and if so, why?
  • one of only four Sieger covers to come to public sale since the initial distribution. — Details of the other three?
Of the nine auction sales of Sieger covers, this was the highest price realized.
The article states that four have come up for auction. So nine sales of the four covers?
It was the fourth, then, and that is what we say. Five others have come up for sale since then. There are pages that list them, we don't have to.
Got it, and agreed. You could add a footnote if you're so inclined, but up to you.
More or less does.

References

Because I'm working from a copy of the reprint. And I notice they do Britishize (Britishise) the spelling.
  • #38 — Retrieval date not needed, since the link is just a courtesy
Done.
  • #44 — Perhaps spell it out; "AAMS" is not a commonly understood acronym.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • #99 – Should "Schneck, Harold M. Jr." instead be "Schneck Jr., Harold M."? Also, why no NYT link for this one?
I have reproductions of some of the print coverage from then, they were included with the transcript. That also explains #113. And Jr. has been moved.
  • #113 — The NYT articles are also paywalled (maybe others too), but this appears to be the only one you put the subscription required template on.
Probably because this was the only one I got off their database, the other were reproductions as stated.
The subscription template is less about the reference you're using, and more a warning to readers about the link they're about to click on. In general, you might also consider more links as a courtesy to the reader. Even if they require a subscription, some readers will have them (especially with more common sources such as the NYT).
  • #7, 8, 9, 14, 22 — Is the publisher Chris Spain, or space-flown artifacts? I would think "Chris Spain" would go in the last=/first= parameters. Otherwise, you might consider doing separate publisher=/website= parameters.
It is his website but he did not necessarily write the pages. I'm not sure there's a need to repeat what the reader can get from examining the URL, or just clicking.

Sources

  • Fletcher/NASA — Are these not available on Google Books or another non-subscription site (e.g., a government site)?
Only on Congressional ProQuest that I've seen. A shame because it's an interesting document, especially when the committee stumbles over the fact they were put on the lunar lander. I can email you a copy if you send me an email.
  • New York, NY — Several of these. Totally discretionary, but perhaps best rendered simply as "New York City".
I am going to let it stand. I just had to deal with "New York" by itself being insufficient in the last FAC.
  • Winick 1973 — Missing publisher location, and "pp."
It was self-published by the philatelic group.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, it's a journal. They published this thing annually. The pages seems to be how it is intended to be rendered.
Perhaps the location of the group, then, unless you've refrained since "Chicagoland" is self-explanatory.

Wehwalt, the award for 'best way to conclude a Wikipedia article' is all yours. Great read. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged, I knew gold when I saw it. The credit goes to Slate. I think I've gotten just about everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response, Wehwalt. A few more comments are above, and I think the one about whether Sieger covers are more coveted may have been overlooked amidst the others. See what you think of them; the only one I'm waiting for a response on before supporting is the one about the USPS. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't overlook it. The Sieger covers are certainly highly prized, but other than rarity I didn't find anything that says they are more prized than the group of 298. They all went to the lunar surface, after all. I've added the bit on the postal service. Many thanks for your thorough comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure, I enjoyed reading it. Support added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, and seasons greetings! Very interesting article. I have a few comments, which I will get to soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Background:

  • "On August 2, before finishing the final EVA and entering the Lunar Module, Scott used a special postmarking device to cancel a first day cover provided by the United States Postal Service of two stamps": The wording "a first day cover ... of two stamps" seems unclear to me. He cancelled two covers (envelopes with a stamp on them), right? Would "A first day cover ... of each of two stamps" work better? Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Two stamps, one cover. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I see. How about "on which were two stamps" instead of "of two stamps"? Such wording would have prevented my initial confusion. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Done with slight variation.

Preparation:

  • Minor comment, but David Scott's name is wiki-linked in the captions of both images of him (necessary?). In the first caption he is called "David R. Scott" but I think everywhere else simply "David Scott". Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure you mean is two pictures of him necessary, or the middle initial necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Two pictures is fine, just wasn't sure that two wiki-links to his name were necessary. And I meant it is probably good to remove the middle initial for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "Scott also told the committee that he had met Eiermann at a party, rather than through another astronaut": Does "another astronaut" mean Slayton here? Either way, it seems unclear.
Scott is directly responding to a question from committee member Lowell Weicker "Did you meet him through another astronaut?" "No, sir. I met him just in a casual conversation at a party ..." Slayton due to a medical condition even though he was one of the Original Seven astronauts was not on flight status. He later flew on Apollo-Soyuz. Scott said this in 1972. In the commentary in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to Scott cancelling the stamps on the Moon, I find "[To complete the stamp story: in May 1971, Deke Slayton (Dave told me in a 1996 letter) introduced Dave to a German business man named Horst Eiermann who proposed that, in addition to the 250 authorized first-day covers, the crew take along and cancel 400 additional covers for later resale - 100 for each member of the crew and 100 for Eiermann." Then he mentioned Slayton in his 2004 memoir. Slayton died in 1993, and he doesn't mention introducing Scott and Eiermann in his own memoir. I didn't see the need to mention the Lunar Surface Journal, it's enough to note that there are different versions. I guess the bottom line is that it is unclear if Scott includes Slayton under "astronauts".
  • "and that the first Slayton knew of the space-flown Sieger covers was in April of 1972, following an inquiry from a member of the public": I wonder whether this detail would be better later in the article, perhaps in Distribution and scandal or Aftermath sections. But it's just an idea, and I don't have a specific spot in mind. I understand where it is now is meant to contribute to the question of whether Slayton was there at the earliest meetings, but on the other hand the actual flying of the "space-flown Sieger covers" has not been mentioned yet in the main part of the article, so from that point of view the detail seems possibly a tiny bit out of place. Anyway, see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've cut it. Slayton's attitude is made very clear from the excerpt from his memoir.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the time, Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235": The first time I read this, it took me a moment to understand that "earned" refers to their regular monthly salary as astronauts (right?), and I first read it as some kind of monthly distribution of the $7000 previously mentioned. Of course I soon realized this reading doesn't make sense, but would it be an idea to clarify that this refers to their regular salary from NASA, to avoid any momentary confusion such as I had? Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixed.
  • "These would be split" / "with the space-flown covers to be divided between the two of them". Is the second of these necessary? It seems to have already been established in the first of these. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Nice catch. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation and spaceflight:

  • "Collins of the Mission Support Office”: I know he was introduced already with his full name and role in the Background section, which is quite a way back, so the reader may need a reminder, but this re-introduction with last name and role feels nonetheless awkward. I’m not immediately sure what to suggest as an alternative here. If you have an idea, great, otherwise I’ll try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to disambiguate from Michael Collins of Apollo 11, which would be my first thought if I came upon the name Collins in a NASA related article.
  • "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden, Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12, carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon, wife of Apollo 12 astronaut Dick Gordon." Is this supposed to mean 97=1+8+87? If so, is there one missing? Also, I gather all 97 were carried for B. Gordon—if so, would it be an idea to add "all carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon", so it's clear it's not just the 87? And maybe put a colon after "97 covers" to make it clearer what follows is a breakdown of the 97, and not additional covers.
Good catch, it was originally thought to be 88 for Gordon but later sources have it as 87. The 97 is just addition, it should be 96. The others were not carried for her, and this is made clear later in the article when Irwin gives away two of them to people not named Gordon. I'll mull over rephrasing.
  • I wonder whether it'd be an idea to start a new paragraph at "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden". I initially got a little lost in this paragraph, especially by the time it gets to "Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface of the Moon." I think breaking up the para could help. Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I did that too. In anticipation of the objections that 87 rather than 88 alters the math, I've footnoted an explanation with reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Distribution and scandal:

  • "One of Irwin's covers was given to Rhodes and one to the president of the Kennedy Space Center Philatelic Society; Irwin said in 1972 that he had retained the other six." These are the eight Apollo 15 ones, right? It could be better to specify this (unless you already have and I missed it) because Irwin carried lots of other covers.
  • There are lots of numbers throughout, especially of the various distributions of the different groups of covers. This is unavoidable, but it can be a little hard to keep track of for the reader. Just an idea: What about a table somewhere, possibly in a footnote, that summarizes important notes and the fate of different groups and subgroups of the covers? There were about 641 total, right? You could break that up into initial big groups of the 144 Herrick ones, then the 400 Eiermann ones, and the 96 Irwin ones in another group. Then break these up into subgroups, e.g., among the Irwin ones there were various configurations; and likewise the various subcategories of the other groups. You could decide the most important information to include in the table e.g., authorized or unauthorized, sold or unsold, carried onto the Falcon or not—these are just examples, I'm in no way saying this is necessarily the best information, just that there is lots of information throughout the article about the different groups that potentially could be included in the table. You could also possibly have a Notes column in table for open-ended details. Anyway, this table idea is just an idea. Feel free to ignore if you don't think it'd be useful. Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done those. Table making is not my strength, but I've added one. I don't know if it is possible to add pictures. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The table looks great! Moisejp (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. When I get some time I'll look into how to put images in there. I borrowed the coding from United States Bicentennial coinage. The articles you've worked on become a resource you can draw on, I've often cut and copied the quote box in Garret Hobart for use in other articles. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Precious little from me. The article was in fine shape the first time round, me judice. If I strain every nerve to be pernickety:

  • Lead:
    • "Worden had made arrangements" – perhaps just "Worden had arranged" or "…had agreed"?
  • Background
    • "The mission set a number of space records" – some reviewers (not me) get shirty about "a number of": substituting "several" might head them off here.
  • Creation and spaceflight
    • "teflon-covered fiberglass" – is Teflon now regarded as a common noun, not to be capped? I think it's technically a trademark. (But then so is Fiberglass, now I look it up.) As so many words are common English but technically trademarks – "hoover" etc – I don't like to express a view either way about capitalising here.
  • Sources
    • Faries, Belmont: "covers" presumably, rather than "coers".

That really is all I can find to carp about. A fascinating article, comprehensive, balanced and v. readable. And I echo Usernameunique's praise of the delectable envoi. Happy to support again and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and I concur with your dictum. Absent the trade names, which I think should be left lower case, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Placeholder so you can bug me if I forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 04:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • On ref 104, per WP:SIC, However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Since the slip is not contextually important, recommend fixing it.
It's a title of an article. It may be important in a search.
Hmm, I do not feel strongly about it, I typically go with the guidelines to try to keep the 'pedia consistent. Leave it however you wish though. Kees08 (Talk)
As two reviewers have at various stages flagged this, I have done as you requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On ref 118, use agency=Associated Press
Done.
  • On ref 121, do not think you need website=RRAuction
Done.
  • In the Notes section, why not use citations normally instead of adding See Winick, pp. 87–88.
Because then you get footnote numbers used down there, well out of apparent order. This doesn't happen in paper sources because their pages are shorter than ours. Accordingly, I use harvnb referencing within notes.
  • Citation 7 (and other similar ones) should probably have Space Flown Artifacts as the publisher and Chris Spain as the author (excluding pages where he was not the author)
He appears to be the copyright holder for the site. See here. I don't see why it is better to have a URL than the guy's name who is actually putting it in front of the public.
I see it as Space Flown Artifacts is the corporate entity that published it (so would be in the publisher field), and Chris Spain is the author of it so would be in the author field. I feel mildly stronger about this, but not very. Kees08 (Talk)
I have changed the publisher field to "Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain)"
  • Citation 10 should be July 8, 2009
Fixed.
  • Citation 9 is missing the date
Fixed.
  • Page number for citation 67, 104, and any other similar newspaper citations?
  • At least The New York Times is overlinked; scrub the article for others
I'm not certain on this one Kees08. The reader isn't reading sequentially through the references, and if he's examining reference, say 199, it does him little good to have the source name linked on ref 122, he won't see it. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are right. Multiple reviewers have asked me to only wikilink it in the first instance, and I blindly followed without looking up the policy. Apparently, per our policy, " Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". So ignore that point. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Before I scrub all of these, would you mind scrubbing through and looking for things like missing dates, author names, etc? I will take another look after. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through and added a couple of dates, Kees08. Not every page is dated, not every author listed, but I don't see any obvious omissions or I'd fill them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it is tough to get them all. I am actually doing another scrub on Aldrin's article and finding a few. I just realized when I was going through your article that NYT puts the page number at the bottom of the article...had never noticed that before. I will continue going through the article today. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I've finished the above. Thank you for the comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Should it be Apollo Program or Apollo program? The article has it the latter way.
I think the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Knowing what a Sieger cover was would have helped before the Armstrong auction :)
  • I'd break this into two sentences (suggestion only) The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers; though they returned the money, they were reprimanded by NASA.
I think there'd be some difficulty in the second part standing on its own. I'd like to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It could be worded as The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers. Although they returned the money to NASA, they were still reprimanded. Style choice though, to each their own. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The "still" in that bothers me, as if they should not have been. Although the language of the reprimand was not made public, I would expect it went beyond the simply taking money.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could get rid of "apparently" Apparently due to an error, they were not included on the list of the personal items he was taking into space.\
I'm not in favor, really. All we have is Smothermann's word for it. The circumstances are hazy enough that I don't think we should take it as gospel. If we grant that Slayton knew, as suggested by the Sun-Times reporter and supported by the conclusion of the Justice Department that NASA may have known about the covers, then they wouldn't have to be on the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Where is the citation that supports that information? (not asking you to include it in intro, just wondering). Would it be possible to say that Smotherman said the omission was due to an error or that It was reported the omissions was due to an error? I think "apparently" sounds a little inexact and unencyclopedic and would like to avoid it if possible. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It's in Fletcher's letter to Anderson, which is the report requested by the Senate Committee. I just feel it's an awfully thin reed to base an unconditional statement on. Maybe "likely" for "apparently", or "Due to an apparent error"?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would modify this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, warned to this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor Deke Slayton warned. Just my personal preference probably, sentence is pretty choppy. Only for the intro, in the body more detail is acceptable
  • Do you know if the Soviets did? The American astronauts participated in creating collectables.
I have no idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lunar module pilot should be lower case since it is not being used as a title Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure what happened with this ref, but the link goes to collectSPACE and should be cited as such. (ref 9 right now) "Neil Armstrong collection commands $5.2 million at auction". Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain). November 5, 2018. Retrieved December 28, 2018.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would de-link aircraft carrier per WP:SEAOFBLUE and the fact people probably know what one is. by the aircraft carrier USS Okinawa
  • Looks like the target article uses lower case, probably should here for consistency use the Lunar Rover.
  • There was just some relevant talk about exact times on the Apollo 11 talk page, probably applies here as well and remained there for just under 67 hours.
I've read it. I think people are not coming here for exact timings on Moon stays, there's the main 15 article for that. They're coming here to read about the scandal, and so we can just paint the general mission picture for this set of readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Should it be tenth? Not sure if the typical rule applies for that. the 10th anniversary
I've changed to "tenth".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You and I know that the life insurance is not from the stamp dealer or from the stamps, but you may want to squeeze in there that Time used to give previous astronauts more money and higher life insurance than later astronauts (if I remember all that correctly). Otherwise, with where it is in the paragraph it implies it has to do with the stamp dealer. Earlier astronauts had been given free life insurance.
I will rephrase. I think the whole issue of astronaut life insurance is a bit complicated to include here. My understanding is that no Apollo astronaut flew without life insurance, and the 15 astronauts in their memoirs talk about life insurance but they never actually say they didn't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I've explicitly mentioned Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For some reason this sentence sounds odd to me; not sure if rephrasing it would help Herrick arranged for a commercial artist, Vance Johnson,[39] with whom Worden discussed the design, resulting in 100 envelopes depicting the phases of the Moon.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you tried using Dick here? for a friend of Astronaut Gordon
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What time zone? the Moon at 9:34 am on July 26, 1971
Added EDT with a link on the earlier time mention, 1 am. I think the reader will get we're on the same timeline.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty good so far!
Thanks. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that I am caught up on comments on the other articles, I will get through the rest of the article soon. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Good read. Only one point: I'm confused about the single cover canceled on the moon (during the first read, I assumed it was part of the scandal, which it seems not). Any more on this? Was this ordered by NASA, was it officially authorized? What happened to it? I also wonder why this info appears in the "background" section only and has no mention in the "Creation and spaceflight" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned that it and a backup were on the flight. It is today in the National Postal Museum, see here. I could certainly mention that if you feel it should be included. I think at one point I mentioned that it and the backup were returned to the USPS, it was flown at their request. I can put in as much detail as necessary, but was getting concerned about length and focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I think a brief mention that this was done on request by the USPS would avoid confusion. I personally would also add that they were returned to the USPS for completeness (If you already mentioned it, I can't find it). This way, it would be entirely clear that these covers were not sold for the astronaut profits or anything. I would furthermore recommend to amend the image label "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon" to "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon on request of the United States Postal Service" or something similar to make this clear to people who do not read the whole article (because if you see the image without reading the article, you will mistakenly assume that this was in the center of the controversy). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • Support. Just one point for consideration. The final sentence in background ("On August 2,...") seems a little out of place for before the launch etc. These details could be included slightly later in the article, without losing focus at the front. Whatever you decide on that point, my support still stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support. I think this needs to be here so it's not a distraction from the other covers. I'm trying to get the operational parts of the mission out of the way in Background or I fear things will get too complicated in the spaceflight section.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Will start now. Kees08 (Talk) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • File:Sieger cover.jpg - a slightly weird one because it is a photo of the cover, but I believe the copyright information is correct as-is.
  • File:Apollo 15 (15012200679).jpg - Requires personality rights warning per NASA (I can try to find the document if you want, it is on one of the John Glenn reviews). Maybe replace The Commons licensing with NASA's actual licensing? Also, why is the time in the date?
I'm not clear on what you mean by replacing the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you point me to an example of the personality rights? Because I just looked at some of the images in the Glenn article from 1962 and didn't see anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, sorry for the ambiguity. From NASA, NASA astronaut crew patches are also permitted on merchandise, but in some instances NASA may recommend that the names of astronauts be removed from the patches to avoid issues relating to endorsement, or rights of publicity.. I interpret this to mean c:Template:Personality rights needs to be added to the patches. Do you agree, and does that make sense? Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That template and the Commons policy page linked therefrom seem to apply to photographs of people. Maybe we could just reproduce the text you mention, possibly in a non-copyright restrictions box?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've experimented with it here but I don't know if it will survive on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That is a fair point. Would you be able to turn it into a proper template so I can add it to other crew patches? Obviously not as a part of this review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
All I did was substitute the words you used for the word "empty" in this. I have never made a template on Commons, but will be happy to cooperate or learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've cut the date. I tried uploading a new version from the page you cited, but got a message that it was identical to the current version.
Right, you changed the link to the source, which is what I was looking for. Kees08 (Talk)
Subbed.
  • File:As15 flown phases of the moon cover.jpg - the licensing information should match File:Sieger cover.jpg
  • File:Apollo 15 Flown Cover.jpg - I do not think you can say it is PD because it is a government work and also say it was created by a non-government employee. Three items on it are works of the government and covered by that, and the presentation of it in the frame is by David Frohman. It looks like they meant to release that portion of it as PD but technically did not...

Nikkimaria have ideas on this?

Probably best just to crop down to the cover itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, that would be the most straightforward solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Done and I've cleaned up the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've now standardized the licensing as PD-no notice as there was no copyright notice.
Should the source still be 'Own work', since we are just left with the US government portions? Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the wording, will look at the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Apollo 15 prime crew.jpg - well, this feels kind of stupid, but...from the template NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". The Flickr source indicates NC, which is not compatible w/ the Commons. So since it is noted, unless you can get explicit permission through an OTRS ticket, I think we would have to delete it (and all the other images in that Flickr album...) from Commons. Nikkimaria, thoughts on this one?
I've just changed to the image of the crew from the Apollo 15 infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
File:The Apollo 15 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001169.jpg - the description is not from Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (which is good, because it would be a copyvio), so you should remove that bit. The date also does not match ALSJ. I would replace the source link with this NASA link, which is likely where the high resolution version came from. It has the same date as ALSJ, which does not match the date we have listed. Should be able to remove who scanned it since you would not be using the ALSJ scan. Kees08 (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)\
OK, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

When Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is the source, you could include who scanned it in if you wanted to, but it is not required. They are on this page.

I have, on the image pages.

That should be all. Let me know if you have questions or disputes. Kees08 (Talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, Kees08, I think we're up to date. I just need the info on the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support for images. I do not think adding personality rights warnings is required, and it gets a little ambiguous when we should/should not include them anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support. Note to coordinators: I think what Usernameunique and Kees08 did was the equivalent of a source review as well. However, if you need me to go out and get an explicit one, I'll list it. Otherwise I don't see any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: . See note just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur that a sufficient source review has been completed. Thanks for the ping. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

For the stamped covers, I think you need to specifically distinguish between the portions covered by the template {{PD-US-no notice}} and the stamps, all of which are public domain per {{PD-USGov}} that applies to all US stamps per-1978. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done that now. Thanks. Good catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I fixed another one for you. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Staten Island Railway[edit]

Nominator(s): Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the only rapid transit line on Staten Island. The railway first opened in 1860 to serve the residents of the island. In the 1880s two additional lines were built and the original line was extended to a new terminal at St. George. Since then the two additional branches closed, leaving the original line. Before I started editing the page–unbeknownst to me–it was completely copied out of a book by an abusive user. I did research in the New York Times archives, through books that I own, and through books and documents that could be viewed on Hathitrust or Google Books. I nominated the article to be a Good Article, and it passed. The review was not thorough enough, and statements were copyrighted. I fixed the issues and it was kept as a good article. Because the history section became so long, it got split off into a separate article, History of the Staten Island Railway. Since then I have worked on providing better sources, more accurate information, and additional information. I nominated this on April 22 of this year, and in response to comments made by Nikkimaria I replaced some SPSs and standardized some sources. The nominations subsequently stalled, and was archived. I hope that a more thorough discussion of the article can take place to determine what changes need to be made for this article to become a Featured Article. I look forward to working with other editors to resolve these issues in a constructive manner. For those taking up time to review my nomination, I thank you in advance for taking the time to do so. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Source Review Comments by Catrìona[edit]

I should get to this today or tomorrow. Catrìona (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Source numbering based on the permalink to the current revision: [11]

  • All of the notes look like original research to me.
  • Sources of concern:
  • 8, 130–132, 134: nycsubway.org is a non-official wiki, according to its homepage.
  • 12, 36, 128: I can't think of a circumstance in which I would accept a Google Doc as a source. It's one thing to cite a self-published book, which at least won't change its contents. And, also per Nikkimaria's previous comments, if Bommer has not made any publications in this area, I don't think he meets WP:SPS.
    • See pages 4 and 6 of [12] --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • To add on, I think the Google Drive (not Doc) PDF may be a re-publication of a print document. Google Drive is commonly used as a file hosting site. It seems like this was originally created for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Historical Society Convention in 2003, but was put into Google Drive in April 2015. epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 26: Slightly less dubious than a Google Doc, but still a SPS by Bommer. The website cites no references and lists no sources; it's unclear what editorial control and fact-checking the historical society is using.
  • 30: Page number needed
  • 34: Secret Staten Island looks like a glorified blog
  • 50: Get rid of the link to gretschviking.net unless there's proof that they have permission to post the copyrighted newspaper content.
  • 67, 77, 78, 102, 127 silive.com Seems to be a minor local news organization; I cannot find information about its editorial practices. However, at least some of these citations are duplicative of more reliable sources and could be removed.
    • Removed. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • silive.com is the website of The Staten Island Advance, a long-running local newspaper, and the namesake of parent company Advance Publications, a major newspaper-publishing company with papers around the country. It's a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Seconded. It is not a "minor local news organization", but rather, a major regional newspaper (it covers Staten Island, a locale with a 500,000+ population, and has done so since at least the early 20th century). It's just that the Advance's web hosting platform is not conventional for a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 100, 109–110, 113–114: I don't think that an image from Flickr, Wikimedia commons or on Wikipedia could be used as a source to support article text, per WP:UGC and WP:NOR. When citing a report, cite the original not where you got it from.
  • 117, 124–126: A personal website is not a RS. Also, I fail to see how these photographs could support the article text without original research.
    • What exactly is being cited by the photographs that you have issues with? There aren't any policies that specifically prevent photographs from being used as sources, if the items pictured in the photograph are easily visible and obvious to the viewer. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 135: CurbedNY is a blog network, according to its Wikipedia article. Not a RS.
    • No, it is a reliable source. It's set up like a blog because of the commenting system, but every article published by Curbed is based on verifiable information, such as real estate listings and press releases. (Also, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for determining what is a reliable source...) epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Whether it is based on verifiable information has nothing to do with whether it is a RS. What matters is the editorial control and fact-checking. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, it passes that as well. It is more of a news blog, like the Wall Street Journal's or New York Times's blog sections, than a true blog. But you could bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you have further objections. epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Formatting issues:
  • 25, 71: fill out this citation, it seems incomplete
  • 49: Be consistent about publisher locations; all or none.
  • JHU Press—I would write out all publishers, and link the first occurrence.
  • Books, pdfs, and archived news sources (for example 31; NYT is not going to issue a correction for a story written in the 1920s) should not have retrieval dates since they are not live webpages subject to change.
  • I would get rid of via anything, since that's already obvious in the url and just serves to advertise Google Books or other websites.
  • All print sources should have either ISBN or OCLC, if published before ISBNs came into use.
  • I'm opposing due to serious issues with several of the sources, and recommend that the nominator withdraw the submission in order to resolve these issues before nominating again. Catrìona (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Catrìona, I'm just getting to this now partly owing to time differences and partly to commenting on general discussion on WT:FAC, and would like to hear your thoughts on the above responses before considering any action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate Kew Gardens' quick effort to fix some of the issues listed above. However, I'm skeptical about the arguments that the Bommer sources are reliable, per above. It seems like if they are to be used, it might be best to withdraw this nomination and establish consensus on RSN first. Since this is not a complete source review, I am changing the title to "comments" but I am still opposing for the moment as I don't think my concerns have been adequately addressed. In particular, I am concerned about the two sentences in the lede which are supported by photographs, which seems like original research to me. Whether the nomination is adequately prepared is something that the coordinators can assess. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Which policy specifically prohibits the use of images, per Epicgenius's comments?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: I am not sure if you saw my comments.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I did not realize that you changed your username, which is presumably why you have not gotten my pings. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks again for taking up my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I thought I had been pretty clear above. For the photo, as WP:UGC, it fails WP:RS, even if it weren't clearly original research to derive the claim, "Express service is noted on trains by a red marker with the terminal and "Express" underneath it.", from a photo with minimal text. In addition, there are still several references to nycsubway.org, more UGC. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Some of the images on nycsubway.org were taken by Marc Pitanza. Some of his other images are in the Staten Island Rapid Transit book published by Arcadia a part of its Images of America series and are accepted as reliable. In fact, some of his images in the book are on nycsubway.org. How does just being on nycsubway.org make it. Per WP:OR, original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source. In addition, To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Current source 123 is directly related to the topic as it is an image of the spur for the West Shore Branch of the railway. It supports the material being presented by showing that the connection between the two has been severed. It is clear that it was not photoshopped in any way. The date is accurate and the location is accurate. The picture taken was not done for a personal motive other than to depict the state of reality, and the present condition of the spur. The only citations referring to nycsubway.org are images. I removed the red marker note because it is too esoteric, and does not belong in the lead. In my previous FA nomination for the article I showed that Ed Bommer (in Tajik) A thorough response would be appreciated. While it seems like that this nomination is on the path for failure, I have the intent of doing as much as I can so it can pass. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I am not sure if you have seen this response. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

I conducted this article's first GA review and missed the copyvios the first time around. Sorry about that. Anyway, it seems like a few phrases in the "Freight Service" section still copy from other pages. Otherwise, I think the copyvio issues have been largely resolved. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire. It copied from an older version of this page. There is a [18] in the text, which comes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staten_Island_Railway&oldid=639526848 --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: In response to your question in SN54129's section: Yes. There's still too much detail in a few paragraphs, when they can be summarized in just one or two sentences.
For instance, consider condensing this paragraph in the 20th century section: The number of SIRT passengers decreased from 12.3 million in 1947 to 4.4 million in 1949 as passengers switched from the rail line to city-operated buses due to a bus-fare reduction. On September 5, 1948, 237 of the line's 492 weekday trains were cut; express service would be reduced during rush hours, and all night trains after 1:29 a.m. would be cancelled. Thirty percent of the company's employees were laid off. On September 7, 1948, Staten Island Borough President Cornelius Hall continued to rally against the SIRT cuts at a Public Service Commission hearing in Manhattan. Commuters testified that trains were missing ferry connections and being held at the St. George Terminal during rush hour to wait for double boatloads of passengers; the trains had previously pulled out after each ferry unloaded. On September 13, 1948, the SIRT agreed to add four trains and extend the schedule of four others. Nine days later the Interstate Commerce Commission allowed the SIRT to abandon the ferry it had operated for 88 years between Tottenville and Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and the ferry operation was transferred to Sunrise Ferries of Elizabeth, New Jersey on October 16.
This is a whopper of a paragraph that most readers will skip over. Since there's already a history article, we only want to give the key points in the history section. I would say that this section would benefit from an inverted pyramid style of writing, except on a smaller level. If you must write about a certain event like the 1948 service changes, I think you should only include the most essential info - for instance, that train service was reduced by more than half, and after backlash, service was slightly increased and the ferry to Perth Amboy was abandoned.
If you have time, look over the section again, but with a neutral perspective. I suggest printing out a copy of the article and then looking to see what else doesn't absolutely need to be in the history section. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I will do so. How is this not in a neutral perspective? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I cut it back. Is it sufficient?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, by "neutral" I meant someone who is looking at the article as a reader, not as an editor. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I'll look at it tomorrow while I'm on the Staten Island Ferry. epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment from SN54129[edit]

Here from WT:Featured article candidates#Staten Island Railway. I see MOS issues also, per WP:FA?.2, regarding both WP:LEADCITE and MOS:SANDWICH. These points are certainly easier to rectify than the OR concerns indicated above but are also less fundamental. ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH Dealt with–thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the issue. I will see what I can do with WP:LEADCITE.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your helpful comments. I have been working to resolve both of these issues. If possible, could you evaluate what I have done and offer more suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to look at my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Should I split off the service information in the lead into a part of the Current use section and modify the Passenger service section? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: Sure. That sounds like the best thing to do, actually. Maybe we can include one sentence about the service pattern in the lead. Something like this: SIR operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing local service between St. George and Tottenville, along the east side of the borough. The fare-free aspect and the peak express might be the only other things that need to be included from what is now the second and third paragraphs. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks for the suggestion. How do you think I should split up the passenger section?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Is there anything that should be removed entirely from the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: I split it up into accessibility and former lines sections. I think you're giving too much weight to the opening of the Arthur Kill station in the "Passenger service" section; it only needs one or two sentences at most, not an entire paragraph. You should also try shaving a few details off the History section. It's more or less 15,000 characters of prose; this entire article has 30,000 characters of prose, so there's still a lot of detail about history, relative to the rest of the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Also, should the former lines subsection be merged in with the Branches and stations section? I will see what I can cut back.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Should I cut back the history further? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Are there any other issues you found? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Nick-D[edit]

There are quite a few links in references section to newspaper stories sourced via NewsLibrary.com, but none of these seem to work without an account there. Are these links of any value? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I have removed them. Are there any other suggestions you have concerning the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from Harry[edit]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is still open so I'm assuming the coordiantors want to see some more feedback, but I'm guessing the reason it's not attracting any substantial commentary is the outstanding oppose above. A bit of a rock and a hard place. I'm afraid I agree withe Catriona/Buidhe that this article is not based on high-quality, reliable, third-party sources. It appears to be based on various (24, to be precise) documents from the MTA website (which, as the owner/operator of the system, is not a third party), when it needs to be based on books and other histories published by heavyweight publishers. You also have multiple questionable sources. For example, what makes the following high-quality reliable sources:

  • The Third Rail Online (FN6, cited 22 times)
  • A Google document (FN9, cited five times)
  • Jersey Central Railway Historical Society Chapter
  • New York Railroad Club
  • progressiverailroading.com
  • gretschviking.net
  • nycsubway.org

Add to that that the formatting or the references is inconsistent and messy. Publishers locations are not compulsory but generally included in FA-level articles; likewise, books and other multi-page sources are usually listed in a separate bibliography and cited short form inline. The "work" field in citation templates is for the name of the publication, not the web address (eg |work=Wikipedia, not |work=en.wikipedia.org); if there isn't a name, leave the field blank and just use |publisher=. I'm seeing inconsistent capitalisation and missing punctuation in titles (eg Free ride to commit a crime Elimination of fare for most on the Staten Island Railway allows trouble-causing youths to get on and off at will). The formatting issues alone in my opinion show that the article is not FAC-ready. If they were the only issue, I'd be willing to offer help and advice, but there's no point in neatly formatting references to to self-published sites and user-generated wikis, because those will never be acceptable sources for a featured article candidate. I know this is disappointing. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the sourcing needs major work before it's ready for FAC. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, cite every piece of information to the strongest source you can find (books for the history, news articles for specific events; the MTA is fine for operating details) and then re-evaluate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you so much for being willing to look over the article. I understand that there are many issues, and while it seems unlikely that all will be able to be dealt with on this nomination attempt, I intend to work hard to resolve any issues that exist with the article. I have removed the links to the New York Railroad Club, progressiverailroading.com, and significantly reduced the usage of the google docs and the JCRHSC. The Third Rail source is a transcribed version of a book, which should be okay. I will look to reduce use of documents from the MTA website. I don't know how the use of images from getschviking.net and nycsubway.org don't work. Clarification here would be appreciated. I will work to deal with the formatting of the references. While you suggest I withdraw this nomination, I will not do so, since I believe that I can fix the aforementioned issues. I hope that you will provide additional feedback that will help me deal with these issues. Thanks once again for taking up the nomination and for throughly mentioning major flaws with the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I have fixed the work field and added the locations of the publishers. Would you suggest I add New York, New York for the New York City newspapers as well? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm happy to offer what advice I can while you work on addressing the sourcing issues. My best recommendation would be to find the best, most reliable, account of the SIR and use that for everything you can, then use news articles to fill in the details, and other sources to fill in any gaps. But user-generated content is never going to be an acceptable source, and hobby sites and self-published sources will only be acceptable in rare cases.
And no, newspapers don't need locations; they're standard (but not compulsory) for books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks so much. What is the issue with using images as citations? The images were not photoshopped, the dates were not altered to misconstrue the facts, they were taken objectively–with the goal of showing how the South Beach Line and West Shore Lines looked at that particular time, the locations that these images are supposed to be of correspond with their actual locations. I have also fixed the capitalization and missing punctuation issues. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jomo Kenyatta[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent figures in twentieth-century African history: Jomo Kenyatta, the first President of Kenya. A prominent anti-colonial activist who spent time in both Britain and the Soviet Union, he later underwent several years in prison, accused (likely falsely) of masterminding the Mau Mau Uprising against British colonial rule. On being released, he was elected Prime Minister and soon transformed Kenya into a republic with himself as President. A conservative who pursued a Western-aligned path during the Cold War, he is often known as the "Father of Kenya". Since getting the Nelson Mandela article to FA status a few years ago, I have worked on improving articles about other African post-colonialists. This article was brought to GA status in November 2017 and I believe it now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:The_entrance_to_the_Nairobi_Railway_Station_in_1899.jpg is not own work - looks like the uploader's had a number of other images on Commons deleted due to copyvio
  • File:Julius_Nyerere_cropped.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I have not been able to ascertain this so have switched to another picture of Nyerere: File:Julius Nyerere (1965).jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Kenya_presidential_standard_JOMO_KENYATTA.png: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have found a web source and added it to the original Wikimedia Commons file. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

A couple of minor MoS points:

  • ISBN formats should be standardised
  • Publisher is missing from the Murray-Brown book

Generally: I don't have access to most of the sources (the Elkins book, which I do have, is alas only "further reading"), but as far as I can see the range, quality and reliability of the sources useed is beyond question. I note that among the biographical works the most recent was published in 1972; is there no more recent study of Kenyatta's life that could be used?

As part of due diligence I will spot-check some of the JSTOR articles. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the 1972 biography of Kenyatta by Jeremy Murray-Brown is the most recent monograph to explicitly present itself as a one-volume biography. However the two volumes written by W. O. Maloba and published in 2017 and 2018 are, essentially, a biography of Kenyatta, even if they are not explicitly described as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I have now formatted the ISBNs in the Bibliography section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
And I've also added the publisher location for the Murray-Brown book! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Spot-checking reveals no further problems: all sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's review[edit]

Ooof, this is big. But no one else has taken it on yet, so I'll have a go. May take a while.

  • Childhood: c.1890–1914 - in the first paragraph, it might be worth noting that he was given the name Kamau at birth - since it isn't obvious.
  • they were shamba folk, shamba is not linked or defined but it is in italics- some help here for non-experts?
  • I checked the RS and it doesn't really go into great detail on this matter. I think the best thing is just to remove "shamba" altogether here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys, with Wambui deciding to take her youngest son to live with her parental family further north. a slight non sequitur - if Ngengi was harsh against all three boys, why only take one, and in fact leave two that were not his own with him?
  • That I do not know, I'm afraid. I'll try and avoid the non sequitur by shifting the wording slightly to "Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys, and Wambui decided". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Several months after arriving, Kenyatta was taken ill with tuberculosis.[16] this doesn't really link to anything, is it needed?
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer, I meant the whole sentence. The whole sentence fails to link to the wider story, and can go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I see. It can go; I'll take it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The order of the paragraph starting Kenyatta's academic progress was unremarkable, is a little disjointed - it jumps around temporally.
  • I've made some minor edits here that I hope deals with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a general problem of "so what?" about some of this early life stuff. It would be nice to provide more context as to why it matters or possibly how it ties in with his later philosophy, if its possible. Example In 1913, he underwent the Kikuyu circumcision ritual; the missionaries generally disapproved of this custom, but it was an important aspect of Kikuyu tradition, allowing Kenyatta to be recognised as an adult. It would be nice to be more explicit about how it was his choice, as clearly he placed some importance on his maintenance to his customs over western ones.
  • The English is a touch choppy too, and perhaps a touch archaic or old fashioned? - example Asked to take a Christian name, he chose both John and Peter after the eponymous Apostles in the New Testament. The missionaries however insisted that he select only one, and so he chose Johnstone, the -stone being selected because it was a Biblical reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914 might be better as Asked to take a Christian name for his upcoming baptism, he first chose both John and Peter after Jesus' apostles. Forced by the missionaries to choose just one, he chose Johnstone, the -stone chosen as a reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914.

Okay I'll continue to review later. On the whole I'm impressed by the level of work that's gone into this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Many is doing a lot of seemingly contradictory work in these two closely related sentences. At the time, the British Empire was engaged in World War I, and the British Army had recruited many Kikuyu and and like many Kikuyu he moved to live among the Maasai,
  • I've changed the second instance to "other"; do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • a Church Mission School. should this be in caps if not referring to a specific one?
  • I was following the example of the reliable source cited here, but you're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use capitals here. I'll switch it to lower case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the suspension was in response to his drinking I assume that this was just drinking while the member of a dry Christian sect, rather than some form of alcoholism, but it would be good to clarify
  • I think so, although I'm not sure how to add extra information on this point without making the sentence in question a little unwieldy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Kenyatta lived in Kilimani, maybe clarify that this is a )posh) neighbourhood in Nairobi.
  • Various political upheavals occurred in Kikuyuland Kikuyuland as a region/territory is neither explained or linked here.
  • Unfortunately we don't seem to have an article on that topic although many articles already make reference to it. I've added "the area inhabited largely by the Kikuyu" on its first mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the summer of 1929, he left London and visited Moscow via Berlin, alleging that the trip had been financed by an African-American friend. He returned to London in October. Re: my theme of significance above, is there anything significant about this visit? If not, why include it?
  • Traveling so widely in this period was fairly uncommon; even more so for an African. For that reason, I think it has some pertinence. It is something mentioned by he biography and my concern would be that, were it omitted, another editor would come and re-insert it, perhaps without the appropriate citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this further, I think that there probably is extraneous detail here which can be removed. I will endeavour to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • issue and Thuku's exile, with the atmosphere between the two being friendly.[70] Following the meeting, Grigg convinced Special Branch to monitor Kenyatta. I think an in spite of this might link the two sentences together )in front of following. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. There are a few points that I have yet to address as I wish to consult the sources, but I will get to them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • He was soon joined at the mission dormitory by his brother Kongo;[19] the longer they stayed, the more that many of the pupils came to resent the patronising way many of the British missionaries treated them in the context of the sentence, the they seems to imply that the brothers were responsible for all students coming to resent the missionaries.
  • A fair point. I've broken this into two sentences to try and correct this misimpression. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • During his time in the country, Kenyatta also visited Siberia, probably as part of an official guided tour. This sentence seems out of place in the start of the paragraph it is in which is mostly around Afro-Soviet relations, and can probably be moved to the previous paragraph for better flow.
  • Yes, it will work well being moved. I shall do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the structure of the two paragraphs on Facing Mount Kenya is a little off. The critical reception/impact of the book is split up into two places, towards the end of the first and then second paragraphs. It also seems a touch weird to lead with the photo on the cover when discussing it, possibly the least important thing about it.
  • I see your point. I've re-organised the sentences in those paragraphs so that the critical/reception element is all moved to the second paragraph, as is the discussion of the book's cover image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • they were assisted by Kwame Nkrumah, a West African who arrived in Britain earlier that year. why not Ghanaian? Better yet "Gold Coast (Ghanian) activist"
  • If I remember correctly, I went with "West African" because I wasn't sure if "Gold Coastian" was really a proper term, but your proposed suggestion looks good to me so I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • in which he again blended political calls for independence with romanticised descriptions of an idealised pre-colonial African past. it's not clear where he did so before? Facing Mount Kenya I assume? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I could get rid of the "again", if you like? Or change "again" to "as in Facing Mount Kenya"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay let's keep going: Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • accepted a post on an African Land Settlement Board, holding the post for two years how did this square with his earlier opposition to these boards?
  • Also more generally, why is there no article on these boards to link to? (No action required, just a question)
  • The section Presidency of the Kenya African Union: introduces two extra wives (along with the one added in UK) again it would be interesting to track the development of his social thinking in this area, given that he felt compelled to have a proper Christian wedding for his first, assuming any sources can be found
  • founded as the only political outlet for indigenous Africans in the colony what does this mean and why was there only one? It seems odd that no other parties would have been founded before this
  • party business was conducted in Swahili, a language spoken by many groups. the last bit is a touch odd, maybe Swahili, the lingua franca of indigenous Kenyans.?
  • Kenyatta publicly distanced himself from the Mau Mau. and in private? It's not clear from the following sentences what he felt in private, some suggest his private views matched his public, others are more ambiguous. Whatever Kenyatta's views on these developments, suggests he it may not be known - if so this should be made explicit.
  • In the section on the trial, it would be nice to put some contextual information around the two locations as they are both noted as being far from anywhere in Kenya - example Lokitaung, in the far North West of Kenya or Kapenguria, a remote area near the border with Uganda that the authorities
  • They assembled an international and multiracial team of defence lawyers, maybe "The defendants" instead of "They"?
  • he faced government harassment and death threats. I'm guessing he didn't receive death threats from the government so maybe rephrase slightly
  • and the others were freed in July 1953, although immediately re-arrested. "Only" might work better than although"
  • It is likely that political, rather than legal considerations, informed their decision to reject the case. on the one hand this seems massively understated, on the other I can't shake the feeling that the opinion needs an attribution. It's a shame no one has dug through British records to confirm what seems manifestly obvious
  • Ghana's President Nkrumah—who had met Kenyatta during the 1940s— earlier in this article it was stated they did more than meet. Moreover, as we are reintroducing him it may pay to elaborate on that somewhat - Kwame Nkrumah - Kenyatta's fellow activist from the 1940s and now president of a newly independent Ghana or something to that effect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just starting this,

  • I might try to be a bit less verbose in the opening paragraph. Since he was the first prime minister, he is self-evidently the first head of government, indiginous or not.
  • Would not the preceding Governors of Kenya be considered head of government? Bear in mind that there were a little over forty years in which Kenya was run by white governors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Infobox: Wouldn't the president's predecessor be the Queen?
  • Difficult to say. She was the previous head of state, but not the President of Kenya. I don't really mind either way, so long as we make things clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "exiled in" Is he exiled if it is in Kenya?
  • I think "exile" works here; he was restricted to a particular area, far from his home. I certainly don't mind changing the term, however, if something better arises. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "internal exile" is the usual phrase, but don't bother linking it - just redirects to exile & is not covered, which it certainly should be. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "he was given the honorary title of Mzee and lauded as the Father of the Nation, securing support from both the black majority and white minority with his message of reconciliation." this has a bit of a feeling of hagiography.
  • I tried to mirror the style of the fourth paragraphs in the A-rated Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin articles, and wanted to balance both the praise and criticism that he had received. Would you recommend any specific alteration of prose in this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I will look at your responses, and say something if I have more to say. Otherwise assume I'm satisfied.
  • " Wambui bore her new husband a son, whom they also named Muigai.[10]" A fine point, they had not named anyone Muigai, so the also is a bit dicey. If you feel it is fine as is, don't feel obliged to make a change.
  • I don't really mind either way, but having "also" perhaps just helps to make it clearer that this isn't the same Muigai mentioned shortly before (not that anyone should confuse them, but you never know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys," I might say "the" for "these", there are no other boys mentioned.
  • "Having completed his apprenticeship to a carpenter," I would say "the carpenter" as you have mentioned a specific person before, the mission's carpenter.
  • "World War I" maybe "the First World War", if this article is written in British English?
  • "who had refused to fight for the British war effort.[30]" Do you fight for the war effort or fight for the British?
  • "After the British Army conquered German East Africa, Kenyatta relocated to Nairobi " what is the relevance of the conquest of GEA? And when was this? Our articles seem to focus on the military campaign and do not make it clear when there was effective control.
  • "Kenyatta wanted a wife, although his first attempt failed when it was revealed that his proposed bride was related to his clan.[35]" can it be made clearer why this was not allowed? "in violation of custom" or similar is probably enough.
  • The reliable source does not actually make this clear; it simple says that "Kenyatta's first bid for a wife failed as she turned out to be related to his own clan." On further thought, however, I'm not sure that this sentence is really necessary at all, so it might as well be removed altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "she initially moved into Kenyatta's family homestead,[35] although joined Kenyatta in Dagoretti when Ngengi drove her out.[35] " I think you need a "she" before "joined".
  • "Christian civil marriage" isn't this a bit of a contradiction?
  • By "civil marriage" I meant something that was recognised by the state, but I agree that the wording can cause issues, so I can remove "civil" without problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "shillings" advise pipe to East African shilling lest there be confusion with the historic British currency.
  • "regulate land exchange". I'm not sure exactly what this means.
  • It's probably easiest if I just remove these words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "which treated Kikuyu land as a collective entity" maybe "which treated Kikuyu land as collectively-owned"
  • "translating things into Kikuyu" Maybe cut "things".
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Grigg's administration could not stop Kenyatta's journey but instructed London's Colonial Office not to meet with him.[63] " I don't think a colonial governor had the power to tell the Colonial Office (effectively, the Colonial Secretary, one of HM's ministers) what to do.
  • "Drummond Shiels, the undersecretary-of-state" of the Colonial Office?
  • "unaware as to the nature " I might say "unaware of the nature"
  • "As Secretary of the KCA, Kenyatta soon met with church representatives." I might cut "soon" it isn't clear what it refers to.
  • "and John Arthur—the head of the Church of Scotland in Kenya—later complained about what he described as Kenyatta's dishonesty during the debate, expelling him from the church.[85] " Maybe after the second dash "later expelled Kenyatta from the church, citing what he deemed dishonesty during the debate" or some such. I think the expulsion should come first, in other words.
  • Just out of my curiosity, did Kenyatta have contact with Jinnah while in London in the late 20s and early 30s? No action required.
  • I've definitely come across any claim to this end; if I had, I would certainly have included it. That being said, I suppose the idea could not be ruled out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Geneva, Switzerland" just Geneva is enough. The reader knows.
  • I'm not sure on this one. Those of us living in Western countries would surely be familiar with where Geneva is, but would the same be true of someone who might be reading this from Kenya or Tanzania, or somewhere else like that? I'm not too fused either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " to which both Padmore and Kenyatta were affiliated." I would expect the first word to be "with" but it may be an engvar thing.
  • "with which" works fine too. Happy to make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Are Robeson's political leanings worth mentioning?
  • I'm certainly not averse to doing so, but at the same time I'm not sure how to best go about it given that I'm not sure if Robeson and Kenyatta actually discussed political issues (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "pursuing a gradual campaign for independence or whether they should seek the military overthrow of the European imperialists.[168] " I know in India the question was independence by constitutional means, or by violence. If it's the same in East Africa, I might put "gradual campaign for independence" as by constitutional means.
  • Going back to the RS, it refers to "gradualist" and peaceful approaches, but not to constitutional ones. Of course, there is going to be a great deal of overlap between these things, but there could perhaps be gradualist and/or peaceful methods which were not exactly constitutional, like non-violent direct action protest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kenyatta received a call " from who and how? I am sure the telephone is not meant. And to do what?
  • The Murray-Brown biography relates how "the call arrived for him to return home", and that must have influenced by own choice of wording here, but I shall change it to "request". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Edna was pregnant with a second child, although she expected to never see her husband again;[173] Kenyatta was aware that if they joined him in Kenya their lives would be made very difficult by the colony's racial laws.[174]" The relevance of the parts of the sentence to each other is not terribly clear.
  • I've reworded (and shortened) that sentence in a manner that I think deals with this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Was the Koinange school simply for locals or were there white pupils as well?
  • I'm afraid that I don't know, and I've just re-checked the RS, and that doesn't specify who the pupils were either. Given the situation in the country at that time, I suspect that it would have only been for black students (and of those, only those who could afford to pay) but I do not know for sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Nehru's response was supportive, sending a message to Kenya's Indian minority reminding them that they were the guests of the indigenous African population.[191]" Did Nehru say that or was that the implication?
  • The wording used follows the wording of the RS comparatively closely; it refers to Nehru "reminding Indians in Kenya that they were there only as guests of the Africans". On that count, I'm not sure if he stated this explicitly or merely strongly implied it, but I would have thought the former (given that choice of wording). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Kenyatta was their principal enemy, an agitator with links to the Soviet Union and who had the impertinence to marry a white woman.[192] " I would cut "and"
  • "Eventually, they charged both him and five senior KAU members with masterminding the Mau Mau, a proscribed group.[212]" I would cut "both"
  • "British lawyer and Member of Parliament Denis Nowell Pritt.[212]" I might call him a barrister rather than a lawyer, if only to prevent a repetition of a word you just used. Is it worth mentioning that it was a multiracial defence team?
  • Happy to change "lawyer" to "barrister" there. I've also added "and multiracial" after "international". 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In your account of the trial, you mention that the principal witness perjured himself; you give the same information in the imprisonment section. Do we need it twice? And it might be wise in the trial section to mention the strongest point made by the prosecution. There must have been something in their case if it satisfied popular opinion enough, in Kenya and Britain, to keep Kenyatta locked up.
  • I think since you've only mentioned Nkrumah from his London days, mentioning him as President of Ghana in my view could use either a second link, or a reminder that the two knew each other.
  • I don't think we're allowed to have a second link, are we? But I'm happy to clarify that the duo knew each other. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kenyatta had kept abreast of these developments, although refused to back either KANU or KADU,[261] instead insisting on unity between the two parties.[262]" I might toss a "he had" before "refused"
  • "illegal oathing" While there's a reference earlier to oaths being sworn in Kenyatta's name, you haven't developed this point in a way it's going to be meaningful for the reader to see this.
  • I've expanded this to say "the illegal oathing system used by the Mau Mau", which hopefully gives a bit more necessary context. Ideally we'd have a separate article on Kikuyu oathing systems more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "it would prevent a strong central government implementing radical reform.[284] " Using the term reform is a bit POV. Everyone says what they want changed is a reform.
  • "and a likeness of his face was also printed on the new currency.[298] " I might cut "a likeness of"
  • "advanced powers of arrest" I would say "broad" powers of arrest
  • "To prevent further military unrest, he brought in a review of the salaries of the army, police, and prison staff.[316]" I would be more direct. He caused them to be increased, right?
  • I've added the following to the end of the sentence: "leading to pay rises". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hugh Cholmondeley, 3rd Baron Delamere" I would suggest some mention of who he was.
  • I've added "British settler" before his name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The government sold or leased lands in the former White Highlands to these companies, who in turn subdivided them among individual shareholders.[371]" are companies referred to as "who"?
Resuming with "Foreign policy".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "particularly following the assassination of Pio Pinto in February 1965.[306] " I might add, "which some based on Kenyatta."
  • "The killing sparked riots in Nairobi,[425] and ethnic tensions were stoked across the country.[434] " the second half of the sentence strikes me as vague.
  • " Kenyatta had introduced oathing, a Kikiyu cultural tradition in which individuals came to Gatundu to swear their loyalty to him.[436] " that's the sort of explanation that's helpful when oathing is first mentioned.
  • It is not clear to what extent Kenyatta was personally involved in the efforts to suppress the opposition. The passive voice is used, in my view, excessively.
  • You might want to include a hatnote, or some brief text in the Pan Africanism section explaining what it is.
  • "Grace Wahu died in April 2007.[524] His daughter, Wambui Margaret, became his closest confidante.[525]" The return of the storyline to Kenyatta needs to be better signaled here.
  • The legacy section, even with some detractors at the end, strikes me as on the hagiographic side.
  • That's all for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by SarahSV[edit]

Hi Midnightblueowl, I have a concern about the paragraph on FGM. A minor correction first: Stumpf was a missionary, not a nun.

The paragraph gives the impression that Kenyatta opposed FGM (which was known as irua): "He expressed the view that although personally opposing FGM, he regarded its legal abolition as counter-productive, and argued that the churches should focus on eradicating the practice through educating people about its harmful effects on women's health." This is sourced to Murray-Brown 1974, pp. 143–144, and Berman & Lonsdale 1998, p. 25. The latter doesn't indicate that he opposed it, and I can't see the former.

Kenyatta did tell a British House of Commons committee in 1930 that he was doing "his best to turn people away from the custom" (Janice Boddy, Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 245). But according to Boddy, he later backed the position of the Kikuyu Central Association that irua was "essential to Kikuyu identity" (Boddy 2007, p. 246). In Facing Mount Kenya (1938), Kenyatta seems to express strong support for FGM. You can see the relevant chapter here. First, he calls it clitoridectomy, although it's clear that he's describing Type II FGM and perhaps even Type III. Boddy calls his use of the term clitoridectomy an "apparent obfuscation" (Boddy 2007, p. 359, note 54).

He wrote, for example:

The missionaries who attack the irua of girls are more to be pitied than condemned, for most of their information is derived from Gikuyu converts who have been taught by these same Christians to regard the custom of female circumcision as something savage and barbaric, worthy only of heathens who live in perpetual sin under the influence of the Devil. Because of this prejudiced attitude, the missionaries are at a disadvantage in knowing the true state of affairs. Even the few scientifically minded ones are themselves so obsessed with prejudice against the custom that their objectivity is blurred in trying to unravel the mystery of the irua.

SarahSV (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, SarahSV. I'll take a look at what the Murray-Brown book says and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that Kenyatta was known for his defence of it. For example, see Silverman 2004, p. 428: "Today, few anthropologists would dare merely to describe clitoridectomy (e.g., Mayer 1952) or to defend it boldly as Kenyatta (1959, pp. 153-54) famously did. But, as Kenyatta's oft invoked apology for the practice demonstrates, all statements about the topic are embedded in complex colonial and postcolonial histories ..." (Kenyatta 1959 refers to Facing Mount Kenya.) SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is an examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, Casliber, and CPA-5: Apologies for the delayed response. I somehow managed to delete this from my watchlist. Many thanks to all four of you for taking a look at this. Apologies for the high incidence of errors and infelicities which you have kindly picked up and pointed out. I have, I think, addressed all of the points you have raised below.
Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I will surely review this soon (I have a few other reviews to finish first). FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.
  • I wonder if this[13] monument photo could be useful, perhaps in the aftermath section? Or maybe it is too tangential?
There is a separate article on the battle, which features this image prominently. I have tried to concentrate very much on the siege, lest I be accused of gratuitously creating an article which would be best merged with Battle of Halidon Hill. It seems to me that it is part of the aftermath of the battle, not of the siege.
Now we're at it, what is the rationale for separating the two articles? Seems they would fit snugly into one (here)? FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) well, if anything, combined the resultant article would be ~80,000 bytes, and per WP:TOOBIG—not policy by any means, of course—articles that size probably should be divided. Imho only, it might be undue. ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
That is increasingly being ignored as Internet gets faster, though, see the size of recent FAs Maya civilization and Cleopatra (both more than double the size of what the combined article here would be)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I am clearly not opposed to loooong articles myself; but I'm not particularly comfortable with assuming the internet speed of readers outside the West, tbh. Although clearly the articles are connected, they deserve discrete treatments. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing where the distinction is drawn here, though. It is not entirely clear from reading the article. As for 80 kb articles, I'd say that's well within average size of recent FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a necessary question, certainly: perhaps a move discussion is indicated? Apologies, though, to you for not allowing the nom to answer, and apologies to the nom for hijacking the thread. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Serial Number 54129: No problem, this is Wikipedia - hijack away. You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me.

@FunkMonk: Give me a little longer and I will come back on this.

@FunkMonk and Serial Number 54129: You have put your finger squarely on a reductionist dilemma. There is, so far as I can see, no logical boundary. The lumpers and the splitters will have to fight it out. However, a few reasons for a separate article, in addition to the points Serial Number 54129 raises, spring to mind:

  1. The MilHist tradition of separating out battles from campaigns, where sources permit. Eg there is an article on the Normandy Campaign in WWII, a separate one on D-Day, five more for the individual landings plus four covering the various operations of the 6th Airbourne division on D-Day alone. Plus articles on various commando, Ranger and resistance activities and on the air bombardment, the naval bombardment, the logistic arrangements, etc, etc. Similarly the Battle of Waterloo has at least ten articles on the two week campaign.
  2. The siege seems to have received a fair amount of coverage from RSs independent of the battle.
  3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One can reasonably assume that readers consult it for a digested view of a particular topic, with clear indicators to related topics, rather than a text book size review of everything related to it in the original article.
  4. In this particular case I would have thought that someone wanting information about the battle would not wish to wade through the minutiae of the siege, and to a lesser extent the reverse. Much as a reader wanting information on English Bulldogs would not wish that to be bundled into Canis lupus familiaris on the entirely logical grounds that they are all one species. At which point the H. s. sapiens discussion occurs to me and I realise that I am getting well off topic.

I will leave it at that for now. If it ends up in a formal move discussion I'll dig into the policies properly, but so far I haven't turned up anything directly relevant.

  • Link Yorkshire?
Done.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "announcing that it was Scotland who was" Is it common to refer to countries as "who?
No, it's not. Corrected.
  • Why do measurements have imperial units first? Given this is a UK topic, I'd expect the metric system to be primary here.
I'm not with you. It has imperial units first because it is a UK topic, per WP:UNIT.
  • "Based on Sumption" Why not give date as well?
Because that's in footnote 47, cited immediately after "Based on Sumption".
  • You say both Robert the Bruce and Robert Bruce', should perhaps be consistent.
Apologies, I thought that I had picked up all of those. Done.
  • "the attacks by land and sea had brought the town was to a state of ruin" Seems "was" is superfluous.
It is. Removed.
  • I wonder if it would be more pleasing to the eye if the trebuchet image was right aligned; it would then "aim" towards the text (rather than away), similar to how we are encouraged to place images of people so that they face the text.
Done.
  • "Alexander Seton was responsible for the defence of the town." You should introduce him, like you do others. Now, I only know he was the governor by this line: " William Seton, son of the Governor".
Good point. Done.
  • "A 19th-century view" Why not just give the date? Artist could be linked as well.
Because it seems to me to be superfluous and potentially distracting detail. To my mind giving the precise year would actually not be as informative as giving the general period. Similarly re the artist; the image is meant to represent a whole era's view of the battle. If you feel that it is failing to do that, then fine; I can remove it. If you think that the date and artist need to be more accessible than clicking on the image I could add a footnote.
  • "If Berwick were to be saved immediate action on the part of the Scottish guardian was unavoidable" Direct quotes should be attributed in-text.
Only if the quote is an opinion, which this is of course. Thanks for picking that up. Done.
  • "To save the lives of those who remained Keith, who" I'm pretty sure there should be a comma before the name too.
Done.
  • "Edward III had for his queen he knew that Bamburgh" This seems nonsensical.
Correct. Some text had gone missing. Fixed.
  • "after a Scottish army bypassed him and advanced on York, where his queen was staying, devastated Yorkshire and defeated" and "after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying and devastated Yorkshire" seems like you repeat something without being aware of the repetition. Perhaps you could make it clear that this is a reiteration.
Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. Both reworded.
  • "and William Keith was to be allowed" You don't need to spell out full names after first mention. You've usually just said Keith until then.
Fixed.
  • "Sir William Keith and the Earl" Likewise.
Fixed.
  • "Sir Alexander Seton in turn did homage" Likewise, and why only refer to him as Sir all the way down here?
Incompetence? Both fixed.
  • Douglas "had little choice but to re-cross the Tweed and face Edward's army" again needs attribution, though I'm not sure why this and other such quotes can't just be paraphrased.
Paraphrased.
  • "but this would guartantee to loss of Berwick" Guarantee the loss?
Correct. Thanks. Fixed.
  • "the future Richard III, in 1482." Could add "of England" just to make it clear for everyone (even unfamiliar readers) where the town went to.
Good point. Done. A little differently than you suggest.
  • Pretty much ready to support, just want to make sure if something more is on its way considering your comment "You brought up a couple of points which hadn't occurred to me", as well as thoughts on separation of the two intertwined articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk My comment re the "couple of points" was an encouragement for SN54129 to hijack, as the comments he had already made included some germane points which had not and probably would not have occurred to me. There is no more to come from me other than the fairly casual musings on lumping and splitting above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this article looks good to me now, and I can't say I know enough about the subject to give any qualified opinion on whether the two articles should be separate or not. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Interesting read. Queries below:

The Siege of Berwick took place in 1333 when the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed was captured by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377) after a siege of four months - I know it is prudent to have the article name in the sentence. I wish there was some way of reducing the repetition of "seige", maybe "The Siege of Berwick took place over four months in 1333, ending with the capture of the Scottish-held town of Berwick-upon-Tweed by an English army commanded by King Edward III (r. 1327–1377)" or something like that...?
Good thinking. Done.
Berwick was a prosperous town; according to... - you could subtract the" Berwick was a prosperous town" segment as it is explained in the following segment - let Edington's words speak for themselves.
Done.
propter incursiones Scotorum cum incendijs ac multas alias illatas iniurias regno Anglie - should this be italicised?
It certainly should. Done.
Apologies for the disjointed response; only part of what I thought I had written seems to have actually happened.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, support on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice little read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

<placeholder>I'll get to this in the next couple of days; I think I've got most of the sources. ——SerialNumber54129 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SN, given you have sources, could I ask you to spotcheck for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (something I'd usually request at an editor's first nom but didn't), as well as undertaking the regular source review for formatting and reliability? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Ian Rose. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources used.
  • The following are all undoubtedly high-quality and generally academic sources: Barrow, Blackenstall, Brown, Corfis + Wolfe, de Brie, Forster, Geldard, King, MacDonald Fraser, Maurer, Maxwell, McKisack, Nicholson, Oman, Ormrod, Prestwich, Robson, Rodwell, Rogers, Strickland + Hardy, Sumption, Weir, Wyntourn.
  • Creighton is dated; since it is a general history, does it say anything that hasn't been said much more recently—and if it's only referencing Balliol's disinherited, a more up to date piece of scholarship is suggested.
Crieghton was duplicated by Weir. I am not entirely sure why I left him in. Now removed.
  • I'd like to question—without prejudice—what makes the following reliable sources? Northumberland Tourist Office, the Battlefields Resource Centre, the book by Grant (which seems to be an illustrated history, but I haven't got it, so if you suggest otherwise AGF kicks in!), and Seton. The latter I'm slightly concerned about—not only it's age, but you know it was printed directly from Setons own MS—no review, no editing, and IIRC it consists of his—very individual!—view of his own family. If not actually autobiographical, it lacks the independence I think we expect at a FAC-level source. Still, as ever, I am open to being (un)convinced... :)
Grant replaced by Ormrod (2012) p 159. Text altered to reflect new source.
Northumberland Tourist Office replaced by a new source - Pettifer.
Battlefields Resource Centre replaced by a new source - Bradbury.
Seton terminated with prejudice.
Formatting
Done.
  • We are encouraged to archive (and to provide links) for websites used, see WP:LR; it's probably not necessary for something like the ODNB who track their own pages, but the Tourist Office, etc., if they are kept, should certainly be archived.
Only the ONDB is now unarchived. Trying to clarify for myself for what the requirements are, the best I can find is the guideline "Citing Sources": "consider archiving the referenced document when writing the article"; is there anything a bit firmer? If I am reading your comment correctly, you are suggesting that it is acceptable at FAC that some links not be archived, while a requirement that others are; this (like so many things on Wikipedia) is new to me and if there is some clarification as to which is which you could point me to it would help me to avoid future errors.
  • I see some author links, and most not. I assume you chose only to link those with WP articles, but I think consistency is more important, so would suggest all or none. And per WP:REDYES, this can be an encouragement for others to create said article. Up to you which way you go though.
I have been "encouraged" by previous assessors to link authors with articles as a minimum. All author links removed.
  • Another point regarding consistency is the Gbooks links. Although it may at first glance seem helpful to our lord and master—the WP:READERthis opinion from Iridescent offers an alternative—and I think extremely useful—perspective on why not to link to Gbooks, which I admit I find wholly persuasive.
I am not sure as to the action needed here, if any. Are you requiring me to either Google link every book, or none; ie be consistent. Or pointing out your and Iridesent's views for information?
  • You're currently using a mix of surname/first name and surname/initials; select one and stick with it.
I had been told that I should consistently transcribe what it says on the book's title page, but full names now replace initials.
  • 13-digit ISBNs, IIRC, should be in the format 123-4-56789-012-3; see Brown, Geldard etc.
Even if that does not match the title page? Eg Ormrod.
  • The Steel Bonnets published by HarperCollins, not Collins Harvil :)
Done.
  • Ormrod's ODNB entry can be simply linked to the page rather than the individual section.
  • Prestwich's Edward I is noted as part of the Yale Monarchs series, yet Ormrod's Edward III is not?
Done.
  • Likewise, Sumption's book could be noted as being vol.II in the The Hundred Years War series?
Done.
  • Corvis + Wolfe is (I think) the only work you've listed as being publisher/town/UK. No need for UK, although NY is correct for Rochester.
Sloppy of me. Done.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Spot-checks
  • 4b: Nicolson, p.19, check.
  • 7: Wyntourn, p.395, check.
  • 12: Ormrod, p,212, check.
  • 13: MacDonald Fraser, p.38, check.
  • 16: Prestwich, p.471, check.
  • 19b: Sumption, p.130, not in source (but is in Nicholson so can be removed with no loss.
Done.
  • 19c: Sumption, p.130, only covers Balliol's earlier arrival; augment with Nicholson p.26.
Done.
  • 19d: Sumption, p.130, source mentions 1319 ("In the third week of July, Douglas was forced to take the step which every Scotch commander since the early days of Edward I's wars had learned to avoid at all costs. He recrossed the Tweed and offered battle to the English army.") but not the size or recruitment of Douglas's army. Try Nicholson, p.29.
Done.
  • 19e: Sumption, p.130, touches on catapults (no mention of trebuchets?); Nicholson provides Crabb's background, pp=26–27—although note Crabb without the e.
Added source equating catapults to trebuchets. "two catapults … [t]his clearly means that they were counterweight trebuchets."
  • 19f: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Seton at all (or his spirited defence), although the ref does back the exhaustion of the garrison.
Seton and his defence removed. (I have found the reference I used for this, which I had removced as being a bit old (19th C) to be reliable but omitted to remove the material it cited. (D'oh!))
  • 19g: Sumption, p.130, Sumption is not as detailed as this, merely stating that "{tq|on 28 June the Warden of the town agreed to surrender in two weeks unless by then he had been relieved...When Berwick failed to surrender on the appointed day, Edward began to hang hostages, beginning with the son of the garrison commander and continuing at a rate of two a day}}"—no mention of Thomas, his father or 11 July.
Further source added.
  • 19h: Sumption, p.130, not in source. If you get rid of the Sumption ref (and the Seton becomes redundant too, as it happens), and add Nicholson p.39 n.2, that's the thing covered.
Done.
  • 19i: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19j: Sumption, p.130, destruction of Tweedmouth and Edward's refusal to be distracted, check; the "Douglas entered England on 11 July, the last day of Seton's truce" needs a source. Suggest Nicholson p.29.
Done.
  • 19k: Sumption, p.130, not in source; but covered by the Nicholson (as usual!) that's already there.
Done.
  • 19l: Sumption, p.130, not in source.
Replaced.
  • 19m: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19n: Sumption, p.130, re. "On the following day...chosen by Edward III", check. But Duns, and its details are covered by Nicholson, p.36.
Done.
  • 19o: Sumption, p.130, no mention of Falkirk, Stirling Bridge, or marshy ground; Dupplin Moor stands up. (The marshy ground can be sourced to Nicholson p.36 if you want)
The unsourced battles deleted.
  • 19p: Sumption, p.130, The quote is found in Nicholson, p.39, not Sumption.
Sloppy. Apologies. Done, using Hall. Who, on examination is citing good old Nicholson, so replaced with him.
  • 19q: Sumption, p.130, check.
  • 19r: Sumption, p.130, Sumption only described English casualties as "light"; but the figures are covered by the other two refs, so the good lord can be removed here.
Done.
  • 19s: Sumption, p.130, for the general fact of surrender, check; but the detail—Keith, March, witnessing executions "just out of bowshot" and the indentures are not.
Frustratingly I can't find my source for this. Possibly back in the UK. I have added Tuck to cover the indentures and deleted the rest.
  • 20: McKisack, 117, check.
  • 21a: Nicolson, p.21, should be pp.20–21.
Done.
  • 26b: Nicholson, p.23, should be pp.23–24.
Done.
  • 27b: Nicholson, p.24, check.
  • 31: Nicholson, p.26, check.
  • 32: Nicholson, p.27, redundant.
Removed.
  • 34: Nicholson, p.24 n.2, check.
  • 36: Nicholson, pp.26–28, just p.27.
Done.
  • 37: de Brie, p.281, check.
  • 38b: Nicholson, p.28, check.
  • 40a: Nicholson, p.29, check.
  • 52: Nicholson, p.41, source uses the phrase "shown no quarter" rather than "murdered"; suggest "killed" per WP:WTW.
Done.
  • 60 Maurer, p.204, check.
Comment

@WP:FAC coordinators: Although the spot-check might look scary, it looks worse than it is—It's only the Sumption that's been an issue, which is a general history of the period which would be used to back the main themes alongside a specialist source. It's clearly a case of information being removed and a corresponding ref not (re)moved with it, and in many cases, the information is found within other sources already used, which I've dug out. As to the general treatment, with the exception of a couple of queries above, the range of sources is broad, well used, and comprehensive. Nothing of any consequence is missing. The tweaks above—are merely tweaks, and I should emphasise that there were absolutely no copyright violations or close-paraphrasing issues apparent. Best of luck with this Gog the Mild, these are pretty superficial issues, all things considered. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: What a wonderful review. Many thanks. I shall start working through it. (I am hoping that not having access to my hard copies is not going to hold me up.)
Yes, it was the coverage in Sumption that inspired me to start researching the topic, so I have probably over-relied on it. Anyway, more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: And, finally, I think that I have finished. See what you think. Apologies for taking so long. I have missed my paper sources and found it frustrating and time consuming tracking things down on the web. On the plus side, I did discover Tuck, who has been useful around the edges. Anyway, thanks for your patience and your helpfulness. Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Greetings Gog. We meet each other again, on this article. I did found some issues (not a lot). Of course I didn't mention them in the article's A-class review.

  • "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12–15,000 men." --> "Balliol's force of some 2,000 men met the Scottish army of 12,000–15,000 men."
Done.
  • Why are there two the same citations (ref 10) next to each other in the sentence. "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III, in 1482."?
To be doubly safe? Fixed.
  • The reign of Philip VI, King of France is wrong his reign didn't start from 1327–1377. He was king in 1328 until his death in 1350. Twenty-seven years earlier than the article says.
Thank you. (For some reason I have attributed Edward III's reign to him.) Fixed.
  • Can Richard III have a reign period too?
No. There is no reference to Richard III in the text, so I feel that allocating a reign to a Duke would confuse a reader.
  • "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3.3 ft; 1.0 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (18 m) tall." Can you change the "18 m" to "18.2 m"? Also I don't think the "0" in "1.0" is necessary.
I quite agree re the 1.0, changed. The 60 ft is an approximation, so I feel that having the conversion to approximately the same level of accuracy. You are spot on to note that I have been inconsistent, so I have changed the 6.7 m.
  • "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick." Can you change the "24 km" to "24.1 km"?
No. Again, spuriously accurate. (Are we talking centre to centre or wall to wall; by road or in a straight line? It is approximately 15 m, the true distance may be 14.87305 m but a reader doesn't want to know that.)
  • "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." 600 ft is 182 m. Also it's not necessary to use two times "(3.2 km)".
See above re 183 m. I am probably being blind, but I can only find "(3.2 km)" once; I would appreciate it if you point out the second mention for me.
  • There is one in the Prelude in the sentence "The walls stretched for 2 mi (3.2 km) and were up to 40 in (3 ft; 1 m) thick and 22 ft (6.7 m) high, protected by a number of towers, up to 60 ft (20 m) tall." and one in the Relief force in the sentence "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 ft (180 m), 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
D'oh! Thank you. Fixed.
  • "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July. On the following day it approached Halidon Hill from the north-west, ready to give battle on ground chosen by Edward III." same as above the "(24 km)" isn't necessary.
Again, I can't spot the second mention. Could you help my failing eyesight and narrow it down for me? Thanks.
  • First one in the Siege section "Edward arrived at Berwick with the main English army on 9 May, after leaving Queen Philippa at Bamburgh Castle 15 mi (24 km) south of Berwick.". Second one in Relief force section in the sentence "Crossing the Tweed to the west of the English position, the Scottish army reached the town of Duns, 15 mi (24 km) from Berwick, on 18 July." CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
And double D'oh! Done.

Again, this looks nice. I hope my (second) involment in the article was usefull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Once again thank you for your eagle eyes. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: You're welcome Gog it looks pretty good now. I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • king of Scotland Capitalize king as it's a title and thus a proper noun.
Both done.
  • a spirited defence but by the end comma after defence
Done.
  • opportunity to fight but this would guartantee missing comma and a typo
Done.
@Sturmvogel 66: And yet again, thank you. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Most unusually, I have read through this article without making a single note to suggest a change. A fine article, clear, v. readable, well balanced and widely sourced. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 17:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All image appropriately licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, just a few suggestions...

  • "In Scotland Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the Realm..." links to Douglas (died 1333) but at "Minor raids into Cumberland were mounted by Sir Archibald Douglas", a later Douglas is linked?
Correct. Archibald Douglas was the John Smith of 14th century Scotland.
  • Edward I replace the old - replaced
Done.
  • the English army's supplies.[31] The English army included troops - 2nd "English" can be deleted here?
Done.
  • by sea from Hull - wlink Hull
Done.
  • short truce from King Edward.[36][32] - tweak ref order
Done.
  • along with eleven others.[18][41][40]- tweak ref order
Done.
  • on to the waiting spears.[54][18]- tweak ref order
Done.
  • captions - 15th century depiction v 19th-century view - hyphen consistency
Done.
  • should this article have the Template:Campaignbox Second War of Scottish Independence?
Oops, missed one. It certainly should. I had to check to convince myself that I had really missed it. Thanks for picking that up. Done.
  • sources Brie, Friedrich - out of alpha order
Done. And Hall.
  • sources McKisack, May (I think but not sure that Mc names are sorted alphabetically with Mac names but I can't now find where I read that. Can anybody confirm or contradict?)
I had assumed straight alphabetical listing. Happy to be corrected. I have left as is for now.

An enjoyable read! Thanks Gog, JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi JennyOz Thanks for the input. A little embarrassing to have so much for you to pick up at this late stage. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Edward III used this as a casus belli and invaded Being extremely pedantic, shouldn't that be casus bellum (singular war, rather than plural)?
(butting in) ...err, the "belli" is genitive or dative singular not nominative plural (which would be bella anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Beat me to it by seven seconds. :-) Cas Liber has explained it more elegantly and eruditely than I had.
I stand corrected on this one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for the Scots, he died "unfortunately" is editorialising
Reworded.
  • "gateway from Scotland to the English eastern march" Do you need the quote marks there? It seems like a standard English phrase, and as it is the quote is unattributed.
Umm. It looks referenced to me. Cite 8?
Apolgies, I should have been clearer. When you have a quote in the prose, you need to note in the prose who you're quoting (eg Wikipedian Harry Mitchell described it as "excellent work", not just the article was "excellent work"). See MOS:QUOTE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Quote marks removed.
  • Same issue with "the first town in the British Isles to be bombarded by cannon"
Cite 37? Nicholson? I am looking at it right now. Or have gone mad, always a possibility.
Tweaked.
  • Suggest turning abbreviations off (using |abbr=off) in the conversion template in the prose.
Done.
  • "as thick as motes in a sun beam" Who is this quoting?
Apologies. Nicholson, cited 6 words too late. Now repeated after the quote.
Tweaked.
  • English casualties were reported as 14, with some chronicles giving a lower figure of 7 per WP:NUMERAL, I believe it's preferable to spell out "fourteen" and "seven"; also, connecting two phrases using ", with" is sub-optimal
Numbers spelt out. What construction would be more optimal? Delete "with" and use 'give'? (If it is, then done.)
  • "remained a bone of contention throughout the Middle Ages" Who are we quoting again?
Apologies again. Once more the cite had drifted to the end of the sentence. Now duplicated.
Tweaked.

Excellent work in general, just a few minor things to address and I fully expect to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Thanks for dropping by. Your points above now addressed. I was looking at reviewing your Midland Railway War Memorial when I get the time. Skimming your user page, I hope that you got as far as the Brunswick while you were in town? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Replied above on quote attribution. Any thoughts on the MRWM would be very welcome when you get chance. I've never actually been in the Brunswick. I was born in Nottingham and used to live between there and Derby, but whenever I was over that end of Derby it was always to catch a train. I still have family in the area and more scattered around other parts of the Midlands so I try to get up at least once or twice a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Harry Sorted. I think. One phrase taken out of quotes; three attributed in text.
Well if you are that way again and fancy an informal introduction to the Brunswick, give me a shout. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Streetcleaner[edit]

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1989 debut album of the industrial metal band Godflesh, one of the first (and neatest) releases of its kind. Since late 2017, I've been reworking all Godflesh-related articles and have promoted two lists (Godflesh discography and List of songs recorded by Godflesh) to featured status. Regardless, this is my first featured article candidate, and I hope to improve Streetcleaner with help from all you. Plus, the album's 30th anniversary is November 2019, so it would be cool to work it up to featured quality by then. Prior to nominating, User:PresN was kind enough to mentor me and improve a number of things. Thank you all in advance! CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Opabinia[edit]

Er, well, I was here to see if there were any other science articles in need of a review, and this one caught my eye but is way out of my usual editing range, so take everything I say with a grain of salt or three.

  • The article puts a lot of emphasis on the use of the drum machine, but doesn't go into much detail on how that came about or what led the band to make that decision. The main Godflesh article has some material on it - that Broadrick didn't like their later use of live drumming, that the original choice of the drum machine was out of necessity - but I think that could be fleshed out more here considering how important it seems to have been. In particular, by the time of recording this material, did they actively prefer machine percussion or was it still "necessity"? Did they have trouble finding a drummer?
Good point! It's easy to lose perspective when writing about this stuff so much and forget to explain why something matters. Anyway, I added this to the prose: "This choice was at first made out of necessity since Broadrick could not play the beats he wanted acoustically, but he came to embrace machine percussion and consider it a defining feature of Godflesh". I know they prefered machine percussion by Streetcleaner, and I'll look for a reference explicitly saying that. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That raises the question - he couldn't play what he wanted because drumming wasn't his best skill, or because what he wanted wasn't really achievable by a live drummer in general? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I specified it; he considered himself not a great drummer. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the background section: "...proved to be the foundation upon which Streetcleaner would fine-tune the genre" - is that a quote? If so it needs punctuation, if not it sounds a little peacocky. There's a few other instances where the writing seems overwrought to me - e.g. "unnerving sounds suffused with chaotic samples of desperate voices" - but I dunno, I usually write about molecules. (Maybe I'll see if I can get away with "suffused with chaotropes" somewhere...)
Thanks for pointing these out; I can get carried away sometimes. I changed your first example to "would fine-tune Godflesh's approach to the genre." Is that fine? I turned your second example into: "with enigmatic lyrics and sounds underlain with samples of voices." CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The first change is better, I don't know about "underlain" (for one thing - maybe this is an Americanism, but I'd say "underlaid"). I was going to suggest quoting directly from the source if it's hard to describe, but then I looked at the source - a review from the website "Dead End Follies" - and poking around a little, it looks like a personal blog. Is the author a notable critic published elsewhere? The chapter-and-verse here is "high-quality reliable sources" - which can admittedly be hard to round up on some topics, especially ones that aren't well represented in traditional media, but I doubt an FA can get away with self-published sources unless the person doing the self-publishing is a recognized subject-matter expert (or a few other exceptions in WP:SPS). Similar problem with the citations to godflesh.com (looks like a fan site?); the others I looked at that seemed bloggy were interviews so somewhat less of a concern. (That said, someone could push back on that - if a self-published site posts what they claim is an interview with Joe Schmo, do we believe them? In this case, probably we do, but the risk is why we'd look for editorial oversight in sources even for subjects where that seems stuffy and unnecessary.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. I thought I had taken out all the questionable references by now. I removed the Dead End Follies one and, though it hurts my heart a lil, took out the ones to godflesh.com. They were all secondary support anyway, and the few that weren't I replaced with some better references I dug up. Also, you're right, underlaid sounds better. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Some MOS-hound will yell at me but I think the article could do with some duplicate wikilinks - e.g. Swans is linked in the background section but by the time I got to "Inspired by the harshness of early Swans material..." I'd lost the context.
I agree completely. I'll go ahead and wikilink it and remove it should anyone complain later on. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The current section order may be somewhere in a MOS page for music articles or something, but - considering that the "composition and style" section goes through each track in sequence and describes critics' reactions to it, I think it'd be easier to follow if the track listing preceded that section.
I can't find any rules on this, but I don't remember seeing any articles with such a structure. I'll look, though! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What does the title mean? Is there anything written about how it was chosen/why that song came to be the title track?
I really wish there was something written about this, but sadly there's not (that I've found, at least). I do have a strong suspicion that Streetcleaner was named after the Whitehouse song "The Street Cleaner"; Broadrick was inspired by Whitehouse, after all. But this is original research, so I can't add it. Oh well! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The caption for the "Dead Head" sample says it "showcases the musical departure of Tiny Tears" - Tiny Tears came first, right? So what is it a "departure" from?
Good point. I've changed it to ""Dead Head" showcases the musical differences between Tiny Tears and Streetcleaner proper." Is this fine? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the live performances section, I'm not sure what it means that the Roadburn performance was released "again in 2017 in a wider capacity". Formats other than vinyl?
Yep! I made this more specific. Thanks. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could use a brief explanation for context to what a "Peel session" is - the link goes to the band's entry in a long list.
I added a little more and changed the wikilink target. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The main Godflesh article says the band dissolved in 2002 and reformed in 2010. Is it significant that both of the full-album performances happened after the band was re-formed? (Also, the date of the Hospital Productions show is missing.)
Godflesh wasn't very beloved or respected before reformation, and since then Streetcleaner became a sort of classic. I can't remember them specifically talking about this anywhere, but I might be able to find something. Also, I added a year to the Hospital Productions show. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That's actually interesting in its own right, and maybe should be fleshed out a little more - I did notice a lot of the reviews seemed to be about the re-release, but figured it had to do with the more recent stuff being more available. If the album wasn't well known until after the band got back together, what prompted the better reception the second time around? Why re-release an album that was expected to have only a limited audience? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure! It's an interesting question. Godflesh at the moment seems to be a critical darling. Plus, other musicians fawn over them all the time. They're from the end of the 80s, so I guess that lends a cool factor, and a few people looking back saw some love for Streetcleaner and went with it. And, ultimately, the 2010 reissue wasn't really a big deal. It didn't attract much attention or sell a huge amount of copies. Earache is kind of small, though, so I'm sure they were pleased regardless. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems a little disorienting to me that the live performances section precedes the release section in the text, but obviously comes later chronologically, but this may again be a standard set of sections for this article type.
I agree. I switched it around. How do you think this looks? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks better to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The album was released in 1989 and a remastered version was released in 2010 with additional material. Were there any other notable differences between the two releases?
The packaging was different, but that's about it. Do you think I should mention this? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of prose clunkers - "a release that Broadrick provided guitar for shortly before starting Godflesh" -> "for which..." sounds cleaner to me; "The songs performed ("Tiny Tears", "Wound", "Pulp" and "Like Rats") saw the band experimenting live".
Thank you, this first one is a big improvement. I changed the second one some; is it enough? CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not good at prose, but think what's tripping me up there is the sentence structure, [inanimate object] saw [gerund (is that what it's called?)]. I don't know if you tried this already - there's backlogs everywhere - but the copyeditors at WP:GOCE can be very helpful with polishing up writing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I shifted it to 'On the tracks played, blah blah, the band experimented..." I'll keep working on it, and I'll look into some copyediting assistance. Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot of the retrospective reviews seem to say this was Godflesh's best, or among their best, and it sounds like Broadrick agrees. But this was their first album of a fairly long career. There's plenty of material on the album's influence on other bands, but it feels like there could be a bit more context on the band's immediate future if that material is available - what did they make of their success at the time, what effect did it have on their future plans, etc?
You're right. It's very tough to find references on Godflesh from 1987-1991. And as soon as they start working on a new project, they rarely want to talk about what came before. I'll look, but this is sadly a dead zone in their history. CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thank you very much for taking your time to do this! CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: I addressed more stuff. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, to be honest I've been sort of hoping that someone else more familiar with either the topic or music FAs or both would wander by :) I even looked at the past few months' worth of nominations to try to find recent examples of similar articles (and recent reviewers of same) but I didn't come up with much. I think input from a reviewer who is more knowledgeable about the subject is needed at this point (especially another look over the sources from someone who knows the area). Is there a relevant wikiproject to post a notice to, to scare up some more reviewers? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: You've been an incredible help regardless. I would never have thought of plenty of these fixes and refinements. The main relevant wikiproject, wikiproject industrial, is dead, but I'll try wikiproject metal. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like wikiproject metal is pretty dead, too. I guess I'll start looking for interested individuals. Is that frowned upon, asking specific people for FAC input? CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ss112[edit]

So, having a quick look at the sources on the article, most seem reliable and it's overall a pretty good collection of sources, however a few grab my attention. I see a couple of blog sources. One, I understand, is Earache Records' official(?) Blogspot here, authored by the label's founder Digby Pearson. However, in most cases, primary sources should be avoided. Do you think there's any secondary news source that reported on what Pearson said there/is the information supported by that reference entirely relevant to the article? I checked out The Obelisk source here, and while ordinarily blog sources like this would be deemed unreliable, as I understand it WP:SPS are at least acceptable if the subject spoke to the outlet directly. Pointing this out because if a news source reported on what was said, then that might be preferable. This Wordpress blog would also ordinarily set off a red flag for me, but it looks like an interview Justin Broadrick gave directly to the author as well. Also, I see a couple of sources citing Roychristopher.com...it seems he's a professor and a writer about his hobbies in his spare time, but is he a reliable source? Could what he says be replaced by a more reliable publication? Ss112 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Ss112:, and thanks for the comments.
  • Earache Records blogspot: I'm sad to say that in all my Godflesh research I haven't seen anything else talk about the origin of Tiny Tears. I did just replace one in-line citation of Pearson's blog with a new source, but most of it seems like unique information. I thought it was okay because Pearson is the head of the label that released Streetcleaner, even if it is undesirably primary. Removing it would be tricky since the creation / history of those four tracks is important to the album.
  • The Obelisk: Thanks for pointing this out; I replaced it with two references. One is from Decibel, the other is from MetalSucks.
  • Wordpress interview: I am annoyed that this is a blog, but I think the quote it's used for is a good one. As far as I know, Broadrick hasn't said the same thing so directly anywhere else. But, I can remove this if you think it's for the best.
  • Roy Christopher: This guy has done at least two articles / interviews with Broadrick in the past, one in a music publication called Slap Magazine and one in another called Pandemonium Magazine. Two of his sources appear in the Streetcleaner article; one is from Slap Magazine, and the other is his own personal website. The latter lists 22 sources itself, so that adds a little reliability to it. However, the questionable reference (the one from his own website) only appears once in the Streetcleaner article, so I might be able to remove it and substitute it with a better source if you think it's necessary.
In summary, I removed one dubious reference and one in-line citation, and I added three better references. The Roy Christopher and Wordpress interview references remain, but I will gladly remove them if you think it's necessary after my explanations above. The Digby Pearson reference is kind of pivotal for the article, so I don't think it can go. Thanks again! CelestialWeevil (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Hzh (talk · contribs), Govvy (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is has come together nicely. Hzh has done alot of heavy lifting here and I can't see anything actionable prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. With three nominators issues should be dealt with promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to weigh in here, as well as here and here. The nominators could help one another, me, and the community, by commenting on the other two pages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay @Dweller: we're ready.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
See below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from SN54129[edit]

You've done a job of work on this and no mistake. A couple of points on prose that jump out at a skim read. No major malfunctions though.

Background
  • president until 1894, would became an important > become
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Early years
  • between themselves, the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs however would gradually increase > In the first two years, the boys largely played games between themselves; the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs would, however, gradually increase
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • this was changed for 1895 to 1898 > from?
Changed to "changed in 1895" (the 1898 date is probably unnecessary since the following sentence showed that it changed again in 18991898). Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Error corrected. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Professional status
  • On this the London Football Association found the club > On this, the London Football Association found the club
Wording adjust. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • agreed to play for Spurs, but arrived without any kit > agreed to play for Spurs but arrived without any kit
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • However, press coverage over the incidence raised > However, press coverage over the incident raised
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • found the club guilty of professionalism with financial inducement to attract a player to the club after Fulham complained of poaching of their player
Makes for heavy reading this; certainly a comma is required after "club", but is it possible to tighten the sentence? Possibly by splitting it? Also, can the phrase "professionalism with financial inducement" be linked or otherwise clarified—for example, is it a legal term, the term the source uses, or your rewording of the source?
Both "professionalism" and "financial inducement" are found in various sources, although some sources use "unfair inducement" which may be the original judgement as they used it in quotation marks. I have decide to rewrite it as Fulham then complained to the London Football Association that Tottenham had poached their player and were guilty of professionalism having breached amateur rules. On the latter charge, the London Football Association found Tottenham guilty as the payment for the boots was judged an 'unfair inducement' to attract the player to the club. I hope this is satisfactory. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Wording adjusted. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles Roberts and a local businessman John Oliver > Charles Roberts and local businessman John Oliver
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • took up post as the first ever manager of Spurs > took up postwas appointed the first manager of Spurs.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • cup-winning > should this be Cup-winning? I'm not too sure myself, but I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
1901 FA Cup
  • Kirkham however was not a success > Kirkham, however, was not a success
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Highs and lows
  • charge however saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated > charge, however, saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Tresadern however failed to lift > Again, add commas. Note—however!—that this is one of the most over- and mis-used words in wirtten English. I know this is a big article, but you use it over seventy times; they're not all necessary. I'm not going to comment on them again, but suggest ctrl+f and eliminating those you don't need (most of them) and adding commas where you do.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed/reworded some of these so that it won't get too repetitive, will go through the others to see how they might be rewritten. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Peter McWilliam returned to Spurs, and tried to rebuild > Peter McWilliam was brought back as manager, and tried to rebuild...or something like that. No Spurs necessary; we know what team we're talking about by now!
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • beyond the quarter finals of the FA Cup in the 30s > beyond the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in the 30s...one word
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • travel long distance for the matches drawn up by the Football League, and decided to run their own competitions > no comma required
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The spurs way
  • terrible state of the White Hart Lane pitch, > Ditto.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It was the best ever start by any club in the top flight of English football, until it was > It was to be the best start by any club in the top flight of English football until it was
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The double
  • the final of the 1960–61 FA Cup extraneous space
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
1st Euro triumph
  • Rotterdam, Spurs won 5–1, including ditto
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Continuing success
  • Steve Perryman would become Spurs' longest serving player hyphenate "longest serving"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline and revival
  • Tottenham managed to reached four cup finals > reach
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relegation
  • 70s cup-winning team had by now left or retired Again, cap for Cup?
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A memorable game early in the season came at home to Bristol Rovers, when Spurs won 9–0, no comma req.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Cup wins
  • a new phase of redevelopment of White Hart Lane > choice of: a new phase of the redevelopment of White Hart Lane / a new phase of redeveloping White Hart Lane / a new phase of redevelopment at White Hart Lane.
Done. Last option used. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Cup and boardroom drama
  • Spurs managed a nine game unbeaten start, hyphenate "nine-game"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Undo this as it is the title of a news article. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • who had little knowledge of the club's history (alleged to have said... > who had little knowledge of the club's history (and was alleged to have asked}}...or something Incidentally. does "double" have to be capitalised? I wouldn't have thought so, important as it is to Spurs fans :)
Done. As for "Double", I have no opinion one way or another, most sources appear to capitalise it, but if Wikipedia editors prefer it uncapitalised, then it can be done that way. What's the general opinion here? Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • but then reverted on appeal Think you mean, "reversed on appeal"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Premier league
  • as replacement for the > to replace the
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ardiles
  • after Sheringhham was injured Of all the names for you to mis-spell!
Ooops, I actually have a tendency to use 2 Rs for his name, not 2 Hs! Corrected. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • in June 1994 the club was found found guilty of making It was only found once
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Nice article. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for pointing out the errors, I have a tendency not to see my own mistakes. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I appear to have made some errors saving the edits, but I hope they have all been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: are you happy that all actionable issues have been actioned? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Casliber: Indeed; I see the however issue was brought up below, but that its usage has been reduced to nearly single-figures. Everything else has also been addressed. Up the Irons! :p D Supporting this candidature. ——SerialNumber54129 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of "however"[edit]

Even by Wikipedia practices, 26 uses of "however" is far too many. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have removed/reworded some of them, and will go over the article again to see how I can write the others better. Hzh (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the goal differences and table positions charts
I've made them somewhat larger, but I'm not sure making them any bigger would look good. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Tottenham_hotspur_1901.jpg: per the tag, should specify steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. When/where was this first published?
Authorship wasn't clear as no copyright information was present in the 1901 match day booklet, Govvy (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you confused it with the other image, but this one was published in 1921 in the book A Romance of Football - The History of the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 1882-1921. I've added that information for the image file. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I've found the author of this photograph, and as his date of death appears to be in 1953, the copyright would not expire until 2024 in the UK. It therefore cannot stay in Wikimedia Commons, I will move this into English Wikipedia (it is OK there as it is public domain in the US). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
File moved to English Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Facupfinal1901-D.jpg: source link is dead, need more info on steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
Will look into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found the author for this photograph yet despite looking into a number of books and a few other sources. I guess we may consider that its author "cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", but I will keep looking for a bit longer yet (one of the publications where it might have been published is not yet completely digitised, so it is hard to tell if it is there). Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Decided to use only one image for the season, and removed in favour of a group photo. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:TottenhamHotspurFC_League_Performance.svg needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Tottenham_Hotspurs_F.C_Cumulative_Goal_Difference_1992_to_Oct_09.png
The data can be found in here and here. I will add them to the article. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:West_stand_of_White_Hart_Lane_in_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Unfortunately the source does not state where it was published apart from the date which was 1909. It should be public domain in the US as it was published before 1923, I can remove this image while I look further into this. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, haven't found much about this image, but will continue looking. I noticed a discrepancy in the date by looking at the stadium closely (the photograph is likely to have been taken in 1910 or later since it has a cockerel which was placed on top of the stand in 1910), so I won't use it until it has been resolved. Hzh (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Spurs_team_with_the_Cup_Winners'_Cup_trophy_1963.jpg: not seeing that licensing at the given source? Same with File:Ajax_vs_Spurs_1981_European_Cup_Winners'_Cup.jpg
The Ajax Spurs image and 1963 trophy, licensing is CC0 1.0 Universeel (CC0 1.0) Publiek Domein Verklaring Govvy (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, both images are listed as public domain in the Dutch National Archives website - licensing is given in the sources [14][15].

Also seeing a number of ref errors that should be sorted before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found a couple of things, but couldn't see anything else - can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Not doing a full source review at this point, but quickly: some footnotes don't link to Bibliography entries, some Bibliography entries aren't linked from footnotes, some inconsistencies in italicization (see for example BBC Sport), most web sources use cite templates but a couple don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the issues that need fixing. I've dealt with some of those, and will go through the article again to see if there are any more. Hzh (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller[edit]

This is essentially a great article. Maybe a local map with annotations would help, if you can find someone to do it.

I've started some copyediting. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of curious use of English. Most objectionable is the repeated use of the word "would" instead of the ordinary perfect tense, or sometimes future tense. I fixed a bunch, but when I saw there were roughly 50 more occurrences, I thought the team that wrote the article really ought to fix this. Please ping me when done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok I have gotten it down to 9 "would"s, almost all of which I think are appropriate use to make smoothest language Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The goal difference chart is an interesting addition. But I'm not sure what it's trying to say that the league position chart doesn't. As the text doesn't seem to refer to it, and it's already 9 years out of date, I'd consider updating it and explaining it significance somehow, or removing it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You are right, I will remove that. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that although I thought the chart is unnecessary and out of date, if anyone wants to update an use the chart in the article, they can. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Some WP:RECENTISM issues. Nine paragraphs on the most successful period in the club's history (1958-1974, 16 years), 1 parag for every 2 years, 11 major trophies I counted on the main club page. most recent period (1992-2018) 23 paragraphs on the 26 years, 1 parag for every year, 2 major trophies. Should be the other way round. Expand the earlier period and trim the excessive recent detail. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I do agree to some extent that there is a bit of RECENTISM, but not all of it. There have been 13 managers from 1993 to 2018 (25 years), compared to 18 in the previous 100 years. The higher turnover of manager means that more needs be written to cover the period properly. I think a couple of paragraphs could be removed in the 1992-2018 period, and a paragraph could be added in the 1958-1974 period. I will do that later. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Good response, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The box about the quote misallocated to Burkinshaw is utterly bewildering and comes across as somewhere between smartarsery and original research --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I will think about how to reword it, or whether to remove it altogether. I added it because it is often quoted to indicate a change in football in the 1980s, but it might not be necessary. Hzh (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It has been removed. That quote was frequently used to indicate a sense of regret and nostalgia before football clubs became commercial enterprises - before that clubs were often owned by wealthy local individuals (or families for clubs such as Tottenham whose shares were handed down through generations) who treated the clubs with benevolence, but it is too much having to give a long explanation for such a short quote. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note to FAC team: there's a lot of work going on with the article at the moment. Inactivity here isn't inactivity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominators, please look out for detail that falls between excessive and insufficient with regard to players. For example, this paragraph:

Soon after the club became a limited company, on 14 March 1898, Frank Brettell was appointed the first manager of Spurs.[33] Bretell signed a number of players from northern clubs, such as Harry Erentz, Tom Smith, Harry Bradshaw, James McNaught, and in particular John Cameron, who signed from Everton in May 1898 and was to have a considerable role in the history of the club. Cameron became player-manager the following February, after Bretell left to take a better-paid position at Portsmouth, and led the club to its first trophies, the Southern League title in 1899-1900 and the 1901 FA Cup. In his first year as manager, he signed seven players: George Clawley, Ted Hughes, David Copeland, Tom Morris, Jack Kirwan, Sandy Tait and Tom Pratt. In the following year Sandy Brown replaced Pratt who wanted to return to the North despite being the top goalscorer. They, together with Cameron, Erentz, Smith and Jones, formed the 1901 Cup-winning team.[34]

...names 12 or 13 players (never been very good at maths), but only refers to the importance of four or five of them. So why mention the others by name? In an article about the history of a club that's well over 100 years old, surely you should only mention the really very important players - and in every case where you do, the reader will want to know why they merit mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Another example. I remember Pauls Stewart and Walsh very well, but their inclusion in the article is fairly baffling. Why them and not Nayim (or even Vinny SidewaysSamways)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I need @Hzh:'s input here, but one can only put in what the sources say, and if Goodwin has identified that (his or whosever) common thinking was that Fenwick and Walsh were the pivotal signings that were supposed to (and failed) to lift the club then that's who gets mentioned I guess. I do agree that it is better to as much as possible include some sort of reason as to why a person is included. However there are times when it is unavoidable (but should be minimised as much as possible) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that the first Cup winning team need to be mentioned in full, but if others feel that some can be removed, then do so. As for the others, it's about how to fit them into the narrative. For example, Nayim first came on loan to Spurs, but later became part of the deal to bring Gary Lineker to the club, it's whether he is significant enough to warrant a special mention on how he came to the club, which I don't think he is. Same for Vinny Samways. Fenwick and Walsh are included because they fit into the narrative. Paul Stewart was at that time a big signing, so he was mentioned. Others, however, may have a different opinion, and I don't really object if anyone feels that names need to be removed or added. Hzh (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed two of the names from the quote given above so that only members of the Cup-winning team are left. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I should add I have no problem with listing lots of players from the early 1950s or early 1960s sides as they were the peak years and (I guess) th whole team contributed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There are still lots of named players littering the article in all eras, whose supreme importance is not asserted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It will take a bit of time to write more on individual players, but I will try to do that the next couple of days. I'm not sure they could be said to be of supreme importance (there are really only a few who could be said to be of supreme importance), but most of them were certainly players important enough to be worth mentioning. I'll see if there is anyone who can be removed. Hzh (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that the rivalry with Arsenal is so important to Spurs, relegating the genesis of the rivalry to an aside in brackets feels insubstantial. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It is covered in greater detail in North London derby and even on the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. page (which is, incidentally, much smaller than this one and has more room to be expanded). Some material such as supporters and rivalries could be interpreted as being a bit 'meta' to the chronological flow of the club's fortunes and hence may be better covered in the parent page rather than the history page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly unfair and poorly timed comment: I'm just not active enough (watch my next edit) at the moment to do this justice. It's a huge and high quality piece of work but I have strong reservations about the quality of the prose. In places, it looks like it's been written by someone for whom English is a second language, something I've alluded to in a number of edit summaries as I've been slowly copy-editing. I cannot commit to finishing the job and I feel I'm slowing down this process. So here's my thought. Support, entirely conditional on detailed third-party copyedit. Without one, I'm actually really close to oppose (and if I'm true to myself, I would oppose on those grounds if it weren't that Cas was involved, to whom I owe a great deal, and merely offering conditional support grieves me). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair call (I respect people being thorough and honest) - there is a huge amount of text in the article and each reviewer has found some basic grammar issues as well as the usual prose-smoothing. I'll ask around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Here are my comments on the article. You might find it useful for the comments about English and for how far I got. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • I have checked through the first half of the references. There are several instances where I am not convinced that the source meets the required criteria for quality and reliability. Would you care to comment on the following?
  • Ref 3 and others: Hotspur HQ
All replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 11: Save the Red House
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 13: Aford Awards
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 61: A Halftime Report
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 66: The Fighting Cock
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 132: Who Ate All The Pies
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 143:
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
some can definitely be replaced by book refs. Will look more later as RL beckons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I can make a start replacing the references a bit later. Most are easily replaceable, there might be one or two that are difficult to replace, but we can deal with that later if nothing else can be found. Hzh (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Took a while to find other sources for the information in Save the Red House, but all have been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition there are a few minor glitches
  • Ref 22 Harvard error
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 46 Source wrongly stated as Spurs HQ
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 133 Chapter reference missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 150 Harvard error (Source given as "Goodman")
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: ref numbers are as at the date of this post. A report on the second half will follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Continuing - second column:

  • More sources that I would like you to comment on in terms of quality/reliability:
  • Ref 168: HITC
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 187: Football Site
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 208: FourFourTwo
This is FourFourTwo, which is a notable football magazine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 225: football.london
replaced that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 274: Goal
This is Goal (website). Would seem to be reliable (writers/size etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Other points
  • Ref 177: publisher details and date missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 178: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 180: publication date missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 198: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 270: publisher details missing
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Bibliography: there are no citations to the Hunter Davies book
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Dead links
  • According to the external link checking tool the following are dead links: Refs 106, 151, 159 (numbers correct at time of this posting)
Ref 106 replaced as it appears to be permanently dead. Ref 151 fixed. Red 159 seemed OK, but I added its archived link anyway. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, this looks like a comprehensively sourced article with over 300 citations, mostly to sources of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check the sources. Much appreciated. If you notice anything else do let us know. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A few thoughts from a quick canter through:

  • Date ranges
    • e.g. In the 1921–22 season – the MoS, Heaven knows why, now bids us spell out date ranges, e.g. 1921–1922 season, God save us!
need to look at/think about this - seems really counterintuitive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Counterintuitive as in "bloody silly", but heigh ho! Tim riley talk 20:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • There is some confusion of singular-v-plural. We start off singular for the first three sentences and then switch, unannounced, to plural in the fourth.
singularised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Early decades in the Football League (1908–1949)
    • "The rivalry begun six years earlier" – "began", I think you mean
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Highs and lows of the interwar years
    • The MoS discourages use of definite articles within headers
trimmed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • War and post-war lull
    • The OED prescribes a hyphen in "semi-final".
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Villas-Boas and Sherwood
    • "former Swansea City loanee" – this needs a bit of work. The OED defines "loanee" as "One to whom a loan has been granted; a borrower", which I don’t think you mean here. Also it is not clear whether Sigurðsson was lent to or by Swansea. I pass over the clunky false title. A sports article is perhaps OK with such tabloidese.
leave it like this as that is where he was physically just before and where he attracted the attention of the two clubs (Liverpool and Spurs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope these few quick points are of use. Tim riley (Everton F.C.) talk 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed they are/thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley, BrEng has a weird pluralisation for football teams. When I've worked on FACs on football before, I've dealt with the corporate body club in the singular ("Norwich City is the best club in Anglia") and the team in the plural ("Norwich City are the best team in Anglia"). But pretty much whatever you do looks wrong to someone. What's important is consistency. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right: personally I'd pluralise the lot, but it's a matter of personal preference, and consistency is really the most important thing. Tim riley talk 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a headache whichever way. At least is consistently singular or have ducked it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
If we stick to singular for the club and plural for team, it would be consistent. Using plural for the team is standard in British English, not doing it would be even more confusing to British readers. It is also common to use singular for the club (an example from a news article ...the club is very well run... - [16], note also the use of plural in Tranmere are...) Using singular or plural in a sentence simply signals to the readers what is being referred to in that sentence. The only confusion that may arise (for non-BrEng speakers) is when plural is used for the club, which is possible in British English for football club. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kosack[edit]

Resolved comments from Kosack

Casliber has asked me to take a look at this one. My initial comments on a run through:

Lead

Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup to avoid the redirect.
Done. Also adjusted to League Cup as it is the more common name and the name has changed. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Formation

  • All Hallows Church is linked to a redirect.
Fixed, Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ripsher, who stayed as president until 1894'', should this be "stayed on"?
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Early years

Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Spurs played in navy-blue shirts with a letter H on a scarlet shield with on the left breast.", something missing from this sentence.
Removed an extraneous "with". Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a number of seasons here that are left unlinked but, as the article develops, season links seem to become the norm. Is there any reason these earlier seasons are unlinked?
Linked. Sometimes it's just carelessness, although for the early period it is not certain if the links are relevant as the team didn't compete in the Football League and no information is given on the league they were in in those links. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Professional status

  • "they were admitted to the Division One of Southern League", should that be the Southern League?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Move to White Hart Lane

  • Charringtons link is a redirect.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "first game at the White Hart Lane", is the necessary here?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

1901 FA Cup

  • 1901 FA Cup, Preston North End, Sandy Brown, Tom Smith, Football League and Western League are all linked here despite being linked in previous sections. WP:OVERLINK discourages repeat links like this.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "they started their first overseas tour,", was this a repeating tour? If not, started sounds odd considering it must have presumably ended the same year.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Election to the Football League

  • The 1908-09 season link in the second sentence should be extended to include the word season as it is referring to the actual season rather than the year. Just to avoid being slightly WP:EASTEREGGy.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Billy Minter is linked in the first paragraph and is already linked previously in the article.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "charged in battles", should that be "charged into battles"?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Tommy Clay's link needs piping.
Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Chelsea repeat linked in the fourth paragraph.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Division 2 is used in the last paragraph, this is the only time the name of a division uses a number. Avoid using different formats to avoid confusion.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Interwar years

  • Tommy Clay, Preston North End, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Billy Minter all linked again here. Taffy O'Callaghan is also linked twice here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Plymouth > Plymouth Argyle
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

War and post-war lull

  • Arthur Turner and Highbury repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "an arrangement that last from the early 1920s ", should that be lasted?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

League title

  • Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-Rowe

  • Ipswich > Ipswich Town.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bill Nicholson and the Glory Years (1958–1974)

  • No need for glory years to be capitalised in the heading.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Everton repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FA cup > FA Cup.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Double

  • "was broken by a loss at Hillsborough in November", probably expecting too much for the reader to know who plays at Hillsborough. I would add the team name in there.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sheffield Wednesday repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Continuing success

  • Chelsea repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pipe Football League Cup to EFL Cup.
link tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • West Ham are mentioned for the first time here in relation to Martin Peters. Link and use full team name.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline and revival under Keith Burkinshaw (1974–1984)

  • "reach four cup finals in 4 years and winning three", avoid switching numbers from words to digits in the same sentence.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could probably do with an explanation of what "under-the-counter payments" are, or at least a relevant link.
Linked. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Danny Blanchflower repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Relegation

  • Pat Jennings repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • first division > First Division
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Cup wins and European success

  • Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers both repeat linked here.
Fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "semis", I think I'd stick with semi-final here rather than using semis.
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)

  • "should have booked them a UEFA Cup place", booked a little informal maybe. Secured, perhaps?
Replaced. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Cup win and boardroom drama

  • England repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • plc is linked here but is unlinked in its first mention earlier in the text. Move the link to the first use.
Done. Hzh (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sugar dealing with the club's debt", how did he deal with it? Did he pay it off or something else?
That's just him making arrangement with the bank so that the club can ride out its financial crisis without a hitch (he has the financial clout to do so) and then a rights issue, nothing very exciting, I'm thinking it might be better to delete that part because to explain further is not that interesting, and leaving it unexplained may be unsatisfactory. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe you've removed this now. It's entirely your decision if you feel the information is unnecessary of course, I was just thinking of trying to clarify the information for an unfamiliar reader. Kosack (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)

  • Nottingham Forest repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Sheringham transfer was later the subject of allegations of "bungs" against Forest manager Brian Clough", what were the allegations?
The allegation was that Clough "liked a bung" (i.e. he wanted a bribe for the transfer to go ahead). He was said to have received £58,750 for the Sheringham transfer, and £1 million in total for all the transfers he was involved in [17]. I'm not sure if anything more need to be added apart from linking "bung" to bribery, but if others want further explanation it can be added. As with the "under-the-counter payment" that Bill Nicholson refused to pay, it seems that bribery was fairly common in football in that period. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with just the link being added for clarity with an unusual term, probably not worth extra detail for something not really linked to the subject. Kosack (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " the heaviest punishment ever dished out to an English club", dished out seems a bit sensationalist and journalistic.
toned down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Coca-Cola Cup > League Cup. Avoid using sponsored competition names.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ardiles, Francis and Gross

  • "as well as a teenager Ledley King", should that be "as well as teenager Ledley King" or "as well as a teenage Ledley King"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • South stand > South Stand
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New ownership and Glenn Hoddle

  • "but they ended the Season 2001–02 season", bit of unnecessary wording there.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Villas-Boas and Sherwood

  • Tim Sherwood is repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A new era under Pochettino (2014–present)

  • 2014–15 League Cup Final > link?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Stamford Bridge, Leicester and Premier League all repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New stadium

  • 2016-17 season, Manchester United and North London derby all repeat linked here.
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  • Dave Moor is the author of historicalfootballkits.co.uk (ref 25). See [18].
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 52 and 168 are by The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and have an available author (Paul Felton).
For the second ref I put two authors down using the author element. Wondering if I should do the same for ref 52. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, could do. The site doesn't really make it too clear what James' role was but he was obviously involved in the collection of the information at the very least Kosack (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
k, made both those ref's match each other for author. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 197, BBC > BBC Sport
Ref points to news.bbc.co.uk so changed work element to BBC News. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 250, BBC Sports > BBC Sport.
Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 228, 238, 240, 244, 265 and 266 list the authors by first name-last name. However, the rest of the references use last name-first name. Try to stick to one style for consistency.
Done. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Does ref 273 need "at White Hart Lane" in the author's surname?
Fixed Govvy (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced FA reviewer but I have experience reviewing GAs and I would raise all of the points above in a normal GA review. As such, I would assume they would be worth dealing with at FA level. There is a minor but consistent WP:OVERLINK issue throughout but that's not hard to deal with. There is also some inconsistency in position wording, for example both fifth and 5th are used in the article, although I'm unsure of how important that is so I'll leave it up to others to raise if necessary. Happy to take any constructive criticism of my review if its not up to scratch though. Kosack (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go over the article, excellent work, much appreciated. I've fixed some of the issues you have identified and will go through the others later. Hzh (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yep, correctly writing in prose numbers below 10 should be written, but not sure where they are, might need to be more specific where the errors might be. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I found most if not all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: I think we got everything, with two outstanding issues, Sugar and "bung" - whether we expand and explain...or just delete. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Follow up[edit]

I've had another run through today and found a few more issues to look at.

Early years

  • "the club played the 1892–93 season for first time in a league", this doesn't quite make sense.
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

1901 FA Cup

  • "the 1901 cup win", should that be "1901 Cup" if this is a direct reference to the FA Cup?
it is/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

War and post-war lull

  • "first gained their playing experience for the club in this period", sounds a little odd to me, could do with reordering? "Gained their first playing experience..." perhaps?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Spurs managed to stay in the top half of Second Division" > the Second Division?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The note above would leave "the top half of the Second Division in the three seasons..." which is a bit repetitive. Maybe swap the last one for "during his three seasons as manager" or something similar?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The Spurs Way

  • "Rowe signed future captain Danny Blanchflower, for a record £30,000", I would suggest clarifying that this was a club record. The fee was only three years off being the British record transfer fee, so a casual reader may get confused.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bill Nicholson and the glory years (1958–1974)

  • "behind the champion Burnley" > champions
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "it still remains the club record win", should that be club's?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Cup wins and European success

  • "two Argentinian World Cup winning stars", stars seem to be a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term. Villa for example made two substitute appearances in Argentina's seven matches at the tournament.
changed to "internationals" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "beating Queens Park Rangers in 1982 Final.", word missing from this sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "a fan with ambition of owning the club, started to buy up shares in the club", slight repetition here, using the club in very close proximity.
removed the amibtion bit as it is implied by the behaviour of buying up shares... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Shreeves and Pleat (1984–1987)

  • "Perryman left the club in 1986 after 19 years at the club", again some slight repetition.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "missed out on the first division title to Everton" > First Division.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team,[158] The team could only manage a 13th-place finish", appears to be a mix of two sentences here.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of Premier League football (1992–2004)

  • "pushed for the founding of Premier League" > the Premier League.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Resurgence and the Champions League (2004–2014)

  • "the worst start to a season in the club history" > club's history.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "director of Football", capital letter missing here.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Redknapp

  • "was appointed as Ramos' replacement at Tottenham, and Tottenham reverted", first use of Tottenham could probably be dropped here. Slightly repetitive and its probably safe to assume that it would be at Tottenham at this point.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "winning ten out of the 12 points", WP:NUMNOTES would suggest that comparable figures in the same sentence should be written in the same format. Either both in words or both in digits.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That'll probably be all from me on this one. Kosack (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ok Kosack, all done... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm happy that all of the issues I and others raised here have been addressed. The article is well written and detailed. I would support promotion. Kosack (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the thorough working-over. I hope it makes you feel more confident to nominate your one again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments – I've read part of the way through the article and have a couple of (minor) thoughts so far, not counting ones that were mentioned above:

  • "and also the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup." Remove "also", as that is just an extra word that adds nothing to the lead.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Election to the Football League: This usage of the word "Fortuitously" could be perceived as POV. To save it, you could try adding "for the club" or similar after it, to imply that it wasn't fortunate in general (it certainly doesn't seem fortunate for Stoke). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
good point/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • First European triumph: A word is missing in "A month later Spurs won their consecutive FA Cup...".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Terry Venables (1987–1993): This is quite repetitive around the comma: "and new signings by Venables Terry Fenwick and Paul Walsh failed to lift the team, the team only managing...".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "the" is needed before "opening game" in the following paragraph.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "There were second from bottom...". Was "There" supposed to be "They"? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kenora Thistles[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Representing the smallest town to win a championship in North American pro sports, the Kenora (previously Rat Portage) Thistles are an interesting topic of early ice hockey history. Due to their unique status they've been the subject of multiple scholarly articles, which are heavily relied on here. Previously brought to FAC a few months ago, the article failed due to prose issues. A trip to WP:GOCE hopefully has solved that, though of course any further issues will be addressed. I should also note that due to my schedule I may take a day or two to respond, but comments will be addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few quick ones, as that's all I have time for:

  • I'm seeing a mixture of singular and plural references to the team's nickname, with "its" and "their" both in use here. Pick one style and stick with it throughout the article. I personally prefer the plural form for teams that have nicknames which will be used frequently, but others may differ.
  • 1903 Stanley Cup challenge: Try not to have Ottawa repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as happens in the first paragraph here. It's just overly repetitive to read.
  • January 1907 Stanley Cup challenge: "1906–07season" obviously needs fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Back from my other obligations, and addressed things here. Thanks for going over them. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments - a few quick ones, I will come back for a more thorough read:

  • "The owners of the Victoria Rink where the team played, stated their intention to build a 4,000 to 5,000-seat replacement rink. This would make it the largest rink in Western Canada and dwarf the 1,000-seat Victoria Rink." Two comments / questions about this pair of sentences. First about the tense of the second sentence - should it be "would have made"? Second, and this is perhaps a quibble - despite playing in a Manitoba league, I don't know that many people would obviously call Kenora "Western Canada" - perhaps a more specific definition would be better?
It is more a quirk of Canadian history to call a place in Western Ontario part of "Western Canada." I've reworded it to "west of Ontario," let me know if that sounds better to you. Agree about the first part there, changed that wording.
  • Player names are sometimes wikilinked multiple times after their first usage. Billy McGimsie is first linked in the caption of the photo, and then not linked in prose, and then linked twice towards the end of the article in different sections.
Fixed
  • IHL is abbreviated, but the abbreviation is never used later in the text.
Removed abbreviation
  • ""Although Kenora's experience of professional hockey was brief, the Thistles' early twentieth-century Stanley cup challenges [illustrated] some of the key issues surrounding community identity, town promotion, and the amateur-professional controversy in [that] period."[68]" If Cup is incorrectly not capitalized in the quote, should that be noted?"
That was a typo on my part (the source capitalizes "Cup."
  • MHA is not defined on its first usage.
I see it only used twice in the article, in the "1905 Stanley Cup Challenge" section, where it's written as "Manitoba Hockey Association (MHA)," and later on in the "League play, 1905–1907" section, which is three paragraphs later.
  • "Almost immediately after winning the Stanley Cup the Wanderers, who won the ECAHA championship," - this really makes it sound like the Wanderers won the Stanley Cup, not the Thistles, which as I read the previous section is not correct.
I reworded it, let me know if that's better.
  • I will come back and give a more thorough review. At first glance, there seem no issues with reliable sources, or images. Canada Hky (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Canada Hky: I've addressed everything here. Let me know if you have anything more to add. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments. Images all look good and appropriate for the article. For sources - the two Dan Diamond books - should the publisher for both be "Total Sports Publishing" or did the name change between the two publication dates? That is the only other thing I noted with a more thorough review. Once that is cleared up, I am good to support. Canada Hky (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The full name of the publisher has been added. Thanks for going through the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support per the above comments which have all been addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fôrça Bruta[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. The previous nomination was closed a week ago due to prolonged inactivity and belated activity, but I have been allowed to renominate. Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

  • Support per my exhaustively thorough review in the first nomination. Most of it can be found here, but it was concluded on the article talk page here after the nomination closed. At a glance, my review (including Dan56's responses) is ~72k characters in length, while the article itself is ~28k—a good indicator that no stone was left unturned. I'm now convinced that the quality of research, sourcing, prose, etc. is excellent and that the article meets all FA criteria. This is an exceptional article that helps to expand English Wikipedia's coverage of music from outside the Anglosphere; if it passes FAC this time, it appears (judging from Category:FA-Class arts in Brazil articles) Fôrça Bruta would be the encyclopedia's first featured article about Brazilian music or arts, which is a very valuable contribution. —BLZ · talk 17:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp[edit]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts[edit]

I don't really have much to say about this article because I mostly do hip hop-related articles, but this article is well sourced and well edited, I think it deserves to be featured. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Support from Magiciandude (Erick)[edit]

Support per last nomination. Erick (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

@Nikkimaria:, you offered a media review in the previous nomination, where BLZ also responded to your concern about this image. The media have remained unchanged since then. Does this article pass a media check? Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a problem with me knocking out an image/file review so I'll go ahead and do that. Here's a run-through of every image and audio file on the page, whether free-licensed or copyrighted:

  • File:Forca Bruta.jpg — The album cover found in the infobox. Appropriate fair use rationale and licensing tag. At 300 × 300 px, the image has a lower resolution than the 0.1 megapixel res recommended for copyrighted images at WP:IMAGERES. Includes appropriate alt text.
  • File:Br-força bruta.ogg — 0:02 PD audio file of the pronunciation of "Fôrça Bruta" ([fˈoxsɐ bɾˈutɐ]), as spoken and recorded by Dan56. Very minor recommendation: The file description indicates this is a pronunciation of the album title as "spoken in São Paulo dialect of Brazilian Portuguese". I don't know if there would be any difference in the pronunciation of this phrase between Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, but Template:IPA-pt#usage shows that there is a way to indicate a "Brazilian Portuguese" pronunciation. I'd recommend relabeling it to avoid any error in case there is a difference in pronunciation, but also because the artist is Brazilian. Other than that, there are no usage or copyright issues with this file.
  • File:Jorge Ben e o Trio Mocotó no Teatro da Lagoa, 1971.tif — A photo of Ben and the backing band Trio Mocotó, used in the "Recording and production" section. The image is free-licensed, as it entered the public domain in Brazil for the following reasons: the photo was "first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities, such as copyright notice" (the image is dated November 1971) and it is a "Photographic [work] not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 19 June 1998" (it is considered a "non-artistic," "documentary" photograph under the applicable standards of Brazilian law.) See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil#Threshold of originality for further info.
    Regarding some comments from the last review: in my view, using this image—rather than removing it or using another image—is appropriate. This is a reasonably contemporaneous image of the musicians, only one year after the album was released. The only other available PD image of Jorge Ben from the 1970s is File:Jorge Ben, 1972.tif, which is a year later and does not include the backing band. There is no indication that there is a superior PD image with the backing band closer in time to the recording. While there are some minor imperfections in the scan—a rectangle drawn around Ben's head, some slight damage near the top of the photo—none of these are significant enough that they detract from the image's educational value. This scan of the photo was taken from the Brazilian National Archives, so it's fair to presume this is the best-preserved scan available anywhere. In general, this is a PD image that adds a lot of informational value; its minor flaws and slight distance in time from the recording time period don't strike me as reasons to remove the image. Includes appropriate alt text.
  • File:Oba, Lá Vem Ela.ogg — Sample of the song "Oba, Lá Vem Ela" (4:13) in the "Musical style" section. At 0:25 in length, it is less than 10% of the original song length. Non-free use rationale and licensing both check out. Article includes commentary on the song; the song is also used to illustrate the overall sound of the album.
  • File:Almeida Júnior - O Negrinho.jpg — PD image of a 19th c. Brazilian painting, "The Black Boy", used in the "Themes" section. Appropriate licensing (the last image review noted that a US-PD tag was needed, and one has been added.) The article discusses the racial themes of Ben's lyrics and their relation to historical conditions of slavery in Brazil, so use of this image is appropriate as a PD representation of that subject matter. Includes appropriate alt text.

If anyone has further concerns about file usage, there should be enough information here to assess any issues. —BLZ · talk 23:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. And yes, I have now modified the IPA template to indicate Brazilian Portuguese. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain[edit]

The article is very well-written and I enjoyed reading about a genre I've not explored. I'll be back to offer a few more small comments but overall I think it's strong.

  • "after a four-year leave from the label due to creative differences" Is there any more detail available on this? It might be nice to expand a bit to give more context.
  • "String and horn sections were recorded for the final mix but went uncredited in the album's packaging" This is slightly confusing.. are the strings and horns actually on the album? Maybe it could be rephrased like "String and horn sections are present on the final mix but went uncredited in the album's packaging" --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I prefer to include "recorded", to sustain the section's narrative of a recording process; I added "and included [in the final mix]", to make it clearer. Dan56 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support at this time, as anything else I have would be a subjective nit-pick. Well done. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I've seen a few mentions above re. sourcing but I don't think we've had a formal review for formatting and reliability (correct me if I'm wrong). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Only with certain print sources, not everything. I'll make a request. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Planar transmission line[edit]

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a form of transmission line widely used in electronics. It is of high importance in the field of microwave transmissions. It has been through GA and Peer Review and is a comprehensive overview of the technology. Electrical engineering is under-represented at FA, as is engineering generally. Hopefully, this article can help to correct that. SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Planar_modes.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The sources are named in the reference at the end of the caption and in the file description. SpinningSpark 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed the section underneath the licensing tag - suggest either moving up to the Source section of the summary, or at least providing a pointer there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I was the GA reviewer, and am glad to see this here. It's dauntingly technical, but we need articles on this sort of topic, even though there's a limit to how accessible they can be made. When I promoted this to GA I was confident the material was well-organized and coherently presented, so I'm going to look mostly at prose clarity.

  • ...millimetres. Hence the need for transmission lines within a circuit. We haven't yet said transmission lines are needed in circuits, only that they are used, so I'd suggest "Hence transmission lines are needed within circuits".
  • There are several different types of planar transmission line. The earliest type of planar transmission line was conceived...: some repeated wording here. Since "earliest type" implies there was more than one type, I think you could just cut the first sentence. Alternatively, you could change the second sentence to start "The earliest was conceived..." but I think that's clumsier.
    • Done. The repetition is a result of replacing "forms" and "formats" with "types" after comments at the peer review. SpinningSpark 00:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many of these types have a narrower bandwidth and in general they produce more signal distortion than pairs of conductors: suggest "and in general produce more".
  • Is there a suitable link target for "loss" at the end of the second paragraph of the lead? I had a look and couldn't find anything obvious.
  • Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, or because the values required are impractically small to manufacture. This sentence gave me some trouble in the GA review, and I've reread your explanation there. I think the key point is that lumped passive components are impractical because of their size; the fact that e.g. a desired impedance in a component in microwave circuits could require an impractically small physical size for the component could be relegated to a footnote. How about "Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, but they can be replaced by a pattern of transmission lines that provides the same function within the circuit", with a footnote for the omitted text if necessary?
    • I'm reluctant to omit or footnote that. Both reasons can apply. Even in the same design (to different components). The prose may be improvable, but I think both reasons should stay. SpinningSpark 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      OK, I'll think about it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      I made it "either for this reason", which makes it clearer that the second reason is unrelated to the prior explanation. I think that's what was bothering me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The most widely used planar types are stripline, microstrip, suspended stripline, and coplanar waveguide. It's not clear whether this refers to the previous sentence ("...planar types of dielectric waveguide") or the subject of the article.
  • Usually, steps are taken to suppress all modes except the operational one: does "operational" mean "having the intended functionality"? If so I think something like "desired" or "intended" would be clearer to a lay reader.
  • ...it can be used at low frequencies, all the way down to zero (DC): suggest "(i.e. DC)".
  • Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from a form of distortion called dispersion. Dispersion is where different frequency components travel at different velocities resulting in the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) becoming "smeared out" in the direction of the line length. Suggest "Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from dispersion, a form of distortion in which different frequency components travel at different velocities. Dispersion "smears out" the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) in the direction of the line length."
  • The conductors consist of flat strips, and there are usually one or more ground planes parallel to the flat surface of the conductors. This is the only sentence in the early part of the article to give a general description of the elements of planar transmission lines. Can we add a little more detail? It seems every design uses a dielectric substrate in some way, for example. A few words here would prepare the reader for later sentences like "Some planar types, notably microstrip, do not have a homogeneous dielectric".
  • ...classified as either transverse electric (TE) or transverse magnetic (TM) (also called respectively H and E modes) according to whether, respectively, all of the electric field, or all of the magnetic field is transverse Can we avoid two consecutive uses of "respectively"?
  • The first paragraph on LSE and LSM modes seems to repeat itself at the end. Could we cut the last sentence, and change an earlier sentence to say "It turns out that the LSE and LSM modes..."?
    • See next point
  • Do we need the last two sentences of that section? We've already used the term "hybrid modes" at the start of the section and we don't use "HEM" anywhere else in the article. Could the definition of "hybrid" be given earlier, instead? Perhaps in the "Transverse modes" section where you say "there is always a longitudinal component"?
    • I'm thinking of entirely recasting this section in a much simpler form. I propose to entirely remove the discussion of the derivation from Maxwell's equations and the notation arising. This may be too much detail for an overview article. The trouble is that this information appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. In an attempt to be thorough, the discussion of modes has become longer than ideal. It is a pity there is not a good article that can be linked to. I think the solution is to create a stub-plus article at Longitudinal-section mode with the current text and have a simpler summary here. What do you think? By the way, the transverse modes are not hybrid modes. SpinningSpark 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      Yes, I think that's a good idea. The notation and derivation aren't necessary here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      Done. Hopefully, that's a lot clearer now. I've also created mode (electromagnetism) to provide navigation around the zoo of mode types. SpinningSpark 16:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      Definitely an improvement. How about putting a {{main}} at the top of the Modes section, pointing to the new article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      I wouldn't object if someone does that, but personally I feel a list+ navigation page doesn't amount to a main article. Really, there is more information right here on this page. I would feel misled and my time had been wasted if I was directed to that as a main page. SpinningSpark 14:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

-- More when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • Other factors detracting from Q: "detract" is usually used for worth, not numerical value. How about "Other factors that reduce Q" or "that lower Q"?
  • The mixed media of air and dielectric leads, in theory, to...: "leads" sounds wrong to me, since "media" is plural. How about rephrasing: "Since the wave travels through both air and dielectric, the transmission mode is, in theory, not pure TEM, but a thin dielectric..."?
    • If this is just a grammatical issue, why not just change "leads" to "lead"? I like the phrase mixed media because it is imparting more general information to the reader than the specific case being discussed. That is, mixing high and low dielectric constant solid materials will also have this effect. SpinningSpark 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      That might work; I'll see if I can come with any better wording that preserves that phrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      How about expanding this slightly to make the point clearer? "Since the wave is travelling through the mixed media of air and dielectric, the transmission mode, in theory, is not pure TEM, but a thin dielectric renders this effect negligible." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      Done SpinningSpark 14:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which detracts from miniaturisation, but is easier to manufacture. The subjects of "detracts" and "is" are not the same; the size is what detracts, but the component is what is easier to manufacture. Suggest "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which are harder to miniaturise, but easier to manufacture." If "harder" is wrong because it's a limit, not a difficulty, then "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which limits miniaturisation, but makes the components easier to manufacture".

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

More:

  • SIW also has high Q and high power handling. Additionally, as a planar technology, SIW is easier to integrate with other components. "Also" and "Additionally" do the same work here, so it might be better to combine the sentences: "SIW also has high Q and high power handling, and, as a planar technology, is easier to integrate with other components."
  • bilateral finline has lower loss for similar reasons to the advantages of bilateral suspended stripline: this isn't quite right; the advantages of BSS are not the reason for bilateral finline's lower loss. I'm not sure how to reword this without changing the meaning, but perhaps "bilateral finline has lower loss, as with bilateral suspended stripline, and for similar reasons".
  • radiation from bends and losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive severely detract from this figure: another instance of "detract" being not quite the right word. How about "losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive significantly reduce this figure" or "significantly lower the attainable Q".
  • However, imageline is not a suitable technology at lower frequencies. As far as I can tell this statement is not further explained; is there a concise reason that can be given?
    • No further explanation, because the source gives no further explanation. Clearly, it won't pass DC (because imageline is an insulator). More profoundly, as the frequency goes lower and lower, the wavelength becomes larger and larger and the field is less and less actually contained within the imageline. In the limit, it becomes no different from transmitting radio waves through the air, and the line is not really acting as a guide at all. Do we need to give a reason? I'll see if anything can be sourced. SpinningSpark 17:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      Not required, just curious. I wouldn't withhold support, but I think it's a natural question for a reader to ask, so anything you can source would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Transitions between types using unbalanced conductive lines are straightforward enough: this is mostly just a matter of providing continuity... Three qualifiers in a short span: "enough", "mostly", and "just". I think you could cut "enough" and "just" without changing the meaning.
  • The development of planar technologies was driven at first by the needs of the US military, but today it can be found... "It" refers to "planar technologies", so it should be "they", or make it "planar technology", or "...but today circuits using planar transmission lines can be found..." or some similar construction.
  • Do we need to mention Thomas H. Lee in the text? Cutting that would make it easier to join the sentence with the next one, which would flow better: "Harold A. Wheeler may have experimented with coplanar lines as early as the 1930s, but the first documented planar transmission line was stripline, invented by Robert M. Barrett and published by Barrett and Barnes in 1951." The next sentence starts with "Although", so it would be nice to eliminate that "However". Similarly for "According to Barrett". If you feel these are claims that are not strong enough to appear in the text without some qualification, could they be abbreviated to something like "Reportedly"?
    • I'm surprised you're suggesting "reportedly". That's an invitation for someone to slap a {{who?}} tag on it. I wouldn't like to omit the attribution to either claim, unless there are primary documents at the dates claimed from the alleged researchers themselves. At the moment it's anecdote so has to be attributed. SpinningSpark 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      If it needs to be attributed that's fine. I don't think {{who?}} tags are justified where the source clearly gives the attribution, and I remove those where I'm familiar with the source, but I agree some editors will tag that sort of construction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've cut out four "however"s with my copyedits, but more could go -- there are still seventeen in the text. It's a useful word but it's easy to overuse, and I think you should cut some more. Often it can simply be removed with little effect on the meaning.
  • Suggest linking MMIC again at the end of the "History" section; the earlier link is far above and the acronym is unhelpful to a lay reader.

-- That's it for a first pass. I'll think about the unstruck points above some more, and read through again once you've responded to these last points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. There are a couple of minor points still being discussed above, but nothing that affects my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Absolutely no idea about the topic, but I will try.

  • working at microwave frequencies – But the first sentence says "Planar transmission lines are transmission lines", and the linked article transmission lines states that they are at radio frequencies.
    Hi Jens, thanks for reviewing. Microwaves are considered a subset of radio frequencies. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • normal simple interconnections – what precisely is meant by this? Is there an article to link this to?
    There is no special technical meaning here; it is just normal English. It means like the wires connecting your loudspeakers to your hifi amplifier. This came up at peer review as well and the next sentence (With normal interconnections the propagation...) is intended to clarify the issue. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. Any suggestions are welcome. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    OK, but still, a link would help. These "normal interconnections" appear to be the most basic type; they really have no Wikipedia article? What about Electrical cable? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    Good idea - done. SpinningSpark 12:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Transmission lines are more than normal simple interconnections. With normal interconnections the propagation of the electromagnetic wave along the wire is fast enough to be considered instantaneous – You are comparing transmission lines with normal interconnections. But it seems you are rather comparing different wave length to wire length ratios? Its unclear to me. The problem might be that I don't understand what a normal interconnection is.
    Yes, you are right that when using shorter wavelengths on the same piece of wire it will suddenly exhibit transmission line effects where there were none before, but it is still valid to treat them separately. With a normal interconnection, we don't worry too much about the geometry. As soon as we start considering the connection to be a transmission line, steps are taken to ensure the cross-sectional geometry is constant and well defined along the entire length of the line. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, understood, why not adding this to the lead (I mean, the requirement that cross-sectional geometry is constant)? Because right now, the first paragraph of the lead starts with Transmission lines are more than normal simple interconnections but never explains what the difference is between the two. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    Done SpinningSpark 13:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Other planar types, such as slotline, finline, and imageline, transmit along a strip of dielectric, – can you link these different types, and also "planar types"?
    This article is the best source of information on Wikipedia for all those types. I've linked them in the lead, but they all redirect back here. There is only passing mentions of slotline elsewhere on Wikipedia and nothing at all for imageline. For finline there is finline filter, but that's only a paragraph in another article and there is more information here on the line itself. "Planar types" is the whole of this article. SpinningSpark 22:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't get that these are planar transmission lines as well, instead I thought "planar types" are some higher-ranking category that contains planar transmission lines, amongst others. So if one talks about "planar types", these are always planar transmission lines? Maybe write, for clarity, "other types of planar transmission lines"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    Done. SpinningSpark 13:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not fully understand the lead, even with consulting the linked articles. What I got is that planar transmission lines always have two conductors, which for some reasons is better at microwave frequencies. But in the first article section "General properties", this is not even mentioned. The lead compares with "other planar types", "Lumped passive components", and "other types, such as coaxial cable", but without guiding the reader where to place this info. Maybe a reorganization of the lead is needed; maybe explaining point by point with a clear red threat and keeping it simple is better. I'm a bit at a loss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there is anything actionable there. The lead does not say planar transmission lines always have two conductors. It does say that the four main types have a pair of conductors. There is nothing unusual in this – that is the normal number for an electrical circuit. The reason planar is preferred is stated in the second sentence of the lead "...planar type fits in well with the manufacturing methods..." and is expanded on in the General properties section "The principal advantage of the planar types is that they can be manufactured using the same processes used to make..." For "other planar types" these are all now linked, see comment above. "Lumped components" is linked to lumped element model and coaxial line is linked to coaxial cable. SpinningSpark 22:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    I understand it now, it was mainly resulting from my confusion (see one point above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Jens Lallensack do you have any more to add here? We are struggling slightly for reviews here, but I'm inclined to leave this a little longer as it's a very technical article, and those always struggle to attract reviewers. I'll add it to the urgent list and see if that helps. Sarastro (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't spot additional problems, but I must confess that I really lack the expertise here to be able to appropriately assess the article. I give my support, but please note that this cannot be counted as a full review, which I am unable to deliver. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that technically minded editors were involved in the peer review (one of them with experience in exactly this field). Sadly, neither of them seem inclined to take part here, although I have pinged them. However, I am confident that any serious technical boo-boos would have already been picked up. SpinningSpark 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington State Route 522[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This highway is among the oldest and most congested in the Seattle area, transforming from a city street to a countryside freeway. At one time, it was named one of the nation's most dangerous highways, and has since been rebuilt to prevent head-on collisions that were once common in the 1980s and 1990s. This article passed GAN last year and went through a project A-Class review that was accepted. SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my review at the ACR. An image review was done at that time. --Rschen7754 19:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN7: no need to repeat Google. Same with FN14
    • The repeat of "Google" is baked into the template. FN14 fixed.
  • be consistent in when you include publisher locations
    • Dropped from citations.
  • Be consistent in whether report titles are italicized
    • Not sure which reports are italicized here. All citations using {{cite report}} are unitalicized.
  • FN24: source gives a different publication date. Same with FN90
    • Both use dates from the newspaper copy, rather than the website.
  • FN29: title doesn't match source
    • Fixed.
  • Fn57 has an error message. Same with FN49, 46, 43, 41, 31. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- this one has petered out quickly; I'll add it to the FAC urgents list and perhaps you can try and scare up another couple of reviews, but if we don't see some action soon I'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport (having stumbled here from my own FAC)

  • State Route 522 (SR 522) is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington, serving the Seattle metropolitan area. - maybe it's just me, but I think it would work better to have "...Washington that serves..." instead of the gerund "serving". Minor, but because it's the opening sentence I wanted to leave it up to you.
    • It definitely sounds better, and eliminates a troublesome comma.
  • Its western half is primarily an arterial street, named Lake City Way and Bothell Way, following the northern shore of Lake Washington - Could you link arterial street? Also, the prose could be improved here, namely the Lake Washington part. It feels awkward. Something like "where it follows" would work better.
    • Tried to work around it without changing things too much.
  • Why is "Red Brick Road" in quotations?
    • Removed.
  • You use "pass"/"passing" in three consecutive sentences in "Route description". Any chance you could change one of them?
    • Changed all three to make the paragraph flow a bit better.
  • "It continues moving north and east with sharp turns that are parallel to the Eastside Rail Corridor" - could you improve the wording in this part? I think I get it, but I'm a little confused.
    • Cut out the directions.
  • " In 2016, WSDOT calculated that 96,000 vehicles used SR 522 at its interchange with I-405 and 12,000 vehicles used it at its eastern terminus in Monroe, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively." - are there any more recent estimates?
    • WSDOT no longer publishes AADT data in the cited format. The new interface makes it harder to find high/low data points, and doesn't seem to have a major difference in traffic counts.
  • Who called the road "finest pieces of road to be found anywhere in the United States".
    • The Times, according to The Times.
  • in a "Boulevard Blowout" - again, since it's in quotes, I have to ask, who said it?
    • It was the name of the event.
  • costing $5.3 million (equivalent to $32 million in 2016 dollars) - why not 2019 USD? For that matter, I don't think the inflation is even required.
    • The template generates figures that are automatically updated based on new sources. It can be left to run indefinitely with little maintenance.
  • $180 million (equivalent to $278 million in 2016 dollars)[56] in funding was allocated to a five-stage widening project by the state government in 1993 - since this is the history section and years are important, could you rewrite this part so you mention 1993 a lot sooner? Again, the inflation isn't too important here. It's fine that it's consistent, but it's not like $278 million was spent.
    • Re-ordered the sentence.

All in all, typically good road article, one that just needs a bit more work before I can support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the review. I've responded to your comments, but I would like to keep the inflation figures. SounderBruce 06:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the quick reply. I'm happy to support now. That works fine with the inflation figures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Waves at Bruce
  • It would be nice if the map showed Monroe, though I understand that that may not be possible to get done quickly.
  • Lake Forest Park.[7][8] Within Lake Forest Park, SR 522 Compressing the excerpt, but it might be useful to change the second mention of the city/town to something like "Within that city/town" to avoid close conjunctionitis.
  • Not sure that the link to stairstep is useful considering it doesn't even mention this usage. I think that moving north and east with sharp turns suffices to describe the pattern.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sturmvogel 66: I was able to cleanup the map labels in Inkscape and fix those two items in the Route description section. Thanks for stepping in to review this. SounderBruce 05:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think I'd still like a little more commentary on this, so maybe we could squeeze one more review from somewhere? Sarastro (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Irritator[edit]

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a carnivorous theropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil, with one of the most peculiar namesakes for an extinct animal. It is my second FA nomination of a spinosaurid and, if it passes, will become Wikipedia's third spinosaur FA. I expanded and improved it over the course of nearly three months as part of a joint project, with FunkMonk's FAC of the contemporary Thalassodromeus, to pay tribute to the palaeontological fossils lost in the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro fire this year. The article has passed its GA and DYK nominations, received a peer review, and been copyedited by the GOCE. Beforehand, I'd also like to make clear that the two blog articles cited[19][20] are written by Darren Naish, a published palaeontologist who is respected in his field. So I think it should be fine in regards to WP:RS. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review[21], and this is certainly one of the most thorough and well-illustrated dinosaur articles I've reviewed. Good job! FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - me too. Looked at peer review and quibbles addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments by Lusotitan[edit]

I have no doubt this will pass, but I'll still do a run-through to see if there's any small details I could suggest improvements on. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • To start, the "palaeoecology" section should be "palaeoenvironment" in this case, similar to the Baryonyx article. The subjects of what it preyed upon and its aquatic habitat preference are both fundamentally questions of its ecology, so excluding them from a "palaeoecology" is out of place. In some articles with sprawling palaeobiology sections on the physiology of the taxon, like Tyrannosaurus and Edmontosaurus, I advocate for just moving the sections to the latter header. But here it's the entire palaeobiology section, and since there's an obvious divide of the way the animal interacts with its environment as opposed to what that environment was like, simply re-naming the last section as was done for the Barynoyx article would seem like the appropriate change.
You make a good argument. I changed the header name, though with one alteration; I named it "Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography", as was done for Ceratosaurus, since it also discusses biogeographical implications. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Any more comments, Lusotitan? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll give a review Saturday, currently buried under schoolwork. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Lusotitan, did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Proceeding with review:

  • The genus name comes from the word "Irritation", reflecting the feelings of paleontologists who found the skull had been heavily damaged and altered by the collectors. - irritation should not be capitalized, as it is a single word and not a full statement in quotes.
Whoops! fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is known from a nearly complete skull found in the Romualdo Formation. - I would say "Romualdo Formation of the Araripe Basin" to avoid any confusion when it's said both it and Angaturama come from the Basin in the next paragraph.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The species name challengeri is an homage to the fictional character Professor Challenger. - using the species name alone without the genus name is generally considered improper, but it's not a huge deal either way (i.e. I leave it to the preference of the author); additionally, it might be worth saying that Challenger is from the works of Doyle, as opposed to just saying he's "a fictional character", but again I leave this to the judgement of the author.
I just removed challengeri then, since it's not too neccessary either. As for your second comment, it's the result of a suggestion by Jens Lallensack in order to remove unecessary details from the lead. I added Doyle's name back, though without pointing out The Lost World, which should be a good compromise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • —known from a snout tip that was described in 1996— - perhaps note that it was later in 1996, so avoid confusion on why it's the junior synonym?
Good idea, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Although this has been proven otherwise - I would prefer the more neutral "this has been question" of "cast into doubt" or something along those lines.
Went with the second option; more concise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Spinosaurid skeletal material, some of which could belong to Angaturama, was retrieved from the Romualdo Formation, allowing for a replica skeleton to be made and mounted for display at the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro in 2009. - is there a particular reason Angaturama is singled out here instead of saying "Irritator or Angaturama" or merely "the taxon"? Also, I'd say "Other spinosaurid skeletal material..." at the beginning of the sentence.
Changed to "Irritator or Angaturama" and Added "Other spinosaurid skeletal material". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Between 6 and 8 meters (20 and 26 ft) in length - it should be made clear this is a range of estimates as opposed to a range of sizes known from different individuals.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Irritator challengeri's holotype remains the most completely preserved skull found for a spinosaurid. - I think "most completely preserved spinosaurid skull yet found" would sound more natural, personally. Up to author's judgement.
Definitely sounds better IMO, took your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fossil evidence is known of an individual that ate a pterosaur, possibly from hunting or scavenging it. - shouldn't this be "either from" and not "possibly"? Unless a serious third possibility is on or has been put on the table.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At the time it was assumed to be the skull of a giant basal pterosaur, or flying reptile, since the Chapada do Araripe region is famous for its copious pterosaur finds - I can't read the non-Englsih source myself, but does it explicitly say that it's a basal pterosaur they thought it was? This seems an odd assumption given the pterosaurs from Brazil at that time are all pterodactyloids...
I can read Portuguese and the source says they thought it was a "primitive pterosaur", though I'm not sure if this is used in Portuguese as a synonym to basal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Two years earlier, Frey and Martill named a new pterosaur - I would say "Frey and Martill had name" since this happened before and not after.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Irritator challengeri is the first dinosaur described from the Romualdo Formation - was the first.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • previously designated the Romualdo Member of the Santana Formation - based on the Santana Group there doesn't seem to be a Santana Formation anymore at all, perhaps this should be noted?
This is pointed out in the first paragraph of Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography, but I added "then" before "Santana Formation" here, to serve as a nod to this fact. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • and its holotype specimen represents the most completely preserved skull known for a spinosaurid. - see above comment about this wording in the lead.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would put the first two sentences of the paragraph of the above three comments at the end of the paragraph, with the information about its assignment to the Romualdo Formation coming first. This is a more natural flow of information, talking about how we came to know it came from the formation and then noting why this is important.
Rejigged according to your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Known skull elements as interpreted by paleontologist Jaime A. Headden; the snout tip is from the Angaturama specimen. - I would say "Known skull elements of Irritator..." since the image is in the section about Angaturama.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, although the two specimens evidently do not belong to the same individual - again, I don't like this wording. I'd say something more like "Though they therefore concluded the two specimens do not belong to the same individual...".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Besides skull elements - are there further skull elements than the two specimens, or is this just in reference to them? I'd prefer this be made clear here if possible.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • given that the last two - "given that both"; "last two" implies more taxa were listed beforehand.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Bone histology indicates that this individual was a subadult, so the mature animal may have been much larger - is the word "much" itself used in the paper? If not, this should only say "larger" without exaggeration.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • MN 4819-V comprises a largely intact pelvis, some dorsal (back) and caudal (tail) vertebrae, five sacral (hip) vertebrae, a partial right tibia and fibula (shin and calf bones), most of the right femur (thigh bone), and part of an ulna (forearm bone).[23][25] It also has the most complete hand known from a spinosaurid, including metacarpals, phalanges, one carpals, and one claw. - this all seems like information that should also be in the postcrania section of "History of research".
I don't see the need in repeating this information, and think that it's best to stick with "the most complete spinosaur specimen retrieved from the Romualdo Formation is MN 4819-V, a partial skeleton lacking the skull." for the discovery section, as is done for Irritator's skull (the specific bones are not mentioned in discovery either). IMO this more precise anatomical information is more relevant for the description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The first mentions of Spinosaurus, spinosaurid, Baryonyx, and Suchomimus should all be linked in the classification section.
I thought that according to MOS:DUPLINK, terms are only to be linked once in the main text? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would note somewhere that as a spinosaurid it belongs to the superfamily Megalosauroidea. Noting at some point that it is a theropod may also be worth doing.
Done, it's especially useful since one of the cladograms actually shows Megalosauroidea. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Although much of the holotype's morphology turned out to be greatly different - I find this a bit unclear, I'd say "turned out to be greatly different than thought by them" or something similar.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The nostrils of Irritator were shifted far to the rear of the skull - in the classification section it's said this was more recently disputed, which seems important to note somewhere in this paragraph. It's sort of alluded to when it says it had less retracted nostrils than Spinosaurus, but this doesn't seem clear enough to me.
Used "far back from the tip of the snout" instead, which sounds less extreme. Did this for the lead as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Although to a lesser degree - to a lesser degree than what?
Than most known spinosaurs, added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • usually marginal and coastal habitats - could "marginal" be linked anywhere? I myself am unfamiliar with the term and surely general readers will also be.
There seem to be no links for the term, and the relevant definition for it is missing from the Wikitionary as well[22]. Could it just be redlinked to marginal habitat? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • more-terrestrial - I see no reason for a dash here.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • osteosclerosis therefore might have been the norm in the Spinosaurinae - is "the norm" proper terminology? I always thought it was slang.
Huh, I've never heard anything about it being slang, and at least two other dino FAs use it.[23][24]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would again link terms such as Spinosaurus and Baryonyx in the first mention in the palaeobiology section.
Again, I thought MOS:DUPLINK didn't allow this? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • and overlies the Crato Formation - link "Crato Formation".
Already linked in history of discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Generalized locations of spinosaurid fossil discoveries on an Albian-Cenomanian map, 113 to 93.9 million years ago - I would make it clear this only reflects discoveries from that time span.
Done, I'll do this for Oxalaia as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps, the size diagram and the nostril diagram
Scaled up all four images, I also went ahead and removed the "D" in the second map, which is left over from when it was a multiple-map image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Spinosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek_-_Version_2.svg: National Museum of Brazil link is dead. Same with File:Irritator_Life_Reconstruction.jpg
Replaced both links with an Internet Archive snapshot. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure File:Irritator_at_sunset_by_PaleoGeek.png is needed
Are you suggesting I remove the image? Not sure how that would be beneficial for the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
What benefit do you feel it's currently providing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It provides a closeup restoration of the animal's head (as there is already one for the full body), and gives readers a tangible example of how its head might have looked like in life. Especially since the skull remains are only thing that can be confidently attributed to Irritator at this time, it is less speculative. Multiple restorations in a dinosaur article aren't exactly unusual, either. From what I've seen, if there is room for such an image, and it is relevant to the article, then it is typically added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Спинозавр_-_новая_реконструкция_(flipped).jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ibrahim et al. (2014), added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems it is a general issue:[25] Perhaps Lusotitan will return too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by IJReid[edit]

Yeah why not I'll start looking over it shortly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Only thing for Discovery: What year was the Irritator fossil found? All other details seem included, but the first paragraph noticably lacks any date or year. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk also asked this during the peer review.[26] I couldn't find any sources that mention a date, and since the fossil was dug up illegally by local collectors, it makes sense why that would be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gotta object to the significant use of bracketed explanation terms in the end of Description. I've never heard the tibia or fibula called "shank bones" before. It might be a regional thing but they are the "shin bones". Stuff like "manus (hand)" cn just link to manus|hand so the manus word is hidden, to reduce the overall bracketed words that are rather distracting. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I changed it to (shin and calf bones) since only the tibia is a shin bone, I was mostly going off of Brachiosaurus here[27], where "shank bones" was used, though now that I think of it I haven't heard that term either. I hid/removed a few bracketed terms besides manus (anatomy), such as ungual => claw, pubes (pubic bones) => pubic bones, and pelvic (hip) bones => pelvic bones. Are there any other ones I should do? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that looks to be everything from me support IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 07:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

  • I think we still need a source review for formatting and reliability.
Indeed. Lusotitan of course still has to do his review as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Also I don't think PaleoGeekSquared was subjected to a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing at their first FAC, which is normal practice, so I'd like to see one here. Both these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, well, it was my first FAC, so I wasn't aware of many of the procedures. Anyways, thanks for bringing it up! I've put up the request. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's generally up to the coords to ask for spotchecks to be performed and I overlooked it that time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Any idea when the source review might get done? It's been a little while now... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator note: It may be worth asking someone to take a look. Perhaps FunkMonk or Casliber would be able to oblige? And unless I'm being stupid, I think we still need the formal source review. Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • Earwigs copyvio clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of spacing the isbns with this tool.
  • FN #64 - used once, material faithful to source
Alright. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN #10 - used once, material faithful to source...but what makes it a reliable source?
I never even noticed this source; it appears to have been here from before the article's expansion. Either way, it's not needed, since all the information in it is a repeat of Martill et al. 1997. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN #33 and #34 - both used once, material faithful to source (do we need both?)
Seems like no, kept the Guardian one. Any more suggestions, Casliber? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am happy with the sourcing. Otherwise lots of good peer-reviewed papers etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SMS Schlesien[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship - this one had a relatively eventful career, despite having been made obsolescent by HMS Dreadnought before even entering service. Schlesien was present at the Battle of Jutland during WWI, and was one of the few ships to survive into the postwar navy. Still in active service during WWII, she took part in the invasions Poland in 1939 and Denmark and Norway in 1940, and ended up shelling advancing Soviet forces in 1945, before being scuttled in Swinemunde. I wrote this article in 2010 and overhauled it significantly in August 2018, and it went through a GOCE copyedit in September. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the normal displacement, don't seem to be cited anywhere
  • If you're going to include a country for London, probably makes sense to do so for Ratingen and Bonn as well
  • London link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I've fixed all of these - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This article is in fine trim, so just a few comments from me:

  • the bit in the lead that relates to her guns being used after sinking isn't supported by the body
    • Fixed
  • the dimension conversions in the body should be ftin not decimal feet
    • Fixed
  • do we know how many engines she had? This isn't explicitly covered at present
    • Clarified
  • the standard displacement in the infobox isn't covered by the body
    • Fixed
  • the installed power doesn't match between infobox and body
    • Fixed
  • the infobox says that the 8.8 cm guns were casemated, but the body says pivot mounts. What's the diff?
    • Casemates is correct
  • the belt and deck armor measurements don't match between the infobox and body
    • Fixed
  • link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
    • Done
  • link Wilhelmshaven
    • Done
  • link Kattegat
    • Done
  • link Baltic Sea
    • Done
  • suggest "Two resultfruitless fleet advances"
    • Works for me
  • suggest "During the ensuing operation, Schlesien was the second ship in the IV Division"
    • Sounds good
  • link SMS Schleswig-Holstein
    • Done
  • "night march" is an odd phrase Perhaps "run"?
    • Someone must have fixed this already
  • rmeoved
    • Ditto
  • I can't get the sense of "so they could be used ashore, with a battery of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) and 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns" do you mean that not only were the main guns removed, but also the secondary batteries? perhaps insert "along" after the comma?
    • Must have gotten rewritten a few too many times - the 10.5s and 8.8s were the only guns left aboard the ship
  • suggest "She had made several training cruises in the Baltic..."
    • Fixed
  • Swinemünde is italicised, but we're not referring to a ship here are we? Either way, link?
    • The apostrophes are right next to the brackets - must have been a typo
  • suggest "only carried the remaining batteries of 10.5 cm..." if that is what is meant?
    • This should be clearer with the fix about the armament revision in 1918 - let me know if this is still a problem
  • suggest "her senior commandersofficers"
    • Fixed
  • suggest "new heavy cruiser Deutschland"
    • Done
  • suggest "went to Cape Verde in the central Atlantic."
    • Done
  • suggest "she went on a tour of North..."
    • Good idea
  • "six of her 15 cm guns" where did these come from? Which begs the question of what went on with her main battery after she came out of reserve in the inter-war period
    • These were added in 1926-1927 - have added details on that from Dodson.
  • "she was ordered to go protect" is a bit colloquial, perhaps drop "go"
    • Done
  • there is a typo in the link to German destroyer Z39 causing a red link
    • Good catch
  • the point in the lead about the use of her guns after she sank needs rectification
    • Fixed

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nate, were you planning to respond to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, yeah, I got a little side-tracked with other things - I'll get to these today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional source review[edit]

Although I don't want to give the impression I'm cutting Nikkimaria's grass, I thought I'd add an additional technical source review from a naval perspective. The sources used for this article are all of high quality and reliable, and what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War p. 38–39 provides further information about the armament changes in 1944, bunker capacities and some other minor detail. If you don't have it to hand I can add information from my copy or post it here for you to add. It would be preferable if Dodson was consulted for comprehensiveness, as it seems to be the most recent scholarship on this class. Spotcheck not conducted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added some details on the armament revisions from Dodson - if Lenton has anything to add to it, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Lenton p. 39 reckons she had a coal bunker of 436 tons. Also says "In 1944, the 5.9 in and 3.5 in guns were removed, and the AA armament increased to six 4.1 in (6 × 1), ten 40 mm (10 × 1), twenty-two 20 mm (4 × 4 and 3 × 2) guns". This obviously conflicts with Dodson, so not sure how you'll handle that. Also, fn45 has a = between the page nos. instead of an ndash. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added a note with the details from Lenton - Dodson himself says there are conflicting details on the ship's armament, and given the chaotic state of things in Germany at the time, I doubt we'll ever know what's right. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I’m fine with that. Sources ok by me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

MOD[edit]

Looks good. Support subject to these minor modifications. Nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The ed17[edit]

Support, after a few copyedits I've made and assuming Peacemaker's comments above are addressed. Usual excellent work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

Support. I made two ill-links, don't know if we need red links for all these commanders who don't even have an article in German, and felt that once two "then" came in fast succession. No reasons not to support. The red link icebreaker has an image not on the commons but in German, - for the one creating that article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda - the commanders are all German admirals, either while they were aboard the ship or later in their careers. Eventually they'll have articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here, but I just wonder would it be possible to get one more pair of eyes on this? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the subject material? If all else fails, I may recuse and review it myself in a day or two. (Just to clarify, I have no concerns here, I'd just like a little more commentary) Sarastro (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

AirTrain JFK[edit]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free).

The article was passed as a Good Article in October 2017, and was nominated for Featured Article status back in June. However, based on the feedback there, the prose needed to be cleaned up, so it wasn't promoted. I think I have resolved these concerns, so I'm nominating it again. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback.

Also pinging @AmericanAir88, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus, SounderBruce, and Tony1:, who left comments in the previous Featured Article nomination. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. I supported the previous nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nothing changed in terms of images from the previous nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I supported the previous nomination as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as daily ridership, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
    • I replaced with annual ridership. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN1 is incomplete
    • Added pages, and publisher. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn4: date doesn't match source. Same with FN129
    • Fixed. One was manual error, another was a numbering typo in YMD format (02 instead of 01) that carried over when I standardized the dates. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn5 is missing author. Same with FN100, 136
    • Fixed.
  • FN7 is missing agency
    • Fixed.
      • Same with FN10, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I can't reach fultonhistory.com right now. I will check when I get the chance. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN10: not seeing that author at given source
    • Whoops. Fixed.
  • FN11: title doesn't match source. Same with FN93
    • For #11, another whoops, another fixed.
    • For #93, the titles for print and web versions were different. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN12 formatting doesn't match other sources and publication date is overprecise
  • Be consistent in when you include ISSN
    • Fixed NYT without ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, sometimes - see for example FN105. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That was the only instance without ISSN; it has now been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN49 should use regular capitalization and should match format of FN36
    • Fixed.
  • FN74: author name doesn't match source
    • That was an accident Face-wink.svg. Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN87: publisher shouldn't be italicized, and it's not clear what part of the source is being referred to
    • Linked directly to report.
  • FN88: Scribd should be in |via=
    • Fixed.
  • FN89: source link is broken
    • Archived.
  • FN99: current author should be listed in |publisher=, and current publisher should be removed. FN102 should be formatted similarly
    • Fixed.
  • FN101 is missing author and date. Same with FN119
    • Fixed.
  • Fn103 is missing date
    • Fixed.
  • FN131 appears to be a republication of FN130
    • Fixed.
  • How are you ordering the Bibliography, and how are you deciding what ends up there as opposed to in footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The bibliography is alphabetical by author, or by publisher/title if author doesn't exist. A source is listed in the bibliography if different parts of the reference are cited at different points in the article. If it's the same one or two pages, I didn't put it in the bibliography. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Er... in the case of works without author, are you ordering by title, or by publisher? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: It is ordered by title. That's what is displayed first with the citation templates. This way, bibliography is in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
          • It looks like the first few are still ordered by publisher though. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: OK, I have fixed it now. All entries are in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Okay - still some pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
                • @Nikkimaria: I looked at the Fulton History sources and don't see any missing agencies, including in footnote 10 (33d St. Terminal Picked for Kennedy Rail Link). Are there some specific examples I skipped over? epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I will resolve these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Replies above. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Pinging again, just in case. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The article has been extensively modified and some references have been removed. Could you look over the sources again, or indicate that you can't do so? I would appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN7: November 1967 was when the report was commissioned, not when it was published
  • Be consistent in how you format Daily News articles
  • FN78 should include corporate author
  • FN82: AAP is the author
  • Suggest making the Bibliography a bulleted list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick response. I have addressed all of the above. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Taking a look now....comments below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There are alot of "proposal"s at the top of the History section. Recommend rewording to reduce....(e.g. just start section with 1968 plan)
  • @Casliber: I've removed the excessive repetition of the word "proposal", if that's what you meant. epicgenius (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell[edit]

Oppose per 1a (prose, particularly flow), and 4 (summary style).

Extended commentary on prose and detail and line-by-line review, now resolved. —HJM

Detailed comments, written as I've read through (as far as the System section)

  • which are 15 miles (24 km) away by road away from what? Or do you mean apart?
  • The prose is a little dense in places, partly because of the level of detail on previous schemes. This is a common problem when trying to explain transport systems and their relationship to the local geography and I'm not sure how much can be done about it, but I would consider moving some of the detail to daughter articles and distilling it down to bare bones in the parent article. 6,400 words on an airport people mover is a bit much, especially considering it's front-loaded with a lot of information that's not directly about the system that was built.
  • In late 1997, Giuliani agreed to the plan on the condition that the state reimburse the city $300 million of the system's cost, with the city paying the $300 million for the line from 2002 through 2017 Sorry, I'm lost. The state is going to reimburse $300 million, and then the cit is going to spend $300 million? Maybe I'm just being dense but I can't parse this.
  • In 1999, the RPA published an unofficial recommendation What's an unofficial recommendation and why is it worth an entire paragraph?
  • some $200 million of the funding could not be paid off using the PFC tax Because the PFC didn't cover it (in which case why not extend/increase it?) or for some other reason?
  • The paragraph starting Community leaders supported the project needs a copy edit for flow; too many short sentences and use of "this" and similar make for a choppy read (other parts of the article could do with going over, you have a habit of introducing something in one sentence and starting the next with "this").
  • The Air Transportation Association of America (ATA) Can we distil this paragraph down to the result of the lawsuit? The court, judge's name, even the ATA, is completely extraneous to the AirTrain. The important bit is the result of the case meaning the public consultation had to be re-run. This would also hopefully cut out the two semicolons in quick succession, which contribute to the choppiness of the section.
  • The By the time the AirTrain case appeal was decided in October 2000 paragraph contains a lot of repetitive and choppy sentence structuring.
  • The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash Which one? Two are mentioned in the preceding sentences.
  • Repetition: After the death, shortly followed by Following the fatal crash. With some clever copy-editing and just a little less detail, these two paragraphs could be shortened and merged.
  • This was one of the reasons cited for AirTrain JFK's relatively high fare Relative to what? And tell us what the fare is so the reader can decide if they think it's high.
  • Even before the AirTrain was completed, there were plans to eventually extend it to Manhattan. Suggest paring this back and pointing the reader to Lower Manhattan–Jamaica/JFK Transportation Project
  • By the time the project was canceled, its projected total cost had risen from $6 billion to between $8.6 and $9.9 billion Projected cost, or funds spent?
  • Following President Donald Trump's signing of Executive Order 13769 This strikes me as recentism, and the whole paragraph could be removed without any loss.
  • On January 4, 2017, the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo you've already introduced and linked Cuomo.

4, summary style: I think big chunks of the history section need to be split off into sub-articles and then summarised in the main article, making use of {{main}} to point readers to further information. The history section, by itself, is over 4,000 words long and the density of it makes it hard going. It's very well-researched and you've done an excellent job of compiling all this information, but a lot of it is not important to the scheme as it currently operates. I'd suggest either creating individual articles for some of the schemes, or something like Background to AirTrain JFK, to house all the detail and briefly summarising it in this article. The average reader wants to know that various schemes were proposed and some were almost nearly built but it took ~35 years before anything really happened; they don't want 4,000 words of detail on all the different proposals (some will, and they can go to the sub-article(s) for that).

1a, prose: You have a lot of very short sentences in quick succession, one example, chosen because it nicely illustrates the problem The idea was for Jamaica to be re-envisioned as a "regional center", according to the RPA, since during the average weekday, 100,000 LIRR riders and 53,000 subway riders used stations in the core of Jamaica. A proposal calling for a 250-room hotel above the AirTrain terminal was canceled after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.[87] The Port Authority estimated that the AirTrain JFK would carry 12.4 million passengers a year.[87] The Jamaica station's renovation was completed in 2006, three years after the system opened. You have a series of sentences that don't flow into each other at all, they're just a list of facts. As noted above, you also overuse "this", often at the start of a sentence; a lot of these could be eliminating by merging sentences, which would also help with the flow. And look out for ", with" constructions and "however". You might find Tony's advice helpful.

Sorry to oppose, but I've spent several a couple of hours reading this in detail and trying to provide constructive feedback. I hope it helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comments, and it really isn't a bother; I apologize that you had to oppose. While I appreciate the issues you brought up regarding history, I don't think it would be helpful in this specific instance to split this into a "background" article. I just don't think there will be enough content for a subpage to justify splitting the article. There really aren't any other pages that I can link to such an article, so that page will basically be an orphan. Nothing against your comments in particular, but it just seems like the proposed solution doesn't really justify condensing the article to that extent.
Your comments on prose are very helpful, so I'll try to address them. Prior to nominating the article, I've looked at Tony's advice page and cut these filler words as much as I could. Even so, I see there's still some work to be done, so I'll get onto that. epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, considering that New York City airport rail link links to this proposal, maybe I can split the previous proposals off to that page. I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to specific points:
  • which are 15 miles (24 km) away by road - I added "apart"
  • The prose is a little dense in places, partly because of the level of detail on previous schemes. - As I said, I'll think about splitting the article. I just don't want an orphan article about the previous schemes.
  • In late 1997, Giuliani agreed to the plan on the condition that the state reimburse the city $300 million of the system's cost, with the city paying the $300 million for the line from 2002 through 2017 - The state will reimburse the city for its $300 million share of the cost.
  • In 1999, the RPA published an unofficial recommendation - The RPA isn't an official government agency, so I trimmed it.
  • some $200 million of the funding could not be paid off using the PFC tax - It was ineligible. I added some details.
  • The paragraph starting Community leaders supported the project needs a copy edit for flow - Done
  • The Air Transportation Association of America (ATA) - I trimmed some details
  • The By the time the AirTrain case appeal was decided in October 2000 paragraph contains a lot of repetitive and choppy sentence structuring. - I've restructured it.
  • The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash - There's only one NTSB. I don't understand what you mean.
  • Repetition: After the death, shortly followed by Following the fatal crash. - Fixed
  • This was one of the reasons cited for AirTrain JFK's relatively high fare - Added price
  • Even before the AirTrain was completed, there were plans to eventually extend it to Manhattan. - Trimmed
  • By the time the project was canceled, its projected total cost had risen from $6 billion to between $8.6 and $9.9 billion - Well, trimmed per the previous point.
  • Following President Donald Trump's signing of Executive Order 13769 - Removed
  • On January 4, 2017, the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo - Removed per previous point.
  • Regarding prose, I looked over the article again, and resolved many of the issues "However" or ", with".
@HJ Mitchell: Hope this helps. There's really not more I can do unless I were to chop off the first two sections entirely. Let me see if I can merge it with the Program for Action article, and I'll get back to you. epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: As I mentioned on Harry's talk page, I've trimmed a bit from the History section. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That's some great progress. I had my doubts as to whether it was possible to address my concerns in the course of the FAC but now I'm sure they can. Nonetheless, I still think we have too much detail on the abortive predecessor schemes that could go somewhere else, and in general I think the narrative gets bogged down in minutiae in places. There's also more to be done on improving the flow, though reducing some of the detail will help with that. I picked a couple of paragraphs more or less at random and made these sample edits for eliminating excess verbiage/redundancy and for general flow. And see what you think of this edit; I won't be offended if you revert it, I might have been a little too drastic, but hopefully it shows what you can look for when considering which details are necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: No worries. I thought there was stuff that couldn't be trimmed, but turned out there was already a suitable article about the schemes Face-smile.svg. I'll take a greater look on Friday to see what else can be cut/improved. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I'll watchlist the article and the FAC but feel free to ping me if you want me to look at something in particular. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for your patience. I've trimmed a few more details and consolidated some sentences. Does this version look better? epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That's definitely progress but there's still room for improvement. Down to "curtailment of plan", I think we've now got the right balance so focus on that section onwards. I made a few more edits and managed to cull ~70 words from the first two paragraphs without removing any facts (but do double-check those edits) so there's work to be done. I'd recommend evaluating the rest of the section against my edits and seeing if there's anything more you can cull. Feel free to ping me at the end of the section and I'll happily go through it with you section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks. I looked over the article again and found a few more details that were redundant; these have now been consolidated. Your edits look good so I don't think there are anything else to cut in that section. I do appreciate you taking a second look. epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still finding redundancy and other infelicities. Not nearly as much and not as detail-heavy as the first time I read through, but still not FA standard. Can you read through thoroughly from "Opening and effects" downwards and see what else can be done? I'm not averse to making a few edits here and there but it's your baby. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll have a look later. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@HJ Mitchell: I combed through the article one more time, and made a few edits to reorganize grammar flow and reduce redundant words. I may look at it again tomorrow. In the meantime, could you see if my recent edits align with what you're looking for? I want to know if I'm heading down the right path. Thanks in advance. I do appreciate all the feedback because it's helping me become a better writer. epicgenius (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those are exactly the sort of edits I'm looking for. I'll have a look in more detail later tonight or tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Have you been able to look at the article yet? No rush, just wondering. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting. Apologies for the delay. I think we're pretty much there. you'e done a good job of tightening the prose. I have a few more detailed comments from reading through the second half, but they're all relatively minor and I envisage supporting once those are sorted:

  • Maybe make it clearer that December 17, 2003 was the final opening date?
  • However, a proposal for a 250-room hotel above the AirTrain terminal had been canceled "however" and "had been" are both red flags ("however" is frowned upon at FAC, partly because it's over-used, and "had been" should normally be "was" for our style of writing). You could just distil this down to "a proposed hotel was canceled after"
  • connects the airport's terminals and parking areas with the LIRR and subway lines at the Howard Beach and Jamaica stations I'd recommend losing the bit in red, and noting in parentheses which system the stations serve. It's almost the same number of words but doesn't leave the uninitiated reader needing to check anything. You can then remove the system names from the following paragraphs.
  • Maybe note that terminals 3 and 6 don't exist, so it doesn't look like the AirTrain skips two terminals; that threw me for a moment
  • In 2014, the most recent year for which statistics are available see MOS:DATED; also, is that still true (we'e in 2019 now, so that's quite a gap)
  • Watch for overlinking and Easter egg links (the specific example that prompted this was [[Taxicabs of New York City|taxi]])
  • The very last paragraph in the current version is a bit choppy and contains another "however" that could easily be lost with a minor rewrite.
  • I'd suggest swapping the order of the last two sections. As it is, the conclusion feels quite abrupt but the ridership section ends nicely in the present day an at the end of the journey.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

    • @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the response. I appreciate the many hours of work that you have spent re-reviewing this. Here are some responses to your points in order:
      • I made it clearer that December 17, 2003 was the final opening date.
      • I condensed the hotel thing to "a proposed hotel was canceled after"
      • I'd recommend losing the bit in red, and noting in parentheses which system the stations serve. It's almost the same number of words but doesn't leave the uninitiated reader needing to check anything. You can then remove the system names from the following paragraphs. - I removed the red part, but I kept the system names. The parentheses looked unwieldy, like it disrupted the flow of the sentences.
      • Maybe note that terminals 3 and 6 don't exist - The table does say that terminals 2, 5, and 8 were formerly named 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 respectively.
      • I updated ridership to 2017 stats.
      • I checked for misleading links. The taxi one has been fixed, and I didn't find anything else outstanding.
      • In the rolling stock section, the final paragraph has been split into two shorter paragraphs: one about operating specs and one about dimensions.
      • I switched the order of the final two sections. I hope it looks good now. Thank you again for spending time to look at this page again. epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You've dealt with the last of my specific comments and the article reads much better now. I'm impressed. You've made a lot of progress in a short turnaround time. I feel the featured article criteria are met now, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Beattie[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk), 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Described by Bobby Robson as the greatest England footballer he had ever seen, Beattie's story is one of tragedy and premature foreshortening in many senses. A complete footballer, an Ipswich legend, back when the Tractor Boys were a European force to be reckoned with, Beattie died a couple of months ago, and with the help of Dweller and some others, we've taken his article from rough start class to GA, and now wish to take that final step. All comments will, of course, be dealt with as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: the article benefited from a third-party copyedit by Ealdgyth --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05,