Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FACBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
48,465 edits
update daily marker
Andrewoh29 (talk | contribs)
135 edits
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


==Nominations==
==Nominations==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drosophila subobscura/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/INTERFET logistics/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/INTERFET logistics/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Roon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Roon/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:07, 25 January 2020

For the similar process page for
good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations
.
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.
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

Good article nominations
at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—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.

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.

Do not use graphics or complex 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. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{

tq2}}, and {{xt
}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are 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.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed

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 Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the
    peer reviews
    are closed and archived.
  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.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • 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.


Shortcut

Nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2020 [1].

INTERFET logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to nag about except
WP:NBSP work needed. Good luck here, Hawkeye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

Overall: Well-written and well-researched article, no major red flags in terms of quality, neutrality and copyright, and it is well-referenced. As I read the article from top to bottom, here's what I found can be improved:

  • "was a highly complex, and ultimately successful, endeavour": I wonder if we should skip including this conclusion in the first sentence and let the facts below stand for themselves.
    Sure. Why not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven nations contributed transport aircraft to the ..., but over 90 per cent of the cargo and most of the passengers travelled by sea …" If the sea is the primary means of transport shouldn't that be mentioned ahead of the airlift?
    Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transported by a naval task force that included the high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay and landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which brought supplies from Australia by sea. Crucial support came from the replenishment oiler HMAS Success and tankers HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur." What is the difference between the roles of the first 2 ships and the last 3 ships, that they needed to be listed separately?
    The first two were moving troops and cargo, the latter providing logistical support. With the exception of the UK, English-speaking people have to travel long distances to get anywhere much, so at-sea refuelling and logistic support are essential; but many other navies lack this capability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logistical support units spent the next two months catching up and eliminating backlogs: which months were these? The start date of the mission wasn't mentioned at this point.
    Changed to "October and November"
  • I think the leads are missing these info: when the mission starts and ends (in months if not dates), as well as a brief background of East Timor's status (did it already gain independence, or is in transition?) as well as why INTERFET was deployed.
    Added: "INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999"
  • The island was formally divided between the Netherlands and Portugal in 1637: 1661 is the year mentioned by the reference?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first Portuguese governor of East Timor was appointed in 1702: The ref says 1701
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Any idea who were on the island or ruled it before the Europeans came? I'd suggest 1-2 sentences for the sake of completeness because paragraph 1 of background seems to focus on the colonial history, and begins with the Portuguese establishing a settlement which seems very European-centric for a non-European island.
    The East Timorese of course; my main concern was not with colonialism, but explaining how the island came to be divided in two. Added a couple of sentences: "The island of Timor has been populated for up to 40,000 years, populated by successive waves of immigrants from southern India, Malaysia and Melanesia. It was ruled by small kingdoms that traded spices, slaves and sandalwood with their neighbours."
  • "the preferential allocation of resources to combat capabilities and the acceptance of risk in logistics functions brought the Army to the precipice of operational failure.": name the source of this quote inline
    Any reason why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, this quote is an opinion, and
      WP:WIKIVOICE recommends that opinions are not stated in Wikipedia's voice (already done, by using quotation marks) and attributed to the source making the opinion. HaEr48 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Very well. The point is that liked the quote, which neatly sums up the consensus among historians; but the author of the quote is less of an authority than the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning and organization: I understand that because Australia is the coalition leader it merits more coverage, but can we please find something about the other nations, especially those that sent large contingents ? I think this is important for the comprehensiveness criteria because other nations account for about half the troops.
  • Added a paragraph on New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, if Australia was actually responsible for all logistics in the mission, we should add more info about how it came to be that way, e.g. was there any coordination or discussion among the other nations that decided it this way? I think it's important both for comprehensiveness and to provide context to readers on why the rest of the article is so Australian-centric. Right now, Australia's almost exclusive role is presented as a given without much context.
  • The codename Operation Stabilise was given to operations in and around East Timor, while Operation Warden included its logistic support activities in Australia: The second part is a little ambiguous, does Warden include or exclude operations in East Timor? If it is excluded, maybe the preceding sentence should be reworded because it gives the impression that Warden is entire intervention.
    Added "also" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, due to its isolation, Darwin had better facilities than other cities of similar size: suggest explaining the causal relation between isolation and better facilities, it is not very obvious for the general reader like me.
    "Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size" ?
  • The outsourcing of "non-core" logistical functions in the ADF had created critical shortages of many essential trades ranging from cooks to port terminal handlers: Isn't the point of outsourcing to expand the workforce? why does it cause shortage?
    No, the purpise is to contract the workforce. Added: "as many of these jobs were no longer performed by military personnel" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "planning" Wilkinson was appointed Logistic Component Commander on 26 August, but in "organization" the date is 30 August - any reason for the different dates?
    It is not uncommon for a commander to be designated
  • Stapleton was "dual-hatted" as both NCC (Commander, Task Group 645.1), answerable to both Cosgrove (Commander, Task Force 645) as COMFLOT (Commander, Task Group 627.1), and to COMAST's Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral John Lord (Commander, Task Force 627): Are there to many "both"s in this sentence? Could it be reworded to clarify?
    Got rid of one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out the full form of COMFLOT when first mentioned.
    Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrie announced: The operation will be Operation Stabilise…: is there any date of this announcement?
    19 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An important concern was the Japanese encephalitis vaccine regime": is it because the disease is endemic in East Timor, because there was an outbreak at the time, or…?
    Added that the disease is endemic to East Timor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deployment: suggest reordering "Sealift" before "Airlift", because sealift seems to have had bigger contribution.
    Yes, but the airlift comes first chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deployment: Did other non-Australian troops (especially outside Commonwealth countries) also deploy via Darwin/Australia? Could we add some explanation?
    The Canadians, New Zealanders and Kenyans are mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, purchased in 1994: Suggest removing "unfortunately" per
    WP:EDITORIAL
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heliport was found abandoned: "The heliport" hasn't been mentioned before. Is it in Comoro, in the UNAMET compound, or somewhere else?
    It's in Dili. I supplied a map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christianson went to the control tower and explained, through an interpreter since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia,: "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian name of the language, which seems weird in an English sentence. Suggest using the English word "Indonesian". Compare "he did not speak Español" (seems weird) vs "he did not speak Spanish"
    • Alternatively we can also get rid of "since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia" because it is implied from the use of translator
      Australians always refer to it that way. It's not obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 381 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF assumed responsibility for the operation of the airport at Dili, while No. 382 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF operated Cakung Airport at Baucau: Did they take over all operations at the airports, or just INTERFET-related?
  • All operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was augmented by three French Air Force C-130Hs…" Suggest splitting the sentence because it is too long.
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious, is "C-130H" short for C-130 Hercules, or is it a variant of the aircraft? It seems both C-130H and C-130 are used in the text
    It is the model of the C-130. Everyone was flying the H model except the British, who had the K model See Lockheed C-130 Hercules#Further developments for all the technical details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to effect Cosgrove's operational concept of flooding East Timor with as many combat troops as possible, Evans deployed ..." Suggest adding the roles of Cosgrove and Evans in INTERFET, here or before, as context to this statement.
    They are detailed earlier. In case someone is unsure which Evans is referred to, the text says "his brigade" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as had occurred in the Vietnam War in 1966: Just to clarify: did this occur to Australia in 1966 or to the US-led coalition overall?
    We're talking about Australian forces here. Added a bit.
  • ADF cargo was tracked using three computer systems, the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS), Lotus Notes Interim Demand System (LNIDS), and the Cargo Visibility System (CVS): Given it mentions Lotus Notes as the developer of LNIDS, also mention those of SDSS and CVS for completeness?
    No, all were developed by DoD. The LNIDS is just an applicationuses Lotus notes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each soldier had to carry a day's supply: is this Australian regulation applying to Australian soldiers or a general rule of thumb for everyone? Suggest clarifying because not all troops are Australian.
    No, everyone. At this point though, the foreign contingent consisted of the Gurkhas, SBS and NZ SAS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ADF had no ship-to-shore refuelling capability: Is there a good link for " ship-to-shore refuelling capability", to help understanding what that usually requires?
    No, unfortunately Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With limited stocks of ammunition on hand, the 1,500 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade confronted some 15,000 TNI troops, who presumably had plenty of ammunition:
    • Not sure if confronted is the best word here, given that the mission was Indonesian-sanctioned? How about something like "In comparison, TNI had 15,000 troops in the area who presumably had plenty of ammunition"?
      Hmmm. Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the 3rd brigade singled out because they were the first one to be deployed?
      Yes. All INTERFET troops were assigned or attached the 3rd Brigade for operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first phase of this was Operation Lavarack, in which 2 RAR moved by air and armoured personnel carriers of B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, by sea, to occupy Balibo, which was secured on 5 October
    • Can this be reworded to be easier to parse? Did 2 RAR move by air and APC, or did 2 RAR move by air and the APCs moved by sea (if the latter, why were only the APCs moved and not the squadrons themselves)?
      That wasn't what I meant; I just meant that B Squadron moved by sea with its APCs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was assisted by students from the...": Is "he" Cavanaugh or Wilkinson?
    Wilkinson. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main body arrived in Dili on 3 December, but the ship carrying its heavy plant and equipment did not reach Brisbane until 27 November: 27 November is still before 3 December, so why is it a "but"?
    Because Brisbane is not Dili. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no vaccine" and "Nor was there any treatment other than rest": are these for both diseases or just dengue?
    Dengue. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One Malaysian UN observer died from malaria.": suggest moving it before "A particular concern with dengue…" because (1) the death seems more significant than the nine soldiers getting treated (but alive) (2) the Malaysian sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the rest of the paragraph it is in.
    Added a bridge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prophylactic regime was instituted whereby personnel were given a daily dose of 100 milligrams (1.5 gr) of doxycycline commencing two days before departure from Australia and continuing for two weeks after returning": Who instituted it? INTERFET or Australian military? Is it for all INTERFET troops, or just Australian ones?
    Australians, although it is true of New Zealanders as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • three weeks after return from Australia: How about Australian soldiers, when did they get this primaquine?
    From the RMO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • told a CMOC meeting : what's a CMOC?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postal: Interesting info, any info for mails from/to other countries further than Australia?
    No, but I'd be surprised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • took advantage of free mail delivery: Is it free due to the military mission, or due to Christmas? does the free delivery apply to soldiers from all over the world or just Australian?
    Just to Australians, but for the whole time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesia recognised East Timor as an independent nation on 19 October, and TNI forces withdrew on 31 October, leaving INTERFET in charge: I think this is better placed as background than "end of mission" as it was closer to the beginning? Also, while reading the article body I kept wondering about when the status of East Timor change or if INTERFET interacted with TNI at all. This part provides the important clarification and I think is better to be mentioned in the beginning.
    You can see that the two overlapped by a considerable amount. This article being on logistics, the fighting is not described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of mission: Could we have more info on when the troops started leaving and how? I am assuming there should be logistical aspects related to returning troops and their supplies
    Yes, but the scope of the article is INTERFET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't the scope include the return of INTERFET troops, then? HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the article says that 10 FSB handed over to 9 FSB, and that INTERFET handed over to UNTAET. The treatment of diseases picked up in Timor is mentioned. The washing of vehicles and equipment is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or did the troops not return at this point because they also made up UNTAET's forces? If yes, it could be mentioned also
  • 2 and 3 RAR returned to Australia leaving 5/7 RAR behind with UNTAET.
  • End of mission: Suggest switching the order of the sentences starting with "On 20 February 2000" and "Australian logistical support". The former sentence is a bit surprising without context (why would you switch units with just 3 days left?), but the latter sentence provides that context and is better to be first, IMO.
    It will be out of chronological order then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the troops had good reason to be critical of a lack of spare parts, medical supplies and amenities, they still received logistical support on a scale that many other armies could only dream about: The last part reads quite hyperbolic, suggest either rewording or using quotation mark if it's a verbatim quote
    Switched to a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cosgrove had the resources he needed to carry out his mission: "INTERFET had the resources he needed to carry out its mission" to avoid focusing on just one person?
I'm talking about command and generalship here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospect: Can we add perspective from other nations about the support they received in East Timor?
    Added some more about New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: HMAS Tobruk: is the ship the left one or the right one?
  • The one on the right. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture: "HMCS Protecteur in 2014": is the ship the one in front or back?
    Foreground. It is being towed by the tugboat USNS Sioux, Embarassing for the ship, but it's a nice image of it.
  • Some sources need more complete info for example author, date, and more precise description of publisher: footnotes 14, 20, 29, 33, 42, 43, 53, 61, 110
    @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this too. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cite web}} requires, url, access-date, title and publisher only. These have been supplied. No other details are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also edited lightly when I am confident about the needed improvement, feel free to modify any if it's not appropriate.
  • Disclaimer: I am competing in WikiCup and planning to claim points from this review.
    Well deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't bore you with too much feedback, and hope they are useful. Good job and thank you for your work. HaEr48 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. I should see if I can get Zawed to check the New Zealand section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a gander and made a few edits to correct some typos. There was one sentence (being on 28 days readiness) that I wasn't sure of, so please check my edit there is correct. I have the Crawford & Harper ref, will doublecheck it later today/tomorrow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the excellent responses. I have some follow up comments which I marked in blue above to make them easy to find. Please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is in great shape and I do not have further suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "brought troops and supplies from Australia by sea" You do not need "by sea" as you have said it on the line above and named ships.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur" I would specify New Zealand and Canadian. NZ is obvious but I had to check what C referred to.
    I don't think the redundancy would be appropriate in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You show the statistics in the 2nd paragraph in different ways. 90% and most for sea, and exact quantities for air. I suggest giving the exact numbers by sea in brackets if the information is available.
    I regret that the exact figure is not available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have logistics or logistical six times in the final paragraph of the lead. Would it be correct to replace "vehicles and logistical support" with "vehicles and other supplies" and "inadequate logistics" with "inadequate supplies"?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the early history of Timor is relevant in such a specialist article, although that is personal opinion.
    I agree, but see the comments above from other reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your explanation of the situation before independence is very unclear. If I understand correctly, before WW2 West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies and East Timor was a Portuguese colony. The whole island was occupied by Japan during the war and handed back to the colonial powers after the war. West Timor became part of Indonesia in 1949, but the east stayed Portuguese until 1974. A civil war then broke out between the pro-independence Fretilin and the UDT, which opposed independence except during a short period of cooperation with Fretilin. This should be spelled out if correct.
    Sounds like you understood correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesia should be wikilinked, but should it be at the first mention of the country, which is as "Indonesian" or the first mention of "Indonesia"?.
    We don't wiki-link present-day countries like Australia and Indonesia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oecussi enclave". The article on Oecussi describes it as an exclave. I have never heard of this word before, but it is correct and enclave wrong according to Enclave and exclave.
    Except for the sea border, it is entirely surrounded by Indonesia, hence is a semi-enclave. It is also a semi-exclave. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""teeth-to-tail" ratio". Is there an article you can link to?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the very same cuts in logistic capability rendered this impossible" I am not clear what you are saying here. I assume you are referring to the "administrative cuts", but I would take this to mean in desk personnel rather than logistical capabilities (which presumably means mainly transport and storage facilities and stocks).
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which based in Sydney" "which was based in Sydney"?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "developing plans for Operation Spitfire, the evacuation of foreign nationals and selected East Timorese". I think it would be clearer to start the paragraph with something like "The first task, which was to evacuate foreign nationals and selected East Timorese, was designated as Operation Spitfire."
    I don't see how that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that Australia and NZ took the lead roles, but it seems unbalanced to give an extremely (excessively?) detailed account of their preparations, down to who attended which meeting, and not a word of the logistical preparations of the other 21 countries which took part.
    The article also covers the United States and Canada. These four countries accounted for nearly all the in-theatre logistics. I have accounts from Thailand and the Philippines, but only Kenya contributed to the logistical effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and joined the TNI personnel there". The very high use of initials makes the article difficult to follow for non-experts. It would, for example, make it easier for readers if you wrote here "and joined the Indonesian army personnel there".
    TNI is the Indonesian armed forces, the Indonesian equivalent of the ADF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Singaporean RSS Intrepid, and the Danish civilian ship Arktis Atlantic". No change needed, but is the first ship redlinked and not the second on the principle that every naval ship deserves its own article but not every civilian one?
    That and the fact that it is already red-linked in other articles. Two of its sister ships have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "we saw pallets of beer being loaded on hercs" The next sentence refers to Darwin but I am not clear whehter the whole Canadian quote refers to Darwin.
    Added "in Darwin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " black and grey water". These could be linked to Blackwater (waste) and Greywater.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a first rate article. I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, but I assume that this is standard in this type of article. The only major fault is the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the background section, which are a collection of facts rather than a clear explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear explanation of what? The purpose of the background section is to fill the reader in on how the situation came about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed out above that you have not clearly explained the history and suggested what needs to be covered. You agreed that my summary is correct, but did not amend the article. It is not relevant that the Japanese invaded on 19 February 1942, or that Australia supported Indonesian independence and proposed that East Timor become a UN trusteeship. What is relevant is that after the war West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor reverted to being a Portuguese colony, but you have not said so. I would delete the whole first paragraph as too off topic, but if you do give the earlier history you need to state it clearly. I would start the background something like: "Timor is an island of 30,777 square kilometres, 700 kilometres north-east of Darwin in Australia. After WW2, West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor was a Portuguese colony." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early history is about how East Timor became a Portuguese colony, and how it became politically separated from ethnically identical West Timor. It is relevant that the island was occupied by the Japanese as it was this that created the sense of obligation between Australia and East Timor without which INTERFET would never have occurred. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

As a disclaimer, I originally suggested to Hawkeye that he develop this article. As I've noted elsewhere, the results have been great, even by Hawkeye's usual standards. I reviewed this at ACR, and the changes since then look good. I have the following comments, all of which are minor:

  • "The ADF had not anticipated commitment to such a large peacekeeping mission" - the tense is a bit off here ("The ADF had not anticipated being committed to such a large peacekeeping mission", perhaps?)
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie, centralised strategic and operational planning for the projection of forces to East Timor at ADF Headquarters, bypassing the service chiefs." - Was this a change in procedures? I thought that the arrangements where the service chiefs are responsible for "raise and sustain" functions only and don't have operational control of their forces were in place by this time.
    You're quite right; they don't have operational control. But the service chiefs retained a role as "senior environmental advisors", so it was indeed a change in process. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in case one had to make an emergency landing" - should this be " in case any had to make an emergency landing", or was there only a capacity to respond to a single incident?
    Changed to "any" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 198th Works Section deployed on 2 and 5 October." - I'd suggest noting the role of this unit
    Added: "This was a unit that planned, coordinated and managed construction tasks." Hope that is clear enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Support My comments are now all addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this fine article's promotion to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye, another credit to your comprehensivity and I only have minor tweaks to suggest...

  • mention Timor Leste name somewhere?
    Just "East Timor" in Portugese. It became the official name of the country after they decided to adopt Portuguese as the official language. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999 - wlink East Timor
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • despatched v dispatched
    Used the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Second World War, East Timor was occupied by Australian and Dutch forces - wlink Sparrow Force so readers can see it was a friendly occupation?
  • wlink East Timor (province) somewhere?
    Think we can do without it, but linked Indonesian occupation of East Timor Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australian commandos and Dutch troops on the island waged a guerrilla campaign until they withdrew in January 1943.[5] - ambiguous ie could be read as Aust v Dutch. Also "they withdrew" could be read as Japanese withdrew
    Okay, added a redundancy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This created a bond between Australia and East Timor - "This" refers to "East Timorese in helping Australians in the Second World War"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • humanitarian response to the tragedy." - move full stop
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of a 1,000 TEU container ship - hyphen?
    Okay. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population were poor, - was?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • so that the Army's Darwin-based - Aust Army not linked? (RAN and RAAF are)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logistics staff at DFJHQ - DJFHQ
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilkinson's liaison officer at DFJHQ - DJFHQ
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kehoe, the commander of the 10th Force Support Battalion - needs (10 FSB)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • responsible the coordinating the logistics - for
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2,500 civilians were evacuated from East Timor by air - where to?
    Darwin. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Martyn Dunne, a graduate - wlink
    Dunne that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mutual logistics support agreement with ADF was signed - between ADF and NZDF?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • would take 60 days supplies - apostrophe?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The limitations of Darwin's air and sea ports, its facilities for the storage and distribution of supplies, and its information and communications networks, were not overlooked. Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size. - "limitations" seems to contradict "better facilities"?
    Added "but". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • chiefs in their the role as senior environmental - remove "the"
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stapleton was appointed Maritime Component Commander (NCC) - MCC or Naval Component Commander (NCC)?
    MCC. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • providing fourth line logistic support in - hyphen ie fourth-line?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This allowed C-130s from Townsville" and "That day, C-130s flew 33 sorties" - definitely plain C-130 not 130Hs?
    No, "C-130s" means C-130s of various models, including the C-130H. By coincidence or design, nearly everybody was flying the same model (which simplified maintenance) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A British Royal Air Force (RAF) detachment - is "British" needed?
    Sure, why not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, just because I see it come up on main page dyk noms and itn items now and then to remove UK or British as there is only one named Royal Air Force. No problem though.
  • distance Darwin to East Timor might be helpful somewhere
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • installation of tie down restraints - hyphen?
    Not in Australian English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evans deployed his brigade - there are 2 Evanes, do we need to clarify Mark/Jim?
    Probably not, but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • replenishing HMS Success with 150 tonnes - HMAS (or remove some HMAS from Success mentions?)
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • landings at Suai on the south coast - wlink Suai, East Timor
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oecussi enclave v Oecussi Enclave
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 14 October, the APCs of B Squadron - at "bring 25 M113 armoured personnel carriers up" or at "and two M113 armoured personnel carriers from the 3rd/4th Cavalry" needs (APC)
    Added, unlinked the second one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sappers to arrive - wlink sappers
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had arrived on HMS Jervis Bay on 27 - HMAS
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • hard stand v hardstands
    Standaised on the former. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major General Des Mueller's Support - wlink Desmond Mueller
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATCO style accommodation - hyphen
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By late October, expectations that units - add 1999 here as prev section slipped into January
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 850 tons of cargo - convert
    Converted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move six tonnes of supplies - convert
    Converted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • memory of previous campaigns had faded since 1975 - clarify what happened in 1975?
    Forgotten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army, RAN and RAAF had not practiced joint logistical - practised
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McManus's v Evans'
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • USS Blue Ridge is mentioned in 2 captions but not in prose?
    It paid a three day visit to East Timor in February 2000. Owing to Wikipedia's refusal to accept creative commons images ("free as in free enterprise, not as in free beer"), much use is made of the images taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Cohen - has 2 different wlinks
    Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption "anchor 3 kilometres (3,000 yd) off" - convert to miles instead of yards per "about 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from"?
    3,000x is per the original source. The {{convert}} template is used to convert to metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption "Civil Military Operations Center INTERFET headquarters in Dili in February 2000" - swap to Centre to match prose
    Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • add this: Template:East Timor topics?
    WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. But this article does not appear in that Navbox. So no. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • ref 72 Stevens 2007, pp. 27,4. - is second page number correct?
    Typo. Should be "48". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, Hollie - alpha order
    Alphabetised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peragallo, Mario - alpha order
    Alphabetised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, JennyOz (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor answer above. All good, thanks for explanations, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Notwithstanding similar reviews carried out at the MilHist ACR, I've checked image licensing and source reliability and no issues leap out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2020 [2].

SMS Roon

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, are you still planning to stop by? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it, sorry for the delay.
  • SMS Roon was the lead ship of her class of armored cruisers No SMS note?
    • Added
  • had a top speed of 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph) Unlink the common units here.
    • Done
  • in several operations against Russian forces Pipe Russians to the Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • 2,000 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp) and speed by .5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) This isn't an American-related article so add a nought in the knots.
    • Done
  • She carried up to 1,570 t (1,550 long tons; 1,730 short tons) of coal Other sentences don't use short tons.
    • Removed
  • Roon spent the following years participating in various --> "She spent the following years participating in various"
    • Done
  • Link knots in the infobox same for nmi.
    • Done
  • "SMS Roon in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, c. 1910" Needs a circa template.
    • Added
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit numbers in the ISBNs?
    • Done

@Parsecboy: Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

  • in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
    • Done
  • were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
    • Fixed
  • full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
    • Good catch
  • Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
  • perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - anything else you'd like to see addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, thanks for the ping. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey

  • The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
    • Good catch
  • Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
    • It is, in the first para of the design section
  • In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
    • Good point
  • Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
    • Works for me
  • Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
    • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
  • "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
    • Fixed
  • "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
    • Fixed

That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the plan
    • Done
  • File:Roon_linedrawing.png is tagged as lacking author and description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

I reviewed this article during its A-class review, and by and large I have little to add.

  • Use {{lang}} templates for foreign-language terms please.
    • Done
  • "..with the belt armor being 10 cm.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
    • Reworded
  • In the lead it says that "There, she formed part of the reconnaissance screen during the raid on Yarmouth in November.." and in the body of the article, this is described as "The ships then escorted the main body of the High Seas Fleet during the raid on Yarmouth on 2–3 November." It's not immediately apparent to me if those two descriptions are exactly synonymous. Assuming that they are, I vastly prefer the plain phrasing used in the body; consider adopting similar in the lead, as "reconnaissance screen" is not accessible to a layperson.
    • Works for me
  • "Roon was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Kaiser.." If I've learnt anything from these articles, that means she was replacing a ship called Kaiser, right? Can that be mentioned explicitly?
    • Done
  • "Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year.." It would be worth providing context of why Prince Heinrich's opinion mattered. (A quick look suggests he was commander of the High Seas Fleet?)
    • Good idea
  • "..the armored cruiser Blücher, which had been transferred to I Scouting Group, and on 25 August.." It's not that important either way, but I'm not sure the explanation of why Blücher needed replacing is necessary in this article.
    • I think we could safely lose that.
  • I wonder if so much detail is necessary in the Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby paragraph. Including all the specific times seems to me to give the impression that it is very important information, and I felt like I had to pay very close attention. The stylistic difference to the rest of the article makes it stand out, and I'm not sure the content warrants it. Harrias talk 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point - I've trimmed the times. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work; I don't have any further concerns with this article. (Disclaimer; I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review.) Harrias talk 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review etc. from Shearonink

  • Permissions/sources for images look good, all check out.
  • All images (except infobox one) need alt-text
  • short description ("ship") is...well...kind of too short.
  • Personal observation - she was a beautiful ship. Wow. Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi Nate, I know this isn't Harrias' area in terms of MilHist FAs (or indeed FAs in general given his cricketing interest) but I think we'd benefit from a quick look from someone outside the MilHist fraternity, if you could try and scare one up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that Llamakey is not a MILHIST guy, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [3].

The Goldfinch (painting)

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following my first book FAC, I now present my first foray into the world of art, a short piece about an iconic bird painting that inspired an award-winning book and a rather poor film. I am greatly indebted to Aa77zz for help with sourcing and detailed comments before I came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

  • Generally looks good. Some comments:
  • "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a 1654 painting by Dutch artist Carel Fabritius" - I don't like years as adjectives, or false titles, and the article doesn't I think mention the important fact that it is signed. Plus you miss the main link. Suggest: "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius, signed and dated 1654." Or something.
  • Done, mislead by the chapter in Lederer head Flemish Baroque in which this was placed, but you're obviously right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was a popular subject for
    Madonna and Child
    pics (that would be the "subject").
  • "The painting is unusual for the Flemish Baroque period.." - but this isn't a Flemish Baroque work. It's Dutch Golden Age painting, though the same is more or less true for that. There's another of these later.
  • "the bird's nickname puttertje" - or "common name"?
  • "The goldfinch is a popular topic for painters" - painters don't really have "topics". "The goldfinch frequently appears in paintings" or something?
  • "Nearly 500 Renaissance religious paintings..." - again a link to plain Renaissance is unlikely to help readers.
  • "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" pretty ancient, so better give dates - 1876 - 1954.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, in Middenbeemster..." - odd. Fabritius is a normal surname, which happens to be the usual way he is referred to (just like Rembrandt). This implies it was a nickname, like El Greco say. "Initially he worked as a carpenter (Latin: fabritius)" may be true, though I think the word is rather more vague than that, but is essentially a coincidence afaik.
  • "Fabritius died young," - well very young, just 2ish years into his independent career, at 32.
  • "According to his contemporary Arnold Houbraken..." - no, born 1660. "His first biographer" maybe.
  • I was assuming Houbraken was his first biographer (he usually is with DGA painters), but seeing how short Houbraken's life is, and hearing about the earlier coverage by Bleyswijck in the Binstock book (lk below), it might be best to soften this. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892" - better explain that Hôtel Drouot is and was exclusively an auction house (or wierd monopolistic consortium of them). We don't link Paris (nor New York later).
  • "The painting is currently in the permanent collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague" - it isn't going anywhere.
    WP:VAMOS
    deprecates currently, & "permanent" is also not needed, after 125 years. The lead gets it right.
  • "survives a terrorist bombing at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in which his mother dies. He takes the Fabritius painting with him as he escapes the building" - presumably in the novel it was on loan for an exhibition. Better say so.
  • I think you are right to have a gallery - personally I use "<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px"> , then the normal </gallery> to close. I'd add a nice pic of the real bird somewhere. On my set-up Elgort is all beside the notes. Personally I'd have him and Thore-Berger in a gallery at the bottom with some of the other pics. The Mignon might be better as a cropped detail - possibly others.

Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Johnbod Thanks for the great review. I'll add a real bird. The Mignon, unlike the Bosch isn't really hi-res enough. Can you leave the possibility of a second gallery with me for a while? I need to think about that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2
  • Ok, I've been away for a while, & the article has grown considerably, so there is more to say.
  • Firstly, I think the increased number of sections have odd names and the wrong sequence. I would suggest re-arranging as follows:
    • Lead
    • Description (now "Physical characteristics")
    • Goldfinch (or "the Bird") - now "Subject"
    • Style
    • Artist (now "Background") - ok this & "Style" could be either way round.
    • Provenance (now "Ownership")
    • Cultural references and exhibitions (now "In popular culture")

- FunkMonk said below "In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, ..." but in my experience this is neither usual, nor usually the best approach. The subject of the article is the painting, and the description of that should normally follow the lead - here there are two intervening sections.

  • I've done this, settled for Goldfinch instead of subject, please change if you don't like that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pic "... Abraham Mignon (circa 1668) shows the water-drawing behaviour of the bird." & the Dou are in the next gallery after that is described. Mind you, if the description section follows the lead, I think the first gallery strip can perhaps be removed, with the 2 pics of artist and bird in their natural places in the text.
  • The caption for "The Nativity (1470–1475) by Piero della Francesca" needs to locate the bird, which took me a while to find.
  • It turns out I hadn't found the right bird at all! We badly need a better pic of this great work. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fabritius' student, Mattias Spoors, and church deacon Simon Decker also died as a result of the explosion" - reads slightly oddly. What was the deacon doing? Was he the subject of a portrait? If so, better say.
  • I've removed the speculation as to why they were there since we don't know. If you're still not happy, they can go altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the second quarter of the fourteenth century while the Black Death pandemic gripped Europe" BD arrived in Sicily in 1347, and eg in England arrived in 1348, with the peak until 1351, and a second major wave in the 1360s... "in the middle" might be more accurate.
  • "The Goldfinch was lost for more than two centuries before the previously unknown painting first came to light in 1859" - "The Goldfinch was lost and unknown for more than two centuries before it first came to light in 1859" better?
  • "The Frick exhibition was part of a world tour of selected Golden Age paintings from the Mauritshuis closure during a two-year..." needs something, if only a possessive. Also dates needed - 2013-2014 at the Frick.
  • Tweaked and added Frick dates. I don't know if you were suggesting dating all the exhibitions, but if so, I think that would just be unnecessary clutter, so I'm not prepared to do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All points fixed, & article looking very good. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, many thanks for your review and support, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Theramin

Some random comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nice article, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that should be mined. For example, this book from the Met and National Gallery's Vermeer exhibition in 2001 mentions some interesting points, including:

  • (as you have already mentioned Pliny) the neat reversal of the grapes of Zeuxis (so realistic, it deceived a bird) to this painting of a bird (so realistic, it could fool a person passing by)
  • the Dutch common name of distelvink or putter (or putterje using a Dutch diminutive suffix, so do we have a Dutch speaker to confirm the usage?
  • how the painting may have been displayed, supporting the thesis that it was nailed up by a window
  • that's already there reffed to Stone-Ferrier in "physical characteristics" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the bold strokes with bright colours above and the feathery strokes with dull colours below, adding to the impression of volume and texture
  • are those rings metal, or smooth wood?
  • where is the bucket?
  • the book was before the restoration, we know that not only is there obviously no bucket now, but there never was, seems a bit of a red (gold?) herring to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other catalogues, journal articles, etc, that should be consulted?

I've found all I can, although I obv missed this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And can we pin down the provenance?

  • This is the print collector Chevalier Joseph Guillaume Jean Camberlyn (1783-1861).
  • And this is the art dealer Étienne-François Haro (1827-1897, who retired c.1885).

So who was "E. Martinet"?

  • this contemporaneous record, clearly says "M." (i.e. Monsieur) "E. Martinet", and it appears to be an estate sale.
Great find. This is the 1896 sale. The catalogue includes a picture so there is no doubt. The painting is Lot 16 on page 9 here. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the notes to the side of the lot say it was sold to Kleinberger, the art dealer. I assume he sold it on to the Mauritshuis, but I doubt it was for the same price he paid for it at the auction (there's a 5% commission from the auction house to add to the 6200 francs to start with). Yomanganitalk 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Maritshuis page confirms the sale at the auction and the purchase by the Mauritshuis are separate transactions, so that bit of the "Ownership" section will need rewording. Yomanganitalk 10:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be separate transaction - Bredius became director of the Mauritshuis in 1889. Brown p.126 has "bought by Bredius for the Mauritshuis (for his account of the sale see Bredius 1939, pp.11-12)". - Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Kleinburger seems to have been a proxy or agent for Bredius. I've copied Bredius's account to the talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the catalogue of the 1892 sale after the death of Thoré-Burger (la collection de feu Thoré-Burger) again with a picture. It is lot 10 on page 13 here (agrees with Brown 1981 p.126) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect it was the printer Émile Martinet (1838-1895), of Rue Mignon. His daughter Maxime married Jules Haro, the son of Étienne-François Haro. See this and this.

That's almost certainly correct. The auction was an estate sale. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theramin, thanks for comments, I'm out all day today, but I'll deal with these as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the provenance, I already had the chevalier ref, now I've also expanded on Haro and Kleinberger. Martinet is more of a problem. Neither of the links is RS, and although this is, it doesn't appear to confirm his family relationship with Haro or his job. I don't doubt the facts, but I can't find a proper source to enable it to be added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is still a nice article, and getting better by the day. Thank you for giving me an excuse to dig into the sources. What a genius Fabritius was. Such a pity he was exploded. I guess my main point is that there is more out there. I see some of the points that have been mentioned in the last couple of days were already in Brown's catalogue raisonné. There are more sources in JSTOR, and I suspect there must be more in Dutch. Do we have anyone local who can help? And I've not read it, but is there anything of worth in Davis's Fabritius and the Goldfinch? More specifically, I had hoped that you might see "other sources … For example … including" and go a bit further than ticking off the list of bullets, but if you'd prefer to have a laundry list of further points to tick off (and apologies, but this is all rather undigested stream-of-consciousness):

  • I have the Davis book, and it's been really useful for background, and telling me what I need to verify, but it's written as a popular history with few footnotes and plenty of speculation, so I don't think it's suitable as direct source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to say a bit more about Fabritius as a link between Rembrandt and Vermeer - for example the Rembrandt-y looseness of the brushwork, and sgraffito use of the end of his brush to create black line through the thickly painted yellow wing - but also the transition in tones away from Rembrandt-esque darkness (which you mention) to Vermeer-esque light (which could be said more explicitly: Vermeer was certainly influenced by Fabritius, and while it is not universally accepted, there is speculation that Vermeer could have been a student of Fabritius).
  • The pleasant online presentation at the Mauritshuis compares the blank walls behind the Fabritius's goldfinch and Vermeer's Milkmaid, which only became clear after discoloured varnish was cleaned off in 2003, and links back to what Bürger said in his 1859 catalogue of the Arenburg collection, about "mur blême", "fonds clairs et pâles" and "lumineuse couleur".[4]
  • Is there more to say about the restoration? Do the technical sources mention X-ray and infrared analysis?
Added text and the Delft painting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the provenance, and Martinet/Haro, perhaps someone in France can help to locate some hardcopy sources, although you don't get more hardcopy than the
    Père Lachaise
    .
  • The provenance is pretty well established, I can't see why we need more on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another more finished self-portrait at the National Gallery, which also has an article: Young Man in a Fur Cap (1654). That said, I quite like the loose, sketchy nature of the earlier one (1645) you have chosen.
  • If you can bear adding links to articles in other languages, you might want to use Uno sparviero [it]. (That was earlier, surely, not later? 1510s versus 1654. Perhaps better to say a Renaissance example.)
    I thought that too, but when I re-read it I saw it meant later than the grapes. Then again, if we both misunderstood it probably needs rewording. Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is fairly usual for the image captions of artworks to include artist, title, date, and where the work is held.
  • I've included all of that except the location which I don't think is relevant and just makes long captions even longer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, Fabritius was still alive when he was dug out from the ruins of his house some hours after the gunpowder explosion in Delft, he was taken to a hospital, but died a short time afterwards. All of the others in the house were dead when they were found. So "died with him" is not quite right.
  • After centuries in private collections ("lost" seems a bit strong, as no one as looking for it) the chardonneret was included in the 1866 Exposition retrospective: tableaux anciens empruntés aux galleries particulières (now there is a topic deserving of an article, as much as the First Impressionist Exhibition) at the Palais des Champ-Élysées which was organised by Édouard Odier [fr] and … Étienne-François Haro.[5] Well, blow me down.

That is probably more than enough from me. Please don't be discouraged - there is a great article there, I just think it needs a bit more. Theramin (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got most of it. There is probably more that could be added on how this panel might physically have worked as a tromp l'oeil, and also linking the Italian article on it:Uno sparviero (unless someone writes a short stub for you... and the Piero della Francesca deserves an article too: one magpie or two?) and in the main I like to add locations for artworks, but you apparently don't, so I'm not going to stand in your way.

Two further points, and then I think my nitpicking be exhausted. I think its first public exhibition in Paris in 1866 is quite important, and it is mentioned in the Mauritshuis presentation. And you might want to see the back and forth on my talk page about Émile Martinet, and some of his works (that were later sold in the same estate sale in 1896) being exhibited in 1874, which I think makes it clear this is the same "E. Martinet". Sadly not the chardonneret though, but nice to give the man his name after all these years. Theramin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done a stubby article on A Sparrowhawk, and I guess I should be supporting, although as I hope is clear, I've been concentrating on content, rather than language and format. Two further thoughts, though.

  • I've added the 2005 pic to physical characteristics and fixed the image licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then, you mention the "blockbuster" Frick exhibition in 2013-14 with 200,000 attending, but you might want to mention that paintings were out on loan in 2012-14 while the Mauritshuis was renovated,[6] and that there were queues around the corner at the Frick, in the autumn/winter weather, with 13,000 joining as members (quadrupling the number) to jump the queue, and more importantly the goldfinch overshadowing Girl with a Pearl Earring which was expected to be the popular draw (as it had been elsewhere during the two-year world tour, including a million (!) visitors at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, and then at Kobe City Art Museum, but also at the de Young in San Francisco,[7] and the High in Atlanta,[8] and then it seems the Palazzo Fava in Bologna[9][10]). e.g.[11][12] There is a list of earlier exhibitions in the Liedtke catalogue: looks like it goes out roughly every 20 years, 40s 60s, 80s. (Do we know where it was kept during the World Wars?)

This might all be too much - and no doubt the content is driven by the sources - but should we be mentioning 200,000 people at the Frick but not a million visitors the year before in Tokyo? Theramin (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theramin, I obviously don't want this to become a list of everywhere it's ever been, and we already have Paris, but the two-year tour is clearly a major event and is linked to Tartt's book so I've added a bit on that, and mentioned the million in Tokyo to make it a bit more global. I've also taken the opportunity to add a featured picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be churlish not to support now but there seems to be a discrepancy between the date given for the (presuambly) pre-restoration yellowish goldfinch image (2005) and the date of the restoration (2003). I wondered if the restoration started in 2003 and finished later, but I think the image must be earlier than its 2005 upload date, as it is attributed to "The Yorck Project (2002)" and I suspect it predates that. Theramin (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yorck Project images were mostly scans from books that were already so old (in 2005) that the photos were out of copyright. The quality & colour of many is just terrible. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't expecting it to be removed, just the date clarified. I challenge you to find another (better) pre-restoration image of the painting. Anyway, I like the restructuring of the article, and I've made and linked a stubby little article for Piero della Francesca's The Nativity. For what it is worth, I think I am ready to support now. Well done. Theramin (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I've no objection to the "yellow" pic being in (in fact I've just now seen it for the first time I think, as it was added after my first run-through). The colour values are probably poor though. Taking any picture with a Yorck & recent image will make it look like there's been a big restoration! Up to you. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theramin, thanks very much for the review and support and the Nativity stub. In view of the comments from you and Johnbod I'll restore the image for the time being. Johnbod, do you think I should add a footnote to the caption to say that the painting may not have been quite as yellow as depicted? I'll see if I can track down a more reliable pre-restoration image, although I'm not sure how easy that will be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't put it back - although it is almost certainly pre-restoration, there's not a lot to distinguish it from a post-restoration image that has a yellow filter added and, as Johnbod says, the Yorck images are all over the place colour and qualitywise. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. The main image is now a FP. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yomangani:, yes, I saw the FP, thanks for that. I don't think the image is a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep it in for now, unless or until we can find a better pre-restoration image, because we do know from the sources that the old varnish had yellowed enough to have to be removed, so it's just a matter of whether this is the correct shade. Given the vagaries of colour reproduction by cameras, book printings and laptop/tablet screens, we are unlikely to get perfect reproduction of colours—and that applies to all the images here although probably to a lesser extent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, up to you. Holding up any photo in a book, catalogue or postcard in front of the original painting is usually a disconcerting experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I'm not too fond of all the white space in the last part of the article. Is Ansel Elgorth really that important to the story that he warrants creating that huge white space under the Théophile Thoré-Bürger image?
  • Funkmonk it was actually a {{-}} inserted by another editor causing the white space, the pic alone wouldn't do that. I've removed both though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, it was also an issue whether we even needed to see his photo here, seemed like undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under In popular culture ends without citation. I assume it is is because it is just a summary of the book, but would still be god to cite that.
Hmm, yes, in articles about the books, films, etc. themselves, but this is rather tangential (this article is not about the book), so seems a bit out of place. Anyway, I won't press the issue, I'm not entirely up to snuff when it comes to media summaries here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sources state so, mention the colour of the wall under descrition? It is a pretty dominant aspect of the painting. Now you only mention it under Physical characteristics.
  • In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, such as in The Dawn of Love (painting) and The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí). Now, this article starts somewhat abruptly, if we ignore the intro, without presenting the artist. You mention aspects of his life earlier in the article, so I went to read his biography section before I read the rest of the article for context. Could be good to get that out of the way.
  • The captions of the paintings in the galleries could state dates for context. Perhaps also the portraits.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622" Why not full name at link here?
  • "Fabritius died very young" Why not just give his age?
  • "The bird itself was created with broad brush strokes, with only minor later corrections to its outline, while details, including the chain, are added with more precision." Why change in tense?
  • "painted by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1504" Since you present him in the earlier paragraph, perhaps only last name is needed here?
  • You use curly brackets instead of parenthesis by some dates, any reason for that?
  • Again, I won't press the issue, but I'm not sure what the following has to do with the subject of this article (the painting, not the movie): "The film was poorly received, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes giving an approval rating of 24%, and an average score of 4.5/10,[34] and Metacritic showing a weighted average score of 40 out of 100.[35]". Seems like undue weight.
  • "it was lost for more than two centuries" Only clearly stated in the intro.
  • Support - looks good to me now, in line with other painting articles I've reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Not sure the gallery in Subject makes a lot of sense - we've got a portrait of the artist, plus a modern-day photo of the bird, plus a set of other paintings that include the bird
  • I tend to agree, but all the images were requested by reviewers, are relevant and can't easily go elsewhere. I might play around with splitting into a couple of galleries
  • File:Abraham_Mignon_-_Fruit_Still-Life_with_Squirrel_and_Goldfinch_-_WGA15666.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolutioncrop.jpg, File:Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Madonna_del_Cardellino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, File:FabritiusViewOfDelft.jpg
  • File:Théophile_Thoré_by_Nadar.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

Seems to my inexpert eye to meet the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. A few quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • I might lose the
    editorial
    "just" in "died aged just 32";
  • the OED doesn't hyphenate "overpaint"
  • the citation for Jowell's article (ref 24) has three sets of quotation marks where one would expect an even number of them.
  • I could do without the false titles for "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" (and is his nationality relevant here anyway?) and "Former actress Apolline Lacroix".
  • "5,500 francs" – it would be nice to have some indication of what this represented in euros or some such, though I know it can be very hard to give accurate equivalents, and I don't press the point.

A pleasure to read and to review. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim, many thanks for review and support, all fixed except the currency. I tried on that but couldn't get a sensible answer. I might try again later, but these conversions, as you imply, are often challenged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

A nice article on a picture I was unaware of before, but it is rather capitvating, for all its simplicity.

Description
  • "American art historian", "French art critic" (and later "English art historian"): are the nationalities important? (Particularly odd when we get to the stateless "art historian Wilhelm Martin", and various others without nationality!
Goldfinch
  • "2000 years": I think
    MOS:NUMERAL
    suggests to add a comma to four-figure numbers
Cultural references
  • I think some of this drifts a little too far away from the painting and you may want to consider trimming some of the ephemera (the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, the growth in members at the Frick collection, Girl With a Pearl Earring (should be lower case "w" too, btw)) are all points to consider, but if you decide to keep them, I won't demur. The whole para about the film and its Rancid Tomatoes rating should definitely be expunged – there are too many issues with RT as a metric at the best of times, but it really jars here and is a long way from the article's topic.
  • This is a bit trickier, since most of the stuff about the exhibitions was sourced by previous reviewers who asked for it to be added, so I can't really revert that, and is does show the upsurge in its fame with the release of the book. Although the book won several unmentioned awards, the Pulitzer is prestigious enough to be worth stating imho. However, I had misgivings myself about the commentary on the film, so cut to just the single sentence of basic info about the film, which has to be there, I think, since, as the film of the book, it's clearly relevant to an article about the painting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine: it looks much tighter now than it did, so some of the other bits I mentioned look OK now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. All good from me. Nice article and a pleasure to read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

Support Most interesting. and well done I confess I wasn't aware of the book and so forth.

  • "A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and it could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water." I might cut the "it" before "could be taught".
  • The reference to the explosion in the lede seems a bit Easter-eggy to me. Since many readers get no further than the lede, I might expand enough so that the reader understands that this was something not merely personal to the artist, but a larger disaster. Also I'd mention the estimated death toll at some point.
  • added that destroyed much of the city and the death estimate
  • The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of "Style" could benefit from a split in my view.
  • "Following her death in 1643, he moved back to Middenbeemster until the early 1650s, then moving to Delft, where he joined the Guild of Saint Luke in 1652.[15]" I'm not sure "moving" is proper. I would simply omit the word. I'm not completely happy about the "moved back" "until the early 1650s".
  • I can't see beyond the paywall; does The Telegraph say the timing was a coincidence? It strikes me there are few coincidences in marketing.
  • What cynicism! (: The Telegraph does indeed say that, so it is at least a possibility, although I share your doubts
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, many thanks for the review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • For consistency, we need a publishing location for the Bürger book (ref 6).
  • For the older books, which don't have ISBNs, could we add OCLC numbers or similar to help locate them?
This isn't I think usual or necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't essential, that's why it's a question. Some editors do it; I've been asked to consider it at FAC before. It's helpful for anyone looking for the books and probably good practice, but I've no problem if the nominator prefers not to do it. Sarastro (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 cites Petria Noble in a work edited by Epco Runia. Presumably Noble wrote a chapter or section? If so, we should probably name this.
  • Sources appear reliable and high quality. No comment on whether it is a representative survey but there are no obvious concerns.
  • Spotchecks not done. Sarastro (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarastro1, I've had second thoughts about the Noble ref. I don't have direct access to the text, and I'm not totally sure that the reference is correct. I've therefore removed that sentence , which isn't critical, until I can confirm the citation, which is likely to take sometime. I've had no response from the Rijksmuseum, so best not to wait Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarastro1 I've now been able to verify the text and reference, I'd just missed "Carel", so now restored and corrected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [13].

Wales national football team home stadium

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Move south and pre-war success: In "made it the last Wales International held at a rugby ground until 1989", why is "International" capitalized? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a typo, thanks for spotting that. Kosack (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible
  • I've removed around a quarter of the uses and replaced them with alternatives. Let me know if there are anymore that seem particularly repetitive that I may have missed. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating - Done
  • one English newspaper—no harm to name it here
  • Unfourtantley, the source itself only refers to an English newspaper rather than the specific title. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating
  • I've replaced crowd control with gate control to hopefully reflect the situation clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too? - Done
  • dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"? - Done

@Jimfbleak: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No other queries, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Just doing a random sampling of online sources.
    Ref 5--Used accurately, no close paraphrasing
    Ref 8 (also checked #7 as both are paired)--Information present, used appropriately. Happy with these.
    Ref 33--Mentions the stand being destroyed by fire but I can't see any reference to thieves with explosives; where did this part come from?
    Added a source for that. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 45--Source doesn't mention that the attendance record stood for 40 years, but does state that it was a record for the venue. I would assume the length of the record may be mentioned in the previous ref (44) but this is an offline print source which I can't check. If it is, consider appending an inline citation after the "40 years" claim.
    Added an inline cite. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 67--On its first use, it's used appropriately, but it might be worth noting why the Taylor Report lead to a decrease in capacity (converting standing to all seated) as this information is in the source to be used. Second use is appropriate too.
    Added the conversion to seating info. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 83--Not sure of this one. The article specifically mentions success in the 2016 Euros which the source doesn't specify ("In the intervening seven years, fans have packed the smaller Cardiff City Stadium to create a fervent atmosphere, which has been an important factor in recent Welsh success", but that doesn't attribute anything to any one tournament). This may need either reworded or an additional source used to back up the specific claim.
    Added a source that mentions the atmosphere as a positive during the qualifying campaign. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 85--Seems fine. Perhaps a degree of reading between the lines for the claim of Cardiff's capacity being an issue but it does mention increased crowd size definitively and the claim of future matches for large crowds is there in black and white.
  • Seems like there are a few issues which could be looked at here; I can take another look at this once these have been addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The additions seem fine; AGF on the new print source as always. I'll check another few at random shortly just to make sure nothing else has slipped through the cracks. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round two:
    The current ref 83 (Grauniad article) points to a "page not found" error. It might be possible to relocate it on their site or try an archival link.
    Fixed url. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 9--fine
    Ref 71--fine
    Ref 68--Source doesn't mention the claim that "the side suffered its first defeat at the site of the National Stadium since its original incarnation in 1910".
    Added further cite. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 6--Source doesn't mention Hampden Park nor when it hosted any international matches; only that the Racecourse is the record-holder.
    This was actually from the previous ref but a copy editor suggested splitting the refs to separate sentences. I've moved them back together now so this covers the info. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having taken two passes at the sources here, it unfortunately seems to me that although this article is well-researched and put together, it isn't necessarily reflective of its sources--I'm sure a lot of this information is true but it's been fairly common to see information attributed to sources which make no mention of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a little unfair to suggest that given the points I've addressed in the second pass. A handful of positioning fixes has fixed the majority of your points, that doesn't suggest the sources are not reflected correctly. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, every instance raised has been addressed so far but there have been several instances of sources used to cite information which they don't mention, which is more than a "positioning fix". I haven't gone as far as opposing, as the prose and comprehensiveness all seem more than good enough, but it's at least fair to point out the teething problems with sourcing so any passing co-ord can judge whether they're satisfied that it's been adequately addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: I've gone through every reference in the article over the last two days (both online and offline) and tightened where possible, adding extra refs for anything remotely borderline and splitting extended page numbers into more precise sections. I'd appreciate if you could take a further look which will hopefully change your mind. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

I did the GA review of the article, and outside of the comments I made then, there's not much to show this isn't suitable for promotion. The only thing I would like is either all the images to show on one side, or that they alternate. Nothing stopping me from supporting though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This still needs an image review and further comprehensive commentary before we consider for promotion. I've listed at FAC Urgents but if we don't get much more in the next week or two I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

I will make a few comments here.

  • I take it that this article is about the different locations of the Wales national football team home stadium.
  • Might want to be aware of
    WP:CAPFRAG
    .
    I thought I was adhering to that, can you point out what bits need addressing? Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread these, and though there was one caption that wasn't a full sentence. All of these are now fully compliant with CAPFRAG. epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninian Park (which hosted its first international in 1911) and Vetch Field (which hosted its first in 1921) - where are these fields, respectively? Same with Millennium Stadium.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of parenthetical comments in the history sections, which I think might be better integrated into the text using other punctuation. E.g. Buoyed by the income, the FAW arranged a second South Wales match for England's 1896 visit (the first time a team other than Ireland had been hosted away from the Racecourse) could use a comma instead of parentheses. There are a bunch of parentheses in the article itself, which interrupts the flow a little.
    These were added by a copyeditor when I submitted the article for review. I wasn't overly keen on them really but let them slide. However, I've reverted many of them back to their original form now. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have for now. Overall it's a pretty good history of the different venues of the stadium throughout the years. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Epicgenius: Thanks very much for taking a look. I've replied to the points listed above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kosack: No problem, I'm happy to support now. epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM

This review is a WikiCup submission.

I'll also review shortly to prevent stale closure. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Two, Ninian Park..." maybe worth noting the locations of these two (Cardiff and Swansea). - Added
  • " grounds (including the Cardiff City Stadium and the Liberty Stadium). The Cardiff City Stadium was" maybe " grounds including the Cardiff City Stadium and the Liberty Stadium. The former was..." to avoid quick repeating the name of the stadium? - Done
  • " The Racecourse has held more matches than any other venue (94 by January 2020). Its total is twelve more than " -> " The Racecourse has held more matches than any other venue with 94 by January 2020, twelve more than " - Done
  • Would the Old Racecourse not be notable enough for an article since an international football match was played there?
    Possibly, I'm not really sure of the notability criteria for a stadium. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "host international matches, and it has hosted more Welsh international matches" repetitive prose. Not sure right now how to fix it but quick repeats of host and international matches is clunky.
    Removed the latter part, I don't think it fits the timeline of the prose really and can be descerned elsewhere. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact you use "host" five times in three sentences there which is a little jarring.
    Dropped one with the previous point and changed a second. Let me know if you think anymore need dropping. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wales' only matches were played " odd "only" here, maybe move to "Wales' matches were played only" - Done
  • "its 5,000 total attendance" -> "its attendance of 5,000" - Done
  • "a second South Wales match" potentially confusing, perhaps "a second match in South Wales..."? - Done
  • "a large crowd rewarded " no numbers? And no year given for this match in the prose. - Added
  • "Ninian Park and the Racecourse Ground alternated matches " -> "Matches alternated between Ninian Park and the Racecourse Ground..." - Done
  • "Vetch Field hosted.." caption, could use a "pictured in ..." date for context that this is a different looking Vetch Field to the one mentioned in the caption! - Added
  • "area (including Ford, Ivor Allchurch and Ray Daniel), and Allchurch contributed" -> "area including Ford, Ray Daniel and Ivor Allchurch, the latter contributing..."? - Done
  • Consider linking FIFA. - Done
  • "World Cup qualifying match against Denmark at the Racecourse the following year, the lowest crowd ever recorded for a Wales World Cup qualification match" again, lots of repetition here. - Reworded
  • "to Anfield in Liverpool by the FAW;" Liverpool is over linked. - Removed
  • "against England in" in the caption, England is over linked. - Removed
  • National Stadium and Finland also overlinked.
    I can't find a repeat link of the National Stadium, do you mean the Arms' Park pipe? If so, I thought this was worth including given the change of name even though the site was essentially the same. Finland repeat removed. Kosack (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Welsh rugby-union side" I've not seen rugby union hyphenated.
    Not sure how that happened, fixed. Kosack (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an all-seated stadium" I usually refer to this as "all-seater"? - Done
  • Graham Williams needs a comma in his redirect. - Added
  • "£121 million[77] (including a contribution from the FAW). " odd ref placement, could easily go at the end of the sentence. - Fixed
  • Finland and Brazil are over linked. - Removed
  • Trinidad and Tobago prefer and to &. - Fixed
  • Col scopes could be used in the summary table. - Added
  • Minor note: once sorted by any column, the original order can't be restored, i.e. the grounds with one match don't re-order as you have them to start with. If it was me, I'd order the table in chronological order to match the article prose, not initially in order of most matches. Something to consider?
    I think I've fixed the sorting issue now and the original listing can be restored. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could also consider putting thumbnails of each stadium (where available of course) in the table.
    Aside from the Stadiums already pictured, I'd only be able to add images for two more grounds. Feels like I'd be repeating somewhat. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs: is it BBC Sport or BBC Sport? - Fixed
  • Convert ISBNs to 13-digit if possible.
    • Check the result, but the article can be run through the hyphenator which adds hyphens to 13-digit ISBNs and converts 10 digit to 13 digits. Kees08 (Talk) 16:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I am obliged to note this review will be part of my WikiCup submission, but that has no impact on this candidate nor the calibre of my review. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed all of your points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good Kosack, a nice piece of work and always good to see a football article in such great shape going for FA. Well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by KJP1

A marker for review. Will get to it later today. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Absence of an) Infobox
  • Slightly surprising at first sight, but understandable as I'd struggle to think how to populate it, given the article covers multiple stadia. Are there any precedents for other national stadium histories? For the avoidance of doubt, not suggesting for one minute that it's an FA requirement!
  • The only other two articles along the lines are for the English and Scottish sides which also have none present. As you say, I'm unsure really of what would actually be worth including in one. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History - Early years
  • "The ground included a separate tent for women and their
    male escorts
    " - in 1911! Very broadminded, especially for North Wales. "companions"?
  • Haha, the escorts was a leftover of a copyedit that I requested. Companions fits much better! Kosack (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The venue, provided by George Douglas-Pennant, 2nd Baron Penrhyn (who was present at the match), was on the grounds of Penrhyn Estate" - "was in the grounds of Penrhyn Castle"? - or link to the castle if you want to keep estate. - Linked
  • "generating a £147 profit for the FAW" -I know that the inflation templates aren't that accurate, but they do give an idea, (equivalent to £21,143 in 2023)". Unhelpfully, I can't find the right inflation converter at the moment - this isn't it - but the BoE converter puts £147 in 1894 at just shy of £20K today (£19,250). Now helpfully found by John of Reading.
  • "The FAW returned its attention to North Wales" - I suppose you can return attention, but it reads a little oddly to me. "turned its attention back to NW"? - Done
History - Move south and pre-war success (1900–1945)
  • "25 North Wales clubs signed a letter of complaint to the FAW and requested a general meeting with the governing body" - not sure what the "general" signifies. EGM or just "meeting"?
  • I think it probably would have been akin to an egm but the source wouldn't support it so I've dropped the general part. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History - Post war success and decline (1946–1990)
  • "saying that "the appropriate authorities at Swansea had not found it convenient to meet with the wishes of the council" - this is a bit oblique. Does Stead not explain what the disagreement was about?
  • "Ninian Park hosted the first foreign international side to visit Wales the previous year" - the word order threw me bit here. Perhaps, "The previous year Ninian Park hosted the first foreign international side to visit Wales, when Belgium were defeated..."? And, a minor point, is it Belgium were or Belgium was, i.e. is the national side singular or plural? - Reworded, amended to singular
  • "When Israel's political status prompted several sides to refuse to play against the nation, however, Wales received another chance to qualify; according to FIFA rules, a team could not qualify for a World Cup without playing a match. In a two-legged play-off,..." - this is not easy for a non-specialist to understand. I had to head off and read the bluelink, twice! So Wales failed to qualify, Israel did, but couldn't proceed as they'd had passes in all three of their qualifying matches. Wales was then randomly selected for a play-off, which they won. Is that it? Not really got a suggestion but it would help if it could be clarified.
  • In a nutshell, yes. Israel had three byes which FIFA weren't happy with so they arranged a playoff against a European team. Belgium were actually drawn first but also refused the tie, Wales were drawn second and accepted. I've expanded slightly to (hopefully) make it clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional British anthem "God Save the Queen" - I'm assuming the bit on dropping God Save the Queen is sourced to Stead. As an aside, the Hen Wlad article suggests that God Bless the Prince of Wales was sung along with GSTQ until then. Not saying a change is required.
  • "and was infuriated when the flag of his home nation was not raised before the game" - again, just a query from a non-specialist. Is it usual for the flag of the referee's home country to be flown before a match?
Not in the modern game, I'm unsure if it was common practice during this period. The Independent states that it was the wrong flag that was raised, while WalesOnline and Stead only describe his ire being caused by the lack of an East German flag. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History - Search for a new home (1990–present)
  • "The decision to move the tie was criticised by Wales assistant manager Graham Williams" - so, who made the decision for Anfield, if the Welsh were opposed? UEFA?
  • Indeed, as noted, the Danes complained to UEFA that they should receive the same treatment as Italy. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decision was cited as a major factor in the team's success" - I'm not quite getting this and I've read both the cites. Is it saying that the smaller ground, which was filled closer to capacity than the Millennium would have been, created a better atmosphere for the team?
  • Yes, that's what I was inferring. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of venues
  • The thing that confused me here is the separate listings for The Arms Park, the National Stadium and the Millennium Stadium (Principality Stadium as of 2016?), particularly as the National Stadium links to The Arms Park. Given that they were/are (nearly) all on the same site, would a brief footnote setting out the, rather complicated, history be of use to readers? I say this as a non-specialist who nevertheless used to live in a flat in Riverside with a splendid view of, but unfortunately not in to!, the old stadium. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The National Stadium/original Arms Park link is an odd one for me. Personally, I would have a standalone article for The National Stadium but we don't have that. I've added a note at the first mention of the National Stadium to hopefully define the link. I'm not sure if there can be any confusion with the Millennium though, I would say it's a well known place in its own right. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • All look good to me.

A very-well written and comprehensive article that, aside from a couple of queries noted above, is easily accessible to the non-specialist. Look forward to supporting after the comments/suggestions above have been reviewed, but not necessarily actioned. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KJP1: Thanks very much for reviewing the article. I've responded to all of the points above. Let me know if there are any further issues. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are not. A fine article which I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [14].

Mandate for Palestine

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the sequel to

WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Constantine

I will comment here as I go along. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine ✍ 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine ✍ 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told Georges Clemenceau" link and mention
    Paris Peace Conference as well as its date (in the narrative before and after we are still in 1915), introduce the British Prime Minister and his French counterpart as such, and link them. Constantine ✍ 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a general note, given the unusually high reliance on quotes, which provide much of the article's content, I strongly recommend adding links to the footnotes. For example, the "Jerusalem Riot of April 1920" should be linked to 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Constantine ✍ 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
  • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
  • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine ✍ 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I've gone through the article again, and I like the changes. Apart from the two Turkey-related suggestions above, my main outstanding issue is the beginning of the 'Background' section, where I do strongly recommend an introductory section about Palestine in 1914 and the various players regarding it. Also, on the section titles 'Commitment to...' it should be clarified who made this commitment: the POV adopted here is that of the British government, so it should be mentioned (i.e., "British commitment to...") and it should be explained beforehand (in the intro section) exactly why we are dealing with the British perspective first and foremost. As someone somewhat familiar with the subject, I understand the rationale, but we cannot assume such knowledge for the average reader. I would also recommend adding an explanation of the colors to the legends of your maps, the {{Legend}} template should be useful here. Constantine ✍ 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
I have scaled up a number of the images
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
  • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
Removed as suggested.
  • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[15]
Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

  • Lead looks good. In the last paragrah, "Britain announced their intention" should be "Britain announced its intention." Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment to Britain Palestine

  • "This proposed that three sons of Sharif Hussein – who had since become King of the Hejaz, and his sons emirs (princes)"-I'm having difficulty determinig what this means. Please rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • T.E. Lawrence's name is mentioned in the third paragraph here. Is this the first time that it appeared? If so, it should be linked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestine being within the area of Arab independence." I'm confused. In that case, there would be no Palestine, correct? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kinds of advantages, economic or otherwise, did Britain receive by administering the mandate? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Transjordan

Drafting

  • "The February 1919 Zionist Proposal to the Peace Conference was not discussed at the time, since the Allies' discussions were focused elsewhere." I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to say where. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit confused now. I see a draft made in December 1919 is mentioned but I can't find anywhere what the provisions were. It's also unclear to me why there had to be so many drafts. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inclusion of Article 25 was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922." This comes off poorly to me unless we first explain what Article 25 was. I feel that we should explain the circumstances that led to the article, say what was in the article, and then say when it was approved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"

  • How was the Palestinian Arab Congress formed? What if any political authority did it have? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What executive committee? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the "4th" Palestinian Arab Congress? And shouldn't it be written as Fourth rather than 4th? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would Conservative members of Parliament provide encouragement to the Arabs? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: thanks very much for your comments here, particularly the thoroughness of your assessment. I was waiting for you to finish working your way through before addressing them. The article has had a thorough GOCE copy edit, and the GA review was very detailed by multiple users. Your comments are very constructive and I will work through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
Changed to "on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship." Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
"ff" replaced by 82-83 as suggested. I have kept the same reference twice in those two sentences, on the basis that each separate clause represents an important point. We are being crystal clear that both clauses within the sentence are explicitly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
Specified as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
Added Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “The delegation made…”
Amended as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
  • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
  • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
  • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
Fixed and suggested, and replaced East with eastern. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.
  • Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:
    • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
    • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
    • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
    • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma)
The rule I have applied is to use a comma after an introductory dependent clause. I didn't have it in the 1915-16 sentence only because that sentence has quite a lot of breaks already. I have added it back, but am now thinking the sentence should be restructured. I'd be grateful if you have any ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

  • Why did you make such long footnotes? and two series of notes? I feel that the readability of the article is really impacted by this formatting (think about those reading it on mobile!). I would much prefer seeing the content of these notes in the text body; the article is not that long for such a complex topic (55k characters), and some sections are quite small ("Turkey", "Legality" have only one paragraph). Imo there is no need to add such long verbatim quotes from primary and especially secondary sources. The former can be interesting when really significant (but not that many), not the latter (unless from a very influential academic or book). All the info in the notes starting by "Biger wrote" etc. should be synthesised and added in the text body. I don't think it is FA standard right now, although you have made a great job at collecting all the material. Now you just have to make it more encyclopedic. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for reviewing the article. You raise an important topic. I last discussed it in detail with the late great Brian Boulton in this thread from the first FAC review of the Balfour Declaration article. I explained the following, which is equally applicable to this article: "The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing." The rest of the thread goes on to provide more detail.
It has proven to work; both Balfour Declaration and this article went from edit warring battlegrounds to completely stable articles after the addition of these detailed footnotes.
Are there any footnotes in particular which stand out to you? Whilst I feel strongly about the overall concept, I am open to cutting them down further wherever possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I remember having read the Balfour declaration article and being similarly bothered. Would it be possible to transcribe important speeches and newspapers articles on Wikisource? This way they would be easily accessible without making the article overwhelming with quotes/notes everywhere. On edit wars, I thought every article on Palestine had an extensive protection. Isn't it enough?

I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):

British public and government opinion became increasingly opposed to state support for Zionism. Even Sykes had begun to change his views after a last trip to Palestine in late 1918, as he considered the situation could become dangerous.[ref to Leslie's book] Following a visit to Palestine in February 1922, the Conservative media mogul Viscount Northcliffe—who notably owned the Times and The Daily Mail—launched a campaign in the press against Zionism, fearing that it would upset Muslims in India. On 15 February, he published from Cairo a statement suggesting Palestine risked becoming a second Ireland.[Defries ref] Concerned by his fading support in Parliament, Churchill telegraphed Samuel—who had begun his role as High Commissioner for Palestine 18 months earlier—asking for cuts in his expenditure, so he hoped he could dodge the critics on the cost of supporting Zionism for the British taxpayer.[ref to Huneidi] This policy initially failed as the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25 after the June 1922 issuance of the Churchill White Paper, following a motion proposed by Lord Islington.[refs to Huneidi and Hansard] The Lords' vote was only symbolic though, since it was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Commons thanks to skilful political manoeuvring from Chruchill. He avoided showing his support to Zionism, focusing instead on imperial and strategic considerations, especially the need for Britain to remain in the area to control the Suez Canal.[refs to Hansard and Mathew].

There is more info and less notes. The role of Northcliffe is important, but with your current formatting, you put the info in a quote that leads to a note; that's not ideal and easy to follow. T8612 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for this. I like many of the copy edits in there. To your specific questions: (1) for the speeches and newspaper articles to go on Wikisource, I would need the full piece – unfortunately more often than not I just have the specific excerpts that are quoted by scholars of this topic. Where I do have the complete source material I have frequently added it to Wikisource, or sometimes as a pdf to Wikicommons; I will have a look through to see if I can add more. (2) On edit wars, this is not about IPs, but about avoiding edit wars between experienced editors who feel very strongly about this topic area and are willing to fight over the slightest nuance without double checking the underlying sources. For example, statements in your draft such as Sykes changed his mind "as he considered the situation could become dangerous" and Northcliffe launched his campaign because he "fear[ed] that it would upset Muslims in India" would attract amendments by editors who feel that the summary was not a full reflection. (3) Footnotes are also useful to provide additional detail which would otherwise distort the flow of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

This nom appears to have stalled and we're nowhere near consensus to promote, so I'm gong to archive it. As well as addressing Sarastro's unresolved comments, I'd suggest working with the reviewers, if they're willing, outside of FAC to improve the article prior to another nomination after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2020 [16].

Battle of the Defile

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine ✍ 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

A great article. I have a few comments:

  • when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
    • Good point, done
  • suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
    • Good point, done
  • might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
    • That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
  • is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
    • Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
  • is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
    • No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
  • link counterattack
    • Done
  • did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
    • No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
  • suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
    • Good point, done
  • should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
    • Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
  • suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
    • Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
  • Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
    • I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link terms and names in image captions.
    • Done.
  • Suluk is duplinked.
    • Done.
  • "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
    • Done.
  • I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
    • Done and linked to wiktionary.
  • It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
    • Capitalized is for the battle, changed to the full name now to avoid confusion.
  • You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
    • This is a bit complicated. Indeed, Umayyads, Arabs, and Muslims are used interchangeably, although they are obviously not entirely coterminous. However, this reflects the practice in the sources and is also a way to keep reminding the readers that the Umayyads were an Arab Muslim regime, and that a retreat/advance of the Umayyads also represented a retreat/advance of Islam. The army certainly did contain allied contingents and native converts, but in most cases they are not mentioned except when they had some role to play. For the events described here, allied rulers are completely absent from the sources for the Umayyad army, whether because most native rulers had switched over, or because they were not part of the campaign (Junayd left for Samarkand with the army of the Khurasani Arabs) or because they are ignored. The native converts or
      mawali
       are seldom differentiated from the bulk of the Khurasani Arab settlers, chiefly because they were a) subordinate and b) affiliated with the Arab tribes. Also see the note regarding the army's composition.
  • You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
    • Good point, added a footnote as I couldn't find a good way to segue into a diatribe on that subject in the main body.
  • "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
    • Good point, done.
  • "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
    • Indeed, done.
  • "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • Very good point, fixed.
  • It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
    • Good point, done.
  • It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.
    • Good point, done.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns, please have a look. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - changes look great, not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • "File:Caliphate 740-en.svg" The description is interesting, and I don't doubt the map's accuracy - but it needs to be based on a verifiable RS.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Phewww, this is problematic. As stated, it derives from Califate 750.jpg, which comes from a RS, namely William Shepherd's atlas. I've also added the two modern atlases I've used, but be advised, this is not lifted directly from any of them. It is a first draft attempt at making a somewhat accurate overview map, and it will change over time, as modifications are made (wiht sources). Right now, it is merely a correction of the more egregious erros of the old Shepherd map (which is reproduced even in modern atlases), but with some corrections (for example, the area around Kabul is shown as not controlled by the Muslims in the Brill atlas, but the Routledge atlas shows it as conquered. The problem is mainly that the early Islamic period is covered in a couple of overview maps in most works, and detail gets lost quickly there.Constantine ✍ 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. So long as it is tied back to RSs, which it now is. Some interesting divergences from my trusty Muir's, mostly, I suspect, explicable by the factors you outline.
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

  • MOS:BQ
    states "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." Eg "after the Day of the Defile, many Khurasani tribal surnames never again appear as part of the army in Khurasan, leading one to suppose they had been annihilated or their men had given up fighting. Some Khurasani troops remain, of course, but their divisions are now paralleled by Syrian ones. Thus it appears, particularly from Tabari's emphasis, that the Day of the Defile was practically a turning point in the war with the Turks, at least as far as the Khurasanis were concerned [...]."
  • Cite 41: "p." → 'pp.'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Ye gods, the weeks fly past when the world is gripped by panic... I did list this at FAC Urgents, to no avail it seems, but I'm still reluctant to pull it when it looks like one more comprehensive review might do the trick -- Gog, can I trouble you here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I am going to have to get the word "MUG" removed from my forehead. Yes, of course I will Ian; right on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Constantine has not edited for three weeks. So, rather than leave my usual list of niggles, I have boldly copy edited the text myself - [17]. IMO the article conveys the facts well, readably, reasonably succinctly and from an impeccable set of sources. The information presented is balanced and to the point. In other words it is up to Constantine's usual standards and I am happy to support the article for FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2020 [18].

Second Silesian War

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Emicho´s Avenger

I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talk • contribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the FA criteria don't carry weight when it comes to determining consensus for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59

Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

  • Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
  • Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

"New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've added a citation from Browning to support the general consensus that the outcome was a Prussian victory. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

  • The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.
The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?
Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?
This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.
Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?
I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?
Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?
Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.
Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".
I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?
"...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?
When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that would be helpful to a reader.
I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?
Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?
Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.
I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.
That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?
I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.
I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works well.

What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review--Support-- Auntieruth55

  • This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (U

Article Review --- Support---Auntieruth

A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good.  :)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.
Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

  • "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.
Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi, I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started going through the article with a view to promotion but I paused on reading This conflict can be viewed as a continuation of the First Silesian War in the lead. It comes across to me as editorializing and, while it might well reflect the view of historians, I couldn't see in a quick scan of the article where this view is supported -- can you help me out here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... The First Silesian War only "ended" for Prussia; everyone else kept right on fighting while Prussia had two years of peace, and the context and stakes of the "second" conflict were exactly the same. One or two players switched sides (notably Saxony), but that sort of thing was common in eighteenth-century wars. The sources already cited are full of the idea that, for Prussia, the "Peace" after the First War was really only a pause in the fighting (Fraser, 164: "These last two years since the Peace of Breslau had been an interlude, an armistice.") In a journal article that I haven't currently cited, Levy (1988) asserts that all three(!) Silesian Wars should really just be thought of as campaigns of the War of the Austrian Succession. I've added a little more of that flavor, and I'm trying to spot the place in the article where it would make sense to add a citation to Levy. Any suggestions? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your prompt response, Bryan. I have to hit the sack but let me think on it -- it might even just be a slight re-wording of what's in the lead so pls bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I appreciate your guidance. I've added the Levy citation; let me know if you think it needs more. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Bryan. Tks for the additions. So when we say now Some historians have argued that the First and Second Silesian Wars should be thought of as campaigns within one continuous War of the Austrian Succession and cite that to Levy, is Levy actually writing that several historians have said it's one continuous war, or is he saying it's one continuous war and we're using him as an example of "some historians"? You see what I mean: if the former then this is fine, if the latter then I would say it's editorializing because WP is saying "some historians" rather than our source explicitly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a valid distinction. Does it help that all of the sources currently cited with titles that don't relate to Frederick (Browning, Black, Clifford, Hochedlinger, Holborn) do exactly that: present the first two Silesian Wars as campaigns within the WotAS? Should I cite all of those books as evidence of numerous other historians portraying the wars this way? The only source I've found that specifically and explicitly addresses the question is Levy's article, and it's just him asserting that they all ought to be thought of as parts of the same war. If you feel that we can't include that idea without a more explicit source, then I'll regretfully remove it, but I think the fact that the second war was for all intents and purposes just more of the first is a fairly important thing to know about this war. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I don't want to be a bother, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: It's been some time now. Please reply and let me know what needs to happen to complete this process. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bryan, I think I was preparing to respond to this earlier and then got waylaid. Anyway, based on the above I think a few tweaks (which I've taken the liberty of making myself) will satisfy me as reflecting the sources while minimising what seemed to be weasel wording. If you're okay with that I think we can wrap it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those changes look great. Thanks for getting back to this! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed and appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent review

Bryan, I saw your newcomer plea at

WT:FAC, where you mentioned that "the three substantive supporting reviewers are all coordinators of the relevant WikiProject". Typically, we look for independent review to make sure that articles are digestible to readers not familiar with the content area. Knowing that your MilHist peers would have checked the sourcing, formatting, and all other FA crit, I'm just leaving a note for the Coords that, as a non-MilHist person, I read through and it all made sense! I'm not familiar enough to Support, and didn't do any other sort of review, but it's always important to get a set of eyes from outside of the content area to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

A very reasonable point! I appreciate your taking the time to look it over! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to do the same somewhere down the road on a FAC outside of MilHist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MilHist is a very broad church and, of the reviewers, only AuntieRuth is closely associated with the period under review here, but certainly it's always preferable to have someone completely outside MilHist give it the once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [19].

John Leak

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

  • Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
  • I don't think so, while still explaining the basis of his notability. It is a standard formulation for FAs on Australian VC recipients which I've used half-a-dozen times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's consistent with other articles, I'm fine with the wording as is. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
  • No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
  • Not sure what else to do here, but added a short preamble and changed it up a bit and split the para, see what you think. The second period was 96 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
  • No, but given later events, perhaps the court martial realised he was struggling as a result of his experiences, or they didn't want to delay his return to the frontline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
  • Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
  • A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?
  • added "and legacy" to the section header. The last two are directly related, as they both refer to his memorial. All three relate to memorialisation of Leak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Victoria Cross image has two alts
  • File:John_Leak_P02939.jpg: suggest using PD-US instead of the URAA tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?
  • "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."
  • I think I've addressed this. Providing a brief description in the chronology then the full citation at the time the award was made is the approach I've used in all the other VCs I've done. I think this is the best way to approach it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?
  • "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?
  • "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?
  • added "that he was affected by "combat-related trauma" and linked to combat stress reaction. Added "relentless" to "shell-fire" to better explain what the issue was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...
  • We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."
  • "remembering lost mates": Again, I wonder if "mates" is too informal? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, PM, thanks for your efforts with this one. I reviewed this at ACR and think it is has improved since then. I have only one suggestion:

  • In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said...: suggest clarifying that he said this while delivering the ode at an Anzac Day service AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, AR. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day @FAC coordinators: this one is looking good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry a couple of other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • perhaps mention that he enlisted in Rockhampton as that explains the links with that town later in life, per: [20]?
    • perhaps mention ill health in later life related to being gassed ("bronchitis and emphysema") per: [21]
    • I wonder if citations # 35 and 36 are consistent in their format; for instance compare citation # 34
  • otherwise, coverage looks sufficient to me based on what appears in reliable sources; all information appears to be referenced; citations appear to be consistent in their format; the article has appropriate images (if another one was available, though, it would be nice to have one in the later life section);
All done, AR. Except for an image for the last section. If the weather comes good tomorrow I might nip over to Stirling and take a pic of his grave. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, hope you have a good weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Just to note that, while I'd generally prefer a little more commentary on a FAC, there's been no activity for two weeks so things are clearly stable, and at least one reviewer is not from the MilHist clan (which commented at the article's A-Class nom) so we have some breadth to the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2020 [22].

James Humphreys (pornographer)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Per previous review. buidhe 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buidhe, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Oppose by Fowler&fowler; looking to support, given progress

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The first FAC was archived on 2 January 2020, and a discussion was continued on the Talk page. This article has seen just one edit since. The GAC was conducted long before the first FAC was archived. I have not had time to even get much beyond the lead. The nominator made no effort to ping me. Surely that is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out exactly where any action here "is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules". I am sure that the @FAC coordinators:
WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This article has a major blind spot, a major gap: that of sexual exploitation and abuse of young women. He did that his entire life. There is no mention anywhere in the article. The article deadpans its way through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are clear as to exactly what he did. If you wish to provide reliable sources that directly link Humphreys to any additional exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry), please provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Fowler&fowler 's reply at 16:29, 12 January 2020‎ — continues after insertion below

(edit conflict) The point is is that for that information to be included, we would need a specific source that directly and explicitly links Humphrey's to the exploitation of, etc. No-one (I'm sure) disagrees with your point in principle, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to make the link independently to the sources. That would be both original research and synthetic. The most that we could have without such a source is a (probably single sentence) piece of context in which it is noted that the 60s was a decade in which female rights came to the for, but so did pornography (or something). But it would be part of the general background rather than accusing Humphrey's personally. ——SN54129 16:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that background? There are books written on sexual exploitation in Soho in the 1960s and 70s, often not just of underage women, but foreign women, who were more vulnerable. Where is there any mention of that? There are apparently "normal levels" of sex abuse in the porn industry (according to the nominator); there are also "normal levels" of corruption in the police. The article is entirely about the breaches of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT STATE HUMPHREYS WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLOITATION OR ABUSE? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "We?" And "additional?" Where is there any mention of sexual exploitation or abuse? Are you saying your article is comprehensive about sexual exploitation and abuse of young, and even underage, women for which James Humpherys was directly or indirectly responsible? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is Wikipedia, (i.e.: the article is clear). Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry)? If so, please could you provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "normal" levels in the sex industry? I have no idea. Your article makes no explication of these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no idea, how are you basing an oppose on it? The article links to various other articles which deal with the wider social impacts of the sex industry. I think we'd be going well outside the limits of a biography if we start looking at the social impact of pornography in this article.
So we're back to the question again: do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (i.e. those that fall outside any general coverage that appears in the articles linked from this one)? - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was alluding to the use of "normal" without telling us what constitutes that notion of normal under which James Humpherys was engaging in sexual exploitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
F&F, you should also oppose because the article makes no mention of the Sociology of punishment or imprisonment either. ——SN54129 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a man was a warden at
Auschwitz and there is no source for his directly killing the inmates. Can we nominate a biography of his to FAC that does not tell us about the context, about what went on in Auschwitz? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Wut. ——SN54129 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take the suprious and straw men discussions elsewhere. Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? I am going to disengage from this line you are pushing now. I consider it increasingly disruptive as it is outside the scope of this biography. The socio-economic impact of pornography and the sex industry is dealt with in article linked directly from this one. Should you have any constructive comments to make about the article, I will deal with them, otherwise I have better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the latter half of the second paragraph in the Later life section a comprehensive summary of this report in The Independent? The Independent article says, "His wife, June, 59, who often acted as a maid to the prostitutes, forced the women to pay such high rents that they frequently had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week to meet her demands, Southwark Crown Court in south London was told. ... The judge said he accepted they did not coerce or corrupt the women they used, but 'on any view the financial arrangements for them were extortionate'. Humphreys, of West Hampstead, north-west London, admitted living on immoral earnings; his wife, charged under her maiden name of Packard, admitted aiding and abetting him."? I have many more sources ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a good point to make, and I've added something about the amount of time the women worked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as those sources aren't memoires of retired peelers, that's fine  :) ——SN54129 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Serial Number, that's what comes of writing articles on what some people describe as "hobby topics". If you choose to do that, you'll end up being crucified here because you haven't written an article on a "vital" topic. It's that sort of mindset that makes for a less than smooth review process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with either hobby or vital, and everything to do with a slanted, sanitized, and incomplete account. Have you, for example, used the sources I pointed out to you on the article's talk page:
  • Tyler, Melissa (19 December 2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press,
    ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |authormask=, and |laysummary= (help
    )
  • ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help) to give the reader a background or context to Humphreys's career? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please do not lie: tThis article is not slanted, sanitised or incomplete. No, I have not used those sources. They are not about Humphreys, and the information they contain is too far away from this biography. We have articles about pornography and the sex industry that readers are able to read. They do not need to be given a lecture on the socio-economic impact of prostitution in this article: that is what other articles are for. If you wish to improve the other articles, or, indeed, create a new article the sex industry in 1970s London, please feel free, but it would fall outside the remit of this article, except for a link. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the sting in Cyprus in your summary begins with, "In January 1972 Drury, Humphreys and their wives travelled to Cyprus and Beirut for a fortnight's holiday." and continues with "A journalist flew to Cyprus and was given a copy of the hotel register; the newspaper hired a private investigator who visited the branch of Thomas Cook on Regent Street, where he obtained a duplicate of the receipt, which showed Humphreys had paid for Drury's ticket." But that is not how the narrative unfolded. There was no public awareness of that trip. It was uncovered in an investigation directed by Laurie Manifold, the head of the investigative team at The Sunday People. The description in Roy Greenslade (27 May 2008), "Subterfuge, set-ups, stings and stunts: how red-tops go about their investigations", in Hugu de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Routledge, pp. 329–330,
    ISBN 978-1-134-06871-5
     is fuller (I have italicized some important elements.)
Roy Greenslade's description

The starting point was a passing mention to Manifold by a freelance reporter with good underworld contacts ... That information was nowhere near sound enough to publish. Even though Humphreys confirmed it to Manifold, documentary proof was required. ... Manifold sent a reporter, Sid Foxcroft, to Cyprus to see if he could check the register, and he immediately had an amazing stroke of luck. On arrival at Nicosia airport, the Greek Cypriot taxi driver recognised Foxcroft as a former comrade in the 8th Army and offered him help. Within minutes of getting to the hotel the driver persuaded the manager to show his old friend the register, which recorded the fact that Drury and Humphreys, and their wives, had stayed at the hotel at the same time. But it did not show who paid the bill because it was a package tour pre-paid in Britain. Manifold guessed that the package tour operators were unlikely to provide a copy of a receipt if approached straightforwardly. He told me: ‘I thought there’s only way to get this, and we've got to break the law. You’ve got to take a chance sometimes’. So he hired a man he had used before, an ex-army officer with a shady past he knew as ‘Matt’, to bluff the clerk at Cook’s in Regent Street by pretending he was Drury’s accountant and that he’d lost his receipt. The clerk accepted the story and supplied him with a duplicate, which confirmed that Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday. The result was a sensational front page: ‘POLICE CHIEF AND THE PORN KING: Was it wise of Commander Drury of Scotland Yard to go on holiday with this old lag? ’ (The People, 6 February 1972).

Do you think your summary will be helped by accommodating the italicized sentences in Greenslade's account in some fashion? You may not have seen this source, but our imperative is to be comprehensive. Note: I will make my more detailed comments on the Talk page of the article and link them here, as this review might become too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 2 I am well aware of the Greenslade source (and, indeed, we use it in that section). The additional information is not core to Humphreys's biography and we cannot bloat this article out with extraneous detail of what the journalists did. What we have in the article is entirely correct. Where there is a question over how the information was passed to The People, we provide both alternatives. How they got confirmation from the London end, we clarify this. I don't see anything else useful for this article in what Greenslade has written. If you disagree, please bullet point exactly what facts you think are missing and why/how they are crucial to Humphreys's biography.
Please do NOT paste information both on the talk page and here: that way confusion lies. I am concerned that you think you will be making this article too long, but if we are going to discuss blocks of text that are extraneous to this article I can see how that would happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenslade's account says nothing about being given a copy of the hotel register—the register, in any case, is a bulky thing—only that he was shown the register. It says nothing about a private investigator (not even an undercover investigator, only man with a shady past, who broke the law ...). It says nothing about paying for Drury's "ticket." A ticket is ambiguous because you make no mention of a package tour. And, it wasn't just Drury's ticket. Greenslade says, "Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday." I asked because I'm perplexed at the paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenslade's isn't the only account, and the weight of all the other sources differ at a few points to his. The other sources include input from people involved, investigative journalists, and people who have looked into this matter in depth, not in the limited way that Greenslade does. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Greenslade is the only one who has been cited. Where are those other sources? Why have they not been cited? The ones that say, "He was given a copy of the hotel register," for example. You don't have to give me quotes, only the names of the references; I'll look them up to see if the description can be improved. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a series of sources used in the text when discussing the holiday. Start there. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed 'ticket' to 'holiday' and added a second source. Neither change is really needed, but given the needless pressure being applied when it doesn't need to be... - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to bed now. In the last FAC, I had barely covered the first paragraph of the lead and one paragraph of another section when the nominator withdrew his nomination. Because of my comments and queries, those paragraphs stand changed. I will be looking at the article more closely this coming week. My main concerns, which are the same as my concerns in the previous FAC, are:
    • (1) Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material. This is my major concern, not the prose. This was my major concern in the previous FAC as well.
    • (2) Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and especially of exploitation of women, including sexual abuse of them, in the industry. I am not convinced that the absence of source material (if that turns out to be the case) for James Humphreys's direct complicity in sexual crimes against women is an excuse to not discuss the indirect complicity of belonging to a milieu for which such crimes are documented.
    • (3) Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity. I will be examining all these issues more closely this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Updated with numbers for the issues listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the paragraphs were changed, but for no reason other than me trying to get over an impasse. The article was not improved by the changes (and the clue was all the other reviewers who disagreed with you).
      • This article is NOT the venue for an examination of the abuse of women in the sex industry, unless you can find information that directly links Humphreys to specific acts.
      • "I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity". So you are speaking from a position of ignorance in your Oppose? (and I sincerely hope the FAC co-ords take note of that). I don't mind people opposing when they know what they are on about, but when they don't know the subject and haven't read the sources, but make up spurious claims that you think there is untapped source material, then it makes a review process something of a rather unfunny joke. I do hope this isn't going to be as disruptive a process as the last review, which I regret having withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was a note to the coordinators about the issues that have caused me to oppose this submission, the issues that I will be looking at more closely this week. I'm a little stapped for time now, but, in addition, I will also be looking at:
  • (4) The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy; most have sections. There is nothing in the article about how history, his friends, his loved ones, and indeed he himself has judged James Humphreys. There is certainly no absence of data there. There is nothing about his character. There is again no absence of data there.
  • I have now numbered my FAC issues. As I go through them in more detail, I will be presenting my actionable suggestions here, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little actionable in anything you have said do far (aside from one or two minor points, and certainly very, very little given in good faith) that needs to be actioned SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A legacy section? I’m afraid this shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. If you can get to grips with the subject matter before making any more similar comments, it would be best for all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Continued note to the coordinators about (4)) By "legacy," I mean the extended usage, "a long-lasting effect of an event or process (OED)," the "lasting influence of a person or thing." I mean the summing up of a life or career. I mean the contemplation or retrospection of the lived life, the tributes, the criticisms, the aftermath. There is no shortage of those in the sources for James Humphreys. I will be making a list of those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look forward to seeing what unencyclopaedic dross you come up with in an attempt to justify this unjustifiable, oppose made in complete bad faith. This clutching at straws is all very second rate and disruptive.
And rather than sending notes to co-ordinators, perhaps you can drop the obstructive manner and address comments about the article to the nominator. Grandstanding has no place in any review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ealdgyth, Laser brain, I wanted to let you know that my detailed review has not begun yet. I will start it once I have the literature I have requested from Inter-Library loan. I will respond to the relevant critiques some time thereafter, and in this section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Fowler&fowler:

Note1: I have possession of a couple of sources. While I wait for the rest to arrive through the inter-library loan, I thought it might be a good idea to begin the review. Could only the nominator reply here? All other editors, excepting the coordinators, please reply if you must, in your own subsections and either ping me or mention me in your edit summary. I will reply to you here. Note2: Can we collapse the discussion above? It is less relevant to my review which properly begins below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1 Summarizing the cited source material.
Section 1.1 Early life; beginnings of criminal career
  • Sentence1: James William Humphreys was born in Bermondsey, South London, on 7 January 1930.{{sfn|Cox|Shirley|Short|1977|p=145}}
    • Root, {{sfn|Root|2019}} which you are using significantly, says, "Born in Bermondsey in South London on 5 January 1930,
    • I can see that the date of birth of a James Humphreys (from his death record in the England and Wales data) was 7 January 1930, but why have you preferred Cox, Shirley and Short (1977) to Root (2019) absent the use of primary source data? If you are using the latter, then why has it not been cited?
      • Because we know the 7th is correct, so we're ignoring the incorrect. I could add another footnote to say that one source has the 5th, but as we know it's wrong, there seems little point in adding confusion to the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, my error. I meant if you are using the primary source data to make the determination of accuracy, then it should be cited. (No footnote is needed, nor should Root be cited; but the birth or baptismal record you are using should be cited along with Cox et al) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no need for that. We have a solid source that gives the date. Extra sources are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have two solid sources. One, Root, which you have cited 15 times in the article; the other, Cox et al, which you have cited 13 times in the article. They have conflicting dates of birth for Humphreys. I asked why you have preferred Cox et al in this instance. If it is because of some knowledge from primary source data, then that data needs to be cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have the correct date in the article and we have a solid source. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • On reflection I have added the information of yet another primary source. No doubt you will want to change the numbers in the section below attacking the preponderance of what you think are primary sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you for considering my implicit suggestion above about using the England and Wales death index for the birth date. This is not the kind of straighforward primary source data that I have any issues with. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 2) He left school at age 14 and began a career of petty criminality;
    • Root says, "Humphreys’ rap sheet in the Metropolitan Police files is interesting reading and shows how he developed from petty crime as a youngster, before graduating to more serious crime."
      • One could, for instance, say, "X passed his law school exams in 1945 and began a career in law." Or you could say, "Y joined the Syndicate at age 15 and began a career in crime." Or one can develop, in Root's words, and the evidence of the development can be seen in retrospect in a rap sheet, but how does one begin a career, i.e. take the first steps of a course of continued progress in a domain whose organization is not described? (Note this is not a stylistic issue) In the end, as you well know, from November 1945 to October 1962, which constituted some 17 years, he spent more than 11 years in various prisons or reform schools. What was the career then that he had begun in November 1945, that of a petty criminal or a long-serving convict?
        • One could not say that. There is nothing about a "syndicate", or anything close to that in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sentences beginning with X and Y are examples of correct usage for "career," implying that "career" cannot be applied to what Humphreys. Again, how can someone who between November 1945 and October 1962, i.e. 17 years, spent 11 years in correctional institutions, be said to have embarked in 1945 on a career of petty criminality? Do you mean, "he fell to petty crime?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid you are again selecting a very narrow definition of a word that has much wider use. I suggest you check the OED, which supports the use of the term we have here. I am afraid that if I came across the phrase "he fell to petty crime" I'd be both confused by what it meant, and think that the writer is trying way to hard to write purple prose. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, if you don't like that. How about, "He began to get involved in petty crime?" Or, if you like "criminality," "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." There was no prognostication of a career in 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • The wording is absolutely fine as it is. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is not a question of prose style, but of accurately reflecting the sources. He spent two-thirds of the time between the ages of 15 and 32 in different forms and sites of incarceration. When he stepped out of Dartmoor in 1962, he had spent three-quarters of his adult years in incarceration. A "career" is determined by the record, not by intentions. In no meaning of the word "career" did he begin a career in petty criminality. Serving time in jail is neither a career nor a profession. I request sincerely that you change the sentence to, "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." If you want "career," you will need to situate it in some form of referring back. You could say, "He began what was to become a youthful career in crime most of which was spent in incarceration." The crime was not all petty either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The sources are adequately reflected. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have just received Cox, Shirley, and Short, your second-most-used source. They say on page 145, "James William Humphreys had spent most of his life in the criminal world, though to judge from his record, he was not one of nature's successful villains. He was what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as "an old lag." (OED: "Lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude;" Webster's Unabridged: "lag (n): slang, chiefly British: a person transported for crime or sent to penal servitude: one who is serving or has served a term in prison: convict, jailbird.") You can use "career" when referring back to the record. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This section is closed, and you are tilting at windmills. Please spend your time coming up with some new (and CONSTRUCTIVE points), not rehashing things that don't need to be rehashed. Respect the hatting of the section, move on and do the rest of the review: the co-ords will decide if this is actionable or not. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 1, cont): while still a teenager he became friends with
    gangland enforcer
    .
    • Root says, "Humphreys left school at the age of fourteen, and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser." For Root, this is a literary device to weave in a theme that he thinks is important--that Humphreys was a snitch, a cop informer, in the opinion of some, including Root himself. Root continues after that sentence,

      "But later events would change this feeling of friendship. ... (In 2012, Frankie's son) David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’. As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too."

      • Why are you mentioning the friendship with Fraser here, and doing so in fragmentary form, when you don't mention it again anywhere in the article? What information is the mention of friendship meant to convey to the reader? Why the "still?" What meaning does that impart? They grew up in the same neighborhood after all. (See sentence 8 below.)
        • We're mentioning it because it shows the milieu in which he was brought up without thrashing the point beyond any relevent meaning. We say they were friends when they were young: we put no spin onto the point, and your interpretation of Root is into OR territory or reading behind the author's intent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The current sentence does not say anything about the milieu, nothing about the circumstances of their friendship. They could have met at a reformatory school, for instance. As such the mere mention, without context, is ambiguous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 3: When he was 15 Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking, and was fined £5.
    • Root has: "Just a year after leaving school, 15-year-old Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking and stealing fur coats and other articles, and fined £5 in April 1945."
      • The fine was not just for housebreaking.
        • It's fairly inplicit that when one breaks into a house, it's normally to remove some of the contents, but I have added "and theft" to remove any doubt. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: Seven months later he was sent to an
    reformatory school in which children who had committed crimes were one of the classes of inmates[1]—for stealing a car
    .
  • Sentence 5: He was released the following year, but was sent back in October 1947 for a series of offences.
    • Root has: "Humphreys was returned there in October 1947 for receiving a stolen motorcar, clothing, tools, housebreaking and stealing a sewing machine."
      • Your phrasing is too general. In other words, why is there reason to mention the offense(s) at all if the description is to be so general? He would not have been returned there without some good cause in the realm of offenses. Besides from Root, it is not clear if it was a series of offenses or just one offense involving disparate aspects.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, how does what Root describes constitute a series of offenses? (Note: (OED) Series (n): A number of discrete things of one kind (esp. events or actions) following one another in succession over time, or in order of appearance or presentation. OED attested examples: 1958 W. S. Churchill Hist. Eng.-speaking Peoples IV. v A more immediate cause of the rising was a series of defeats and reverses suffered by the British. 1987 M. Das Cyclones i. 2 They held another series of meetings. 2011 New Yorker 14 Feb. 95/3 He had a series of liaisons, each of which he confessed.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • FFS... We could change to "several", but to little end and no gain. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: In 1948 Humphreys was sentenced to three years in Rochester Borstal for theft; he was released in February 1950.
    • Root has, "In June 1948 he was given three years in Borstal for stealing a roll of cloth, and again for taking a motorcar without consent, being released early in February 1950."
      • The starting month presumably fell through the cracks of a previous revision.
        • No. The month isn't of great importance in the scheme of things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the particular month of the year is not important, then why have you mentioned the month of release? Why the month of the following incarceration? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • From a novice reader's perspective, such as mine, "theft" is too general when following specific mention of a wiki-linked-prison. There is nothing wrong with adding the roll of cloth, etc.. If anything, from a modern perspective, when the offenses are detailed, the sentence seems too harsh. It gives the reader a window into the making of a criminal in the 1950s' Britain.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. And we have a "wiki-linked-prison" for clarity: Rochester Borstal gave it's name to borstals for young offenders. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: Nine months later he was sent to prison for a year for aiding and abetting other criminals, and released in June 1951.[2][3]
  • Sentence 8: In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple soon divorced.[4][5]
    • Root has an offhanded later mention ca 1962: "When Jimmy Humphreys was released on 26 October 1962, he was 32 years old. Handsome and desperate to ‘make it’, he had already been married once, to a woman called June Driscoll."
    • I can see the marriage record in the England and Wales data.
      • Where are you getting the divorce information? Why "soon," and not a firm date, if you actually have the information?
      • (An aside, whose theme I will pick up in a different section: Mad Frankie Fraser has a much more evocative description in his diary co-authored with James Morton, Random House, 2001, 2019):

        "Jimmy Humphreys, Eva’s husband Jimmy and me had nicked a lorry load of tea from outside what was the Ministry of Health building by the Elephant. I knew Jimmy Humphreys because he was a local boy; came from Southwark and he’s a few years younger than me. He’ll be about 70 now; very presentable, smart dresser, a very good appearance. Did all the usual things, a bit of approved school, a bit of burglary. ... When my sister Eva got married and was living in Great Dover Street, Jimmy Humphreys and his first wife June were down on their luck and Eva, through the kindness of her heart, had them and the baby to stay for about four months until they got on their feet. He wasn't a bad fellow then. A good thief until he broke up with June and after that, he went bad."

        More later, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very colourful, not encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, there is little point in going round in circles with you demanding changes are made your way when there is no benefit to the article. If you have new points to raise, please do so below, but there is no merit in relitigating the same points over and over. I have given my reasons why things have not been changed, and I see no reason to alter that position solely to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my whim. You are violating WP guidelines. It is my duty to point them out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What sanctimonious rubbish. You've been pushing your preference (your whim) since day 1, and been aggressively playing "GOTCHA!" with your battlefield approach since I turned down your early suggestions. You have no duty to act like a disruptive troll, but that is exactly how you are coming across with this nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) His crimes became more serious and the sentences increased as he got older.
    • Root has, "Then in October 1952, it got more serious, and Humphreys got twenty-one months at the Central Criminal Court for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest."
      • That his crimes (i.e. in the plural) became more serious is your interpretation. Root is talking only about the instance of October 1952. Had there been a period (full stop) after "more serious" in Root, your interpretation might have been valid, but not in this instance.
        • No, his crimes became more serious. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That his "sentences increased as he got older" is again your interpretation. The sentences were: 21 months, conditional discharge of 1 year (which is also a sentence), two years and three months, and six years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the terms increased from start to finish, even if there is a dip after the first one. This is a non-discussion (and disruptive) point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) After being arrested for
    conditional discharge
    of a year.
    • Root has, "Coming out in December 1953, he was given a conditional discharge of twelve months in November 1954 for ‘loitering with intent to steal from unattended motorcars’.
      • The discharge was given in November 1953. We don't know when the arrest for loitering took place. Please correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have moved a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • You now have: "... he was released in December 1953. After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, in November 1954 he was given a conditional discharge of a year." Typically, the most natural position for an adjunct (in this case a prepositional phrase of time) is the end position, i.e., after the verb. But it doesn't have to be as long it doesn't wedge itself between the subordinate clause and the main. You want: "After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954," "In November 1954, after being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year," "He was arrested again, and in November 1954 was given a conditional discharge of a year," or "He was arrested again, and given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954." The choice may depend on what has gone before. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1.2 Strip club and sex shop owner
  • (sentence 1) On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the direction of his profession and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals.{{sfn|Morton|2008|p=212}}
    • The cited source says, "By the 1960s Humphreys had nine convictions, including house and office breaking in 1958, when he received six years. Released in the Autumn of 1962, he took the least of a property." The second-most cited source in the article, Cox, Shirley and Short, say, "He was not one of nature's successful villains. He was rather what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as 'an old lag.'" (OED lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude.") and later, "Now 32, with some of his best years wasted in prison, he turned his attention to building a career in the seedy, though legal, business of striptease." Of such an individual, we cannot claim that he was changing "the direction of his profession" at age 32. What profession is it whose directions include both penal servitude and striptease club ownership? This is not an issue of prose. It is one of accurately summarizing the sources. Please remove "profession." Please add some paraphrase of "he turned his attention to building a career in the business of striptease." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which was frequented by fellow criminals" is an incorrect paraphrase of a source, which in any case is not the most reliable (see below). A home (away) from home is a hangout, a place of comfort, a haunt. "Frequented" is a poor substitute. They weren't fellow criminals. He was not much of a criminal in the first place. I can suggest a more accurate paraphrase, e.g. "which became a gathering place for his criminal friends," but see below first for a much better source:
      • Cox, Shirley and Short (with Google scholar citation index 124 is far more authoritative than Morton (with Google scholar index 7. It says, "He formed a private company, Humphreys Entertainments Ltd, and took a lease on a crumbling property in Old Compton Street. The club was no more successful than Humphreys's thieving had been. It was quie simply a disastrous site. Humphreys' friends rallied round him, however, and for a time the club at least stayed on its feet." This is a much fuller account. It also partially answers a question I had asked in the first FAC about how a man freshly out of a long prison sentence manages to open a club. (See here).
        • Please write: "He formed a private company and was able to lease a run-down property on Old Compton Street in Soho. The club was in a poor location, but his friends turned out to make it their gathering place, enabling it to survive for a while." (cited to Cox, Shirley and Short) (There is no reason to add the "criminal and quasi criminal," as in Morton or "faces" in Root). It is evident that a man who has had nine convictions and spent most of his adult years in prison will have some criminals among his friends. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 2:) Soho was the area of London that, with a proliferation of sex shops and sex workers, was the centre of the city's sexual economy.{{sfn|Carter|2018|p=6}}
    • It is not at all obvious what "sexual economy" means. It has an old 19th-century meaning related to abstinence. It has a modern meaning related to reproductive practices especially when applied to racially selective ones. It has another meaning related to the economics of sex work. The last is an expression of Frank Mort author of Capital Affairs: London and the making of the permissive society, Yale, 2010, (Google scholar citation index 167) The sentence has been cited to a recent paper of Oliver Carter, Google scholar index 0, which says, "According to Mort (2010) Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature." I will suggest a rephrase when Mort's book arrives, hopefully, tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentences 3, 4, and 5): "Humphreys rekindled a relationship with a former girlfriend, June Packard, who had renamed herself Rusty Gaynor: Rusty after the colour of her hair, Gaynor after the actress Mitzi Gaynor. She had previously worked as a barmaid and model, but was employed as a stripper by the time she and Humphreys resumed their relationship. The couple married in May 1963.{{sfn|Root|2019|loc=419}}{{sfn|Campbell|2019|p=237}}
    • Here too the account of Cox, Shirley and Short is much fuller: "... the best thing that the Old Compton Street venture did, however, was to re-acquaint him with June 'Rusty' Gaynor, an old girl friend from his criminal days. Rusty had first met Humphreys at the end of 1951, after one of his many releases from prison. She was seventeen, and serving at the snacks counter of the Black Prince public house , on the Rochester Way, Sidcup, near her home. Now in November 1962, the couple were re-united. Rusty had developed a successful career as a stripper, and, hearing on the grape vine that a new club was opening, she went to audition for work. In the intervening years they had both been married, had children and separated. Rusty had begun an affair with a man called Peter Garfath, ... but the old affection was still strong, and soon she and Humphreys were living together. In May 1963 they were married in Caxton Hall. Humphreys continued to manage the Old Compton Street Club; Rusty danced for him." (p 146)
      • As Cox, Shirley, and Short are one of three highly cited sources for Humphreys's biography, I will hereafter not quote from it, but simply paraphrase my suggestion and cite the page number. I will also mention the three highly cited sources in the Sources Section below.
      • Please add some version of: One of the dancers who successfully auditioned at the Old Compton Street Club, which Humphreys was managing, was an old girl-friend June Packard. Humphreys had first met her in 1951 when he was between prison terms and she was 17 and serving snacks at a pub. They had both been married to different spouses, had children, and separated. She had refashioned herself into a stripper, "Rusty" Gaynor—the name "Gaynor" chosen after the popular 1950s Hollywood actress, singer, and dancer Mitzi Gaynor. They began to live together, and were married in May 1953 in Caxton Hall." (I don't know that we need to explain "Rusty;" most people know it's a redhead. Caxton Hall implies that they had a civil marriage.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 2 Preponderance of Primary Sources (FA Criteria: 1 c and d)
  • 82 of the 162 citations in the article are to contemporaneous
    due weight
    Let me start with a general question and a more focused one:
  • Sentence: (Attack on Peter Garfath): "The relationship between Humphreys and his wife, Rusty, was sometimes turbulent.{{sfn|Campbell|1994b|p=T2}}
    • is based on a sentence, "Then in the 70s, there was an interlude caused by the sometimes stormy relationship between Rusty and Jimmy," in an interview with Rusty Humpherys by Duncan Cambpell in the Guardian (6 July 1994), conducted two days after her conviction, and whose main picture, that of Rusty Humpherys lounging on a couch has the caption: "Fallen empress of sleaze ... Rusty Humpherys, once free to do as she liked in Soho, savours her last moments before being jailed last week."
      • Does this constitute the kind of factual, non-value-judgment, statement in a primary source that can be paraphrased into content (reported speech) on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since, per
    WP:STICKTOSOURCE, mainstream newspapers are (with some exceptions, of course) reliable sources, this section can be hatted with no response required from the nom. Cheers, ——SN54129 15:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Serial Number 54129: Please move your comment to your section per my request above. I will reply here if I think it requires a response. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SN (or anyone else) is allowed to post where he wants on the page. Please don't try to tell people where to post things. Not everything on WP has to be done exactly to your demands. The rest of us work to normal accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Put it another way, this isn't Arbcom. ——SN54129 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence) Often Humphreys would entertain and bribe different policemen three times a day: lunch, dinner and nightclubs, and often the bribes were not money, but cars or jewellery for police officers' wives." cited to Rusty Humphreys's reminiscence in the video {{sfn|''Secret History'', 18 May 1998|loc=Event occurs at 31:50–32:10}}
    • This is rendered in reported speech, not a direct quote. Do we have any secondary source that supports this, especially the bit about buying "cars" (in the plural)? If so, why has it not been added? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a documentary, so it is a secondary source, not a primary one.
Do you have anything that casts doubt on the claim about bribing policemen with either a singular car or no cars at all? If not, this is a moot point. And why are you pushing the Fraser primary source so hard in other parts of the review, but you're dead set against this secondary one? - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequate and selective presentation of context (FA Criteria: 1 b and c)

I now have some more sources from inter-library loan: These are: 1) Paul Bleakley, "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad: Using the Obscene Publications Act as a Weapon of Social Control, State Crime Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2019), pp. 19-38 2) Melissa Tyler, Soho at Work, Cambridge, 2020; 3) Colin Manchester, Sex shops and the law, Gower, 1986; 4) Nigel Yates, Love Now, Pay Later?: Sex And Religion In The Fifties And Sixties, SPCN, 2011; and Judith Walkowitz, Nights Out: Life in Cosmopolitan London, Yale, 2012. I have a number of queries, but let me start with a general question, and I will follow up with more focused ones later:

    • Why is there so little by way of context (a requirement in FA criteria 1 b) in the article; in particular, why is there very little in the article about James Humpherys being considered a police informer, not only by the underworld and the police, but by the very authors which are being used substantially in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @FAC coordinators: I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do with crap like this (particularly the previous two new sub-sections). There is too much bad faith in this review for me to go through every point in detail. The best sources are available and they deal with the subject within the bounds exected both on WP generally and FAC in particular. This particular reviewer has not shown any evidence that they can act in a positive manner towards this article. It may be a "hobby topic" (as they have dismissed many articles that don't fall under the extremely dubious "vital" citeria on WP), but that does not mean that any editor should start making up standards and criteria. I refute most of what this editor has posted on this page and the previous review, and I am still waiting for anything resembling an honest basis for an oppose. So far it's all second rate rubbish with absolutely no benefit at all. We're deep in grounds of disruptive behaviour now. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone! Hurrah and huzzah with dig shiny brass knobs on! Ten thousand words of nonsense and finally, finally we get round to a proper point that needs to be addressed properly! It's a shame we had to go through all the rest of the nonsense to get here, particularly as you've had Root for so long. I'll add a line about this in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Fowler this ego trip is tedious and disruptive. You have pasted around 400 words just to make the simple point that you think a sentence or two is needed to say that Humphreys was a police informant. I have a long memory and I have not forgotten your similar disruptive comments here [23]. Graham Beards (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: That Humphreys was a police informant is not a matter of just one line, two or three. It the major argument of the major secondary source employed in an article that otherwise relies very largely on primary sources whose improper use I will be detailing in the section above. Its author Neil Root is quoted by name in the article. It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article. The fact has gone selectively unmentioned in sections which have otherwise been paraphrased from Root so faithfully, sentence for sentence, as to border on close paraphrasing:
      • "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d. He was released in June 1951. This is the period in which then DC Kenneth Drury of ‘L’ Division pulled out his file." (location 405)
      • "... and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser. But later events would change this feeling of friendship. In a telephone conversation with David Fraser, Frankie’s son, in late 2012, this author asked to interview Frankie about his old friend Jimmy Humphreys. David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’." (location 398) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) No, it's a matter of a sentence or so, nothing more. I'm bored of your silly games, so unless you have something positive or constructive to say, just pipe down - or at least wait until I've added something before you criticise (again, it's indicative that you're in attack mode, rather than any constructive approach to article development). "It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article"? Only from the mindset of a disruptive troll who is determined to sink a review at any cost. The two excepts quoted directly above: the first says Drury "pulled out his file": that's it. There is no reference to Humphreys being a grass, or even that there was any contact between the two, just that Drury "pulled out his file". The second is a 'well, duh' comment. It says Fraser's son called Humphreys a grass. Apart from the third hand nature of the information, of course Humphreys was a grass: he gave his fucking diaries to the police and appeared against them in court. With no dates as to when Fraser's son was referring to, it's a useless piece of nonsense, much like most of this review. A line or two is all that is needed, and I will add this in the morning, as I have already said. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC) (edited to correct auto-correct) - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a reference to the previous mention, ""Most interestingly, the Metropolitan Police files show that while DC Drury was based at ‘L’ Division in south London, on 19 September 1951, he pulled Humphreys’ criminal record file out of the Met’s file system, ‘to assist him in a case of robbery’. The robbery had taken place in Clapham on 6 September that year, and Humphreys was not arrested after Drury read his file. Twenty years later, Drury and Humphreys would enjoy a lucrative and mutually corrupt friendship, before it turned sour" (location 287)" May I request also that you not use intemperate language, and not attribute motives to my undertaking this review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • FFS... I said I would deal with it in the morning, and you've still kept banging on about it (and missing the point yet again). Yet again it makes no reference to Humphreys being a grass or even any suggestion that the two even spoke. It still just refers to Drury pulling the file.
            • Everyone else was patient enough to wait for you to start your proper review (after 12 days of barking up the wrong tree and walls of text complaining about the exploitation of women), so don't expect me to go without sleep to start editing at the drop of a hat just because you want something adding; you can show just a fraction of the patience that everone else has done. And you may request as much as you like about my language, I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now, we already mention the fact that Humphreys was accused of being a paid informer, but as it's lost where it is (and it could be read as being an accusation made in sour grapes), I'll add a couple of sentences further up the page. The point about him being an informant is a good one, but it is a shame you have had to drive people to such a point of frustration and anger with your approach and behaviour. You may not mean it to, but it comes across in a sub-standard way (battlefield, "GOTCHA!" and the arrogance that it has to be your way or no other – and you'll throw in a spiteful Oppose on the basis that two points you raised weren't adopted). If you could be a less confrontational in your approach (and take on board that you don't necessarily know best) you will find that people respond to you in kind. – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: You requested me to not post in your section. I have respected that request. Please show the same courtesy to my several requests asking the same above. Please post in your section. If I feel your post warrants a reply, I will post here, as I have already explained in my post above to two of the FAC coordinators. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said "please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator." I'll post where I see fit. As for your comment "If I feel your post warrants a reply", this speaks volumes regarding your arrogant and disruptive behaviour. Graham Beards (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Francis Fraser's Diary (Fraser, Frankie; Morton, James (2019), Mad Frank's Diary: The Confessions of Britain’s Most Notorious Villain, Random House,
    ISBN 978-0-7535-5404-3) not mentioned at all, when Rusty Humphreys's reminiscences on video are summarized at extraordinary length on six occasions? (See section above) Fraser says, "Humphreys wasn’t only paying money to Challenor he was also his grass. Humphreys had been paying protection money to Challenor as well as providing him with tidbits of information on Soho life. Humphreys was a double dealer as well, because once he was in Macclesfield Street and Challenor asked for more money Humphreys paid him over two lots of £25 – and then made a complaint to the Commissioner." The book is published by Penguin and Random House and its co-author James Morton, Guardian journalist and author of many books is cited quite a few times in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Question for Fowler&fowler:
Just for information's sake (and this is honestly with no pressure to speed you up), how long do you thing you will take to finish your review? - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SchroCat I have nothing against you or the topic of this article. I might not be excessively collegial or mentoring in my style, but I am genuinely trying to improve the article. You have done splendid work in collecting the disparate sources. The newspaper stories alone number in the dozens and I can only imagine the hard work you would have done in ferreting them out. For many are no longer available even in digital archives. I know because I tried, and it took a lot more effort than I had anticipated. However, your very success in finding those sources has created an issue of undue weight. Wikipedia articles are ultimately beholden to the reporting and interpretation of events and ideas in secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources here and there in matters of straightforward reporting of fact or of direct quotations. I have most of the sources now, at least all the secondary sources being employed in this article, a few that are not. (i) the article does not accurately summarize the secondary sources (it is moreover not an issue of prose style; I don't have any issues with your prose style, by the way.) (ii) it relies too much on primary sources, (more than half the citations are to them) and (iii) it does not adequately cover the context. Maybe, we somehow got off the wrong foot, but I'm sure both you and I can see that this back and forth is not improving the article. I have a proposal. I have stayed away from editing the article myself in part because I do not like edit wars. Why don't you let me edit the article for two weeks, and give me feedback but not edit war with me? I'm not looking to claim any credit for myself. I'm not looking to mangle the article. I don't have a lot of time, but howsoever far I get at the end of the two weeks, incorporating your feedback, I will be delighted to support the article. Pinging @Ealdgyth, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS I would have said a week, but I have to travel during this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot stop anyone editing any article, I would prefer it ifyou did not. Your comments in this and the previous FAC have not given me any confidence that you have the necessary skill, neutrality, knowledge or ability to approach this in the right way. Most of your suggestions so far would not have improved the article – indeed they would have worsened both prose and misrepresented the source material, let alone gone into who knows what areas of tangential information on, for example, the fact that 'pornography is a bad thing' or that 'women in the sex industry are exploited'. I am afraid that your approach has destroyed any basis or good faith or trust. I'll give you two small examples: above, you spent 400 words playing a "Gotcha!" game about Humphreys being a paid source, but it was something already covered in the article, so a smimple request to make it more prominent would have sufficed. You've played silly games over the (primary) Fraser source - while also bemoaning the use of primary sources elsewhere. If you want to know how to treat people properly, have a look at the PR on Randall Davidson. You took part in that review, and three people suggested new sources to Tim riley. Not in the aggressive way you did to try and force a point, but in a collegiate way to help develop the article. You trumpeted your primary source to claim the article was incomplete and should therefore fail. You can claim you're trying to help this article, but I see no real evidence of this from your behaviour, which has been deplorable from the first FAC onwards.
Carry on with your review here. To let you get through the material in a timely fashion, I will hold off any further comments until the weekend, unless I see anything particularly ridiculous or false that needs dealing with straightaway. - SchroCat (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, the newspaper articles are all in digital archives. I know, because I found them all. - SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this review is supposed to be about this article, I will refrain from responding to your off-topic comments. OK, I will continue my review here. I can't put a time limit on it though. There is none in FAC reviews. Please do not hat off or collapse my comments. I am not done with them. Your saying, "This is a non-discussion point. Move on." is not a resolution. I request also that you not engage in ascribing motives to me, nor breaking out into intemperate language. Whatever you need to say, please say it politely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to learn the difference between positive collegiate reviewing and being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the arse, then fine, don't look at the other review, but it'll just mean we carry on with your stupid games and me reacting to them. Me saying to move on is a resolution: I will not deal with those points because they are either ridiculous, pointless, not an improvement or outside the scope of an FAC – about which you seem to be making up your own rules. You can request all you like, but as I've said above I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. I'll be back at the weekend to deal with anything useful you've put down (unless I see anything particularly stupid I have to deal with). - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Cox 2016, pp. 80–81.
  2. ^ Root 2019, 398.
  3. ^ Weir 1994, p. 2.
  4. ^ Root 2019, 420.
  5. ^ "James W Humphreys". Ancestry.

Graham Beards

Support unreservedly. This article was ready for promotion at the last FAC nomination, which was withdrawn because of a confrontational review based on the usage of a couple of adverbs.Graham Beards (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Graham, your kind words during the last review, and subsequently, have been very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: Are you suggesting that the article is comprehensive with respect to the topic of sexual exploitation of young and underage women? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not "The sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is James Humphreys (pornographer). Also, please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator.Graham Beards (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

Without a doubt, as per Graham. This article meets all the criteria. It's a pity to see Fowler&fowler, engaging in this rather immature and stupid line of rhetoric. I would encourage the coords to examine this oppose against the FA criteria and subsequently kick it into a ditch where it belongs. CassiantoTalk 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cass, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note Fowler&fowler's 8,511 bytes of utter feet stomping that the article has not gone their way, above. I maintain my support, unreservedly. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coord note

Did I miss the request to run this early? The previous candidate received was archived on 2 January, and its only 12 January. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, the bot was late to run. Ian closed the last FAC on the 30th. So it is a little early, but only a few hours. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, In addition to the slow bot, I emailed Ian, who gave me the green light. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my fault. A markup error on the nomination page meant that the Bot could not see Ian's close. Because of the time of year, I did not correct the problem until 2 January. My apologies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem Hawkeye, (and thanks for the explanation). It would explain why edits made 'post close' have largely been ignored by the sole opposer to this article, with the unfortunate and entirely erroneous claim of "only one" edit having been made. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all that in the articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

′’’Everyone’’’ if you don’t want me refactoring your comments, please do so by striking thru all commentary on other editors. There is no need for editors to discuss other editors motives. If it doesn’t stop, it’s going to require outside intervention. And Mama Ealdgyth really does mean everybody here. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Moder Ealdgyth...unless you're feeling particularly God-like (quite apt, I think this FAC might need some divine intervention), in which case ALL HAIL Modoreynd Ealdgyth to whom we lowly FACers are mere Módoru... :) ——SN54129 19:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Ealdgyth is out on the road with hubby in semi truck. First day, hasn’t even had a chance to find the laptop in the pile of stuff on the bunk...so yes, Ealdgyth is CRANKY. Let’s not make her have to dig for the laptop while barreling down the highway at 63 miles per hour (101 km/h). She should have the truck cleaned and arranged by tomorrow and won’t have to edit from the iPad then...and if you think hubby invites Ealdgyth along just to organize the truck, you may be on to something....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe,
    WP:FACR and everything to do with his own personal preference. I think if you fix that, they'll be no need for editors to discuss other editors. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Cass, it isn’t necessary to comment on other editors. This comment here isn’t helpful. Or do you think the FAC coords are incapable of actually reading the nomination and seeing which reviews are based on the criteria? That is, after all, our job. We don’t need nominators and reviewers muddying up the nomination commenting on other editors. If other editors are not engaging with the criteria, we’ll know and judge accordingly. So please strike any comments on other editors. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it's unnecessary to oppose an article that does not fail the FACR. The oppose here isn't helpful, either. Of course I think the coords are capable of reading a nomination and judging it against the criteria, which is why I find it puzzling that there has been a tumbleweed moment with regards to Fowler&fowler's oppose, and a very vocal challenge over people daring to talk about it in this candidacy. CassiantoTalk 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, an oppose isn’t a nomination closer, so for now, let’s let the discussion develop, without unnecessary commentary on other editors. If folks don’t refactor their comments by mid a day tomorrow, I’ll take my red pen to anything that isn’t helpful. I’d prefer that folks do it themselves, and I’m trusting that we all are adults and can discuss content without attacking or feeling attacked, as long as the comments stay on the content. It is possible to disagree with other editors without it being a battleground. Prose is the most subjective of the criteria and as a coord, I’m much less worried about differences over prose than I am about the other aspects of the criteria, especially when other reviewers do not agree on the nature of prose concerns...I.e, if a reviewer opposes on prose and word choices but many other reviewers do not agree that the prose concerns are a concern, it not something that should hold up a nom. Note, that is all hypothetical..and I have no idea if that situation applies here or not. The nom is only 12 hours or so old. At this point, my main concern is productive discussion that doesn’t focus on editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just backing up a point that Ealdgyth has made here... folks can and do disagree on subjective prose matters all the time. As a coord, I'm going to consider opposition over subjective prose matters to be a matter of consensus. I'm hoping the discourse can stay civil and comments can remain about the subject and not about other editors. A nomination that turns into a bloodbath is more likely to be archived than one where there is civil disagreement over the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic commentary
It would have been a lot better if the first comment in this review was not a spurious oppose made - and I am sorry to say it - in bad faith. No good reasons have been given for the oppose and there has been such an unconstructive attitude from the very start that it is unsurprising that some heat has been generated by it. You'll note, I hope, that every single other reviewer in both this FAC and the previous one has approached the review in a constructive and collegiate manner, making suggestions and comments, all of which have had the best intentions of the article in mind. Those comments have been dealt with in the manner in which they were made. There is only one area which has not been a smooth ride, and it is when a reviewer has started with bad faith, a BATTLEFIELD approach and playing "Gotcha!". To oppose because we haven't added a lecture on 'pornography is bad' and then to say there must be sources to say Humphreys was an abuser - when there is complete ignorance on the subject - makes it extremely difficult to any normal, rational editor to deal with it in any other way than to consider that part of the review as something of a farce. While reviewers need to be protected in order to undertake a thorough review, there needs to be protection for nominators from spurious reviews in which a reviewer is more keen on grandstanding to the co-ords, rather than providing a good faith review. LB, Ealdgyth, Sorry for the rant, and feel free to collapse it or delete it in toto, but there are times when dealing with such bollocks just isn't worth it. I'm sure the reviewer would be delighted if this review is archived for any excuse - it would stop them having to admit there are, for example, no sources that say Humphreys was an abuser. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SC here. I struck my comments not because I was ordered to do so, but because I want this article to pass, relatively drama free, and in the hope that (the person who shall not be named) would have their oppose omitted from the final tally based on it not falling within the scope of the criteria. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Coordinators: My oppose has little to do with the prose, although there are issues with the prose which I have not addressed. My oppose, as I've indicated above, has to do with (i) vague and inaccurate paraphrasing, (ii) inadequate background to the strip club business in SOHO in the 1960s and 70s, porn-shops, and prostitution. That business was specific enough to 1960s SOHO, that it is not explained away by making a reader click out to a generic striptease or other link. My contention, moreover, is that the nominator by so doing in several sections has inadvertently sanitized instances of Humphreys's corruptness or venality, which is the counterpose to police corruption, (iii), etc. ... there are other issues, which the coordinators will be able to read about in my oppose section. The nominator cannot first withdraw his nomination on a whim in the middle of my last review, then abruptly renominate again 10 days later with one change, and expect me to be responsive in real-time. It is only today that the nominator in a series of edits has implemented my critique in the days following his withdrawal. He has, moreover, made no acknowledgment of it on this page for a coordinator to read, or for that matter anywhere else. So, as I've said above, this is a busy time for me. I will round up the sources, not all of which are easy to find, a large number of which are primary sources—including videos of the pornographer, his wife, his cohorts, and journalists, reminiscing—and in the next week or ten days complete my review. Given the circumstances, my request if very fair. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop being so rude and ignoring me, the nominator, simply to grandstand to the co-ords? You have shown an extremely poor attitude in both FACs and have not approached either of them in any form of good attitude. Instead you have been intransigent, obstructive and shown a BATTLEFIELD approach that does absolutely no-one any favours. Your post above contains so many inaccuracies that my AGF is stretched too far to think that they are not deliberate mischaracterisations of the situation. I have not, for example, in any way or in any location said, hinted or given any indication that you need to be "responsive in real time". It is a falsehood to claim that I have done so. I have not added the information you have requested at all: you have asked for entirely different information to be added - things way outside what anyone would expect in a standard biography. Now drop the obnoxious attitude, try not to continue playing "Gotcha!", learn that the name is Soho, not SOHO, and spend less time writing 'notes' to the co-ords and more time treating other editors like they are not something you have had to scrape off your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. Or rather your article. As long as you understand that my review won't be done in a day or two, I will be happy. In fact, my review may not even begin for a day or two, until some books I have requested from Inter-Library loan arrive. But my sole goal remains making the article for which you have done much work even better. I apologize for capitalizing Soho, but I have been reading Melissa Tyler's new book, SOHO at WORK, Cambridge, 2020. It is the content that is important. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your attitude and approach so far, I struggle to believe that you are trying to help in any way. (As an aside, that is not the first time you have called this "your article". As I had to point out last time, this is not my article. It is an article on which I have worked. Nothing more. To keep calling it "your article" does suggest a degree of ownership that does not exist.)
There is no rush on any review (and I have not given any indication at any point that there is), as articles are not promoted until a very minimum of two weeks have passed, and normally much longer. If your obstructive approach and inflexibility is lessened then this will become much less of a trial for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I am puzzled and distressed at the clash, above, between two editors I much admire. I have looked closely at all the points made, and I can in conscience only repeat that to my mind, and after a further careful reading, the article meets the FA criteria, and with the exception of Fowler&fowler the other contributions so far (both from editors I respect greatly) express the same opinion – quite emphatically. I didn't think the first nomination should have been withdrawn, and I support this second one. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still supporting. The additional load of comments from Fowler&fowler seem to me to amount to "I'd do it this way". As I am entirely happy with the way SchroCat has done it, meeting, imo, all the FA criteria, I continue to support. Tim riley talk 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, and an inset might be helpful to give a wider perspective on where in London this neighbourhood is situated
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:James_Humphries,_1972.jpg: the source link has some more information on provenance that would be worth copying into the image description
  • File:The_Sunday_People,_27_February_1972.png: suggest expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. These all now duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my support of last time. I also think that the first nom should not have been archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Wehwalt. Yes, in hindsight, I should have let things run, but I was trying to avoid disruption. It seems it has just been delayed, rather than dissipated, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also supported the last nomination and my opinion has not changed. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Moisejp, for your comments and tweaks on this article on two occasions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I've read over this, and I can find no major issues. There are a few tweaks I would perhaps make, listed below, but none of them affect my support and I think they can all be safely ignored if required. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”The severity of his crimes increased”: I wonder would tweaking to “increased over time” or similar be a little better here?
  • ”Humphreys had to bribe the police to ensure they did not close the business down. When he expanded into other areas of the sex industry—sex shops and book shops selling obscene material—he had to pay an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.” I also wonder, as we are twice talking about the bribery, could this perhaps be combined into one sentence? Something like (but not necessarily exactly) “As Humphreys expanded his business and moved into other areas of the sex industry, he had to bribe an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.”
    • OK, something along those lines added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Seven months later he was sent to an approved school “: Perhaps we could add a word or two on what an approved school was for the benefit of the lazy reader like me who doesn’t want to click?
    • Yes, let me dig out a word or two to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple were soon divorced.”: Do we need “were”?
  • ”assaulting the police in the process”: One policeman? Or several, as it looks like here?
    • Unfortunately the source does not clarify. It reads "for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest". - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”changed the direction of his profession”: Doesn’t sound quite right to me. “Changed direction” by itself, or “changed the focus of his profession” would sound more natural. But perhaps it’s just me.
    • The original version - that "Humphreys changed direction professionally" was probably the best way to phrase it, but someone had conniptions about the use of the word "profesionally" (that's 1,800 words of my life I'll never get back), so we had to take a backward step to the current version. I'll ponder on a more suitable rewording. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without wishing to reignite any wars or create another 1,800 words, I think the original version was better but understand that compromise is often necessary but rarely satisfactory! Whatever you decide won't affect my support in any way. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Rusty performed in three acts a day”: I always think “per day” looks more elegant.
  • ”Within the next three years Humphreys owned between six and ten other sex shops.”: This doesn’t sound quite right to me. It feels like it should be more along the lines of “Over the next three years Humphreys acquired/opened…”
  • ”The head of the Flying Squad, Ken Drury, dined with Humphreys so often, the officers under his command noticed how much weight he was putting on; Humphreys bought him an exercise bicycle and a rowing machine to help him keep the weight down”: No issues, I just feel that I should feel more appalled than I do… this made me laugh out loud.
  • ”the owners would receive a coded telephone message”: Could this not just be “owners received”?
  • ”The squad which gave obsceity a meaning of own”: I’m assuming that’s a typo in the newspaper sources list… although it is the Guardian, so maybe not. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha - no, just proof I could have copyedited the Grauniad at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the issues above: I notice that no-one is really addressing the oppose other than the nominator. As I read it, F&F objects on four areas. This is my take on his objections, in case the coordinators or anyone else is looking for other opinions on the matter.

  • Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material: I'm afraid I don't see this. The examples which F&F says are vague and inaccurate do not appear to be either to me. Yes, the source contains more than the article, but this is a summary. We can't have every detail from every source about every person in the story.
  • Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: As others have said, I don't believe that this or any biography should be giving detailed background on the times/places in which the person operated. We have a summary in this article, which is adequate for the purpose unless/until someone writes something which comments on Humphreys' role in exploiting women or in the sex industry. As far as I can tell, most sources seem to look at him from the viewpoint of police corruption rather than a giant of the sex industry, but I may be wrong as that was from a cursory look. I had a look myself to see if there was anything which linked Humphreys and the sex industry, but nothing jumped out, including a look at JSTOR. The only thing I found was "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad", an article that I can't access without coughing up money, but which is not directly about Humphreys and once again is looking at it from the police corruption POV. And to reiterate, this is not an article about the Soho sex industry. Too much about that, which isn't directly concerned with Humphreys, would be undue in my opinion.
  • Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity: Umm... That is an interesting reason to oppose, which I would argue is not related to WP:WIAFA. I am not convinced that Joe Root should be England captain as it is destroying his batting. Unlike this grounds for opposition though, I could immediately find many good sources that expressed that opinion were I ever to take his article to FAC. A gut feeling is not a grounds for oppose, and I see that examples of these sources have not been produced by F&F. Nor could I find any.
  • The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy: Well, putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would strongly disagree that a biography MUST have a legacy. If the person HAS a legacy, fantastic. But if there is no legacy... you can't have a legacy section. Opposing on these grounds is pure personal preference and I don't think helps to take this forward.

Overall, I do not really see what F&F sees, and would not personally consider them valid grounds for oppose. Fortunately, I'm no longer a coordinator. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, thank you very much for these comments. I will work through the top layers containing the suggestions, most of which look advantageous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your comments regarding the lone "oppose". As I said above that the topic is not about "the sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is "James Humphreys (pornographer)." But the opposer seems to disagree with me. I have been reluctant to engage with them any further because after the article's first FAC, a singularly nasty personal attack was made against me on their TalkPage [24]. Also note that they describe their review as giving the nominator "a hard time". Graham Beards (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, although as someone who lives in a city where most forms of pornography and prostitution are legal, I founds some parts of the text puzzling. The article provides an explanation of the situation with reference to pornography; but it is far from clear what the legal status of his brothels was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Hawkeye. I thought the details of arrest/court case would have given enough detail, but I'll look at a sentence or footnote to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

It looked pretty sound to me on a first read through and a bit of background study. A couple of suggestions to book my place are below. None of them are points which I would wish to go to the barricades over.

  • "Humphreys was arrested for assault on his wife's former lover" Reads a little oddly. Maybe 'assaulting'?
  • "but the couple soon divorced" Is any more precision available?
  • Sadly not. The sources are a bit thin on detail baout his early life. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colin Manchester, the professor of law" It may just be me, but that reads a little oddly. Maybe 'Colin Manchester, a professor of law', or 'the professor of law, Colin Manchester'?
  • "It was suspected that the Richardson Gang—the South London criminal organisation" A picky point, but perhaps 'a South London ... '?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Gog, I'm much obliged to you for those. All tweaked in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the fragmentary nature of my comments. I keep getting distracted with background reading. Next up:

  • "Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops" Is that what Humphreys "made" before or after deducting the bribes?
  • It's not clear from the source, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave him the advice "Get them when they're young", as they would still be amenable to bribes when older" I feel that this needs a little more detail. Perhaps 'as they would then remain amenable ... '?
  • "help him keep the weight down" 'his weight'?
  • Bottom two done. No problem with the fragmentary nature: I'm always delighted to get comments in any way! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The report continued on the inside pages with the statement" Perhaps 'The report continued on the inside pages, including the statement'
  • "Eric Mason–an owner of ten sex shops" Perhaps "an" → 'the'?
  • "In September 1972 she received a three-month gaol sentence for possession of a firearm; there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time" In the context of the sentence, could "at the time" be rephrased or recast?
  • "Humphreys said he would drop pornography over central London" Do we know if this was as in dropping from his pocket or as in an air drop?
  • "Frank Mifsud—a Maltese criminal who ran a string of brothels—travelled to Ireland and then Brazil" Is there any point in giving Mifsud this walk-on part?
  • I think so. He is a notable enough individual to have his own article as he appears in several of the sources. I've red linked him and will put something together to cover the basics (as well as those of the red linked policemen too) - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble, mutter.
  • "11 people were arrested, one of them Rusty Humphreys, at the couple's Brook Street residence" Were all 11 arrested at Brook Street? If not, perhaps a semi colon. If so, perhaps swap the order of the last two clauses.
  • "When Rusty was arrested, police searched the premises" I assume the premises refers to Brook St, but with Greek St having intervened, 'police searched the Brook Street premises' may help keep things straight for a reader.
  • "All but one were found guilty" Which one, which one - I can't stand the tension. Was it "one other". (Why is he (or she) nameless anyway?)
  • Someone called Clive Miles. He doesn't appear elsewhere in Humphreys's story and was found not guilty, so I haven't named him. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "the couple were arrested in November 1993.[14] The couple, who were living in West Hampstead" Possibly change one "the couple" to 'both'?
  • Note I: "£216,000 in 1972 equates to approximately £2,799,000 in 2020" If we are being approximate then '£2,800,000' perhaps.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having finished my comments I read through Fowler&fowler's grounds for their object. I struggle a little to relate these clearly to any of the FA criteria, so it is probably best if I leave their consideration to better brains than mine.

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • Claim away - you've certainly earned them here! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gog, thanks again for these: all very useful. I've adopted all your suggestions, bar two, which I've explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your usual tight, well written, informative offering. Captures the spirit of the times well and doesn't contradict any of the sources I have consulted. Nicely balanced in my opinion, although you must have been spoilt for choice for quotes from Mars-Jones's summing up. Happy to support.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog; I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

Piling on, I know, but I supported the first time around, and nothing has changed for me to otherwise affirm and attest to that view. I seem to have missed the oppose in the previous FAC, but, reading that then and this now, I see they are effectively the same arguments which have been resoundingly refuted by Sarastro1 above. While I respect the emphasis the opposer paces on social and equality issues—a stance which certainly does them credit—I note my own suggestion, tongue-in-cheek but otherwise deliberate, that the level of extraneous context that the opposer appears to require would be UNDUE at best, and at worse necessitate a completely different article. It would be the equivalent of demanding that a brief history of

greengrocery is inserted somewhere into this. ——SN54129 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Many thanks SN - much appreciated for the second time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I don't have any major issues. It looks good from my American standpoint, and reading the above comments, I don't think a Legacy section is needed - it would be tangential to the actual subject. Mostly, I agree with the supporters who have already commented.

I did have a few queries:

  • There are a couple of places where links are right next to each other, e.g. gangland enforcer Frankie Fraser, giving the impression that there might be just one link.
  • I've tweaked the Fraser reference. The others I can see are where there is a title and name (such as
    Deputy Assistant Commissioner Gilbert Kelland), which is a bit unavoidable. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason–the owner of ten sex shops— - inconsistent dash usage, the first is an en-dash.
  • I tried to swap this out, but it seems they are both em-dashes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to just copy and paste the second dash. Currently, this is the first dash: – and this is the second dash: — It's more pronounced when it's in plain text. Anyway, this is a minor nitpick, not anything to delay a support for.
  • She was released in late October.[72] - if I'm counting correctly, this was two months out of the three-month sentence. Was the sentence shortened?
  • I presume it was time off for good behaviour, but the source doesn't clarify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1996 BBC television series Our Friends in the North the character Benny Barrett, played by Malcolm McDowell, was based on Humphreys.[121] In 1999 Humphreys discussed the possibility of their life story being made into a film with Film4 Productions, who gave the film the provisional title Rusty; as at 2019 the film remains unmade - the two sentences have an abrupt transition. I suppose this was intended to be a paragraph for media mentions, but then Humphrey's death is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • I'll have a think on this one. I was sticking to a chronological run, and ideally it would be a separate paragraph, but it obviously needs to be looked at again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Epicgenius. I'll have a think on the last point and see if I can come up with a better solution. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Let me know when you resolve the last point. I don't see any other issues at this time, and am leaning toward supporting this article. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does this look? I've moved the death upwards and left the screen stuff in its own para. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SchroCat: Looks good. I'll support this article now. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many thanks for your thoughts and comments here - they are all most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

I've read this through three times, once at its earlier appearance, and have gone through it side-by-side with the FAC criteria. I'm clear it meets these, hence the Support. I don't want to add fuel to the debate above, and fully acknowledge the differing view expressed. If I'm reading it correctly, and my apologies if I'm not, the concerns relate to 1b, Comprehensiveness, and that the article fails to fully represent James Humphrey's villainy. On the first point, I think the article does cover all of the major incidents of Humphreys' life and sets these in the context of the criminal, and certainly exploitative, environment of 60s/70s Soho. More could certainly be written on this point but, in my view, it doesn't need to be, for 1b to be met. On the second point, I do have a concern of my own re. wording. The opening sentence of the lead describes Humphreys as "an English businessman". The opening line of the "Strip club and sex shop owner" section speaks of Humphreys "chang[ing] the direction of his profession". I'm not sure I'd use either term. The article title is "James Humphreys (pornographer)", and I don't think Profession is the right term to describe how Humphreys made his living. Wikipedia, and the dictionaries I've checked, define a profession as "an occupation involving training and a formal qualification". The Cambridge Online dictionary goes as far as to define it as work "that is respected because it involves a high level of education". The article makes clear that Humphreys' formal education ended at age 14, and his subsequent life was certainly not respectable. If I look for a comparison, Paul Raymond, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, is described in the article lead as "an English strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer", and I think he could more fittingly be described as a businessman than Humphreys. All in all, I'd call a spade a spade, Humphreys a pornographer and his business the sex trade; thus "James William Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003) was an English pornographer...On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the focus of his activities and..." My support isn't conditional on these changes being made, but I do think they'd improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As always KJP1, many thanks for your thoughts on this. There was some extensive discussion on the point of "profession", but the OED is quite clear with one of their several definitions: "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur.", so I am not sure we have a problem with the use of that word.
The opening is something that could be considered a little more. Raymond, as far as I am aware (although I am not an expert on the point!), was only ever a strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer and had no other business interests; Humphreys had a much more diverse career: safebreaker, strip-club owner, publisher of pornography, restaurateur, drug dealer and owner of a number of brothels. It was this diverse range of interests that led me to use "businessman". We could tweak it to say he "was an English businessman and criminal who owned... etc". Would the addition of those two words overcome your concerns? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - It's your call, as I say we're discussing preferences not deal breakers. But for me, safebreaker + strip-club owner + pornographer + drug dealer + pimp + repeatedly-convicted felon = criminal, not businessman, even allowing for his restaurant. And in normal usage I would describe none of those activities as a profession. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without expressing a preference one way or the other on this - for I have no strong views on the point - I merely observe that prostitution has long been called "the oldest profession". Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and due to Kipling, according to our article. But surely in a literary/ironical/euphemistic, rather than an encyclopaedic, sense? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, how about "...the direction of his nefarious activities" ? Graham Beards (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nefarious soundtrack cued... ——SN54129 19:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cwmhiraeth

I would like to suggest that "James Humphreys (criminal)" would be a better title for this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, let me have a think on that and (much more importantly) read the policy on titles. I thought they were supposed to reflect their main reason for being in the encyclopaedia (in which case pornographer just about shades criminal), but I may be completely wrong on that. Much of his activity was legal, although rather seedy (the strip clubs were all legitimate lines of business, as were a few other of his lines of business - the sex shops were a mix of legal (softcore pornography) and illegal (the more explicit work)). I'll look into it and get back.
@FAC coordinators: if we decide a change of title is needed (although that's only at the discussion stage here), is it better done during a review, after it, or does it not matter? I'm not sure it's in the FAC criteria, but I'm thinking more from a technical point of view in having the review and the article under different names.
Cheers to you all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was wondering what exactly a pornographer was, and the definition seems to be "a person who makes or sells pornography". Humphreys did that, but did a lot of other seedy / illegal things too. He was certainly a criminal, having served several terms in prison. If you thought there was merit in my suggestion, you could start a move discussion on the talk page, but I would have thought that could wait until after the conclusion of this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - we can wait until later, that's absolutely fine with me, and would probably suit the co-ords too. My gut reaction is that "criminal" may not be the best way, but I think I' could be easily swayed on that; it is certainly a good topic for further discussion (I'm not married to the term "pornographer", and if it goes it wouldn't be any great loss to me - we just have to make sure we get the right name to change into). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's certainly precedents for changing an article title after the FAC, and it's a lot easier in terms of closure, FACbot and so on. If it was something people felt strongly enough to oppose over I'd probably say let's bite the bullet now -- or at least let's have it out and get consensus now, even if we change it afterwards -- but I don't think that's the case here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian - I'll hold off opening the discussion etc until after the FAC. There is enough of a rough consensus to keep it as it is until later, but we can always revisit the point afterwards. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggest waiting until the FAC is closed and then having a discussion. For what it is worth, I prefer the current title. Graham Beards (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)~[reply]
The current title is fine. “Pornographer” is by an overwhelming majority his label in the sources. I am traveling and without my sources, but will elaborate on all this and more in my oppose above when I return on Thursday. The article title, in my view, is not even remotely an issue. It was not for nothing that he was called the Emperor of Porn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too prefer "pornographer". If the sources call him a "pornographer" and we call him a "criminal" that would suggest to those not familiar with his story that pornography was/is illegal in the UK, which of course it wasn't/isn't. CassiantoTalk 18:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Graham Beards, Fowler&fowler and Cassianto. The OED defines "pornographer" as "A person who produces or provides pornography; a pornographic writer, publisher, or artist". This seems to me more precise, and more helpful to the reader, than "criminal", which by comparison is a bit vague. But I also agree that this is perhaps not the forum in which to debate the title. Tim riley talk 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GB to co-ords

@FAC coordinators: Having gained 11 supports from respected FAC participants, IMHO this article has gained consensus for promotion. The points repeatedly raised in the single "oppose" are not a barrier to promotion and can be dealt with post-promotion. There are precedents for this. The debate is getting unnecessarily heated and further coordinator input is justified in any case. Graham Beards (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My review began on the 24th. I informed the coordinators about it. The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began.
The debate is not "getting heated," rather the nominator is becoming increasingly impatient and abusive. On any other page, he would have been blocked for repeatedly using four-letter and other epithets. I'm sure the coordinators can see that and there is no need for me to provide diffs. The points have not been "repeatedly raised." My first review was entirely a review of prose and that only of the lead. I had not had a chance to examine the sources then, as I have now.
Major issues remain. A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources. We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp, not once but six times. Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer, a serial one? There is inadequate or inaccurate context: of the legal jumble that the pornographers were able to employ to their benefit; of the sudden explosion of pornography in the late 1960s; of the concurrent suppression of the politically radical publications for whose protection the laws had been designed. I have not got to any of that yet. Those are not things that can be covered after promotion. Those are not things that can be accommodated in footnotes. I'm happy to have an independent academic evaluation of my review once it is complete. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your review began on the 12th. The "supports" were added on the same day or later. Why should you have "an independent academic evaluation" of your review. No one else does. The valid points in your paragraph above have all been dealt with. Your are behaving like a troll (again Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samuel_Johnson's_early_life). Stop it. Graham Beards (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'd stay away until there was something silly for me to reply to; sadly this is it (already!). Again there are too many untruths in what you say. "The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began". You were the SECOND person to comment and your second edit was your oppose. That means that every single support came after you begin you "review" That would make most people pause for thought, at least.

"We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp": yes we can. "A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources": yes it can (and this article doesn't: it depends which sources you are classing as primary; funnily enough the other reviewers, which include two former FA co-ords and several holders of multiple FAs have not said there is a problem with the quantity or quality of the sources, which should tell you something). "Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer": it didn't. The information was already in the article. "inadequate or inaccurate context": Bullshit. This is a biography of an individual, not a history of pornography or the law in 1960s/70 Britain. Everyone else has managed to grasp that simple point except you.

Now pipe down with complaining about what other people are doing and get on with the bloody review. I will wait until the weekend before I address any comments you care to make about the article by that time. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply to the off-topic comments above, to the abusive comments above, especially not to diffs of 11 years ago, which I have not examined. Anyone who doubts my motives can examine my recent FAC reviews in
Cactus Wren, Horologium (constellation), Randall Davidson (you may examine my detailed PR there), or Coropuna? The first comments were place holders, as the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change. I posted a note to the coordinators on the 16th. My review began on the 24th. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There was nothing off topic there, (except your list of reviews where you weren't disruptive). But to pick up on yet another untruth that I've had to correct before: "the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change."
The first FAC was closed at 13:10, 30 December 2019; this one was opened at 09:17, 12 January 2020. In that two week period the edit history shows the following:
  • 09:16, 12 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,142 bytes +71‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 15:33, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,071 bytes +10‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 14:11, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,061 bytes +7‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Ditto. Enough twatting about with minutae that 99.9999% of the world will understand as being entirely good use of language. Only one foul reader will ever have problems with this phrasing, so hopefully they will be less obnoxious about how they deal with people from now on (fat chance) undo
  • 14:09, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,054 bytes -64‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Trying to stop the BATTLEFIELD troll with the inflexible approach who NEEDS to win everything undo
  • 19:46, 30 December 2019‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,118 bytes -3‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: may as well put this in line with the lead undo
  • 19:38, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,121 bytes -6‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: copy edit undothank
  • 19:35, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,127 bytes -5‎ copy edit for readability undothank
That all adds up to these changes. "resubmitted without any change" contains as much veracity as claiming you didn't begin reviewing until two weeks after you actually did. Your second edit was to oppose: if putting in an oppose isn't classed as part of review, was it just being disruptive, or is there another reason? But, I tell you what: don't bother answering or wasting your time in reworking reality to fix what you think you wnat to say: get on with the bloody review so we can bring this to a close before next Christmas or I entirely lose the will to live, whichever comes first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough. This entire thread and the topic needs to STOP BEING DISCUSSED. I just got up ... i'm trying to work from the cab of a semi truck traveling in winter through the midwest. I.e. my ability to type is compromised and its going to be a bit before I get to settling this whole cluster-fuck. But its on my plate so the pings can STOP, as can the emails. So can everyone just shut up so I can actually try to figure out what is worth looking at and what's just plain noise and what should really not be happening at all (hint for those dense - there should be no discussion of other editors taking place.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from coord

Okay, I'm promoting this, but before I do so, I want to put on my lecture cap and try to salvage something from this train wreck. Hopefully everyone involved can read this and take the issues on board so that in the future we can avoid situations like this.

One: There should never be any need for anyone involved with an FAC to discuss what they consider to be the motivations of other editors. Or to discuss other editors past actions. Or, frankly, to discuss other editors period. If you have a problem with something another editor does at an FAC, the important thing to remember is that FAC is not a battleground. The goal is to improve articles. It isn't a right that an article gets a shiny star. It is almost always best to remember that this is a text medium, not face to face. Try to assume that the other editor is also here to improve articles.

Two: People are different. Not everyone is going to approach things the way you do. It is important to allow for the fact that other editors are going to phrase things in ways that you may consider insulting - but they may very well not have intended an insult at all. The "tone" of conversations in a text medium makes this more difficult - we miss important context by communicating only through text. Rather than immediately assuming the worst - take a step back and ask for clarification. Also, if people are continually pointing out that they don't quite understand your points - perhaps it might be a sign that perhaps your text communication style needs some adjustment.

Three: The FAC criteria are purposefully a bit "loose" to allow for some judgement. That means that sometimes reviewers and nominators will disagree with whether something brought up by a reviewer is actionable by the criteria or not. When this happens, the best thing to do is ... agree to disagree and see if other reviewers take up the issue. The worst thing to do is to dig in and start a long back and forth over the issue, because invariably that leads to things becoming heated and the discussion becomes centered on editors rather than edits.

Four: The FAC coords are not your parents. We don't really have a remit to come swooping in to a FAC and declare for one side of a dispute. We judge consensus to promote.

Five: Prose issues. English writing does not have hard and fast rules for prose style. There is room for different stylistic takes. Just because you think something should be written one way does not make that the only correct way to phrase it. Yes, there are hard and fast grammar rules, but usually those aren't at issue.

Six: Content: Because the criteria are vague, it means that what is required to meet the comprehensiveness requirement is also a bit loose. Some reviewers will expect a LOT of background material - basing this on the criteria requirement for comprehensiveness. Some will expect little background - basing this on the criteria requirement for using summary style. Obviously, this can lead to conflict. This can best be resolved by NOT getting into long back and forths between the reviewer and nominator, but rather by agreeing that it is a point that needs to be considered and dealt with by other reviewers and taking that consensus of other reviewers as what should happen.

Seven: Consensus: Consensus works best when it's arrived at by a dispassionate discussion of the merits of the things under discussion. Its very hard to arrive at consensus when folks come in to "help" one side or another in an editing dispute. This just fuels the battleground mentality and gets everyone's backs up. And it can then lead to further disputes in future discussions. It may help in the short run if people "take sides" but in the end all it does is make the environment more toxic. It's a short term fix that leads to much bigger long term problems. The classic example on wikipedia is of course, our friend the "infobox dispute" ... where the vast majority of wikipedians would actually like to chuck the various disputants into the nearest freezing cold lake because its just dragged on so long and is so entrenched that it turns the entire subject toxic.

Okay, so that's some impersonal points I'm bringing up to whack the whole lot of you over the head with. I'm going to assume that most of you can at least pay lip service to those ideals, right?

Well, obviously they've been thrown out the window here. There's been entirely too much discussion of other editors and what their motivations are. Too much assuming that "it's correct because I said so and I'm not going to listen at all to what you're saying because it's wrong". Too much insisting that there is one "correct" way to phrase things and that the "other" is wrong.

I'll be frank - much of F&F's prose issues are stylistic points on which editors can differ. There probably are some good points within all of the points that were raised, but.. F&F - you write way too much and you come across as a dogmatic preservationist. Your writing and communicating style reminds me of the worst professors I ever had, who seemed to think that if they just expended enough words they could overwhelm the opposition by sheer number of words. Your reviews would be received much better if you didn't come across this way and if you cut down the verbiage by about two-thirds.

But, F&F has a good point about the reliance on newspaper and interviews. We are an encyclopedia which means we summarize SECONDARY sources. We too often loose track of this, because we do allow for the use of newspapers and interviews. But, strictly speaking, we should be using them sparingly. It is a historian's job to read and digest the primary sources and it is an encyclopedia's job to read and digest and summarize the products of the historian. In this FAC, because of all the other issues that have lead to a battleground mentality, F&F's point was dismissed as wrong, when quite honestly ... if I was going to review the article for sources, I'd be concerned about it. I have no idea if I'd oppose or not based on it, but it IS a valid concern that should be addressed properly, not swept under the rug by the nominator and other reviewers because of issues with who brought it up.

Too many on the "nominators" side have approached this FAC as a battleground. I'm not going to dig to find out why this is so - it appears that some of it is from the previous FAC for this article, but at least some of it is coming from previous interactions with F&F that really should have nothing to do with THIS FAC. In an ideal world, these sorts of things would have no impact, but we're not in Candide's world, we're in ours, and the best we can do as editors is try to NOT bring those issues into other discussions. While as an FAC coord, I expect a bit of leakage of personality disputes to leak into FAC, this FAC went way beyond what I consider to be acceptable. It frankly was excessive and attempts to stop it seem to have been ignored. Folks, the personalizing of disputes is just not helpful at all. It's how you burn out FAC coords... having to read vitriol is one of the surest ways to drive volunteers away. The classic example is right here - us three FAC coords have tried to gently steer the discussion away from unproductive avenues but its never lasted long. I'm sure it must be stressful for all involved - and there's no good reason for it. It certainly doesn't help make the FAC coords job any easier.

One further point - I was not impressed that F&F's attempts to discuss issues on the talk page between FAC1 and FAC2 went no where. Yes, he brought up a lot of stuff that was insanely nit picky and often not "wrong" but ... the solution is to go "I do not agree, we can see what other reviewers think when it comes back to FAC. However, your input is helpful, can you continue?" and for F&F to go "okay, you don't agree, lets go on to the next point " and lay out the next point rather than expending vast quantities of verbiage on a extremely minor point of style.

FAC is not "let me go through this article word by word and make the nominator revise it to be phrased exactly as I would". The prose criteria is not supposed to deal with that sort of minutiae. The prose should convey the meaning clearly, but HOW it does that is often a matter of personal style choices and reviewers need to understand that not everything they bring up is going to be actionable or even supported by other reviewers. When disagreement arises between a nominator and reviewer over a style issue, step back and let others weigh in. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [25].

Donald Forrester Brown

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking draper
  • is there potentially a link for Totara?
  • link trench warfare?
  • link company, battalion and division?
  • Done - I linked the second mention of battalion, not the first which was part of a unit name. I thought it could be potentially confusing otherwise. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link commission
  • link second lieutenant
  • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
  • Have added a bit and expanded from another source, the one I relied on initially didn't shed much light on this. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
  • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
  • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
  • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
  • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
  • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
  • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
  • external links work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs and source review

  • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
  • Have recited his name in full in the early life section, which is supported by the cite at end of that sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least 1 link to
    First World War
    , in either the body or lead, would be nice
  • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
  • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
  • I've tried a variation so I didn't have to move cites around. How does it work for you? Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
  • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
  • No, not the intention. The issue here is that officialdom wasn't moving very fast to recognise his gallantry and it may have been different if he was still alive. I suspect that it was easier to take a go slow approach for a dead hero than a living one. I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- 
Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked every online source cited and AGF on offline sources. --- 
    Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have responded to your points above and with changes to the article. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Brown's company lost 123 men from its initial complement of 180 during the opening day of the battle." Is it known how many were wounded and how many killed?
  • There is a contradiction between your account of his death, which says by a sniper during the action, and that in the VC citation, which says later while sniping at the retreating enemy.
  • I hadn't noticed that but don't quite see it as a contradiction, more a matter of detail about what he was doing at the time. I have expanded the article a little bit on this point. Funnily enough it was an older source that had the detail, not a more recent one. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest running the page analysis tool at [26], which generally finds some archived copies of citations.
  • Done, it archived seven citations. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the point of an external link to a cropped copy of the lead image.
  • Neither do I! I'm surprised I didn't get my brain into gear and remove that one when looking at the external links. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles, thanks for looking at this, I was getting nervous the article might not get any more reviewers. I have responded to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • Donald Forrester Brown was born on 23 February 1890 in Dunedin, New Zealand Pipe New Zealand to the Dominion of New Zealand.
  • The newly formed New Zealand Division was training in Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • the Battle of Flers–Courcelette, part of the Somme offensive Somme offensive is a proper noun well that's at least what the article says.
  • Oops, have put offensive in title case. Zawed (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1915–16" --> "1915–1916" in the infobox.
  • had to capture a series of German held trenches --> "had to capture a series of German-held trenches"
  • suffered very heavy casualties in officers and men from machine gun fire --> "suffered very heavy casualties in officers and men from machine gunfire"
  • I didn't do this one as how it is in the text is how it appears in the citation (also grammatically, I think making the change would be incorrect). This make me go back to the citation itself to doublecheck though and as a result I found a couple of slight inconsistencies which I have fixed. Zawed (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was again held up by machine gun fire Same as above.
  • He attacked, single handed, a machine gun which was holding up the attack --> "He attacked, single-handed, a machine gun which was holding up the attack"
  • This is one of the inconsistencies I found between the text and the actual citation. I have amended for consistency with the citation. Zawed (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • CPA-5, I have responded to your point as above. Thanks for taking the time to look at this, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh another thing here (I've totally forgot this) After a period of rest, Brown's battalion moved back into the front line on the night of 28 September do you mean the night of 27/28 or 28/29? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is supposed to be the night of 28/29. To be more clear about which day, I've replaced night with evening. Zawed (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

  • File:Warlencourt British Cemetery -4.JPG needs a tag for the country of origin as well as the US for the gravestone.
  • As Totara is a red link, can you provide a brief description of where it is in the text?

That's it from me, a nice succinct article. Good work. Harrias talk 09:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harrias, thanks for stopping by and reviewing this. Per your comments, I've added a PD tag for France to the image and made a slight tweak to the text to clarify the location of Totara. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I couldn't find much wrong with this to start with. Please also consider this a successful image review; the images used are appropriately tagged and captioned. Harrias talk 10:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [27].

Segnosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC nomination of a

therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation
Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.
Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.
  • There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?
  • Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.
Yes, forgot this one; yes, since the skull, beak, and neck are unknown, it is a bit misleading to say that they were. Much of it is inference from logic or related animals. But I have now reduced it in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

  • Soviet
    -Mongolian     — en dash?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?
Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?
Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist
    Lindsay E. Zanno
    suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers.     — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.
They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, that makes sense now.
  • Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?
None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation
Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandible and lower dentition

  • at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?
Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranial skeleton

  • Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.
Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?
It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.
Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

  • First sentence should be split up.
Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.
Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • be most basal clade — What does this mean?
Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.
Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

  • Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.
Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same.
R}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • precocial
    , capabale of locomotion from birth     — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?
Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[28][29], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[30] and one Polish[31] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.
I wonder whether they would even know, if the eggs are from Mongolia, they were possibly illegally exported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diet and feeding

  • they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?
In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • facultative herbivory — facultatively?
If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.
I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)
Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?
Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?
Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.
Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.
I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38 — Identifier?
None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.
I went with that, thanks.FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?
Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.
  • 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".
Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 52 — Pages 1–16, no?
Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I tried to fix the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinator

Just a note that I would have no problem if the review of references above is treated as the source review. The sources are clearly of appropriate quality, and I've gone through each of the references to ensure that they are correctly and consistently formatted. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?
Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."
Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dunkleosteus77

I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very fond of double image clutter. I think the current distribution works fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that lived during the Late Cretaceous in the region of Asia that is now known as Mongolia" Why didn't you just say "from Mongolia" or "discovered in Mongolia"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Segnosaurus was a large-bodied therizinosaur" Just to verify, Segnosaurus was big compared to other therizinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At up to 7 metres long, it was pretty big, though larger ones of course existed (up to 10 metres long). But then again, some taxa were only two metres long, so it would be in the larger category. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty sure I linked that article at some point, perhaps removed during copy-edit. Now at replaced its teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "teeth with a low replacement rate" in Paleobiology which seems notable in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the rate has anything to do with physical description, has more to do with physiology/biology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such split carinae are known from..." this should be split into 2 sentences or you can use a semicolon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would lead readers to think it is just structurally the same as our shoulder girdles; dinosaurs had their scapulae and coracoids fused together. So though it is technically a shoulder girdle, precision is needed to note the important difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link and explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs he tentatively classified as theropods" makes it sound like theropods was the new family of dinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganised as:" In 1979, Perle noted the Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs, which he named Segnosauridae, with Segnosaurus as type genus and sole member. He tentatively classified Segnosauridae as theropods, traditionally thought of as the "meat-eating" dinosaurs, pointing to similarities in the mandible and its front teeth." FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was when it was found (but that doesn't say much, as it was the only one recognised at the time), but it was surpassed by Alxasaurus in 1993 (as mentioned in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added some info for both mentioned land-bridges. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...were adapted for relatively slow progression. Segnosaurus and its relatives were not adapted for rapid locomotion" these are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a composite of various segnosaurs/therizinosaurs, not Segnosaurus itself. Now added "(a composite of various genera)" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Segnosauria is obsolete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not in 1984, it is a compsite of what a "segnosaur" was thought to be at the time. I thought it would be misleading to say therizinosaur retroactively, but since it is outside the classification section, I have added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The endocranium is the inner surface of the brain cavity. The braincase is the bony encasement of the brain cavity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subterraneously constructed nests are also indicative of a lack of parental care during the incubation period" but how? Animals can bury their eggs and guard over them (like crocodiles)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, the paper doens't really even make it clear that the nest in question was subterraneous, so I was always a bit unsure about the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turtles don't have teeth, though, I guess it is the combination that seems odd, but the source doesn't specify. The combination of beaks and teeth are otherwise only known in dinosaurs thought to be herbivorous (or omnivorous), which is mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some extinct birds had teeth, like Ichthyornis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperornis too, among many others, both thought to have been piscivorous funnily enough, which would doubtlessly be known to David Norman. Hard to say what he was thinking, but I assume that he was thinking of the context of dinosaurs alone, where only herbivorous/omnivorous ones werre thought to have had beaks (before birds were universally thought of as dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good you asked, I overlooked a bit of his argument, which doesn't seem particularly sensible either, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm understand still, "suggested that therizinosaurs could have been tied to nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems, though perhaps indirectly, by feeding on wasps which had themselves fed on carrion of aquatic vertebrates" seems like a big stretch. Why did he suggest it was tied to aquatic ecosystems in the first place? Why wasps? I'm sure there's lot of things that eat dead aquatic animals. It just seems so random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit baffling; review articles just state he suggested they fed on wasps, but it is actually a much more specific argument, and I actually explain it more in detail than other review articles. I'll quote him in full, then you can say whether you think I should go into more detail: "Considering the frequently occurring carnivory of wasps, their ability (at least in some forms) to process even relatively large carrion of vertebrates (particularly fishes) by means of their large mandibles and also feed their larvae on carrion, and considering the frequent mass deaths of fishes, amphibians, and other aquatic vertebrates in the zone of interbasin channels (regarding the mechanism responsible for their death see Ro_ek and Nessov [1993] and Part 3 of this volume), one could assume that the segnosaurs from the Coniacian of Dzharakuduk, like many other terrestrial vertebrates at that time, could have become part of food chains tied to the nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems. Segnosaurs, however, could have done this indirectly, obtaining part of the energyflow through wasps and wasp-like Hymenoptera, whereas large pterosaurs (Pl. I, fig. 18) collected food from the surface of open areas of basins. Therefore, Rozhdestvensky (1970, 1976) may at least be partially correct in his assumption that segnosaurs possessing huge claws fed on social insects." FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"(Whoever said this) suggested that, since wasps and their larvae have been known to scavenge off large vertebrate carcasses—namely fish—and there were frequent mass deaths among aquatic vertebrates in Coniacian of Dzharakuduk/wherever, it is possible that wasps or wasp-like insects were in abundance, and were consequently eaten by local segnosaurs and other contemporaneous terrestrial vertebrates."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to come up with something when I get home, the thing is he is also trying to make a general point about therizinosaur diet, since he draws parallels with earlier suggestions of them eating insects. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more details, with emphasis on what I think is the take home message. It isn't really important to therizinosaurs what exact food these wasps were eating or why. And we shouldn't be giving too much undue weight to Nessov's sometimes odd views. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lautenschlager found that these would not have been used for digging, which would have been done with the foot claws because, as in other maniraptorans, feathers on the forelimbs would have interfered with this function" you're missing a "because" somewhere in there, and this seems to imply that all maniraptorans dug   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "since". The source implies digging even more strongly, so I have actually toned it down: "While the large body size largely rules out the possibility of burrow digging in therizinosaurs, troodontids and dromaeosaurids most probably used their hindlimbs and pedal claws for digging [33,34], as feathering on the forelimbs would have interfered with manus digging [35]. The same can likely be assumed for therizinosaurs and other feathered Maniraptoriformes, such as oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "(always returning to the same site to breed)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raised their jaws isognathously whereby the upper and lower teeth of each side occluded at once" some big words in this sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part of the sentence is an explanation of what "isognathously" means. I have linked occlusion and added "(contacted each other)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diet and feeding is about half the size of a small article. Maybe you could partition it off into other subsections (like Older/Initial hypotheses, or Chewing mechanics, or Competition)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't really good, logical ways to split this. Everything past the first paragraph mainly covers hypotheses that are presently considered likely. And those sources discuss many different, interrelated aspects of feeding that can't really be seperated easily. I'd prefer it as it is, chronologically, and it doens't seem like other reviewers have felt it necessary to divide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would partially have been a lake, not featured one, which is awkward to phrase. I added "(representing lakes)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could also say "could have had a lake" or "was a lakeside environment" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source I found for the information below consolidates some of those older findings, now "The
semi-arid climate." Doesn't exactly make it simpler, I have a hard time explaining "alluvial cycles", perhaps Jens Lallensack can help? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure what the alluvial cycle in this case is supposed to be. Maybe better simplify to "The sediments were deposited by rivers and within lakes on an alluvial plane". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The sediments of these formations were deposited by
meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should add at least a sentence on paleoclimate (like, if you can find it, "The area had an annual temperature of x and had a humid/wet/dry/whatever climate, based on the presence of [plants]")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only additional source I could find (didn't turn up in Google Scholar when I had looked before) states it was semi-arid, added. It is pretty rare that detailed studies of formations have been done in most of the non-Western world, so they aren't necessarily to be expected. Also added a conference abstract that mentions a possible fourth therizinosaur in the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • during the Late Cretaceous in what is now known as Mongolia.—that's unneeded, I doubt that the dinos had a name for it.
Not sure how that popped back in actually, thought I had removed it (added by copy-editor). I've changed it to "in what is now southeastern Mongolia". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been bipedal and the trunk of its body would have been tilted upwards. The head would have been (also in Description) —repetitive and could be replaced by plain "was"
You mean the "would have"? it is to be careful as all of that is just inference; how it carried itself, as well as some of the features that are unknown for this prticular genus, such as the skull and neck. I'm wary of saying "it had a small skull and a long neck", when we really can only say this because we know its relatives did. Likewise, can't say outright it had feathers, because such are only known definitely from its relatives. So I tried to restrict "was" to known parts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bore large claws—(in lead) how many?
Changed to: " The forelimbs were robust and had three fingers which bore large claws". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • paleontologist Altangerel Perle, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno—I get told off for using false titles when I do this, apparently should be "the… etc
Heh, I get told something new at every other nomination. I don't personally care, I just let the copy-editor decide, which was the case here. Added "the" because it's easy enough to do those few places. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but not appressed—I've never seen that word so link, explain or replace I think
Changed to "but not pressed closely together". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the genus Therizinosaurus itself was originally identified as a turtle—"turtles"?

Changed to "(the forelimb elements of Therizinosaurus itself were originally identified as belonging to a giant turtle when described in 1954)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregory S. Paul —probably repetitive to give the job where it's palaeontologist, but perhaps for someone like him precede hname with what he does
I had "paleontologist" in front of every new name, but they were removed by the copy-editor except for in the discovery section. I can see how it is a bit redundant after the first dozen mentions (and it'll be quote some work to add it back), so I'm not sure what to do... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues—if there is no link, perhaps state what they do
Like above, I'd like the consistency, but it was removed by the copy-editor, so I assume they thought it says without going after the first few times (every person mentioned in this article is a paleontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that if you put multiple links to your source in a ref, eg url and doi, the url will be removed at some stage as superfluous, although personally I can't see the harm
I think it's only when they link to the same destination they are removed automatically by bots. If I have a DOI for an old Ibis article, I can still use a different link to its Archive.org version, for example, and it won't be removed. But if the DOI is for, say, an open access PLOSONE article, the DOI leads to the exact same place as the URL, making either redundant. But that also goes for paywalled articles. So I personally find it more clear/helpful knowing that when a title has a link, it's because it will go to a place different than the DOI, where I might get to read the otherwise paywalled article. If every title is a link, I can't tell a redundant link from a helpful one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point with the first comment is that just "in Mongolia" would do; since there were no humans then to name the region, it's not as if it had a different name in the age of the dinosaurs. Anyway, no big deal so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I usually write "what is now" because often an area covered by a modern country may have been divided or submerged at the time... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

It looks like all images are placed in well suited sections and are pertinent to the article. I'll defer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review with regards to their factual accuracy. Regarding the individual files:
  • File:Segnosaurus Scale.svg: Given that this is a derivative file of two others and one of them is not PD, it needs to mention the license of the other file.
I'll ping the creator, Slate Weasel. But yeah, I guess the solution is to add the licenses of the original files. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The silhouette is completely original (different neck angle, jaws closed, limbs posed differently, filaments added, etc. etc.), with the skeletal being used as a reference for proportions and size, so I'm pretty sure that this doesn't qualify as a derivative work of the skeletal. Is this reasoning correct, FunkMonk? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The human is taken directly from the other image, right? So at least that license should be copied over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but is it necessary? The human's under CC0, which I thought didn't even require attribution. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, back to Jo-Jo Eumerus on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking closely, it seems like the dinosaur silhouette might be too derived to be a derivative work. The human ... I've seen some spirited discussions about CC-0 and actual PD status, perhaps better to mention the license as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added indication of the human's license. Anything else that needs to be done with this chart or is this good? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's all sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated on the first page of the PDF version, but the entire journal is CC, as can be seen here:[32] FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I drew it on myself, with proportions based on illustrations of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to warn people that it is not anatomically accurate anymore, but used to illustrate historical views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, none of the images has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm unsure whether they're needed or not these days. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK they are a good idea but not mandatory. Sometimes you don't need one (for purely decorative images) or you can't do one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [33].

Herbert Maryon

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good example of the dangers of taking legal advice from a Wikipedia article—let alone one with three hat notes warning the reader of a lack of sources. After all, that article used to say the complete opposite, and even now, it uses what an edit description refers to as "a book about british law" to say that signatures are also copyrightable in the United States. I'm willing to believe that a signature that is intended as an independent creative expression—and that exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement—can be copyrighted. Kurt Vonnegut, for one, may have a case. But there is a reason that courts refer to signatures as "copyright management information" (definition); the vast majority of signatures are essentially nothing other than metadata. Or, as the unquoted next paragraph in the "book about british law" says, "It should be remembered that copyright only subsists in works which are the product of skill, judgment and labour. An everyday signature of a rudimentary nature is unlikely to satisfy these requirements." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that you take up this issue at Commons - since the image is hosted there its tagging should comply with their guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.
  • Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[34][35]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I assume this would be a difficult subject to get a coherent story from if an actual biography hasn't been published, but I think it succeeds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".
  • How does it look now, with the cites now as external links rather than footnotes? Numerous newspaper articles were published, including in the United Kindom, Canada, and the United States. See § Colossus articles.
  • Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per
    WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Necessary is perhaps the wrong word, but (I think) they add some interesting color. As I mention below, the five citations are hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier.
  • Per
    WP:NOT
    and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the
    Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library
    .

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 1954 Herbert Maryon had spent 60 years tracing back the history of the family." is cited to a self-published source which doesn't meet
    WP:SPS. Nominator added this back after it was removed by another user. buidhe 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Buidhe, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to overlook your thoughts regarding the self-published work that you removed. I realize that undoing an edit is sometimes an overly abrupt maneuver, and I could have been more clear about why I did it. Did you happen to see my edit summary? I agree that it could be problematic to rely on it for whatever genealogical records are recorded within; I only meant to rely on for the discrete fact that Herbert Maryon had, as of 1954, spent some 60 years researching his family’s past. I don’t think it’s a controversial point—he probably just told the author as much in a letter, and the copious amount of material at the Essex Records Office makes clear that Maryon was indeed an amateur genealogist. But please let me know if you see it differently. By the way, I hope to respond to your other points later today. Best, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may well be true, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:RS. There's no evidence that the author of this work (who is not Maryon) meets the requirements for
    WP:SPS. Deriving the same information from Maryon's personal papers is original research, of course. buidhe 04:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Buidhe, one of the explicit exceptions to the general disfavoring of self-published sources is for uncontroversial information about which an author would be expected to have personal knowledge. The spirit of that exception would seem to hold true here. But rather than belabor an exceedingly minor point, I've removed that source and sentence. Hopefully that will allow us to turn to any further comments on the article you may have. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned
    non-free content criterion 2
    .
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to"
    Words as words
    ; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per

WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
  • File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.
  • Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.
  • Done.


Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: The Winged Victory image will need a FOP tag - as well as some details about its location! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I'm not sure we'll need a FOP tag for that one, as any copyright appears to have lapsed through publication. Its style—taken from Maryon's teacher Alexander Fisher—was published at least as early as 1900, and the one distinguishing characteristic of Maryon's design—the cast of Nike—was published in 1904. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is PD, that's fine - you're right that no FOP tag would be required. But perhaps you could explain that on the image page? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, done. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support on prose and images. I still think the leads too long (and by the letter of

WP:LEADLENGTH, it is) but that concern doesn't seem to hold as much water at FAC as some others. I've not looked into the lengthy bibliography, further reading, etc. sections, so this support is basically conditional on checks there coming back OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

Support from Comments by Tim riley

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

  • I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".
  • Done.
  • I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.
  • Fixed.
  • "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.
  • Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.
  • "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.
  • It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.
  • "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?
  • Fixed.
  • As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.
  • Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.
  • WP:OVERLINK
  • Removed.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages
  • This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.
  • As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
  • Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate
  • I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".
  • Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever
  • It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.
  • But I can't see the content, so it's not obvious to all non-German speaking readers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas
  • This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.
  • There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS
  • Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.
  • Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call
  • No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?
  • Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting
  • Done.
  • "MARYON, Herbert". shouldn't be full caps even if that's what source had, per
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital_letters
  • Done.
  • Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case
  • Done.
  • I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the

WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and
WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
  • There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
      • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
    • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
      • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
    • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
      • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
  • See
    WP:NOT
    , which we have historically neglected.
    • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
  • What makes K Simon a reliable source? [36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
    • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
  • A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?
Works and Layout
  • See
    MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
    The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.
Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.
MOS
  • Please have a look at
    world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
  • I added samples of
    WP:NBSP
    ; please review throughout.
    • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
      • I believe it was Reidgreg who indicated elsewhere that links aren't non-breaking and do need nbsps; perhaps they will weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (talk page stalker) Linked phrases will line wrap. I'll almost always use [[World War&nbsp;II]], the non-breaking space works fine in a link, it doesn't have to be piped. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:LQ
    generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
    • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
    • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
      • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ?  :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, SandyGeorgia—yes, given my own propensity to forget things from five minutes ago, that might be a bit of a stretch. Anyways, hope the VBB (Very Big Birthday) was fun. I just need to respond to the "Overcitation" section, but will get to that today. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

  • There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:
  • Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
  • Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:
  • four other drawing designers?
  • Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?
  • He also had the help of his sisters:
  • Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.
  • Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,
  • Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee
  • The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:
  • Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)
  • Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).
  • Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.
  • Removed.
  • Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.
  • Removed.
  • … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.
  • Removed.
  • Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …
  • Changed to "Yet its importance..."
  • Other opportunities to vary the prose:
  • frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.
  • Now "often ... frequently".
  • exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910
  • Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overcitation

Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").
Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources

I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the
1901 census listed as living with her sister [Edith],[77][78]; the second citation is to the census, and the first is to a secondary source which states Edith's sister, Mildred (born c.1881) is listed as an art student, designer and living at the same address in the Census of 1901. The half-dozen ancestry.com sources thus do little independent work, but serve to confirm secondary sources, show their work, and provide launching pads for interested readers. That is to say, the article would be substantially the same without them, but is marginally better with them. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Good ... I've added a new section below to talk about the lead; the nitpicks here have all been dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

Not entirely sure where this has got to, but I wanted to add my Support. It's beautifully written, comprehensive and immaculately sourced. I shared my concern regarding the over-citation, and the over-listing of articles particularly in relation to the Colossus, at the GA, which I did, and I think the adjustments that have been made subsequently have much improved it. There may still be a few instances where there are more than I'd personally use but, for me, that's not a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, KJP1, and the support. Though it’s steadily worked its way down the page—which I assume is what you mean by not being sure where this nomination has got to—I think it’s in fairly good shape overall. All the comments so far have been addressed; fingers crossed, but I think the only open issue is whether SandyGeorgia has further thoughts. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead and overcitation

The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed; I have procrastinated on returning to this FAC because I have not found the words to express my discomfort and confusion about why the lead is written as it is. My discomfort would be much easier to express if Usernameunique weren't such a nice person and fine writer :) It would be so much easier to be opposed to a FAC if the nominator were a poor writer and an uncooperative person, but such is not the case here. Nonetheless, I feel I must go on record as being dissatisifed with the lead here.
Usernameunique, one of the main reasons I engaged this FAC was what you wrote in the FAC introduction:

When

lead is supposed to do; it summarized to me why this fellow was interesting and worth knowing about and cultivated my interest in reading on.
But then, I hit the article and found a lead that did no such thing, and forced me to read around boatloads of little numbers, making me wonder why this fellow was so controversial and what the problem was. LEAD neither requires nor discourages citation, but it does tell us to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". No balance has been struck here, we go the opposite direction in helping the reader when we give them too much, and the result is text that is a chore to read, compared to the brilliant introduction to this FAC. By writing it that way, it feels like you (the writer) have been constrained, and could not deliver the compelling introduction that you have at the top of the FAC. I visited all of your older FAs, and found this is atypical for your style-- the other leads were excellent-- and I cannot understand why you have chosen to do this here.
I have procrastinated to the point of rudeness in returning to this FAC, but I feel that I must oppose on the spirit of WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. A lead like this does not exemplify Usernameunique's best work, or Wikipedia's best work. I am concerned that the Coords will see that as a non-actionable oppose, but the overriding principle of WIAFA should count as much as any individual point. If this overcited lead passes FAC, FA writers in the future will point to this citation as acceptable and hold it up as an example and think they should write this way. And after all this time, I still can't discern what it is accomplishing. I can't see why this is necessary and why we would want to encourage others to write a lead like this. It would be such a pleasing article if the lead read more like what you wrote freeform at the top of this FAC. I wish you all the best, and leave it to the Coords to decide what to make of this comment vis-a-vis WIAFA. (This is the hardest thing I have ever had to write at FAC.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

My issue with the list of Works is similar; what does this mean an an example for future FA writers? We have a guideline page that tells us about how to list Works (and the writers of that guideline probably had books in mind, not every single thing ever written by a given author). On the other hand we have a policy page at

WP:NOT that tells us Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". I have two highly reliable sources indicating that James F. Leckman took the reigns of Tourette syndrome
research and is one of the most highly published authors ever on TS:

so should I add all 473 papers written by James Leckman to his article?[37] I have a clear case, backed by highest quality sources from experts in the field, about how significant James Leckman's body of work is. If I interpret the guideline pages as is being done here, I can create a web directory of all of Leckman's work. If I do that on an FA, everyone will then do that. I am still unclear what is being accomplished by listing all of those works, particularly when the premise behind a huge bunch of them was ultimately rejected. I don't want to stand in the way of the promotion of this article, but I just do not understand what is being accomplished here, and worry what it will mean as an example for future FAs. If an overwhelming reason for the need to do this were explained, perhaps I could get on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, again I have to concur with SG (also see my comments above). I also think that NOTDIR should usually trump the MOS in cases like these. buidhe 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia, if I'm reading you correctly, your advice is to write worse FAC blurbs so as to lessen the expectations of reviewers? Joking aside, the reason that most of my other featured articles don't have citations in the lead (if not all) is because this isn't a hill I have much interest in dying on; so please see this edit.
I'm more surprised to see your renewed comments regarding the list of Maryon's works, which I had thought covered in your line above that The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed. Maryon, of course, does not have 473 publications; nor does he have 400, or 300, or 200, or 100, or even 50. If he did have as many publications as Leckman, handling them would require some thought. But his 48 books, chapters, and articles represent barely a tenth of that output, and while there are two handy non-Wikipedia articles cluing one in to all of Leckman's works, there is no such list for Maryon absent the one here. On a broader level I understand the reluctance to have citations in the lead, as it is the first thing a reader sees. Yet there is no such danger that a reader is going to make it down nine sections in the article, then suddenly be turned away because the publications section lists 48 works, not 35. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most happy to see the overcitation gone from the lead: I would offer you my first-born, but I think I have already given him to about three other editors :) OK, on the remaining issue (the list of Works), how will we answer the medical bio editors who do attempt to add every published paper from a researcher if they can then point to this FA as an example? This is a serious problem in POV-pushing medical bios. Give me a compelling reason that will work across the board for this not to become an example that others might follow? Why not make it just the books and the most significant publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, phew—I hear those things are expensive. I think the way we answer it is easy: this article stands only for the proposition that when a) a subject has fewer than 50 works, b) a list of those works is not available elsewhere, and c) there are no concerns that a list of works is behind used to advance a particular point of view, then including a complete list may be acceptable. If one of those factors is not met, then an alternative may be appropriate. Taking Leckman as an example, he fails the first two (and perhaps third) factors; an easy solution would be to include a curated list of significant works and link to his cv for the remainder. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having something like that on record would satisfy me, so we would have a place to point if someone tries to do same in the future for someone with hundreds of entries. Now, we need to ask @FAC coordinators: how to get more feedback to this aspect of this FAC, or if this is enough to satisfy them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

Nearing support and enjoying reading up enormously. This seems odd -

  • He had both an older brother, John Ernest, and an older sister, Louisa Edith, the latter of whom preceded him in his vocation as a sculptor. One brother and three sisters would follow—in order, George Christian, Flora Mabel, Mildred Jessie, and Violet Mary—although Flora Maryon, born in 1878, would die in her second year. - "both" and then "the latter" only explained...and then we say four others followed into sculpture? Or were they just younger? "follow—in order" is a bit vague. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ceoil. Good point. Edith and Herbert Maryon were the only sculptors; the others were just siblings. I've dropped the "both," and changed "would follow" to "came after." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have read through it all now, and made trivial edits along the way. Very impressed. My only remaining comment is re over citing, similar to Sandy above. I see why you are dong it (to direct readers to relevant sources), but it hampers readability, sets a poor precident, and per Johnbod's Law, undermines the claims. To take a random eg "Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto, where his son John Maryon, a civil engineer, lived.[156][227]". Could not be less contentious, but as stated I auto think, hmm. Your assembled sources already stand as an excellent biblography for those that want to read deeper. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I would seriously trim the external links, especially on the colossus. Separating the wheat from chaff is a worthwhile editorial activity. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the praise, Ceoil. Fair point re: citations. I've gone through again and taken a look at each time three or more refs are stacked. I've been able to cut back on a decent number of these, and certainly some of the uglier ones. Two citations, on the other hand, doesn't bother me; in the example you give above, [156] is the primary driver of the sentence but [227] is needed for the name of Maryon's son. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand, and thanks for addressing other points. Pleased to Support. Ceoil (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps I agree with Josh above that the lead is a little long. Not because it contains too many claims, but that they are a bit wordy (eg "Maryon published two books while teaching, including the standard Metalwork and Enamelling"...you cant say "two" and then say "including X & Y"), and "numerous utilitarian and decorative Arts and Crafts works, etc
  • Removed the second part, and some other pieces. "Metalwork and Enamelling" is actually one book (despite the "and"); the other book is "Modern Sculpture," which is not mentioned in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article size is 139,086 bytes, but contains only 4,500 words...mostly due I guess to the large biblio and ext links sections. Recommend that you spin there out to a separate article. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Not to unduly push this along, but I think there has been a consensus for some time in favor of promotion. Is there anything else you would like to see? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time that isn't buried in stuff that HAS to be done? I'll try to get to this either late tonight or (more likely) tomorrow. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ealdgyth. Not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but let me know if there's anything I can do. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means life outside wiki is being very busy and very very demanding of me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. But the real world is so peaceful and relaxing right now... Kidding aside, no rush in taking a look here if you're tied up; I mostly just wanted to ensure this nomination is not languishing for want of some sort of action on my part. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique is entitled to ask, the last support was registered 10 days ago, understand that the world has changed, but it has for all of us; as a general call, can we be less bighty. If there is shut down, just say it. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, there's a bit to go through above so I won't promise closure soon, but I wouldn't have an objection to you kicking off a new nom if have one ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. Much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [38].

Fir Clump Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable
  • Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • All images are free and appropriately licensed.
  • Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
    • This still hasn't been done. I had to stare at the map for some time to figure out what it was showing. buidhe 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean; would you like to see the caption on the map made clearer? Or rather alter the pinpoint on the map in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. Done buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

  • ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"
  • A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....
  • Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.
  • A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.
  • More than happy with the diagram in the infobox, although I shifted the picture of the M4 from a left alignment to a right alignment as I think it looks a bit neater, if that's okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?
  • Good idea. I've listed them in the "Context" section; we do not yet have articles for a couple of them but I should be able to create these without too much trouble. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.
  • A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?
  • I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?
  • There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.
  • The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

Context

  • "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?
  • The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?
  • His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?
  • In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

  • a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?
  • It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and destruction

  • the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?
  • Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.
  • He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?
  • Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?
  • Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)
  • Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"
  • Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?
  • I can see your point. I've replaced "produced" with "wrote" here, which I think is an improvement, but I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea; this could be achieved in the form of a note. I won't do this just yet, as I'll need to look up the right sources in the literature, but is something that I shall try to do soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

  • WP:NBSPs
    are needed throughout.
  • I have now added   to all of the dates specified in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert templates are missing.
  • I've added the templates to the lede, so that we now have imperial measurements there as well as in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
    • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
      • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point. The numbers provided in the lead were those of the outer ring. To make this clear I've changed "in diameter" to "in total diameter". I've also added mention of the inner ring diameter. (Does this work? I can always make it more explicit). The differing diameters (107 m by 86.5 m) stem from the fact that the "stone circle" is not (despite its name) a perfect circle, but an oval, and hence its diameter differs at different points. I've added mention of the oval-shape to the lead so that this becomes clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, SchroCat, both for your time and your support. As you suggest, I've brought the Field and McOmish quote forward, so that it appears before we mention the measurements. I've also clarified that the dimensions given are those of the outer ring. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GB

Support - it's a shame we have lost it. Can we check the usage of "also" is really warranted? It's an ugly word that often breaks the flow. (No big deal of course). Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. I've removed one instance of "also" and changed another to "similarly". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

  • Support - well chewed-over & I have nothing to add. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [39].

Sol-20

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol-20 is a surprisingly little-known microcomputer given its place in history. It appears to be the first truly mass-produced personal computer - there are numerous earlier examples of PCs like the Micral and Altair, but they were only the CPU box and required an external terminal of some sort to be useful; most also did nothing when turned on and the user had to "switch in" a program. In contrast, the Sol-20 could be purchased complete, plugged into the wall, plugged into any television for display, and thanks to its onboard ROM, was running as soon as you turned it on. It pre-dates the "1977 trinity" machines -TRS-80, PET and Apple II- which also had these qualities, and sold some ten thousand or more units during its two-year production run. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
The first is used only in a parenthetical note and seems uncontroversial? I could simply remove the note if need-be, it doesn't add much. The second is a re-"printing" of the original book, "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer", should I re-cite it to that source? I am actually quoting the web page itself, so I cited that, but I could probably get a copy of the book somewhere.
For the first one, I would remove the note. For the second I would credit the original source in some way. I don't think it's necessary to get a copy of the book but one could say something along the lines of, "reprinted from... "
Fixed and fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ham Radio Horizons and Byte sources should use the same format as other sources, unless there is a reason.
Moved.
  • Please cite specific pages for where the information can be found in the Byte article, Swaine & Freiberger 2014, Felsenstein 1977, Systems 1977. (Longer page range makes info harder to find).
Ok, so...
Byte moved and clarified exactly what I was quoting with another cite for the price comparison.
Swaine & Freiberger fixed, just an oversight.
Found an original for Felsenstein 1977, re-cited and pages added. That version showed blockquotes, one of which I begged to be included.
Systems 1977 - this is actually referring to the entire document.
That leaves Veit, which I simply don't have in a version with numbers. I know it's Chapter 9, and the page range is around 138 to 142, but that's all I can get out of Google.
  • Is Kilobaud Magazine being used to cite anything?
Apparently not, removed. That is very odd, normally the cite tool I have turned on would put that up as an unused template. Perhaps it is no longer working, I'll have to look.
  • Otherwise, sources seem reliable for what they're being used for. A cursory search didn't find any more information.
  • It's a shame there's only google preview for PC World article, which is one of the better sources from a RS perspective. If you'd like I can request it via ILL from my university.
Oh, I'd love that! I'm also STILL trying to get a photo of the expansion bus, I know someone that has one of these machines (still working if you can believe it) but he keeps forgetting to forward them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requested. If you send me an email, I will send you the scan as soon as I get it. buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to verify some information through source checks. buidhe 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description—this is all cited inline as per FA criteria. Is it necessary to state "From the Sol Systems Manual unless otherwise noted."? buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Lead caption needs editing for clarity
  • File:Popular_Electronics_cover_July_1976.jpg lacks a sufficient FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit of an issue with the last of these - that fair-use tag is intended for cases where the publication, not the thing featured, is the focus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other tag I should use? Perhaps you can point to a similar example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 I think this is a great article. Although I remember with other computers of the era, I'd never heard of this one. Which is a way of saying that your work here is truly appreciated.

  • "where it was a huge hit" Suggest deleting "huge" per
    WP:PEACOCK
Done.
  • Link "modem". Most millennials would never have seen one.
Added.
  • Link "baud" A term you never hear anymore
Changed and linked to BPS instead.
  • "The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired by anyone. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory from anywhere." "anyone"? "anywhere"? Sounds like hyperbole. Suggest deleting these words.
Deleted.
  • "with its primary funding source" Who was that?
Added.
  • "hacking minded engineers" hyphen required here?
That seemed wordy in retrospect, removed.
  • Footnotes a, c and f could use a reference
Well A is a claim of obvious fact, and the second part is reffed in the body. F already has the ref. Added C.
Suggest moving the reference to the end of footnote f? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already is...
  • Link
    BASIC programming language
    on first appearance
Moved to first.
  • "Stan Veit later joked to Les that they named it after Solomon in another way" Suggest "Stan Veit later joked to Solomon that they named it after him in another way"
Changed.
  • " a kludged up box of parts", hyphen required here?
Grammarly, which is normally spot-on with these, says no. But eyeballs say yes, so added.
  • 8" should be "8-inch" and 5.25" should be "5.25-inch" Remember, most people have never encountered the old measurements, and would not know what the whole 9x means.
Added. I assume we don't need a conversion here, as this was the name more than the physical dimension?
That would be my position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the Sol Systems Manual,[32] unless otherwise noted." Do we need this?
I have always found this VERY useful because it indicates you will be referring to it a lot. A list of para-ends is not the same implication. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let me thank you for taking on the task of writing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

Oppose on 1c (specifically

WP:V
): I looked at the lead, which revealed a few minor issues to begin with, but the first section of the main body threw up quite a few more, which worry me a little. Therefore I am opposing until this is clarified a little (there is probably a simple explanation, but I think it needs clearing up, hence the oppose).

Lead: Parts of this are a little difficult to follow, but this is easy enough to fix with a link or two. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening paragraph of the lead is somewhat impenetrable to me as I have no background in computing. This would be less of an issue if we had some slightly better links: could we link backplane, I/O drive and boot code?
All addressed except I/O, which is explained in the 3P+S link.
  • ”It also included swappable ROMs with boot code that allowed it to start up running a selection of programs”: Perhaps a little redundancy here. Could we just have “Swappable ROMs with boot code allowed a selection of programs to run on start up.” Also, we could perhaps link start up here.
Reworded.
  • ”a motherboard known as the Sol-PC which was also available as free schematics”: I’m not entirely clear what this means. I know the lead is a summary, but am I right in thinking this means you could simply build your own for free if you were so inclined?
Correct.
  • Should the price be mentioned in the lead?
Indeed, added.
  • ”By that time, the "1977 trinity" -the Apple II, Commodore PET and TRS-80- had begun to take over the market, and a series of failed new product introductions drove Processor Technology into bankruptcy”: We are using a hyphen to break up the sentence when it should be a pair of emdashes.
Fixed, although you should feel free to do this yourself.
  • ”Felsenstein would later develop the successful Osborne 1 computer, using much the same underlying design in a portable format”: Why not simply “Felsenstein later developed…”? Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.

Tom Swift Terminal: Reading the first section, I checked a source to clarify something with a view to rephrasing it, but I could not find the information in the source. I then checked a few more references and I could not find the information in those sources either. I imagine that there is a simple explanation: either I am overlooking something in the source, the wrong page was given in the reference or a different edition was used to the one linked in the reference. However, as this is a sourcing issue, it does need clarification. It may also be worth the nominator and maybe other reviewers checking some of the other references to make sure they support the text given. If I am overlooking something, it may be worth quoting the parts of the source that support our text. I am more than happy to strike the oppose if this can be easily cleared up, or if I have misunderstood something. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incidentally, at the start of the History section, we need to introduce Felsenstein as we only do so in the lead.
Added.
  • The first couple of sentences are a little difficult to understand. It was trying to understand these first sentences that led me to check the sources.
  • ”The cost of running the system was untenable; the terminal cost $1,500 (their first example was donated), the modem another $300, and the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute.”: Using “cost” twice in close succession here. I’m not clear what “their first example was donated” means here: it was donated to them (by who, and why?) or they donated it to someone else? Nor do I understand what “the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute” means.
Let's unpack this...
The cost of a Model 33 is referenced just below in the section about the Altair.
Added the donator, although I don't think that really clarifies anything.
Time-sharing systems of the era billed in terms of CPU time, typically minutes. It cost a lot. Added and reffed.
  • I'll be honest, it concerns me that this was not referenced before. However, it reads more clearly now. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Even the reams of paper output from the terminal were too expensive to be practical”: What paper output? Again, this is unclear to the general reader… why did the system need paper to operate?
Teletype Model 33's are teletype printers. The link to the Model 33 should do here.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. For an FA, the reader should not have to follow links to understand what something means. I had no idea that it was a printer, nor will, I imagine, the majority of readers. However, I'm not going to insist on a change here. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could do with some dates in the first paragraph of history.
Added.
  • The first four sentences of “Tom Swift Terminal” are cited to Levy p 148, which is viewable for me online via the link. I cannot find any of the information cited.
I can see all of this information in Google Books between page 145 and 148. Can you see this section? I was using a PDF version lacking page numbers (one of the major reasons I believe ebooks are a plague) so I had to do my best by cross-referencing.
  • OK, this is a big problem. The reference says p 148, now you are saying it's somewhere between p 145 and 148. This fails WP:V. I'm inclined to agree with you about ebooks, but that doesn't mean that WP:V doesn't apply. I'm not sure what you were using, but even some kind of ebook reference such as Kindle use would be preferable to giving what is effectively the wrong page number. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers appear to all be correct.
  • ”The replacement of the Model 33 with a Hazeltine glass terminal helped, but it required constant repairs”: The reference checks out about requiring constant repairs, but the reasons given in the source for switching are not related to costs but to unreliability.
Yes. Sorry, have to go, back later. Maury Markowitz (talk)
  • I notice this has not been changed yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Since 1973, Felsenstein had been looking for ways to lower the cost”: I’m probably overlooking it, so could someone show me where the source supports this?
  • Just flagging this in case you missed it. 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This is mentioned again below.
  • Reference 6 covers most of the second paragraph of “Tom Swift Terminal”. But…
  • Article: “When he saw Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter on the cover of the September 1973 Popular Electronics…”
  • Source: Yes, he saw the January 1975 issue cited, but here it says that the picture was a design by Ed Roberts, not Don Lancaster.
I cannot find any statement like that. Ed Roberts was the designer of the Altair, two years later. This is definitely not in ref 6, where are you seeing this?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics is about Ed Roberts; looking again, I see that it was actually from 1975 not 1973. However, it did not support the text. The new reference supports the text given. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: “a 300 bits per second acoustic coupler that was 1⁄3 the cost of commercial models”
  • I can’t find this in the source cited.
Which part, the 300 or the cost? I think you mean the cost, and that's in there, "And it finally went on the market in ’76 or ’77, and it knocked modem prices down from $350 to $100."
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, which does not contain any of this information. The new version is referenced to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals this is on p. 17. It should not be the job of a reviewer to correct citations. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: “he began adapting its circuitry as the basis for a design he called the Tom Swift Terminal”
  • In the pages cited, he saw the magazine cover after he had come up with his ideas.
I am reading a paragraph that starts "In 1973, in September '73, the TV typewriter burst upon the scene" and ends "And that was the basics of the design of the Tom Swift terminal,". Can you be more specific - is the problem in the text in the Sol article or the source?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics comes after he had come up with his ideas. The current version is referenced to to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals that it is on p. 14.
  • Article: “The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory.”
  • I can’t find this in the source given.
Which part, the easily repaired or the cost effective? The later is mentioned in the paragraph just above the one talking about the TST, he's talking about how much it cost to maintain the Hazeltine and that it wasn't worth it.
  • I cannot find that on the cited page. Possibly I'm not familiar enough with the topic to understand the reference, so could you please quote directly the text that supports our article? Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"when I heard about this I said, "This maintenance contract isn't worth what we are paying.""
  • This does not support anything about repairing, or any comparison to the Pennywhistle, nor any indication that it would be more effective for users rather than the people running it. Also, this is not in the Levy reference to which the sentence is currently cited, but to Felsenstein 2008. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search of the book for “Don Lancaster” gives a reference to him designing a “TV typewriter” on page 155, but that page does not support any of the other information cited to reference 6.
Ahhh, there is a single missing ref in the middle. Added.

I'm stopping there for now. Assuming this can be clarified, I will strike my oppose. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a superb review BTW. In-depth and from someone "outside the box". It's too easy to write things based on prior knowledge, you don't even see you're doing it, so this sort of second-glance is invaluable for future readers. Example: I recently referred to Andre Norton as "that guy". Please keep going! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm still finding errors in the citations, as noted above. I notice that the nominator has rejigged the references since my review, hence my link to the version I reviewed which had the failed verifications. Also, we may be introducing new errors by adding citations mid-sentence. For example, we now have a reference in the middle of the first paragraph of Tom Swift Terminal to The Economics of Computers. As written, this reference is supporting the information about Felsenstein at the start of the paragraph, the Teletype Model 33, and the cost of the system in 1973. This is obviously not the case, so this information needs to correct reference. I'm afraid I'm unconvinced that this meets

Criterion 1c as I am finding so many problems with verification. It may only be a page or two out, but this is not acceptable at FA level. And the version that I first reviewed had references that simply did not support the text. Also, to be blunt, an article should not be reaching FAC needing this kind of work doing. I am concerned at finding so many verification issues within just two paragraphs; I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I am worried that this is replicated throughout the article. I am afraid my oppose stands. I will not revisit unless I have some reassurance that the nominator and at least one other reviewer have checked the rest of the article for verification. Because, to be honest, finding even one more issue would leave me inclined to suggest that this should be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note the last part of 1c, "...are supported by inline citations where appropriate". We appear to have different definitions of appropriate, as the level of detail you are expressing, to me, borders on overkill, but I'm aware opinions differ on this. All of the items (save one) are in the references provided, so the question is whether 1c is violated by having generalist citations like the style I use? I guess we'll need another opinion on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference I looked over your last FA. It has dramatically more inlines than I have ever used, so that clarifies the level you are looking for. Seeing as the article is not at that level, perhaps we can put a pin in the cite issue for a moment... would you mind continuing looking over the content for additional notes on content and gr? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've never heard that argument before at FAC, and I think it's a long time since it would have been widely used in response to WP:V concerns. I've been around FAC a very long time now, and unless I've missed something enormous, every article has had this level of reference, and every source reviewer has required it. I may be very wrong, but if you raised this at WT:FAC, I think you'd be in a definite minority. However, we may possibly be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not requiring a cite at the end of every sentence. But, for example, those references which are to the wrong page (e.g. where we are referencing p 13 and the information is on p 17) are easily fixed by changing the citation to pp 13-17 where the information is on a range of pages. Also, there is nothing wrong with moving two or three citations to the end of a paragraph if they cover all the information in that paragraph. My only caveat would be that it should be easy for a reviewer (or anyone else) to find the facts from the text in a cited source; that is my primary concern here, that it is NOT easy to find. Regarding "put a pin in it", I'm afraid there is little point for me to review prose etc until the sourcing is sorted. I'm going to step back now and see what other reviewers think, but my oppose (which I've clarified is on 1c) stands for now. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But as my main purpose in FAC is to improve the article, are you sure I can't get you to continue reading it? I found your notes on prose useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that, until the sourcing is settled one way or the other, it's a shifting sands kind of situation. There's no point polishing prose if the actual content could be changed over sourcing. I've no objection to doing so at some point, but not before any sourcing issues are finalised. Sarastro (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose from Ealdgyth

  • Note f: "Here too the stories vary somewhat; Felsenstein's 2008 interviews state they went to the first meeting together, while his 1977 article states he did not attend until the second meeting in March. However, the first meeting of the club was in March," is cited to this Wired article. But noting in the Wired article supports the information it is cited to. There is no mention of Marsh or Felsenstein in the Wired article.
  • Note h: " In contrast, the Hazeltine 2000 terminal sold for $2,995, and the "low-cost" 1500 series, introduced in 1977, started at $1,125." is cited to this article. While it supports most of hte infromation, the "low-cost" bits are not supported in the article.
  • Sales section: "The Sol was initially offered in three versions. The base motherboard was offered as the Sol-PC, available as a kit for $575, or fully assembled and tested for $745. The Sol-10 added a case, keyboard and power supply, was $895 in kit form and $1,295 assembled. Finally the Sol-20 added a keyboard with numeric keypad, and a larger power supply to feed the five expansion slots and a fan to cool them, for $995 as a kit or $1,495 assembled. Advertising of the time referred to the Sol-20 as "The first complete small computer under $1,000"." is all cited to this ad from Processor Technology. Much of that information isn't supported by the ad, and the ad is a poor choice for a source, as it's not a independent source. The ad mentions nothing about the Sol-10 or the Sol-PC.
  • Tom Swift Terminal section: "Lee Felsenstein was one of the operators of Community Memory, the first public bulletin board system. Community Memory opened in 1973, running on a SDS 940 mainframe that was accessed through a Teletype Model 33, essentially a computer printer and keyboard, in a record store in Berkeley, California. The cost of running the system was untenable; the teletype normally cost $1,500 (their first example was donated from Tymeshare as junk), the modem another $300, and time on the SDS was expensive – in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour (equivalent to $96 in 2019)" is sourced to this page ... but the only thing that page supports is the "in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour" ... none of hte rest of it is supported by the source given.
  • Software section: "CONSOL provided a simple terminal emulator function, along with a small number of additional commands to load and run programs from tape using TLOAD. SOLOS added names to the files on the cassette, the TSAVE command for saving data to the tape into a named file, and TCAT to print out the details of a named program. TXEC loaded and executed a named program in one step. SOLED included block-mode editing, used on some mainframe systems, but it is not clear if this was actually available." is sourced to this webpage, which basically appears to be a personal website. I'm not seeing any sign that this guy is an expert, so what makes it a reliable source? And a good bit of this isn't actually supported by the webpage - "TLOAD" most of the commands for the SOLOS, and most of the information given about SOLED.
  • Frankly, having checked all the online sources, I'm afraid I must strongly oppose. The whole article needs a top to bottom source integrity check against the sources. Given the number of issues with the online sources, it is going to be a long tedious chore to check all the offline sources against the text in the article. It really needs to be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC, with someone who is capable of doing a very detailed check against the sources and who has access to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note I plan to claim WikiCup points for this FAC review) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

The spotchecks by Sarastro and Ealdgyth suggest this should be closed and improved on outside FAC; it might be good if one or both of them can be involved in some re-checks before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [40].

The Holocaust in Slovakia

Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
    • Fixed those, although I'm not too concerned about it either.
  • "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.
    • Reworded to get rid of them. (The sound actually from wikt:strana and very similar to English /s/).

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review! buidhe 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1938 deportations
  • No need to link "the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" (and as you've introduced the United Kingdom at the end of the previous para, you can shorten to UK). I tend only to link to non-existent states, so the links to Nazi Germany are good.
    • Fixed
  • "
    WP:SELFRED
    . If it only occurred in Slovakia then best not to link; if it was a policy in several states, then maybe a quick stub by way of explanation?
    • I redirected
      voluntary Aryanization
      to Aryanization, where it is discussed a little, and took out the link to the later section (see below)
Aryanization
  • In my notes for the 1938 deportations I initially wrote that "voluntary Aryanization" needs an explanation "to explain what sounds like, but probably wasn't, a benign process". The explanation in this makes it a lot more clear that the name was a euphemism and that the process wasn't benign. It does, however, read a little awkwardly to have the full explanation on the second mention, which is in a different section. Can we clarify at the first mention (in the 1938 deportations section) what "voluntary Aryanization" was, and then we can deal with its effects in this section?
    • Changed to "a precursor to the state-sponsored transfer of Jewish property (Aryanization)." I don't think we need to be explicit about the type of Aryanization.
  • Is there a reason you've capitalised "Slovak State", when that's not a proper name? Shouldn't it be "Slovak state" in the same way you refer to the "Czechoslovak state" or "Slovak government"?
    • It was (temporarily) the official name of the state; see
      First Slovak Republic#Name
      . All of (First) Slovak Republic/Slovak state/Slovak State are used in reliable sources, but I stuck with the last one because it is the most common in the sources that I was using.

Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Code
  • Full stop for the image caption as it's a full sentence. I'd also prefer to see a cite there (I'm not sure what the rules are on using citations for translations, but I think it would strengthen it against someone who may later query it
    • Per
      MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE
      , if there was a published translation, I would have cited it. The translation is my own work and verifiable to the headline on the image.
      • (See - I told you I didn't know what the rules are!) Given the guideline, that's OK then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "denounced non-Jews perceived as sympathetic to them as "white Jews", engaging in antisemitic demonstrations on a daily basis" This reads as if the so-called "white Jews" were the ones taking part in the antisemitic demonstrations – I think it needs a little tweak to clarify.
    • Reworded

More to come shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning
  • "In November 1941,[93]": I'm never a fan of citations immediately after just a few words. A citation should cover all the information in the text from the previous citation. In this case "November 1941" is meaningless without the text after the citation. Move it to the next one to cover both parts of information in two citations.
    • I realize that there are different opinions on this, but I tend to emphasize
      WP:text-source integrity
      in order to maximize verifiability. However, I did move the Hilberg citation to a later punctuation mark.
  • The 'Linda Reich' image caption needs a full stop.
    • Done
Opposition
  • "Acting on behalf of the Vatican[204]": ditto my comment on the November 1941 citation
    • See above. Paulovicova is the only source which states this explicitly, so I think it is helpful to keep that close to the information.

Done to the start of "Hiatus". More soon. This is well written and covers (from the point of someone with no detailed knowledge about the history) everything I would except to see in such an article. It's difficult to get through in places, but that's because the subject matter is appalling, not because of the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments...

Hiatus
  • Are there any further details of the attempt to bribe Himmler? I presume it didn't work as they "tried" to bribe him, but even a few words to say that it failed would stop me clicking on the link to look at another page.
    • Clarified
German invasion
  • "Nazi authorities were eager to murder Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland; Auschwitz would shut down its gas chambers in November 1944" The two halves of this sit a little uncomfortably next to each other, with the meaning not totally clear (partly because I don't think you've clarified anywhere that Auschwitz is in Poland). I think I know what you're getting at, but it could be rephrased a little better.
Legacy
  • "The neo-Nazi[394]" Ditto on my earlier comments about refs after a few words
    • Because the Kotleba party is strongly associated with its founder, Marian Kotleba, it's particularly important for BLP to have a strong and verifiable citation for any contentious claims, such as the party being Neo Nazi.

That's it from me. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Spot checks not done.
  • Impressive amount of research and source gathering here. All sources and citations are correctly formatted and in line with the MoS requirements and FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ealdgyth: because I think she is up on sources about the Holocaust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to try to get to this sometime this week... being on the road is a bit difficult on reviewing Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both: given the subject matter and possible foreign language sources, all I can realistically do is check the formatting and style, so if anyone else wants to look at any other aspect, please feel free: I'll consider it a great help - I certainly won't think my toes are being stepped on or anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance shows nothing that's screaming at me as far as unreliability. I own perhaps half the books cited, but they are at home and I am not. I'll do some spot checking when I get home in the next week or two, as well as a deeper dive into the various sources and reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon, though I must admit I waited until someone else had commented because it is a bit of a daunting subject that I don't feel qualified to be the first reviewer of. But it certainly shouldn't be archived due to inactivity. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a good deal of
    WP:duplicate links htorughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[41]
  • A bit unfortunate one photo is only an external link. Perhaps we could find out when the photographer, Bedrich Fred Vohryzek, died, to see if it might be public domain?
  • "Holokaust na Slovensku" I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't this refer to Slovenia?
    • It's the dative case of sk:Slovensko, "Slovakia". The names are very similar.
Oh, forgot to remove this point after I had looked it up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had adopted Hungarian language" Link this and other languages?
    • I don't have a preference, but as I recall the languages were unlinked by previous reviewers who felt they were common
  • "Territorial losses to Hungary in 1938 and 1939" Probably good to state who suffered the losses in the caption.
    • Done
  • "The dispute was submitted to arbitration in Vienna by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hungary was awarded much of southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938" Makes me wonder why Germany gave parts of Slovakia to Hungary, but later supported the Slovaks?
    • It's complicated and not a subject for this article; see First Vienna Award for more information.
  • "Between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated before 1940" But after when? "Before" seems pretty vague when no interval is mentioned. Also, did they move because of persecution?
    • Reason for the emigration is explained later on. I left the numbers in the background section for numbers purposes, and corrected the interval to 1938–1940 after checking the sources.
  • "Administrative regions of the Slovak State" You could state the interval in the caption, as is mention on the image itself.
    • Done
  • "Solution of the Jewish Question" Link something?
    • Redlinked since there's no article in any language.
  • "using antisemitic stereotypes" Link?
  • "to blame them for the Hungarian domination of Slovakia" What was the rationale behind this?
  • "because of Jews' alleged support for Hungary during the partition negotiations" I guess the above is related to this? Or was it more general than that?
    • As explained in the background section, many Slovak Jews spoke Hungarian and the national-conservatives suspected them of being pro-Hungarian as a result.
  • "were still permitted, and the Nazi German Party formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia" It is unclear from reading this article that those groups were formed by the local German minority, so you could state it here in parenthesis or similar for clarity?
    • Clarified—I hope
  • You are inconsistent in whether you link countries (I think all
    former countries
    should be linked in any case), and sometimes you link them at second rather than first mention.
    • I think I've now linked all the former countries on first mention.
  • "to "voluntary Aryanization"." Anything to link? I now see you link it further down, but links should be placed at first mention. Perhaps you could add a "main article" link under the section header there?
    • I linked the relevant section.
  • "through the Reich" Could be linked.
    • Reworded "through Nazi Germany"
  • "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." What time interval?
    • I think it's clear from the context that this refers to the time between the 1938 deportations and when it became impossible to leave. I considered making it explicit, but that seemed redundant. Also, the sources are a bit vague about exactly what interval they refer to.
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enriched by property stolen from Jews" Did they call it "stolen", though, and not "confiscate" or such? I realise it is effectively stealing, but the sentence is written as if reporting what they said themselves.
    • Changed to "confiscated", which better reflects the sources.
  • "acquired by Aryan-owned competitors" Were Slovaks considered "Aryan"? I thought it specifically excluded Slavs?
    • I removed "Aryan-owned" because it's not necessary in the sentence. (Nazi racial theories make no sense, but the Slovaks were German allies and therefore considered Aryan, more or less).
  • "Adolf Hitler (left) at a Wolf's Lair meeting" Links and date?
    • Done. Sadly there are no free images of the meeting discussed in text.
  • "Although the Ministry of Defense was pressured by the Ministry of the Interior to release the Jews for deportation in 1942, it refused" Why?
    • Added "possibly because the leadership wanted to avoid complicity in war crimes".
  • "The party's radical wing controlled the Hlinka Guard, whose leader, Alexander Mach, who was appointed interior minister in 1940 at German request" Is the "who" needed?
    • Removed
  • It seems a bit odd that the Holocaust memorial and Tiso's grave are presented side by side. But I guess it is necessary due to lack of space? Is the grave necessary?
    • The intention is to juxtapose different responses to the event within Slovak society.
  • "sealed within the framework of Operation Reinhard" Shouldn't such direct quotes be attributed in-text?
    • Done
  • "the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter" The global Catholic Church or just locally?
    • Locally, clarified
  • "and the anti-Zionism which had followed the 1967 Six-Day War intensified" was this related to anti-Semitism as such or more with official Soviet policies which favoured some of the Socialist anti-western Arab states that went to war with Israel? And how was it expressed?
    • Basically. See article for expansion, although I don't want to go into too much detail on this point.
  • "Situation during the first days of the Slovak National Uprising" Give dates in caption?
    • Source does not state exact dates, only that it was at the beginning of the uprising.
  • "Over 1,000 Jews were at Sereď by 11 September" I think you could give the year here. 1944 is only mentioned in the preceding section by this point, so it is uncertain the reader would be aware.
    • Done
  • "Alois Brunner took over" Present him?
    • done
  • You mention Gisi Fleischmann multiple times, I think it might be notable to mention she also died in Auschwitz herself?
    • Done
  • I wonder why this image[42] is kept both on Wikipedia and on Commons, unlike the other free images?
    • Actually, I just found out that this image is not PD in the US (although it is free in Slovakia and Germany. I started an import request for a series of similar images to dewiki and will delete once that's been completed. I've removed it from this article.
  • "In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces" Here at the end of the article is the first time you link the Axis forces, should be linked at first mention.
    • Done
  • "and about 1,000[329] or 2,000 Romani people were killed" Any article about this to link to?
    • Not really, it was a very minor part of the
      Romani genocide
      and there's more detail in this article than that one, so I don't see the purpose of a link.
  • The Summary section does not seem to really be a summary, as it introduces new information? Is there a more inclusive title that could be used? It seems to be more about how people reacted to what happened during the events? Or maybe the info could be spread out in other parts of the article?
  • "returned from concentration camps and Hungary and 10,000 Jews" In Hungary?
    • Refers to Jews from 1939 borders who fled to Hungary versus those who lived in the annexed areas. Clarified this.
  • "After the conquest of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic." Reads a bit awkwardly, as it may be unclear what "it" refers to. Maybe "after the Red Army's conquest of Slovakia in 1945, it became part of"?
    • Done
  • "(who had fled to Austria)" When?
    • Clarified
  • "A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews" I wonder if Slovak Jews shouldn't be linked earlier in the intro than the third paragraph?
    • done
  • "The Czechoslovak government, initially supportive of Zionism" Was that government dominated by Czechs?
    • Yes, but not exclusively and it governed Slovakia as well. This is a bit tangential so I'd rather not expand on it in this article.
  • "the ban was only removed after the 1989 Velvet Revolution" Not a big deal, but you don't use this name outside the intro, maybe best to be consistent.
    • Fixed this.
  • "The one-party" Only stated in intro.
    • Removed.

Thanks for your comments! buidhe 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I think it's a strong article, there wasn't much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

While I read, can I ask that you go through this article and put the refs in numerical order? There seems to be a lot that are highest number first. CassiantoTalk 21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ordering of refs is not part of the Featured Article criteria; moreover, it's a moving target because refs are always moving around. I agree that it looks slightly better when they are all in numerical order but not enough to spend time going through the article and fixing it. buidhe 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • What is the source for "File:Slovakia borderHungary.png"? "Own work" doesn't cut it any more than it would for text. Ultimately we need RSs to back what the map is saying - textual, maps or a mix. It may be that you need a separate cite for each of the five sections of the description.
  1. Reliable source for
    SME.sk
    (in Slovak). Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  2. This source should cover #2 (upn is the National Memory Institute (Slovakia))
  3. See Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (2016). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 190.
    ISBN 978-1-250-11475-4
    .     for #3
  4. Lemkin, Raphael (2005). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 130.
    ISBN 978-1-58477-576-8
    . for #4
  5. Rychlík, Jan (2017). "Slovakia (section: The Slovak Republic, 4th paragraph)". Joining Hitler's Crusade European Nations and the Invasion of the Soviet Union, 1941. Cambridge UP.
Excellent, now you need to cut and paste that to "Source" on File:Slovakia borderHungary.png.
  • "File:Slovak Republic 1939 45 Administrative Map.png": Ditto.
    • Third map on this portal, published by the Slovak Ministry of the Environment
Ditto.
Done for both

The source cited for "File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png" is the sort of thing needed.

  • A couple of images lack alt text.
    • Added

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Antisemitic graffiti in Bratislava, c. 1941.jpg" I am doubtful re its copyright status. Yes, there is freedom of panorama, but that means that the photographer has sole copyright. That means that if you, say, had taken the photograph, you could abrogate your rights, but what makes you think that this actual image is PD?
Très amusant. No, it's fine.
  • "File:Ľudové noviny 1941.jpg" Could you add a US PD tag?
    • Done

An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed everything. buidhe 20:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. That'll do fine.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron

I would like to add a couple of comments to the review, mostly on rather trivial issues. I wrote The Holocaust in Belgium and certainly defer to the author for having produced a much better article here!

My comments mostly relate to the lead - and I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I would make the following points:

  • The first paragraph of the lead should establish a very potted history of the subject's most important aspects - as a non-expert, I would suggest that this means (i) a two-sentence summary of the article, (ii) a mention about Slovakia's status during the war, viz being a German puppet state (iii) a mention of the number of Jews in Slovakia before the war and the numbers actually killed. I think it must also make a very cursory reference (and link) to The Holocaust which is after all the main topic.
  • I think the "Background" section is entirely absent from the lead at present - one or two sentences would be helpful.
  • It might be worth thinking whether the infobox really adds anything to the article.

I would also make some more general observations:

  • I would suggest breaking up "Background" into at least two sub-sections - perhaps entitled something like "early history" and "Slovak independence" - for users on mobile devices, it is rather too big at present. It might be worth thinking about this in the context of some of the other sections too.

Just a few comments, then. Overall I think the article is very close to FA status! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have addressed all your comments. Thank you! buidhe 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Note, I intend to claim Wikicup points for this review.
  • Hradská, Katarína (2016). "Dislokácie Židov z Bratislavy na jeseň 1941" [The Displacement of Jews from Bratislava in Autumn 1941] is lacking publisher information.
    • Added
  • "Their multilingualism (many Jews spoke German, French, or Yiddish)" is sourced to (among others) Bauer 2002 p. 172. I have the paperback edition, but I checked the pages around just in case. Page 172 (and surrounding) is discussing specific examples of Jews in Slovakia - and is borderline supporting the information - it's not really discussing "many Jews" and only mentions German and Hungarian. It says "The meetings must have been held in German, possibly Hungarian, because those were the languages of the Jewish intelligentsia - Slovak was the "dialect" spoken by the peasants." This isn't a great source - I can't access the other two sources, but give that there is three sources listed - this one isn't really a good use of the source.
    • There are several sources for this because each one discusses different languages—removed because this is a less important point. Hutzelmann source specifically discusses multilingualism and the implications of this in that Jews were not seen as Slovak enough.
  • "and Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 175 and Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596. I have both. The Bauer ref does not really support "Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." because it is discussing Gisi Fleishmann's brother being killed - one specific case isn't actually supporting this phrase. The Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596 only supports the attacks on the streets and looting - there is nothing on that page that says that Slovak Jews were killed in the streets.
    • Removed
  • "neither the Slovak authorities nor the Jews in Slovakia knew about the Final Solution." is sourced to Bauer 1994 (which I don't have) and Bauer 2002 p. 177. In this case, Bauer 2002 does support the information.
    • Bauer 1994 p. 67: "At this stage, it is unlikely that the Slovak officials knew of the fate that was awaiting the deportees." "After the war, the charge was made that the UZ knew the destination of the transports and did nothing to warn the Jewish public. (70) (discusses details of accusations) "The main point to remember, however, is that not even the Slovak leaders had any definite knowledge in March, April, or perhaps even May or June that all the Jews were indeed destined to die in Poland." (71). Removed citation to Bauer 2002.
  • "Members of the banned Zionist youth movements traveled around the country to warn Jews to hide or flee," is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 177. It mostly is supported, but it does not support the fact that the Zionist youth movements were banned.
    • Added reference to Bauer 1994, p. 70, which mentions "now-illegal Zionist youth movements"
  • "In mid-1941, the Germans demanded 20,000 men from Slovakia for forced labor.[137] Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks or care for the families of deported Jews.[137]" First, we don't need the duplicated identical references here. This is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 176-177. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the source - Bauer says "The Slovaks could not fulfill their commitment to the Germans to supply them with a large number of Slovak laborers for Germany, so they suggested deporting 20,000 Jews instead. It immediately became clear to them, however, that deporting productive workers would leave them burdened with their families, and they therefore asked the Germans to accept the families as well." This isn't supported by the source - the number demanded by the Germans is not given nor is it stated that Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks explicitly.
    • Supported by a different source:

      On May 29,1940, the Slovaks signed an agreement according to which theGermans were to receive 120,000 Slovak workers. On June 17, 1941, Moravek wrote a letter to Tuka in which he reported on a discussion he had had with Wisliceny and another German (Erich Gebert, an economic "expert"), saying that he had offered to the Germans Jews for labor in Poland or Germany.7 In the late summer of 1941 the Germans demanded 20,000Slovak workers, and Izidor Koso, head of Tiso's and Mach's chancelleries,again suggested that the Germans should take Jews instead (see below). In the autumn Tiso and Tuka went to see Hitler and Himmler, and Tuka asked Himmler for help in taking the Jews out of Slovakia. There, too, the Slovaks learned of German plans to "liberate" Europe from its Jews—exactly how they were not told, except that the Jews would somehow be "settled in the East."8 In October they agreed to have Jews with Slovak citizenship living in Germany deported along with German Jews "to the East."9In January 1942 the Slovaks said they could not send Slovak workers;10however, they again offered 20,000 Jewish workers—to Sager, the representative of the German Ministry of Labor.

      — Bauer 1994, p. 65
  • "Initially, most Jews believed that it was better to report for deportation rather than risk reprisals against their families." is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 177-178. But Bauer says "By and large, leaders and even youth groups and individuals in the communities refused to listen and decided that it was best to report to what they thought would be forced labor in order to avoid reprisals against their families." This is a bit more nuanced and I'm not sure it really supports "most Jews"
    • How about "many Jews"?
  • "Gisi Fleischmann, leader of the Working Group." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178. This one is mostly supported, although we're losing some of the nuance in Bauer - who states "According to all the documentation we have ... it is clear that Fleishchmann headed the Working Group."
    • Yes, this article is written in summary style and does not include all details. If you prefer I can remove the image, but a caption is not the place for that information.
  • "in 2002, he revised the figure to 7,000." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 178.
  • "Several thousand[j] Jews fled to Hungary, aided by Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Ungar and the youth movements, in early 1942." is also sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178 - although it specifically mentions that the youth groups were Zionist and that "fair numbers of ordinary, unorganized people" joined the organized groups.
    • The only youth movements mentioned in the article (earlier in the same paragraph) are Zionist. Yes, it's missing some detail, the article is written in summary style.
  • "She was deported to Auschwitz and murdered in October 1944." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 183, although Bauer states "No one knows how she was killed." so I think a better rendering would be "She was deported to Auschwitz in October 1944 and killed/murdered."
    • I just took this out because it overburdens the caption.
  • "Between 1,600[321] and 1,800[202][322] Jews were arrested, including most of the ÚŽ and Working Group leadership.[202][322][321]" First, footnote 202 is Bauer 2002 p. 183, which supports that the Working group was arrested, but does not mention 1800 anywhere, so the 202 on the 1800 number is wrong. I do not have access to the other sources used here.
    • Supported by the Fatran ref and also Fatran 1994, p. 192: "Some 1,800 Jews, including Working Group activists Oskar Neumann, Rabbi Frieder, Vojtech, Winterstein, and the treasurer, Wili Fiirst, were arrested". The Putík source is open-access.
  • "Polish Jews escape to Hungary via Slovakia. In late April 1944 two Auschwitz escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, reached Slovakia." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 229. There is nothing on that page about the escape of Polish Jews to Hungary through Slovakia. It does, however, support the next sentence.
    • Sorry, that part was supported by the citations on the numbers. Since it wasn't clear, I moved one of the refs to the end of the sentence.
  • "The Working Group sent a report to Hungary and Switzerland." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 237 and is supported, but it leaves out some nuance in Bauer, which notes that the information reached the Working Group in late April but did not reach Hungary and Switzerland until early June.
  • "On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Slovakia in 1938." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 226. It supports the date and the invasion, but not the phrase starting "including..."
    • Hmm, that's a tricky one. Saying that Hungary was invaded sort of implies that all of the areas which were part of Hungary at that time were included. I did find a more explicit source and added it to the article.
  • "About 1,600[305] to 2,000[306] Jews fought as partisans"... the 305 ref is to Bauer 2002 p. 139, which does support the information given.
    • Wrong source, this should be Kubatova. Fixed
  • "In June, Ludin reported that popular opinion in Slovakia had turned against the deportations because gentile Slovaks saw the Hlinka Guard's violence against Jews." is cited to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641 is supported by the source.
  • "German and Slovak propaganda blamed the Jews for the uprising," is also sourced to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641. which is subtly different - Rothkirchen says "The fate of the remaining Jews was sealed in September 1944 following suppression of hte Slovak National Uprising. Jews were accused of acting as ringleaders. The deportations were renewed and carried out with great efficiency by the German army, aided by storm troopers of the Hlinka Guard."
    • OK, I have added two sources that explicitly mention "propaganda".
  • "was justified by the popular belief (reinforced by HSĽS propaganda) that Jews had obtained their wealth by oppressing Slovaks.[63][64][65]" 64 is Tonsmeyer 2007 p. 81. (63 is Legge 2018 pp. 226-227 and 65 is Lônčíková 2017 p. 85)... which is kinda supported by Tonsmeyer's "This is all the more important as some peopel in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia still believe rather that it was the Jews who had "acquired national property in an illegal manner. Therefore, these people view the expropriation of the Jews in the 1940s as a harsh but not necessarily unjustified measure."
    • The most direct support for this is Loncikova: Propaganda used and misused many stereotypes including the above mentioned notions of poor Jewish immigrants arriving from Galicia and becoming rich inn-keepers shortly after their arrival, stereotypes of Jews who allegedly abused Slovaks for their own personal profit... state propaganda emphasized a pre-supposed right of Slovaks to confiscate all Jewish properties The background also references the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks, which has multiple sources that could be cited. Kubátová and Láníček 2018 discuss the Jew "as exploiter" on pp. 26, 32–3, and 43–4. As "stereotype" more closely matches the sources than does "popular view", I edited accordingly.
  • "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information.
    • Perhaps you have a different edition? I am citing the pdf version (via JSTOR) which includes the quote "In November 1938, a month into Slovakian autonomy, the government de-cided to deport poor Jews and Jews without Czechoslovakian citizenship twenty kilometers into territory ceded to Hungary as a reaction to the result of the First Vienna Arbitration.7 Altogether, approximately 7,500 Jews were forcibly transported from the country, including children, elderly, and pregnant women." on page 506. I'm happy to send you the pdf of this chapter if you like.
      • Reread what I wrote - "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the most part, Holocaust relativism in Slovakia manifests as attempts to deflect the blame for it onto Germans and Jews rather than outright denial." is also sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which somewhat supports it - "Although I would argue that Holocaust denial does not occupy an important place in Slovak postwar historiography, relativization, including deflecting political responsibility for the Holocaust on others - either Germans or Jews - is a widespread and dangerous issue." which doesn't really suppor the "for the most part... "
    • OK, reworded and added source.
  • "Jews fought as partisans, ten percent of the total insurgent force." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 516 which does support this information.
  • "Before 1939, Slovakia had never been an independent country." is sourced to Deák 2015 p. 31 which does support the information.
  • "with the proviso that their confiscated property be passed to Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 285 which does support the information.
  • "A letter sent 15 October 1941 indicates that plans were being made for the mass murder of Jews in the Lublin Reservation of the General Government to make room for deported Jews from Slovakia and Germany. It is possible that these plans contributed to the decision to build Sobibór extermination camp." is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 295, 428 - one quibble - the date of the letter is given on page 294. Also - pp. 294 and 295 do not tie this letter to the construction of Sobibor, and the content on p. 428 makes it clear that the possible connection to the construction of Sobibor is tied to an offer made on 20 October by Himmler to the Slovakian head of state: "There is also the offer that Himmler made to the Slovakian head of state on 20 October, to deport Slovakian Jews to a particularly remote area of the General Government, possibly as the basis for the construction of the second extermination camp at Sobibor." Longerich does NOT tie the letter of 15 October to Sobibor on any of these pages. While the sentence in our article says "these plans" ... it's still a bit of a leap, because the plans in the letter are not expressly tied to the plans of Himmler to the Slovakian head of state.
    • Removed.
  • "The original deportation plan, approved in February 1942, entailed the deportation of 7,000 women to Auschwitz and 13,000 men to Majdanek as forced laborers." is sourced to Longerich pp. 324-325, which does support the information.
  • "Transports went to Auschwitz after mid-June, where a minority of the victims were selected for labor and the remainder were killed in the gas chambers. This occurred for eight transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 326, which is supported by the source, but with a bit of nuance lost - Longerich says "By 21 October we are able to identify eight transports from Slovakia" ... which is historian speak for "we don't have all the records from Auschwitz so there might possibly be other transports" - Longerich sources this information to Czech's Kalendarium, which is reconstruction of the records, not a complete record of transports.
  • "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 58,000 Jews[188][182]" - where 182 is Longerich 2010 p. 326. (188 is Ward 2013 p. 235 which I do not have access to), but it does support the information.
  • "At the end of the deportations, between 18,000 and 25,000 Jews were still in Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 404, which supports the information.
  • "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had organized the deportation of Jews from France and Greece," is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 391, 395, 403 which supports that Brunner was involved with the deportations, but our article implies that he was the only one in charge, which is not really the case - Longerich mentions other Germans involved in the deportations. And Longerich always calls him part of the RSHA, not as an SS officer.
    • Removed reference to SS officer, although that is potentially supported by other sources. Changed to "participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece"
  • "and about 1,000[340] or ... Romani" 340 here is Longerich 2010 p. 419 which has a subtly different emphasis - "...possibly as many as 1,000 people"
    • Fixed
  • Given the above, there are some problems that have shown up. I don't think they are intentional or malicious, but they are enough that I feel the need to suggest that a thorough audit of the sourcing is done. And .. therein lies the problem - just the above took me most of the morning and its barely scratched the surface. Doing a source audit is exhausting and very demanding work and it isn't exactly rewarding. But we need to get the sourcing right on such an article - there should be no ability for anyone to point to errors in sourcing.
  • I hate to recommend withdrawing the nomination, but I do not think a thorough source review is best done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it. I think I've fixed all of the problems. It's worth mentioning that most of the sources that you checked are the ones which have been in the article longest and have the most opportunity for something to get changed along the way. buidhe 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is... finding this many problems in the ones I checked (and I listed every citation I checked - noting when they did support the information) ... means that there are likely other issues lurking. Just fixing what I've brought up isn't the solution - the whole article needs to be checked against the sources. One or two small errors within this many checks would be "eh, it happens"... this many means that there has been a lot of slippage of sources around ... not saying it's anyone's fault, but that everything needs checking before the source review can be considered passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • What venue do you suggest? The article has already been through GA review and A-class review. Peer review is dead. I could of course go back and double check all 400 citations myself, but that's not really a source review. buidhe 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ealdgyth: I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination, otherwise, let me know what you think would be a good next step for this article. Thanks. buidhe 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me answer on behalf of the coords: I think that given Ealdgyth's concerns and recommendation that all citations be checked, we do need to close this (and I'll treat it as a withdrawal) and work on that outside FAC. The page you've started seems a fair way to go about things but I'll leave to Ealdgyth to comment further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


Older nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2020 [43].

Wolf

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Tim riley

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are
    isomorphic
    , with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup:
  • "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
  • "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support. All points fixed. Article meet FA standards. Nice read. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [44])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?
Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is also characterised as greedy and dumb.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolf in this story is portrayed as an allegorical sexual predator – only in a few very early versions there are elements of a sexual predator. I'm not sure if this interpretation is generally accepted, and the sentence "is portrayed as an … predator" is imo wrong. I would be more prudent and use "antrophomized" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the most abundant carnivores, free-ranging dogs – this needs to be "the most abundant large carnivores", as there are smaller carnivores which are certainly more abundant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

Note Please see the reasons for a change of vote at the end of the source-check section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11
51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Many essential changes have been made. Not all, but enough to merit promotion. The ones remaining can be made after promotion; indeed I will be making some myself, or at least, discussing them with the nominator. If I have left any boldface "opposes" dangling, please disregard. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time for a proper review but will do one of the lead. Here are a few questions:

  • The wolf is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed features, particularly the ears and muzzle.
  • What other features are there in Canis species that can be assigned a degree of pointedness?
  • If there aren't or if there are, but not readily identified by a common reader, would it be simpler to say, "... by its less pointed ears and muzzle."
  • The wolf is nonetheless closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.
  • Is there a reason that the (presumably) post-Crick-and-Watson expression "closely related enough" is preferred to the more common "related closely enough?"
  • The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur.
  • And the summer coat?
  • What is bushy other than the tail?
  • Would it be better to say, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier? That way you get around having to say anything about the summer coat.
  • "although" is not needed with "predominantly."
  • Gray mottled with what? Predominantly brown?
  • This is probably obivous, but for rank beginners like me, it may help if you tell us, "recognized by whom."
  • My error. It was late at night. My tired eyes did not see the Wikilink. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be clearer to say, "Of all members of the genus Canis, the wolf is most specialized for cooperative game hunting; this is demonstrated by ..."

More coming soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of the things that you asked but I will not be doing anymore, sorry. This article has had a copyedit pre-FAC and during this review has had four text reviews. At this point, reviewing wording is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes in the first few sentences. As for your refusal to make other changes, neither copy editors nor FAC reviewers typically review for coherence in relation to the sources. The sentence, "The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur," for example, as you must know, has been in the article for years, taken from the IUCN status survey (2004), p. 124, which says, " General appearance and proportions are not unlike a large German shepherd dog except legs longer, feet larger, ears shorter, eyes slanted, tail curled, and winter fur longer and bushier, and with chin tufts in winter. Fur is thick and usually mottled grey, but can vary from nearly pure white, red, or brown to black." When you say, "Winter fur is bushy," it is a statement of contrast. That is why I asked about the summer coat and suggested, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier." I could see incoherence, but at that point did not know the source. Now that I know, I can see that the sentence is not faithful to the source it is taken from. Why don't you paraphrase the IUCN description in some loose manner? I am trying to help you. :) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. Who recognizes the 38 subspecies is in the body. I was already told to remove Mammal Species of the World from the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I realized that. Please see my scratched bit above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now carefully read the lead and see no further issues. I have skimmed the rest of the article. It meets all the FA criteria. I'm delighted to see a vital article, the kind whose absence I typically bemoan. My only regret is that (for some reason) I did not see this FAC submission earlier. I'm happy to support this article for promotion to an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Unless I missed something, I think we're still waiting for source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I reached out to a few people. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axl? Casliber? Nikkimaria?? Ian Rose has stated on the FAC talk page that I just need a source review for reliability and formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my note about about the IUCN source paraphrase. I don't have time to do a proper source review, but will make sure that the lead is reliably based on sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not cited for fur color. A different source is used in the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

I have now done a source check of the rest of the lead by comparing it with this version of May 2019 (in which the sentences were cited). I believe this is enough, as many sentences in the lead have not changed substantially since. The sentences are reliably sourced. I have also done spot checks for a dozen sentences in the rest of the article. I'm happy to report the sources are reliable and have been paraphrased faithfully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95 has also looked at source formatting before the FAC submission. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied a bit of the formatting just now. Source 122 (as of this writing) had no page number. It might exist in the page history; sometimes these things are inadvertently deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks F&F. I hope you understand my pedantry but I need to confirm whether the source reliability check was for the references in general (per our usual source reviews for reliability and formatting) or just for those used in the citations that were spotchecked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ian Rose: No probs at all. The check involved checking every sentence in the lead (by going back in the article's history to the time when the sentences had citations and then checking the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the paraphrasing) and spot-checking nearly a dozen citations for the same in the later sections. If you tell me how the usual source review is done, I'm happy to do that. (Does it involve using the citation bot?") I don't know what checking the format involves. I did notice that some citations are in Harv/Sfn format and others in "Citation/Cite-book-etc" format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "harv vs citation" difference is because some books are being used extensively throughout and others are used for only a specific page or page range. I have done this in my other FACs with no problem (see pinniped and bat for examples). LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Totally understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: @Johnbod: Ian hasn't answered. What are the usual source reviews for reliability and formatting? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like what you did was what we refer to as a spotcheck. See first para here: User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates#Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Will attend tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat tricky for me to check the sourcing, because many references are books to which I don't have access. The reference "Larson" does support the statement at the end of "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Freedman and fan all support the article's text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but Fowler already did a spotcheck. We just need checking for formatting and reliability. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've had my coffee. Will attend, with industry and application today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by F&f continued

There are a total of 314 citations to 205 sources-pages.
  • There are eight books for which the "Sfn" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have ISBN information and have been published by reliable publishers:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 163 times.
  • The two most cited books are:
  • Mech & Biotani, cited 64 times, and Heptner & Naumov, cited 39 times
  • In a Reference section of 314 citations, neither of these two sources constitutes an instance of over-reliance.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 34 other books for which the "cite book" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have been published by reliable publishers, have ISBN information, and have been cited no more than a few times:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 54 times.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • Except in instances mentioned below, all articles have been published in reputable journals, have the usual format of volume, issue, page numbers, and DOI information (other than old articles, field reports):
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 16 web sites for which the "cite web" format has been employed.
  • Except in instances listed below, all web sites are live, reliable, and their citations have access dates.
  • Exceptions:

Please fix the last two LittleJerry. This completes my source review, Ian. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will redo the spot checks, as I'm seeing issues in the Etymology section. Should be done later today. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Etymology section, there are no issues. The article has already has spotchecks from you and Axl. It doesn't need anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note from F&f

WP:DUE
. Greater weight is assigned to North American sources and interpretations, and a more generally to Euro-American ones in each of these sections. Here are but three examples:

Etymology. The source says this; the page says this What the Saxon clans called themselves is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "wolf." But it was the second paragraph that began to bother me. It had colloquial names in (historical) north America. I wondered where the other names were, that the complete etymology above would posit existing in a large swathe of Indo-European-speaking belt in Europe and Asia, not to mention in other linguistic cultures.
Status and Conservation. I noticed that the population of only the Himalayan wolf was mentioned in India. A WP page listing various national populations was linked, but it is sourced to: Mech, L. David; Boitani, Luigi (2010), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, University of Chicago Press, pp. 323–,
ISBN 978-0-226-51698-1
, Note: This information was obtained by assembling data from available bibliographic sources and the informed and subjective estimates provided by the experts of the IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (Boitani 2000). Except for a few local situations that are well known, most of the numerical estimates should be considered no more than indicative of the general status of the populations. There are no recent reliable estimates for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. At this point, I did become concerned but thought I/LJ can fix this—it is a matter of finding an updated source. So, I moved on to the next section:
Relationship with human section. The wolf is a creature of many cultures. I can't speak for all cultures, but I am conversant with South Asian culture, having edited SA-related WP articles for the greater part of 13 years. The wolf has been a part of Indian culture going back its (and humanities) earliest extant texts in Indo-European languages, the Rigveda. There is a goddess Sarama; the wolf makes appearances in the Ramayana and Mahabharata; it is a part of the ancient Jataka tales (see here); of records of various political dispensations, e.g. 100,000 were killed in the 19th-century before Kipling wrote about the Law of the Jungle ("... the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack"). Even today, daily in India, the wolf makes news. Here is just one example from one newspaper, The Hindu, from the last few days: Wolfing down watermelons. If you read the RWHC section, however, you would have little clue. This is when I began to have a sinking feeling about the article. And, mind you, South Asia is just one region. These sections, especially the last, need more work than can be done now. Ian, I would like to support this article's promotion, but am worried about these issues. Please tell me how I can help LJ. I know he has worked hard. I would support a provisional promotion subject to LJ fixing these issues during the next month. If that is not possible, sadly, I would have to urge the nominator to withdraw the article and resubmit in a month after he has fixed these issues—which I would really hate to do. Sorry, I tried, made a big effort to make it happen. My respect for LittleJerry has not diminished one whit. This is a complex topic and it needs an enormous amount of work. I will shortly change my support above to Support promotion with a proviso, or withdrawal without prejudice I don't know if it is allowed but this is my considered view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other issues. There are 17 pictures of wolves from Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia). There are 4 from Asia. Yet Asia has more wolves according to the International Wolf Cener than Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia) put together. The contiguous states of the US have 5,500 wolves; China has 6,000 wolves, India has 4,400 to 7,100 wolves. There are 5 wolves shown from the lower 48 states, 1 from India, none from China. This is not looking promising in terms of being representative in other aspects as well. It may be that none are available demonstrating some aspect (diet, behavior), but then they should be compensated somewhat in other aspects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the necessary changes. Given this is English Wikipedia, I'm going to look at English-speaking sources. North American and European wolves are also more well-studied than wolves from other parts, The main bibliography is sourced to the top books on wolves and what they cover is reflected in the article. I noted that the PIE may be the root word also for "lupus" and did not mention the others because "lupus" is the species scientific name. There are also way more wiki images of wolves in NA and Europe compared to India and China. And I can't reference wolves in other cultures if I can't find reliable sources. I tried to find more sources on the wolf in Indian mythology but the they were either low quality or I can't have access to them to verify their accuracy (I looked at the culture section of the Indian wolf article) However, these sections now cover Europe, NA, India, Central Asia and East Asia. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help you. Kipling's doggerel references the Wolf as an essential part of the Jungle, its law, about which he wrote his books; although I've known it by heart for years, I don't think it is clever. The wolf appears as Akela in the frontispiece of the Jungle books, drawn by John Lockwood Kipling. There is Mowgli, himself, the wolf-boy. Kipling would not have been making wolves such an integral part of the Jungle Books if they weren't an integral part of the culture about which he was writing. The wolf is referenced in 21st-century scholarly references on the the Rigveda, among the oldest Indo-European texts; in the Mahabharata; in the Ramayana; in the Indian Buddhist Jataka tales in Mughal art or literature You are not helping your case when you say, "The most well-studied cultures (Greeks, Romans, Norse, Navajo)" I have made an inordinate effort doing your source review; I did so because I wanted to see it promoted, to give proof that the sourcing was water tight. Why would I now have reservations about the ideology of this article if didn't think they were serious, not amenable to quick bandaid fixes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I have suggested a provisional promotion subject to your resolving these issues over the next month. It will take that much time. I don't want to see a vital article come this far and not make it. I understand your frustration. Again, it needs your commitment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like more opinions on this. FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Johnbod, Sainsf, Axl? Their are a billion things that reference the wolf. I checked the links you give and none of them are helpful. The first book on "Mughal art/literature" merely references "Who wanted to be struck down by a lion's paw, to be torn by a wolf's fangs?" You can't expect me to think that is significant enough to put in the article. The first book for "Mahabharata" states "In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger". Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like "the wolf is referenced in text x". I already put more stuff on the wolf in East Asian and Indian culture to balance things out and a reference to the Jataka tales. I even add more stuff on Indian wolves in the "attacks" and "hunting" subsections and the population of wolves in India. What more do you want? We already have an article on the Indian wolf were the culture section can be expanded. We also have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" article forks. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't know how to engage you, when you blank out portions of your statements above, after I have very specifically replied to them. See here. The various book links are not meant to be examples of usage of the word "wolf" in Sanskrit literate, but a pointer to the wealth of references that underlie the importance of the animal in the culture. The specific examples in the Mahabharata for example are the name "wolf-belly" for one of the protagonists, Bhima, see here, from an old reference Again, the issues are deeper than can be figured out by your nickel and diming the links I'm giving you as pointers to just one kind of Asian literature, in this instance one that predates the Latin, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it is not "India" that I want in there; India came to mind because I know something about South Asian culture. There is a whole swath of Asia, the stomping ground both of the wolf and and of Indo-European languages, that is underrepresented. Other non-IE cultures are probably also under-represented. I already mentioned this: there are more wolves in Asia (including Russia) than there are in the US, Canada, and Europe. (The demography of the page is all wrong, by the author's own acknowledgement.) Reading this page one could easily come away thinking that the wolf is primarily a north American mammal, and the few that are not in north America are in Europe. Look, I want to see this article as an FA, but I don't want to see it as a biased FA, because those are not easily fixed. I am offering you an option: give us some committment that you will spend some serious time fixing these issues in the month after promotion. The others you have pinged can be a part of this enterprise as well. The problem is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mythology/Folklore" and "Fable/Literature" subsections now contain references to North America, Europe, Russia, Central Asia, India and East Asia. That is a wide enough net. Not everything can make it into the article. That's why we have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" fork. Nothing about the population of wolves in an area tells us about what is significant. The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves. The conservation of wolves in Yellowstone is more studied and talked about than most other places. There is more to talk about with wolves in the lower 48 US, where wolves have been exterminated and brought back and have expanded, than Russia. which has had consistently large population throughout history that has maintained its historical range. LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves." According to whom? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for conservation of reintroduced species, such as in the US, it too can go into spinoff articles such as you are advocating for folklore.
Rewilding (conservation biology), for example. There is no reason to make America's atoning for its past sins (still much in evidence around where I live; only coyotes are here not wolves) the blue eyed boy of wolf conservation around the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How about the fact that its easier to find discussions of the Capitoline Wolf in the wolf literature including books on wolves in culture like Lopez and Marvin, while I have to dig around to find things on the references you what me too. Sarama seems to be more associated with dogs than wolves. And again, there's more to talk about with regards to certain countries conservation then others, regardless of population size. Let's see what the others say. LittleJerry (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have done nothing thus far. As I probe the article more, I'm finding the bias to be more extensive and deeper than I had hitherto thought. You stated above, "The first book for 'Mahabharata' states 'In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger'. Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like 'the wolf is referenced in text x'?" But your text already has that: "The Bible contains 13 references to wolves, usually as metaphors for greed and destructiveness. In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have used wolves as illustrations of the dangers his followers, whom he represents as sheep, would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16 and Acts 20:29).[173]" " To this you have now added, as an afterthought: "Wolves are also mentioned in texts of the Far East. ..." In other words, you have listed references in the Bible, a much later text, written in the lands that constitute the fringes of the wolves range; yet you are objecting to the Rigveda composed 1500 BCE, containing content of earlier Indo-European mythology from Central Asia.
Again, India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia. Yet there are an order of magnitude (factor of ten) more references to Europe (in the pictures chosen, in the other mention) in the article. Again the wolf is as much an Asian animal as it is North American or European. Asia has had longstanding stable populatiosn that are larger than North America and Europe combined. Yet there is a picture of a wolf from Sweden (which shares a population of 400 with Norway) than one from China or India. It is not like those pictures are not available, and I can easily upload half a dozen more from Flickr creative commons. As I probe more, I see that the bias is relentless, throughout the article, in the topics chosen, in the photographs chosen. I have been again and again encouraging you to agree to make the non-trivian changes needed in the article with a firm promise. But nothing has changed. I am therefore changing my vote to an oppose, for I don't expect you will make the needed changes after if you are not even acknowledging them. I'm sorry no reasonable person can say I did not try to help you. Again, issues of bias are highly problematic, much more so than other violations of the FAC criteria. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was asked for opinion: I personally can't see any bias, Asia is represented to the right extent. You say "India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia", but that would mean that the section should be mostly about wolves from Russia, where most wolves life. No, this can't be a criterion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated before, there far are more image available of wolves in Europe and North America than in other places. The main picture was chosen because of the quality of the image and the fact that the Eurasian wolf is the nominate subspecies. The Bible is used because there is actually a tertiary source that describes what how the Bible portrays wolves. The idea that wolves should be represented by population in this article is absurd. Wolves from certain populations are studied more than those from others. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominotypical subspecies and type localities had to do with what Linnaeus and others studied first and where the specimen came from, in the wolf's instance,"European woods and cold.", which Oldfield Thomas more than a century later changed to "Sweden." just as he made the type locality of the tiger "Bengal," after Linnaeus's "Asia," or that of the leopard "Egypt," after Linnaeus's "India," or someone else pegged the lion on the Barbary coast because that is where Linnaeus received his specimen. But the picture on the
Mohenjodaro, the bigger, better preserved site, with more artifacts. The Indian wolf is also a Eurasian wolf, as is the Chinese. If they are not Eurasian, what are they Australian, Antarctican, African? The Bible stuff and most of the pictures for that matter have been in the Wolf article long before LittleJerry made an edit. See here. I would like to see that discussion about tertiary sources. In this article's first unsuccessful FAC the closing note specifically mentioned US bias. It was a problem then. I'm by far not the first one to note it. Please take this critique seriously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There is NO "bias". We used the images and the information that we have available. It doesn't matter what the population of wolves in Sweden are, the image perfectly illustrates the animal better than any other. The images of the other animals are there for the same reason. If you're going to bring up lion the cultural section for Africa is the smallest dispute that being were lions live and the "Conservation/Africa" section focuses on lions in critically endangered parts of Africa, not where they are most abundant. Thanks for proving my point when you stated "Asia has had longstanding stable population that are larger than North America and Europe combined." So that shows that there isn't much to write about in regards to conservation. You can't just declare that this FAC failed when the consensus is against you. You already showed that the article is has consistent citing and the sourcing is accurate. Everyone elese did the rest. Your complaints of "bias" are not agreed upon. Ian Rose, please weigh in. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source reviews check for the latter half of 1 (c). ("claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;") As reviewers, we discuss wording, grammar, and other prose issues and get 1 (a) out of the way. This I did in the lead. We assume good faith, but we still check 1d ( neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias (this is checked by comparing the paraphrasing with the original source etc); So the bias is not yours. I still assume that you have presented the views of your sources fairly. What we are not able to check for easily ais: the first half of 1 (c): "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;", i.e. DUE. and 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. So, the first half of 1 (c) and 1 (b) As reviewers we are under pressure to get on with it, especially in articles we think are on topics we like, which this one clearly is. So, I did support the article on the basis of 1 (a) of the lead, the second half of 1 (c) and 1 (d). That took quite a bit of time. As you must be aware, doing the kind of source review I did was not easy. In supporting the article I certainly did right by your effort. I haven't checked but it could be that there are more published sources on the US (minus Alaska) wolf, and more public domain pictures. But the US wolf had been decimated. It is a reintroduced species and it is small. Asia has 100,000 wolves; US has 4,500. Things like that take time to seep into the brain of a reviewer such as I. But when they do, I become aware that in supporting the article in its curren t version, I'm not doing right by the wolf. 1 (b) is takes time to seep in. It is an undervalued criterion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't treat Asia like one country or united political/economic/cultural unit like Europe. There's the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, India and China, ect. The Eurasian subsection covers Europe, post-Soviet states, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. That's comprehensive. The culture sections cover Europe, Native America, Russia, Middle East, Central, South and East Asia. That's comprehensive. If you want me to cut down on conservation in the lower 48, I will do that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that both the North American (occidentalis‎) and the Eurasian wolves have over 200 images at wikicommons. The Indian wolf just has 43. And why focus on populations of countries and not subspecies populatuons? The Eurasian wolf probably has a population greater than the Indian and Chinese wolf combined. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the number of 100,000 for Asian wolves appears to include all of Russia as well. But Russia is also part of Europe so some of those number can go there. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are frustrated with the slow pace of the FAC review. I am sorry I appeared toward the tail end of the usual life span at FAC; I wish I had seen the article earlier. But as I have explained, I have to do what I feel needs to be done. We are on the same side. The problem will not be resolved by quick fixes. Consider pictures, for example. Just in a few minutes I found or uploaded these pictures of the South Asian plains wolf (File:Indian wolf Gujarat grassland.jpg, File:Indian Wolf.jpg, File:Wolf Islamabad Pakistan.jpg, File:Indian Wolf Photo Dhaval Vargiya.jpg in art File:The Two Jungle Books 1895 Akela, the Lone Wolf.jpg) the Himalayan wolf (File:Himalayan wolves.jpg, File:Canis lupus himalayensis.JPG) which you do have in a distant view, the Chinese (File:Dalian Liaoning China Forest-Zoo-01.jpg), the Arabian wolf (File:Arabian wolf in Jordan.jpg, File:Arabian Wolf Al Ain Zoo 1 leicht verbessert.jpg) which you have in an unfocused one from Israel. Pictures are important because they correct the imagined phenotype of the species, which over a large part of its range, is a much leaner creature (even in the Himalayas) that it is in North America or Northern Europe. Fixing the problem will take time. The Russian wolf is mostly not in Europe, but in the Steppes and Siberia. Russia has 30K, Kazakhstan and some small Central Asian countries around it have 30K, ... I'm sorry I'm not here to endlessly argue with you especially when you seem not to have the interest of the wolf in mind, only that of your nomination. Sorry, this is as far as I go. If you agree to make a serious attempt to fix the issues during the next month I am happy to support the nomination, as I've already said. But I am not seeing any interest on your part. You've now added an unfocused picture from Mysore India, as if to say that is what I'm interested in seeing in the article. I'm tired. This is it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are there to illustrate the sections and hardly any of the ones you listed do. You have not been very helpful in exampling what you what. You're not clearly stating about how many images should be from each region and if they are useful in illustrating a section. That's the only image of an Indian wolf I could find that is useful (showing then in a pack). You also do not state how much of each culture should be talked about. Are you expecting two paragraphs on Asian wolves and one on European wolves? Why is the current cultural section not balanced enough. I can't do what you want if you're going to be vague. And again why are you focusing on country populations rather then say subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But fine, I'll want to see what Ian or another administrator says about this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a real problem. We naturally just have the best photos from regions where people are more likely to take good photos of wolves and upload them to Commons or Flickr under free licences. Of course, that means European and American wolves are overrepresented, but if we have to choose between a really good photo of an American wolf doing something, and a mediocre photo of, say, an Indian wolf doing the same, we should go with the best photo. There is a similar issue with sources; of course English language sources are more likely to focus on populations in the West. I could understand if this was about the human article, and Europeans were overrepresented, but in all seriousness, the wolves are not going to complain. And in any case, the article does show wolves from all over the world. As for having the best interest of the wolves in mind, I don't think anyone holds them more dearly here than William Harris, and he took part in the image selection. FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: Because the subspecies keep coalescing and sometimes splitting with increased genomics knowledge. It was Panthera leo leo (the African lion) and Panthera Leo persia (the Indian lion) a few years ago, now its all Panthera leo leo so should we only show one picture of the African lion, only talk about Masai myths because countries don't matter? A few years ago, it was Pathera tigris tigris the so called "nominotypical subspecies," ie the Bengal tiger, and Panthera tigris Corbetti (after Jim Corbett; the Andamese tiger), Panthera tigris amoyensis (Siberian), ... sumartrae, etc etc. Now it is only Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris sundsomethingorother (for the Sumatran), so should we only show a picture of the Indian tiger, and one of the Sumartran forget Siberian, Indo-Chinese, Cambodian, Thai, Burmese because they don't constitute a separate subspecies anymore. Countries do matter, their cultures matter. It was the 19th century culture of the US that made the wolf extinct in the US (except a few lucky ones in Minnesota), the bison nearly extinct, the beaver extinct on the east coast, the turkey (of all birds) extinct in Plymouth. It was the 20th century culture that has brought them back a little, not much, from the brink. I'm tired also of you guys pinging each other. You don't think I can ping people? I make a point, you change the argument; I make another point; you remove your previous argument, Now you've pinged someone who apparently chose the images, (when was that?) but didn't find the time to do this FAC review. ... seriously what is going on here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged them because they were involved in the article FAC and did reviews (see above). FunkMonk even did the Good Article review. William Harris wrote a lot of this article, not just choosing the pictures. I'm trying to get a consensus on whether this article needs the drastic changes you say they do. I not going to spend another month on this just because of one person with flawed arguments. No you can't ping anyone outside of this aside from an FAC administrator. My other arguments still stand and have not changed them I just thought of new ones too. I have accommodated you has much as I could, I added more Asian wolf images, I trimmed down the US 48 conservation paragraph, I add more Asian cultural references but that's not enough for you. You think coverage should be proportional to population regardless of what the actual sources cover and what information is available. (By the why the subspecies of tiger still exist, [45]) LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you attempting to counter the IUCN's 22 expert Cat specialist group's final report of late 2017, cited by 91 other scholarly articles in Google scholar with an article submitted to a journal in March 2018, and published online in July 2018, and in print in December, which has been cited by 8 others? You've made some changes to be sure, in the images, taken from the ones I hurriedly exhibited as a sample. The issues are much deeper; putting words in my mouth will not solve them. Anyway, I have other WP responsibilites. See my user page. Other FACs. This was not even on that list, when out of concern that this article was not moving, I put them on hold to do a source review. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

Hi, or woof if that is more apt. That was an interesting read, and mostly comprehensible to a lay reader like myself. But I do wonder about the idea of banded guard hairs. I had thought that banding patterns involved different colours of hair growing in different proportions on different parts of the body. Are you sure that there are individual hairs that have a banded colour? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Banding refers to Agouti (coloration) which I have now liked. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

FN172 (Shi, Li) shows a check ISBN message that you might investigate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [46].

Bank War

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose. I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:

  • The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.
I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me.
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?
I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
    • "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.
Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was exacerbated" - was worsened
I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rapid emission" - printing?
I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies
Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?
I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?
Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Overall," - unnecessary?
Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?
Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.
State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "laid taxes" - did what?
Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?
Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?
Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rendering Biddle" - giving?
I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "practically immediately" - almost immediately?
Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?
Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras
If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?
I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy
Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized
No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.
I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?
Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.
I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?
Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.
I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago
I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.
More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."
Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs
I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.
I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz, I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (content)

I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?
Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).
Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
  • Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.
Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.
I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt — when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)
Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).

Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.
To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also [47], you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) No, regardless of outcome, I'm done with the source review "spotchecks" and based on what I looked at, it's a "pass". Outriggr (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately we're once again sitting well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion. Normally we'd archive at this time but I'm holding tight for a few days since this is attempt three. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser brain. I think that the article is FA quality, and the majority of reviews that I've received during my three attempts have been supportive, but I am a little bit disappointed by the lack of interest. Thank you for your patience and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • A cartoon with illegible writing is not suitable for the lead image.
I'll try to find a better one, but I'm not sure I can. The cartoon shows Jackson fighting Biddle, the essence of the Bank War, and I'm not sure that I can find an image that encapsulates the Bank War so well. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The next best thing that I could find also had text which was mostly illegible. I'm afraid we'll have to continue with this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The columns of lead figures in the infobox should be headed for and against the bank.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements of the arguments for and against the bank is the second paragraph is biased. Arguments for are stated as facts, criticisms as "According to them".
The fact that the Bank was a stabilizing force in the economy that regulated inflation is not contested by historians, even ones sympathetic to Jackson. See Remini 1981 p. 229, or note 67. However, I removed the word "helpful" prior to "fiscal services." Finally, Jacksonians criticized the Bank for corruption, and it is indeed well-documented that it was corrupt. I added this to the lead. The other allegations against the Bank are still controversial with no consensus from historians, and therefore cannot be treated by us as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Bank's public–private organization". A sentence describing the bsnk's organization in the first paragraph would be helpful.
I added an explanation to the beginning of the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "financial assistance to Clay". You should spell out that Clay was the National Republican presidential candidate.
Added that he was running for president earlier in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constructionists" What does this mean? It needs a link.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would benefit a small few" "small" is redundant.
Replaced "small" with "group." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "big mercantilists". What does this mean? It needs a link.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The practical arguments in favor of reviving a national system of finance". This sounds POV. I would delete "The practical"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monroe hoped" This is the first mention of his name. Below you have "Secretary of State James Monroe". they should be swapped.
Replaced Monroe with "It was hoped." At this point, Monroe wasn't president yet. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monroe informed Madison". You should say President Madison for clarity.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The federal government purchased a fifth of the Bank's stock". So B.U.S. was 80% owned by private shareholders. You should spell this out.
It isn't spelled out in the source, so I'm afraid I can't do that. It should be clear from the information given. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B.U.S. notes were receivable for federal bonds." What does this mean?
A person could take a note in exchange for a federal bond. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Panic was caused by the rapid resurgence of the European economy" This seems a non-sequitur as countries are usually benefited by improvements in the world economy.
This created more economic competition. America wasn't the only market anymore. I'll try to see what I can add here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added that improved European agriculture caused the prices of American goods to decrease. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He eventually began to call in loans, but nonetheless was removed by the Bank's directors". Why "nonetheless"? It sounds like a reasonable action.
It may have been, but it was too late. The panic had already happened and Jones was blamed for it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kentucky Bank came in debt to the National Bank" "became in debt"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a man of the pen-quick, graceful, fluent". I do not understand dashes but this seems like the wrong one. It seems to say that he was a man of the pen-quick.
Added longer dash. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would choose among the top three vote-getters". This is wrong. It was the top three in the electoral college.
I meant in terms of electoral votes. But to make it clear, I changed it to "top three vote-getters in the Electoral College." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jacksonian coalition dealt with a fundamental incompatibility between its hard money and paper money factions". This does not sound quite right. Maybe "had to deal with".
Replaced with "Had to contend with." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he still maintained doubts as to the Bank's constitutionality" I may have missed it, but I am not clear why the Bank's constitutionality was questioned.
I couldn't find where Jackson had expressed his views on the Bank's constitutionality prior to this. Therefore, I replaced "still maintained" with "had." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to cut down on the size of the lead a little bit, even while adding some material that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dudley Miles. Thank you for your review. I have implemented several of your suggested changes already, but am a bit busy and will need a little bit more time to get to all that you have suggested so far. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I have addressed all of your concerns so far. Thank you for your review and your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dudley Miles. Anything else? Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to come back ot it in the next day or two, but the background (sections 1 and 2, not the lead) still seems to me too long. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Bank's reputation in the public eye recovered a bit" This is too colloquial. I suggest "partially recovered".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To John McLean, who had urged caution in light of allegations of the Bank interfering on behalf of Adams in Kentucky, he wrote" This should be dated. The timescale of this paragraph is unclear, as it seems to imply a gradual build up of distrust towards the bank over Jackson's first term, but in the next paragraph it appears to be almost immediate.
I dated McLean's letter. Meacham doesn't give a date for Biddle's response, and I don't own a harcopy and so I can't look in the index. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attendees of one meeting in Richmond" What meeting? This is far too vague.
Sentence removed. I looked at the source again but the source is fairly vague. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue" This is POV and should be attributed as "According to..."
Changed to "Many historians agree" and cited to five different historians all arguing that the claim was untrue. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson’s official cabinet members were opposed to an overt attack on the Bank." What does "official" mean here? Were there unofficical cabinet members who took a different view? I see that you explain this below but I do not think you need the word "official" at this point.
I removed it and also moved the discussion of the Kitchen Cabinet up. The reader should understand why no clear policy emerged from the Jackson administration in 1830 and 1831 as it is reading about what happened during those years, not after. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " According to Benton, it was "enough to excite uneasiness but not enough to pass the resolution"." What does "it" refer to here?
Changed it to "the vote tally." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their presence created the appearance of balance, open-mindedness, and compromise, in spite of the fact that the rest of the official cabinet members were anti-Bank." This is an example of what I see as the main problem with the article, bias in favour of the BUS. The sentence is POV as it implies that the appointments were designed to give a false impression of balance, and is thus unattributed editorialising.
Yes, absolutely. Left over from an old editor to the article and unfortunately not removed. The sentence is now gone. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter" "strong" is an odd word here. Maybe "substantial".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the liquidation of the debt, future revenues could be applied to funding the military." What does this mean - that all tax receipts would be spent on the military?
No, rather military funding would be increased. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were wary of making ultimatums" I think "were wary of issuing ultimatums" would be better.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James K. Polk" Maybe "future president James K. Polk"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These delaying tactics could not be blocked immediately" I had to read this several times to work out that you mean (I assume) that bank supporters were forced to accept an enquiry.
Replaced immediately with indefinitely, which appears to have been the intended word. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators." Why is this relevant at this point when you are saying that legislators went along with anti-bank forces?
The point is that the public would have grown suspicious about why congressmen were reluctant to investigate the Bank. It turns out, they had good reasons for not wanting to but eventually went along with it for fear of public pressure. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the report was filled with innuendo and largely unproven allegations" This is more POV which should be attributed to the writer who makes that judgment.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported his decision" Presumably supported his decision to veto, but you should say so.
Added "to veto." Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most "popular and effective documents in American political history"" Yet again, should be attributed.
I actually think that this is okay. It's in quotes and followed immediately by a citation, which makes it clear enough in my opinion that it comes from a particular person. If it's in quotes, it isn't a judgment made by me or any other editor to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ignoring the Second Bank of the United States’ value in stabilizing the country’s finances" More POV
Replaced with "Jackson gave no credit to the Bank for stabilizing the country's finances..." This sounds more neutral to me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a brilliant political manifesto" Needs attribution.
I'm going to say the same thing here as I did two points above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to finish my review and oppose at this point. This is an interesting article, but it is not written from a neutral viewpoint. It seems to me to be based largely on writers who are hostile to Jackson's views on economics, and whose comments are too often quoted without attribution as facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dudley Miles. I'm going to go through and address your comments, but first I want to point out a few things. Firstly, I do not think it is true that the article is based off of writers who are largely hostile to Jackson's views. In fact, it's the opposite. Remini is moderately pro-Jackson, and Schlesinger and Baptist heavily so. These authors are cited widely throughout the text. Authors Hofstadter and Howe, who are also widely cited, aren't pro-Jackson, but they do criticize Biddle for his obstinancy and using the Bank for corrupt purposes. Hammond is the only author cited here whom I know to be decidely pro-Biddle and anti-Jackson. Anyhow, I am happy to address your comments, including the ones alleging POV, and I intend to do so over the next few days. I think that it would have been more helpful if you had waited to see how I would respond to your concerns and only opposed if I had not agreed to make changes. I think that I might be able to persuade you to change your vote, but I ask for time to respond to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to look again once you have made the changes, but I would ask you to go through the article and look at all the places - not only the ones I have specifically commented on - where you have made a judgment without attributing it to a named author. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. There was one editor who worked on the article before I arrived and whose views seemed to be somewhat hostile towards Jackson. Some of the sentences that you singled out were written by him, and I simply didn't change them. At one point, someone claiming to be a professional historian, actually levelled charges that the article was biased in favor of Jackson. He made a lot of edits to the article, some good, some not so good, and this also accounts for some of the problems. It leaves me in a difficult spot because, while this may surprise you, I actually favor Jackson's views on economics. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not be a problem. Many of the comments on economics can be deleted and the rest attributed to named authors. It seems that you are left to clean up POV comments made by previous editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I have addressed your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • If you want a cartoon as a lead image, there are better pictures online. There should not be a copyright problem in view of their ages.
I don't see any better images. The Whig cartoon of Jackson depicted as a tyrant might theoretically work better, but it's already in the article inside of the section on the 1832 election, where it belongs, and I am unsure about whether it would be best to use such an overtly partisan cartoon. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "owned excessively large amounts of material resources" What kind of material resources did the bank own?
Too vague. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections 1 to 3 on the background are almost 4000 words. This is far too long. The length is also offputting for reviewers and may be one reason for the difficulty in getting support for promotion. There are many excessive details, such as the number of candidates in the 1824 election. How much of the background sections are really needed to understand the background to the Bank War?
I understand your point, but I think that at the very least most of it is. It's important for the reader to be given a brief explanation of the history of banking in the United States before the Bank War, which happens to be rather complicated. However, I have decided to remove some background material. Please see the article's history. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panic of 1819. This should be linked.
It is linked in the first paragraph of the section "Panic of 1819." I removed the second mentioning of it because Jackson's 1828 campaign rarely addressed either the Panic of 1819 or the Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson won decisive pluralities in both the Electoral College and the popular vote" I am not sure that 41% is a "decisive plurality" and its meaning will not be clear to many readers.
I don't think that the language is complex. His victory in the popular vote was decisive because the next closest finisher, Adams, ended more than 10% behind him, rounded up to 31%. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not win an electoral majority" "He did not win a majority in the Electoral College" would be clearer.
I'm not sure how. "Electoral" is a fairly common word. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the enormous expansion in the electorate a factor in Jackson's 1828 victory?
Yes. The role of "universal white male suffrage" is briefly mentioned in the fifth paragraph of "Rise and Jackson," and I added a little bit about its impact on Jackson's candidacy in the 1824 election in that part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavery. Your comments are unclear. Were supporters of the Bank opponents of slavery and Jacksonians supporters? What was Jackson's view?
This goes too far off topic. The point is that some supporters of slavery, fearing that the government would try to abolish slavery if it grew too powerful, saw the Bank as an agent increasing the power of the government. By expanding federal power, the Bank posed an indirect threat to slavery. However, the argument was not widely used and slavery ultimately played no real role in the Bank War. Perhaps it would be best to remove the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capitalizing on the fears building since the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise" Fears of what?
Changed to "fears of national discord." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banks have to lend more money than they take in. When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called "credit". This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy. Banks making too many loans would print an excess of paper money and deflate the currency. This would lead to lenders demanding that the banks take back their devalued paper in exchange for specie, as well as debtors trying to pay off loans with the same deflated currency, seriously disrupting the economy." This is one view of economics which is POV and beyond the scope of the article.
Pardon me, but I don't see how. It's a basic explanation of how banks work, and within the purview of this article because a particular reader might lack the information. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also signed a certificate with recommendations for president and cashier of the branch in Nashville." I am not sure what this means.
It seems fairly clear to me. Jackson signed recommendations for who would become president and cashier of the BUS branch in Nashville. What is confusing about this? Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state-charted banks" state-chartered?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B.U.S. branch offices in Louisville, Lexington, Portsmouth, Boston, and New Orleans, according to anti-Bank Jacksonians, had loaned more readily to customers who favored Adams, appointed a disproportionate share of Adams men to the Bank's board of directors, and contributed Bank funds directly to the Adams campaign." You imply here that branches appointed bank directors, and each branch could make its own political donations. Is this correct?
Yes. I tried to find another source that explicitly said this so that I could add it to the background information on the Bank, but as yet have been unable to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statement was politically potent" Which statement?
Adjusted to "Jackson's statements against the Bank were..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it went back up after the Senate report." What report?
The report is mentioned later, and I moved the part that you singled out back to after the Senate report is discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the Eaton affair, in 1831 Jackson replaced all of the original cabinet members but one.[" You say this above.
Changed to "After replacing most of his original cabinet members..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. This is a very long article to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, your latest comments have been addressed. I know that it is a long article and I am grateful for your assistance here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Sorry but this has been open more than six weeks and I see no prospect of it gaining consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'm going to archive it. It would be useful if Dudley could continue to work with the nominator on his remaining concerns before any future nomination. I'd also strongly recommend reconsidering the response to Maury's comments; if Maury still expresses concerns about the language in the article then I'd say the thing to do is, rather than take umbrage, request further examples and see if you can't work together on those items. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [48].

French battleship Gaulois

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnought battleships in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean. The article had a MilHist A-class review about six months ago and I've made some minor tweaks since then so I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual I'd like reviewers to focus on any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publisher for Caresse should be Conway Publishing, and both WorldCat and GBooks list a second editor
    • Title page just states "Conway" and lists Dent as assistant editor.
  • Taillemite: suggest translating edition statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not explicitly allowed by the template, but I added a less tidy workaround.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • Who made her a company or the Army itself? The lead doesn't say that.
    • The lede rarely names the builder, which was, in this case, a government-owned shipyard, the Arsenal de Brest.
  • She was commissioned (armement définitif) on 15 January 1899 I don't think the French term is necessary it's the first time I see this in a French battleship.
    • The French defined commissioned in a number of different ways. Armement définitif is the one that comes closest to the term in English.
  • Comte de Rochambeau in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. On 23 May D.C. is too common, we need to unlink it.
    • I think that you're overestimating the average reader's geographical knowledge.
  • She made another port visit to Lisbon, Portugal, before arriving Modern-day Portugal didn't exist the link need to be replaced with the Kingdom of Portugal.
  • ship made port visits in Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece I believe Athens needs to be unlinked.
  • survivors of the April 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Naples Link Naples and explain that it lays in South Italy.
    • Linked, but I think that a simple addition of "Italy" suffices.
  • Is it possible we can divide the refs in "References" into two lines? Because it doesn't look nice.
    • If you mean columns, done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: If you're up for it can you see if my changes are satisfactory?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR in July, so I don't have much to add here.

  • the aft draught conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • other than Bris, is there any other information available on her captains?
    • Not easily accessed as there's no index in Taillemite
  • there is a big gap between September 1906 and January 1909. Is there anything that can be added during that period? No reviews or notable port visits?
    • Nothing like that, but I've added a bit about her reassignments
  • "The squadron was transferred to the 2nd Squadron" do you mean the division was transferred? It seems weird that a squadron would be transferred to another squadron
    • Good catch, clarified
  • suggest "On 19 February, Gaulois supported Suffren as the latter ship bombarded..."
  • is there anything known about her wreck, is it diveable etc?
  • le.fantasque.free.fr doesn't look reliable to me to be an EL
    • No argument from me.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey

  • In the lead, the French for French Navy should be Marine Nationale, not Maritime Nationale
    • Merde! Je suis tres bête! ;-)
  • The ship accidentally rammed two other French warships early in her career, although neither was seriously damaged, nor was the ship herself - too many "ships" - change one of them to Gaulois.
    • Good idea.
  • Link Toulon in Construction and career
    • Linked in the lede
  • Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they again bombarded Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March.

Would rewrite as

"Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they resumed the bombardment of Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned again to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March."

    • Those were in two different paragraphs, but I've rewritten the second one to clarify that they returned to the Dardanelles for the 18 March bombardment.

That is all I could find that has not been mentioned by others. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you doing something outside your very appreciated gnoming! See if my changes are acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes are acceptable. Changed to support. Good job on another article. Llammakey (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "File:Symonds and Co Collection Q22279.jpg": the source link is dead.
    • Fixed.
  • There are five images on the right to one on the left. So maybe move "File:Cuirasse le Gaulois endommage aux Dardanelles en 1915.jpg" to the left; which may work better visually, as she is steaming left to right in this image.
    • MOS:IMAGELOCATION
      says that all images should be on the right with rare exceptions on the left.
I have always taken that to mean single images, as the next paragraph starts "Multiple images can be staggered right and left" and the one after "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the ping-pong effect somewhat argues against that. In this particular case that wouldn't be a factor, but in that picture Gaulois is down by the bow and is steaming from right to left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

Support. Seems the usual comprehensive job. Just a few comments:

  • "metric horsepower" Might be worth a link
  • "The sisters remained in Brest until they departed for Toulon on 18 January 1900." They never left the harbour from 30 September onwards? If they did, suggest adding "based" before "in Brest".
  • It does seem rather unlikely that they remained in port for that amount of time!
  • "Asiatic" some people don't like this word. Maybe Asian?
  • Any salvage attempts or other later material? Probably not but I thought I should ask.
  • None mentioned as the wreck's probably too deep to be economical.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [49].

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)[reply]

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • Link knots in the body.
    • Done
  • Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
    • Works for me
  • They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
    • Done
  • Metric tons vs tonnes.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
    • Fixed
  • Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
    • I'm not seeing the difference
  • For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
    • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
  • Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
    • Added
  • Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

  • "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
    • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
      • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
  • ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
    • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
    • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
      • Works for me.
  • (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
    • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
      • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

PS, on second thoughts:

    • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
      • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
    • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
      • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
    • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this review. Will return very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:, I expect this review will be closing fairly soon. Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Ian Rose: I apologize for being so tardy. I have now read, and reread, the article. I don't know too much about this topic, and I can't speak to issues such as sourcing, but the text reads very well. I am happy to support the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannone da is duplinked.
    • Fixed
  • You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about
WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I have a source that identifies the namesakes for three of the four. Where's the best place to link them? A new column in the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or when the ships are first mentioned each in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed the entry for the fourth ship, so all of them are now cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
    • Done
  • "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
    • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel
Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
    • It's already converted earlier
  • "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
    • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
  • The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
    • I found a better version of the image
  • "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
    • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
  • "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
    • Added
  • "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
  • Support - the names were a nice last touch, looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by L293D

These are really just nitpicks, but:

  • Do we have the range of the secondary 6 inch guns?
    • No, unfortunately - though in checking Friedman, he lists them as 50-caliber versions, not the 45s carried by the Andrea Dorias - @Sturmvogel 66:, can you check Ordovini to see if they do have the 45-cal. gun?
      • Well, this is annoying. They specifically state 45-caliber guns, but the shell weight, charge weight and muzzle velocity is a better match for the 50-caliber gun listed by Friedman. Neither source provides a range for the 50-caliber weapon, though. Since Friedman specifically attributes the 50-caliber gun to these ships, I'm going to go with that and presume that Ordovini made a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have the range of the torps?
    • No, in part because it doesn't seem that the Italians settled on a version for the ships. Friedman has data on Italian torpedoes, but without knowing the size (and specific model), there's no way to include specifics.
  • Do we know if the ship would have had torpedo bulges?
    • Nothing I've seen, no. But it's not likely; bulges were first used in Britain during World War I.
  • I'm all for more line drawings, but the right-elevation drawing in the infobox really contradicts the line drawing in the body. In the top image, the turrets are far apart, whereas in the lower image, the cannon barrels from the superfiring turrets overhang over the lower turrets. If one of the ships was launched, surely the had already decided where the circular gun barbettes would be. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox image is correct - and the caption for the other one notes that it incorporates incorrect aspects. This is fairly common with speculative drawings of ships that haven't been built yet, which is why I think it's useful to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Supporting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [50].

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
  • How many Proctors were involved?
  • For how long did she attend school?
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
  • How does the Saunders source meet
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    ?
  • How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
I'm looking into that now.
  • How many Proctors were involved?
Three - I've named them in the article now.
  • For how long did she attend school?
The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
Good call, I've reworded that sentence.
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
1780 - I've added that.
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.
  • How does the Saunders source meet
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    ?
As discussed above.
  • How are you ordering sources without authors?
I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?
I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, did you want to take another run through now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I don't have any further comments at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
  • "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".
SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.
So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.
Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.
  • We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.
Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded - is that better?
Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Early life
  • "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
  • Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?
So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?
The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.
Inheritance
  • "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?
Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.
With Charlotte Temple
  • "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")
I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.
  • "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?
I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.
  • Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Gog, but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[51] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit (blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

  • Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?
Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?
No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?
That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.
I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.
It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?
Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". CassiantoTalk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.
I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.
Reworded.GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? CassiantoTalk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £36,000,000 in 2024 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.
    Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.
  • "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.
    I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.
  • "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.
    Agreed, removed.
  • "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.
    Agreed, reworded.
  • Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.
    Gone.
  • "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.
    Reworded.
  • "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See
    WP:AWW
    Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?
    You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.
    Reworded.
  • "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

  • Reworded.
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.
    It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.
  • "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.
    Reworded.

Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around this time, Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander of the Royal Navy,[40] visited Aberlour." -- around what time? New para, new section, new date.
    Reworded.
  • See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.
    Agree with your change, thanks.
  • See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.
    Agree with your change, thanks.
  • "Shortly before the marriage, Temple had written to Simon Keir, a partner of Macpherson Grant's agents at Milne & Co., directing that his accounting of sales no longer be sent to Macpherson Grant directly..." -- close succession of "directing" and "directly".
    Changed 'directing' to 'requesting' (which is possibly a better choice of words, since I'm not clear she actually had the authority to direct him).
  • "Dissatisfied with this new arrangement, and with what he saw as Temple's interfering in his affairs..." -- was there ever any likelihood of him being satisfied? I doubt it. I would change "dissatisfied" with unhappy.
    Done
  • "By this time, with Temple gone, Macpherson Grant was depressed, mentally unstable and drinking heavily. → "With Temple now gone, Macpherson Grant became depressed, mentally unstable and drunk heavily." Also, depression is depression, drunk heavily (as we've said earlier), yes, means she drunk lots of alcohol, but how was she mentally unstable? One is left questioning this, unlike the other two you mention.
    Reworded per your suggestion. 'Mentally unstable' was a reference to Lang's assertion that she was going through a psychotic episode. I've reworded this so that we're attributing it to Lang - do you think that's OK, or should we cut this (since Lang is an historian rather than a psychiatrist)?
  • "She died on 14 April 1877..." Who did? We mention both Temple and MG in the preceding sentence.
    Do you think this is really necessary? MMG is the subject of the previous sentence, with Temple just mentioned in an aside - don't you think it would be awkward to use her (rather lengthy) name again here? (I'll make the change if you really think it woule be better).
    If fact, we also mention Lang, so that's three females in the preceding sentence. I'll leave it up to you, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. CassiantoTalk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch that she had gifted to Macpherson Grant, and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." → "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." Cuts our the awkward repetition of MG's name.
    Done.

That's all from me. I can see me supporting this once these have been addressed.  CassiantoTalk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cassianto - that all looks reasonable and doable. Something has come up at work that means I'll have very little time for a couple of days, but I hope to be able to get this done towards the end of the week, or over the weekend at the latest. GirthSummit (blether) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cassianto - I've made all the changes you suggested bar one - let me know if you really think that one is necessary. Thanks again for the very detailed review, most appreciated. GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the above fixes. I have really enjoyed reading this article and I hope to see you back here again soon, Girth Summit. CassiantoTalk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

  • William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.
  • Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)
  • Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
  • Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing
  • I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.
  • The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.
  • I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.
  • MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.
  • The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.
  • "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.
  • Fixed.
  • A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)
  • Fixed
Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".
  • fixed
  • "ball room" – one word, according to the OED
  • fixed
  • "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)
  • Another one I didn't know - fixed.
  • Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.
  • Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit (blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.
  • I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".
  • I've reworded this sentence.
  • "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?
  • Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.
  • "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?
  • Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
    • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit (blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date and page are correct. The article (unsigned) is headed "Grouse Shooting: The Scotch Moors". It says that Captain Yeatman "bagged 26 brace of grouse, two hares and two plovers". Plover butties, anyone? Tim riley talk 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging that out Tim riley - much appreciated, I've added the citation to the article. GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.
  • done
  • "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.
  • I wouldn't want to get involved in any arguments about capitalising job titles! Happy to change.
  • "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.
  • Clarified
  • "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".
  • I've reworded this.
  • "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.
  • I'd prefer to keep this in - I appreciate that it's not directly related to MMG herself, but another reviewer expressed an interest in what happened to Temple/Yeatman after MMG's death - I wasn't able to find much other than this, and it seemed interesting enough to include it. I'll take it out if you feel strongly about it.
  • Not a bit! I don't seek to twist any arms, and it's your drafting, not mine. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
    • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut it.

I hope these comments are of help. Tim riley talk 09:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley - I really appreciate your detailed review, very helpful indeed. I've addressed most of your points, and made a few comments above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'll be back after a further read-through, to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

Comments from me to follow, but it'll be over the next few days, I'm afraid. One immediate query:

  • "entering into what was described as a form of marriage" (lead) and "Her relationship with Temple was described as being much like a marriage" (With Charlotte Temple). - It would have been pretty surprising for the time if the relationship was publicly described as akin to a marriage and I'm not seeing the contemporary sources that do so describe it, beyond the "remarkable tomfoolery" comment, which isn't quite the same thing. Do we have contemporary sources that do describe the relationship as "like a marriage" and, if we do, can we cite them? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi KJP1 - the phrase comes from Shaw and Gordon source (1882) - page 181 (near the top): "...something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant 'married' Miss Temple, placing on the latter's marriage-finger a suitable ring... ...Miss Temple not only reciprocated the remarkable affection, but likewise manifested similar extraordinary proofs of it - she termed herself 'wifie' in her letters to Miss Grant...". Does that address your concern? GirthSummit (blether) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It very well might, if it could be included. But I’m not seeing it in the article, unless I’m overlooking it. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited after the sentence about the tomfoolery - since it supported both sentences, I thought it would be OK to cite it once, but I've added another reference to it now. GirthSummit (blether) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not making myself clear. I wasn’t looking for a cite but rather for an explanation, within the body of the article, as to who was describing their relationship as akin to a marriage. Were the sources that did so newspapers or what? Were they contemporaneous? Something like: Gordon and Shaw/Moray County history/whoever, in their subsequent reporting of the affair, described the relationship as “something like a marriage”. Hope this is clearer. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, gotcha. I'll add some attribution into the text just now, thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - just what I was after. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay on this. I'll be back to finish up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays in getting back to this. So:

Early Life and family
  • "trading out of a property on Billiter Square" - can you check the spelling of the Square. The source has it as "Biiliter Square". Assuming it's this, [52], it could just be that the source has a typo, or that the spelling of its name changed, as it clearly has over time.
    I'm sure it's a typo - the source actually spells it both ways (first as Biiliter, but further down as Billiter) - Billiter Square seems actually to have existed, and while Google does throw up a few hits for Biiliter Square, from a quick glance they all look like typos (or possibly errors in machine-reading of old print newspapers) to me.
  • ""with help from the
    overseers
    " - links?
    Good call, done
  • "issued by the High Court of Chancery" - And again?
    Done
Adult life
  • "the output of the estates varied with changes in conditions" - Economic conditions? Weather conditions?
    Going back to the source, it's talking about the economic conditions - variability in prices, increase in labour costs (post-abolition of slavery). I've clarified.
With Charlette Temple
  • "high sheriff of Wiltshire" - if it's MoS, just ignore me, but the lower cases look odd to me. They're upper case in the main article.
    Done
Philanthropy
  • "which was built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" - being uber-picky, Pevsner gives a construction period of 1866-1869 (Highland and Islands, Buildings of Scotland, John Gifford, Penguin, 1992, isbn 9780140710717, p=188).
    Thanks - I don't have a copy of that one, I've added those dates. Can you check that I've hyphenated the ISBN properly in the sources? Gog's already done a source formatting check, don't want to break anything.
Temple's marriage
  • "a retired commander of the Royal Navy" - "in" rather than "of"?
    Not sure about this one - since he was retired, can we still say 'in'? I'll change if you're sure it's an improvement.

That's all from me. I think it a comprehensive account of an interesting individual. The prose has benefitted from input here and I'll be pleased to support once the nominator has had the opportunity to look at the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1 - I really appreciate your input. I've addressed most of the points, a couple of queries above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

  • " with Alexander Donaldson and Alexander Thomson, who died in 1807 and 1818 respectively" reads like a very odd construction to me...
    Reworded
  • "forty-two"/"twenty-two-year-old"/" forty-third" any reason why we're not using "42" and "22-year-old" and "43rd"?
    Personal preference - are digits preferred by the MOS? Happy to change if necessary.
    I think MOS allows for numbers expressible in one or two words to be written out, so no issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the organ for Inverness Cathedral, built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" the organ was built in 1866?
    I think so, but probably not by Alex Ross - I've added 'which was'
  • " at St Peter's Church, Eaton Square in" probably a GEOCOMMA needed after Square.
    Done
  • General: you discuss her "relationship" in detail and allude to some kind of homosexual relationship, but neither lesbian nor gay nor homosexual is noted with reference, yet there are LGBT categories here. I'm not aware of if this is "okay" because the LGBT nature is implied strongly enough, or if we should seek for stronger reliable sources stating it plainly? Just a thought.
    No source outright describes her as gay, or a lesbian, which is why I haven't directly used that language in the article itself. I think the article has relevance to the LGBT Studies wikiproject, but perhaps it is going to far to have the LGBT person categories on there - happy enough to remove them if you think that would be the right move?
    I think it wise, or at least remove them temporarily and perhaps see if the LGBT wikiproject have any thoughts, I'm happy to go with a consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it's a very nice article.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man - changes made, couple of comments/questions above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, a couple of replies above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories removed, and I've left a note about it at the WikiProject talk page. GirthSummit (blether) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Then it's a yes from me, and a yes from him. Cheers, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Gleeanon409

  • Not sure where to land comments about LGBTQ categories so feel free to adjust the formatting to make them work.
    • We need no proof of sexual relationships—in most cases a near impossibility—for these categories. Often the only evidence that LGBTQ people even existed was criminal records for euphemistic physical activities.
    • In this case you have two women marrying each other, not sure you really need much more than that. That they exchanged rings as well should clear any remaining doubts. It’s unsurprising that great pains are made to spell out that they didn’t have sex as likely that would be just too scandalous to survive. To me this is all along historical erasure of LGBTQ romantic relationships. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIIW, I am inclined to agree with Gleeanon409. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Gog. I think Gleeanon409 has rather too much a 21st-century take on the matter. Context is vital. In the post-Freudian era people obsess endlessly about sexual intercourse at the expense of considering the wider nature of relationships. It seems to me that the main author has got the balance spot-on, making due reference to what the reader may infer was a lesbian relationship, without making a production number of it. It doesn't matter whether or not the relationship was physical. From the 19th century citations it seems that the two women's contemporaries didn't make a big deal of things, and I think we should follow suit. They were plainly an item, but what that itemness consisted of is neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case I wasn't clear - a frequent occurrence - I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on. I was supporting Gleeanon409 in so far as they disagree with the LGBT category tags being removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Yes, I'd keep them, I think. Labels are tiresome but we all need some reference points in putting people in context. It would be pushing it a bit to suggest that LGBTQ is an inappropriate tag. Tim riley talk 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was pointing out, for lack of better term, researchers’ bias. If one isn’t looking for evidence of LGBTQ-identity, it’s quite common to never see, and therefore acknowledge it exists. In historical cases, that anything non-heteronormative is noticed is a clue that a LGBTQ story is there but has been systematically erased—for whatever reasons—by people who had the ability to shape or write the history. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In another case, where it was explicitly known that a woman had serial long-term relationships with same-sex partners, but the exact nature of those relationships could not be ascertained, we opted to use the category "same-sex relationship", instead of LGBT categories, and keep the LGBT project banner on the talk page. Don't know if that is helpful, but it does serve to not obliterate the relevance of different types of relationships in the period. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of the article was in a same-sex relationship, which no one seriously seems to be questioning, our modern construct of LGBTQ or similar is the appropriate categories. I would restore them and ask people like @Bearcat: who are familiar with LGBTQ issues, and Wikipedia’s category system to weigh in. Ultimately categories help our readers and building the encyclopedia so no rush. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This exchange is worthwhile and thoughtful, but I don't think it belongs on this FAC page, which isn't concerned with categories. Is it all right if I transplant the whole section to the article talk page? Tim riley talk 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest waiting a bit until the discussion is over. Then copying there for documentation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This minor issue has no bearing on whether this article is promoted or not, so I don't see why this has to be discussed here and not on the talk page. I suggest moving it as soon as possible. CassiantoTalk 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man brought it up in the context of their review. I don't think that further discussion should be moved unless they are content with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine, but when compared to the criteria, for me, this doesn't seem like a make or break issue. Supports should be based on the criteria and this meets it, with or without what cats it carries. Therefore, it should be moved to the talk page if this topic requires complex discussion. Given that the nom hasn't even answered yet, I would like to assume good faith with the nom that this wasn't an "attempt" to do the LGBTQ community a disservice by erasing anything. CassiantoTalk 00:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to wait until Bearcat or someone else who’s versed in LGBTQ categories can offer advice. Unless there’s a pressing need? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto I have just replied in detail to the similar comment you posted, addressed to me, on Gleeanon409's talk page. The conversation is becoming fragmented. Perhaps you would like to move, or copy, that part of it to here? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on Gleeanan409's talk page has nothing to do with this FAC, more your comments on Gleeanon409's talk page, so I'll leave them there. CassiantoTalk 10:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for your insightful comments. My personal view is that the categories are probably OK; I removed them in response to what seemed to be a reasonable concern by a reviewer, and I will be entirely happy to reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. I see Bearcat has been pinged as someone well-versed in this area, so I'll wait to see if they comment, but if not my feeling fron this discussions is that there is a rough consensus to reinstate them. I'd be happy for further discussion of this to take place on the article's talk page. GirthSummit (blether) 10:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. I've been accused of some odd things in the past, but some of the insinuations dotted around Wikipedia are startling offensive. My comment was entirely derived from what I considered to be a lack of appropriate verifiable sources for categories in a FAC, and it has somehow been completely corrupted into me somehow making "inappropriate" comments, homophobic comments, attempting to erasure LGBT history etc etc. Thanks for that, noted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. I don't know who you are responding to, but with respect, you seem to be confusing two separate discussions. Nobody is accusing you of anything of the sort; in fact, nobody is accusing anyone of being homophobic. There are two discussions taking place; this one, to do with your legitimate comments re the cats, and this one, where somebody else who used an emotive word (not intentional) to describe the nom's act of deleting the cats, which I assume had been done as a result of your comments in this review. This diff is what the other discussion centres around, more specifically the word "attempt" which to me implies that someone was attempting to erase all traces of someone's homosexuality, which of course, could be homophobic. I did not believe that that was the case, especially since the nom had yet to reply, and "attempt", with much respect to Gog, was removed. CassiantoTalk 13:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that Gleeanon has accepted that this was all done in good faith - noone is suggesting any wrong doing by TRM (or anyone else). GirthSummit (blether) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it's been a few days now, and no further discussion of this has taken place here, the article talk page, or at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies (aside from a note that there is a related discussion going on at Wikidata). So far, one editor (The Rambling Man) has expressed concerns about including the tags, and three editors (Tim riley, Gog the Mild and Gleeanon409 have indicated that they think they are appropriate. I'm going to interpret that as a consensus to reinstate them, with a note for the record that I would be happy for anyone who remains concerned to restart a conversation on the talk page, or to kick off an RfC. Thanks all for your views. GirthSummit (blether) 06:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair and reasonable, no need to hold up the FAC process further. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since there's a lot of text above, I thought a quick note might be helpful to summarise it. Nikkimaria, who performed the first review, indicated that they didn't think the article was quite there yet; since then, Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, Cassianto, The Rambling Man and KJP1 have made suggestions for improvement, and have all noted their support after I followed up on them. I don't think there are any outstanding actions from any review. GirthSummit (blether) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the summary, GS, but checking that sort of thing is why they pay us the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

  • "The Macphersons married on 30 April 1825,[3] and had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson, in 1828." I found this a weird inclusion; it was mostly superfluous to the subject of the article, and took us back in time. Personally, I'd just note that she had an older brother, and move on.
  • "..attended school in Hampstead.." I know it has a wikilink, but further inline clarification of where Hampstead is would be appreciated, to avoid me having to click that link and leave this article.
  • "..trading out of a property on Billiter Square." This feels like excessive, unnecessary detail? What does this add about the subject of the article?
  • "Resolution of the various lawsuits was not completed until 1861, seven years after Macpherson Grant came into possession of the estates." It feels odd to be told this before being told in the next section that she inherited his estate.
  • Wikilink pimento.
  • On the first use, you write "Milne & Co", and on the second "Milne & Co.". Be consistent.
  • In my opinion, almost all of the Later events section is beyond the scope of this article.

In general, this is a good piece of work, but I have some concerns about how well it balances being comprehensive with remaining focused on the main topic. It has plenty of support above, so maybe I'm seeing things that aren't really there, but it just seems slightly aimless at times. Harrias talk 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to close out this long-running nom and as I read through the above I felt that we could probably leave these things to be actioned post-promotion, until I got to the last bullet point re. Later events, which is more substantial and really should be considered here. Girth Summit, can you address that last point first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Ian Rose - I'll read through {{|Harrias}}'s points and respond fully this afternoon. GirthSummit (blether) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias - first of all, thank you for your detailed review, I appreciate your suggestions and your candour about the balance between being comprehensive and maintaining focus. I've implemented the copy editing/minor changes that you suggested, but would like to explore some of the more substantive points further.
  • Her brother. There seems to be some disagreement about this. An earlier reviewer suggested including more about her brother, such as why he went out to India, how he died and so on - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out anything more about his life, but I'd be inclined to keep what we do know about him, including his date of birth, in the article. I take your point about jumping back and forth in time however, so I've reordered the paragraph to list the births chronologically - does that meet your concerns?
    • This reads much better now, thank you. Harrias talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billiter Square I'm not wedded to this exactly, but I think it's relevant. Alexander Grant built Aberlour House and made it his official residence, but the sources suggest that he never actually lived there - it seems relevant to indicate that sources show he actually lived at an address in London.
    • I think it is sufficient to say that "although it is doubtful that he ever actually lived there". Also, at the moment, the article says that he traded out of a property there, which doesn't necessarily indicate that he lived there. Harrias talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawsuits I take your point, and thought about how I could restructure this so that we mention the resolution of the lawsuits at the right point in terms of chronology. I couldn't see an obvious way to do that elegantly however, since we don't really discuss the lawsuits again in the next section - we'd be breaking up a single paragraph covering them into two chunks, which would probably end up repeating information unnecessarily. I've reworded that sentence somewhat to shift the focus slightly in an attempt to address this concern - does that look any better to you?
    • This also reads better now, thank you. Harrias talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later events I disagree with you on this one. Other FA biographies have much longer sections with titles such as 'Impact and Legacy', where we discuss the lasting effects the subject's life had on society. MMG had no children, and she wasn't in a position of political or intellectual influence that would have allowed her to leave the sort of mark on society that we might typically discuss in sections like this. However, her impact on the architecture of the region was not insignificant: both Aberlour House and St Margaret's church are nationally significant buildings, one of which she remodelled extensively, the other she founded but did not live to see completed. The orphanage she founded went on to become the second largest such institute in the country after her death, and still operates as a children's welfare charity (which I plan to get around to writing an article about at some point). I don't think that it's beyond the scope of the article to have a short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death.
    • It looks like we fundamentally disagree here. While I would not object to a "short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death" I do disagree with that as a description of what is present. The first paragraph, fine, though even here I would suggest that the additional detail about their son, such as the memorial, is unnecessary.
    • "James William Grant of Wester Elchies, another member of the Grant family, purchased the ruin of the Aberlour church from the other legatees, after it burned in 1861." What is the relevance of this? Also, 1861 isn't a later event, it takes us back to the Inheritance section time-frame.
    • The remainder of that paragraph (slightly reworded to succinctly explain who William Grant is) is fine for the reasons you lay out.
    • "William Grant died in 1877" This was mentioned in the last paragraph as things stand.
    • Given that Aberlour House (building) has its own article, and was built by someone else, I think the final paragraph can be vastly reduced. Harrias talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review - looking forward to your feedback on the changes I've made, and the points I've made above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Harrias- thanks for your speedy response. I've trimmed the Billiter Square sentence, and I've cut back on the final section, removing detail about the house (which, as you say, is detailed at its own article), and some of the stuff about the old Aberlour Church, which I agree was a bit confusing since it jumped back in time 20 years. On the point about Temple's son, another review further up suggested putting more in about Temple and her family after MMG's death - I couldn't find much unfortunately, but I thought this was an interesting point and I'd prefer to keep this in if you don't mind. GirthSummit (blether) 14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I think that's much better. Harrias talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just three relatively minor points from me left, Girth Summit:

  • Isn't "benefited" the US spelling? Presumably this article uses BrEng? (Moved this from above.)
  • Why are the images placed on the left, rather than the right, which is more normal? I'm not keen on the aesthetic.
  • It would be worth clarfying and bringing together the two "William Grant" paragraphs in the Later events section now. The repetition is a bit odd, almost leading one to wonder if it is two different people. Also, I think it would be worth specifically highlighting that St Margaret's Church was completed after his death. Harrias talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Harrias - you're right about 'benefitted', I missed that before. (My collaborator on this article writes in AmEn usually - I tried to find all the inconsistencies, but that one didn't jump out at me.) Image placement was purely personal - I find having them all on the right a bit boring, but nobody else has commented either way so I've changed this. I've also combined the two 'William Grant' paragraphs as you suggested - I agree that that is better. GirthSummit (blether) 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; good work on this article, I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Ian Rose, I know this is why you earn the big bucks, but just a courtesy ping that my concerns have been resolved. Harrias talk 16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys for working together so quickly and efficiently to resolve these points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just added the required note that I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review. Harrias talk 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2020 [53].

Battle of Babylon Hill

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review; I've gone through this, the only detail that I can see lacking a citation is the Parliamentarian numbers, which I will add in later, was there anything else? Harrias talk 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Casualty counts. Infobox says 3–16 Parliamentarians - I see the 3, where's the 16 from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course: both now included in the main text with appropriate citations. Harrias talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only
  • Batten work title is incomplete
  • Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

  • Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
  • Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
  • Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
    • I disagree, that would change the meaning of the sentence completely. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
    • It is unclear from the sources whether all 200 were musketeers. I strongly suspect they were, but it is possible that some were pike men. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
    • Clarified to "Hopton consulted with his commanders". Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
  • Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
    • Yeah, I was avoiding close para-phrasing. I'll need to check the source text before I make a change. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to your second suggestion. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one too. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".
    • Yes, I'm pretty haphazard with this, but they should all be fixed now. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
    • Simplified to "wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....
    • Changed to "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately this has moved well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion or much activity at all. I've placed it on the Urgents list but it will be archived in the coming days if it does not receive significant attention soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will the completion of the standing reviews do? Otherwise I can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check. Revert at will.

  • "but they were forced to leave the town on 6 August" Worth, IMO, clarifying that "the town" is Wells, lest readers, not unreasonably, take it to be Marshall's Elm.
  • "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town" Do you mean that 'Hopton established that Babylon Hill was a suitable location from which to watch the town', or that 'Hopton established himself on Babylon Hill, a suitable location to watch the town'?
    • Well, both. Tweaked to hopefully capture both meanings without getting too clunky. Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this a pretty thorough going over at ACR, but even so, I am surprised that this is all that I can find to pick at. I must be losing my touch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh! I am so wanting to give a "humorous" response, but all of those I can think of are too open to misinterpretation. Seriously, your articles are always well written, and this one especially so. Yeah, IMO that meets all of the FA criteria 1, 2 and 4 bar 1c (sources - signed off above). Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • Inconsistent use of alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
  • "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
    • Trimmed down to "they spotted Parliamentarian soldiers approaching"
  • "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
    • Changed to "though sections of both forces were routed"
  • "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
  • "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
  • "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
  • "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
    • And yet, that is what the sources tell us happened. "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe ; and Capt. Moreton, being a litle too neere him, was likewise broaken with the same shocke". Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
  • "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
    • No; have rephrased this to "In a letter written by.."
  • "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
    • Good spot; have expanded to "In his account of the battle, the historian Robert Morris.."
  • Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
    • Another good point. I have swapped them as suggested. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
  • The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your review; "the language is sometimes clumsy" is essentially my style, much as I strive to improve! I have responded to each point above, mostly adopting your advice directly, but sometimes with variation as noted. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [54].

Horologium (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a constellation - so far I have been more or less involved in most of the 32 current featured articles on constellations. This one got a good going-over in GAN and I am throwing it up here for reviews. I will respond pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Fowler&fowler

I'm still comatose from the Christmas feast, so I can't vouch I'll be wholly cogent, but I'm troubled by this submission, by its length, or the lack thereof, but more by the lack of narrative, the kind of narrative that transmutes data in the form of lists into heuristic explanations which aid our understanding. I'd like to clarify a few things in the first three sentences of the lead first.

I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs. So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more. My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ... One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive. It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive. Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour<cited to OED>) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand." In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?
Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, adopted. @Fowler&fowler: (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is: horologe, noun, Oxford English Dictionary, retrieved 26 December 2019 (subscription required). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I know all about the pile of books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value? If it is the latter, then what
      psycho-physics
      experiment measures it?
It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address."Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
    • This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)
The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
    • The southernmost star in the constellation of de Lacaille is β Horologii which is visible below 24 N. So, obviously we are talking here about a polygonal definition of constellations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand. Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium constellation: showing the tangent line, or viewer's horizon, at latitude approx 23 N, which is parallel to the line of -67.04 declension, the lower declension boundary of the constellation.
I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge? This is a tricky call. My own opinion is that it does not. We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality. We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally. "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation. Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude." 22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward. Sorry this is taking time :( If you don't like them, please revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I forgot the cardinal principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too. I will try to make a more accurae diagram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here. I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented. If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote to a full Support. I haven't been able to read the later sections, but I managed to learn a thing or two; in particular, the definitions of ascension, which had been bugging me until I realized it is defined with respect to the sun's longitudinal plane, i.e. longitude where the sun is overhead. I've also learned something new about constellations, especially those of the southern celestial hemisphere, and the stars alpha-, beta-, and R-Horologium, and their value for astronomers both professional and amateur. This was fun for me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks muchly, @Fowler&fowler:, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back home a little while ago, I happened to look up at the night sky, and lo and behold, there was Orion, of old, of my middle-school days, of when our dad and us would lie down on our backs with a fluorescent star atlas and count the constellations, the same Orion of Rigel and Betelguese, of the belt pointing to Sirius. My eyes are weaker, so Rigel was less blue and Betelguese less red, but they are all still there. Maybe I will look at the virtual Rigel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • Consider adding alt text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Lead
  • "a seconds hand": I was thrown by the s until I checked the OED (it prefers second, but also allows seconds); the OED does, however, hyphenate. I couldn't see what variant of English is used, but it may be worth checking.
Wow, I'd never given that much thought. My natural instinct is to use "seconds hand" rather than "second hand". The latter reminds me of second-hand bookshops. Also, if with 's' then hyphen looks really odd inserted there...? I need to think about this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was slightly surprised by the hyphen too, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Ditto on the hyphen
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
This is tricky - we discussed this at the GAN. It has some rudimentary information so isn't as strictly DAB as some others. There is no way of determining which water snake is meant by the Ancient Greeks as no source discusses it. Only alternative is to leave unlinked (if we think that is an improvement) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, if there is some basic information for people, then this should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a large area of white space on my monitor. Given the length of the IB there is also some sandwiching, but I'm not sure there is a way round it.
  • Is there a reason 'Hor' is in single quotes, rather than double?
Err, no. And I just realised other people have double quotes and I have perpetuated single quotes through a bunch of constellations, which I am have now fixing fixed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we were supposed to include indications about images in the text "(illustrated in infobox)"? (I can't find the guideline, so I'm not 100% sure if that's still current)
You mean "not include"? Is already in - this was the result of an FAC of another constellation where a reviewer said it'd be helpful (and I agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - yes, not include. The info is at
MOS:SEEIMAGE - it's a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but there is a rationale for not using directions. I'll leave it to your discretion as to what to do, and it won't affect my support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok so the guideline says "Don't refer to images as being to the left/right, above/below, etc. because image placement varies with platform (especially mobile platforms) and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers." - this is fair enough. In this case, the text refers to the image in the infobox, which is in a fixed position at the top right of the article regardless of screen size or platform. I think leaving the parenthetical text s more useful in than not in the article as the description is hard to visualise and the image is in a distant part fo the article, hence a pointer is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stars
  • You have some descriptions that use the definite article, and some without ("English astronomer Francis Baily" and "American astronomer Benjamin Apthorp Gould", but "The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode".
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refs
  • You have a few page ranges that are in the 343–57 scale; the MoS now suggests the 343–357 format, but I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether to ignore or implement.
I previously used 2-digit spans everywhere but lost where I orignally read that, and someone else told me to use the whole range...fixing in a moment.. tweaked now to all digits Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help, Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The important points in my review have been dealt with; the others are more matters of my personal taste than anything to stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thx ! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Laser brain

  • "He devised fourteen new constellations in previously uncharted regions of the southern celestial hemisphere, which were not visible from Europe." This statement is unclear to me. Is "devising" a constellation the same as naming one? Or do they decide which stars will be grouped into a constellation and thus "devise" it?
the newer ones are pretty obscure and their patterns are probably most diplomatically described as subjective. Hence people like Lacaille did their best to visualise patterns and then set out/demarcate constellations, so is more than just naming if that helps....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horologium also has several variable stars." I find this needs linking or context here. Even having read the lead, I didn't remember that your link to "Mira variable" means the same thing as here.
A variable star is any star that varies in brightness for any reason. I've linked it now. Tempted to write "stars that vary in brightness" but then we end up with an easter egg link....A Mira variable is a very specific kind of variable star. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Overall a very good read. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Praemonitus

I made a few small changes, but otherwise it seems up to snuff FA-wise. Praemonitus (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits look fine, thx for support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article reviews

Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox Wikipedia:Featured article review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=937550590"