Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2022

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2022 [1].

Punic Wars

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken the articles on all four constituent wars to FA, I am pleased to present the over-arching Punic Wars for your consideration. 118 years of bitter enmity between Carthage and Rome boiled down to 7,200 words. I took this article through GAN in September 2020 and have been tinkering with it since. I have recently been able to give it the time it deserves in an attempt to get it up to FAC quality and take on board comments from the FACs of its four "sub-articles". I look forward to your thoughts, comments and opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this article would show up here eventually :) (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

Will return shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions.[reply]

  • Preliminary comment: why not have a four paragraph lead, with the opening paragraph for introduction? As of now, the lead rather lacks any context for the general reader, and almost seems to eschew the larger article subject (the Punic Wars as a whole) in favour of details of each indivudual conflict. At least, to me it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: On first reading that sounds reasonable - I wasn't over happy with the lead myself, but couldn't see what to do with it. I'll come up with a suggestion and post it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, do you plan to implement this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Apologies
western Mediterranean region and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare. The Punic Wars are also considered to include the four-year-long revolt against Carthage which started in 241 BC. Each war involved immense materiel and human losses on both sides.

I would adjust the sentence which currently starts "It lasted 23 years" and the Wikilinks appropriately. How does that sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That sounds fine to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Implemented. @A455bcd9 and Unlimitedlead: You may wish to review these changes to the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great to me, but when you say "Rome contrived a justification to declare war on Carthage again in 149 BC, starting the Third Punic War", it's unclear what "a justification" refers to. Was it something Rome made up just so they could pick a fight with Carthage, or was there a genuine reason for war? I don't think this information is clearly communicated in that sentence. Do you think it would be constructive to offer some sort of explanation for the "justification", even if it's only a couple words? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph hasn't been changed, but fair point. I have tried to expand the sentence to something a little more comprehensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks a lot better now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a full review shortly, but I must note that I strongly concur with HAL333 below on the matter of comprehensiveness with regard to the conflicts' legacy, especially as Gog the Mild's chosen quotes to support his argument of very little legacy ("Roman imperialism was not a creation of the Punic Wars ... The Punic Wars were not the sole cause of the major changes in Roman society ... Most of the longer-term claims for the impact of Hannibal's invasion have rightly been rejected ... etc") seem to have been selectively editorialized from the original text. A section on economic and sociocultural impact is, to my mind, required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: please withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up pretty much all the maps, and ensuring a legend is visible
  • File:Domain_changes_during_the_Punic_Wars.gif: see
    MOS:COLOUR
    . Ditto File:Iberia_211-210BC-it_(cropped).png
  • File:Bronze_statue_of_a_Hellenistic_prince,_1st_half_of_2nd_century_BC,_found_on_the_Quirinal_in_Rome,_Palazzo_Massimo_alle_Terme,_Rome_(31479801364).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things,

  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved.[88][89][90] " It might be useful to give the number.
I have added a note.
  • "in what is now Piedmont, Cisalpine Gaul " I don't doubt that it's Piedmont but is it still Cisalpine Gaul?
Very tactful. Whoops. Corrected.
  • " Fabius became consul in 215 BC and was reappointed in 214 BC.[193]" Reappointed or reelected?
Reelected. In the sixth source I consulted! Some very dodgy political machinations, but they were technically elections. Duly amended and cited.
  • "frequently with success.[201][113]" Do you mean to have these out of numerical order?
No. I simply attach no importance to the number order of cites. Suspecting that you do, I have swapped them.
  • Claudius Nero is linked on the second use. Ditto Pyrenees.
Good spot. Both fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Wehwalt. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9

A few comments on the lead (merely questions or suggestions, not demands):

I don't see why. It is not usual to mention the nature of a state's government at it's first mention.
  • "in Sicily" (first mention): replace by "the Mediterranean island of Sicily" (second mention). It also helps explain "the island" at the end of the sentence.
Good point. Done.
  • "as a result of" => "due to"?
One could but why? I think the current phrasing flows a little better, but that is a subjective judgement.
No. It includes Rome's expansionary attitude outside Italy.
  • "Carthage's proprietary approach": what does this mean?
Er, what it says: Carthage, the state, corporately had or felt an attitude or policy of ownership or possession. I would be happy to consider other forms of words, although the three you quote seem as succinct a summary of the source as I can imagine.
Linked to Roman army of the mid-Republic
  • "on the Mediterranean island of Sicily" => "in Sicily" (also
    WP:DUPLINK
    )
Duplink removed - nice spot. Changed to on, per your second point above.
That wouldn't accurately reflect the sources. Eg, consider the battle of Cirta; neither near the coast nor in (what is now modern) Tunisia.
  • "on both sides": add comma after?
Er, no(!)
  • "By the terms of the peace treaty": add comma after?
I think you and I belong to rather different schools of commaisation. It's fine as is.
Done

Done.

  • "a major but eventually unsuccessful": remove "eventually"?
Why? It seems a succinct way of communicating that the war was protracted.
  • "within the Carthaginian Empire": only use of the term "Carthaginian Empire", to keep or replace by "Carthage"?
Changed to "Carthaginian territory".
Done.
  • "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), on Sicily, on Sardinia and in North Africa": why not "in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa"? Also: where in North Africa? I assume mostly in present-day Tunisia and Algeria based on the GIF?
Changed as suggested. Yes, but one could ask the same question of Sicily, Sardinia and Iberia. To, IMO, little point; the lead is meant to be a broad, succinct summary.
  • "Carthaginian homeland in Africa": what was this homeland? where was it? probably worth mentioning before when Carthage is introduced? Something like: "At the start of the war, Carthage was the dominant power of the
    western Mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire centred around the city of Carthage in present-day [or modern? not a big fan of "what is now"] Tunisia." or "centred around the city of Carthage, near modern Tunis
    on the North African coast"
Why. I don't do this for Rome. And I think that avoiding this, at least in the lead, is the worst bad option. Feel free to come back on this if you would like to discuss the pros and cons further.
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC" => "A treaty was agreed upon in 201 BC" + do we have an article for this treaty?
Sadly not. Not even a name.
  • "overseas territories": what were these territories?
Any and all. No source I have accessed lists them, nor did the treaty.
  • "some of its African ones": which ones?
It's the lead. Throwing in a name, eg Cirta, would virtually demand an explanation of what and where it was, and soon I would have a lead as big as the article. Bigger - this level of detail is not mentioned in the article, which the lead is a brief summary of.
Done.
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat": add "For Rome,"?
I think that it is clear given the preceding words: "prohibited Carthage from waging war without Rome's express permission. Carthage ceased to be a military threat."
  • "in what is now Tunisia": not necessary if mentioned earlier (would make more sense)
This was the first of the three wars in which Carthage's territories were limited to modern Tunisia.
  • "The previously ": useless clutter?
"previously" removed.
Done.
  • "The ruins of the city" => "Carthage's ruins"?
The current wording avoids possible confusion between the state and the city.
  • "16 kilometres (10 mi)": why use miles in this article without any ties to the US? Also: do we need that level of precision in the lead? The distance between Carthage and Tunis seems like a detail in the grand scheme of things and the history of the Punic wars. "near" or "east of" is probably enough.
Removed. And you are right re miles and kms.

A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A455bcd9, good to see you here again and thanks for the detailed comments. See what you think and feel free to come back on anything I haven't changed which you still think I should, or have and which you still don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gog the Mild: seems good to me for the lead! There are still imperial units in the rest of the article btw, e.g.: "two–twelve kilometres (1–7 miles) apart", "a bridge 1.2 metres (4 feet) wide and 11 metres (36 feet) long", "a triple set of 60-centimetre-wide (2 ft) bronze blades weighing up to 270 kilograms (600 lb)". Should they be removed as well? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CONVERSIONS requires both, but you were correct that with no strong ties to the UK the article should lead with SI units with imperial conversions in parentheses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, thanks, I didn't know! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone knows all of the MoS. Sadly, as an FAC coordinator I am required to know more than most. :(
On a separate issue, when we might expect a follow up to you fine FAC nomination a few months ago? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks but I don't know if I'll ever be able to nominate another article: I didn't expect it to be that hard and time-consuming to go from almost nothing to GA and then FA... I should first find a topic I'm passionate about. In the meantime, I'm trying to review more FACs and
WT:URFA/2020. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Reviewing FACs is an excellent thing to be doing and I wouldn't want to dissuade you. I agree that to work something up to FAC one needs an enthusiasm for it. For one's early FACs it is easier to nominate more restricted topics. (So I took 18 articles on the Punic Wars to FA before attempting this over-arching one.) So, perhaps a film, song, book or TV program in Arabic? Just a thought. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! (btw, I'm actually not that interested in Arabic and it's still a mystery to me why I dedicated one year of my life to this article :) ) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Ok, but you get what I mean. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

Hi, @Gog the Mild: nice to meet you again! I'm somewhat caught up with other Wikipedia business right now, so I'll slowly add more comments over time. Upon my first read, I've located some possible punctuation errors. I have listed some below, but I'd suggest consulting someone more knowledgeable in that field than I am. Other than that, I'm very happy with how the article is right now. None of the comments below are mandatory, but it would be nice if they were dealt with.

  • Perhaps the infobox could benefit from some images in the "Belligerents" section. See Anglo-Zanzibar War for an example of what I'm referring to. This is purely cosmetic, so it's alright if you disagree.
I disagree. An infobox is a minimal, barebones factual summary. Hang on. Do you mean "flags"? As in my FAs Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) or Battle of Heraklion? If so then they hadn't been invented as such at this time and the MoS discourages one from anachronistically inserting proxies. If not, perhaps you could elaborate.
Yes, I meant flags. But thank you for bringing that to my attention.
  • "...with an extensive maritime empire; while Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy...": What conjunction is the semicolon standing in for? If there is none, I think a comma would be more appropriate.
Done.
  • "It lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated.": "Where" is being used as a conjunction in this case, which makes "after immense materiel and human losses on both sides" an introductory prepositional phrase, so there should be a comma following it (since it is a lengthy phrase).
I assume you mean "when"[?] If I agreed that there should be a pause after when I would indeed have inserted a comma. I don't. I have tried reading and speaking this out loud, inserting a pause sounds as if I have a speech defect. It unnecessarily breaks up the flow of the clause.
Oops, I must have been looking at something else. Apologies.
  • "A treaty was agreed in 201 BC which stripped Carthage of its overseas territories...": There should be a comma before "which", since "which" opens a dependent clause.
No there shouldn't. You are trying to apply particular school of commaisation when neither I nor the article uses that approach.
  • "Carthage ceased to be a military threat." => "Following this, Carthage ceased to be a military threat." (or some other variation on "following this"; the sentence sounds awkward and should be connected to the previous sentences somehow)
I missed this first time through. Now tweaked.
  • Consider introducing Craige Champion like how you did with "The modern historian Andrew Curry".
I think that would be unnecessary repetition. With the first person in the list identified as such, it seems clear that the second is also.
  • "...the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value...the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value...": Repetition, please rephrase.
I am convinced that I did that in my pre-FAC tidy up. Clearly something went wrong. Thank you for picking it up. Fixed
  • "...the account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius...Livy relied heavily on Polybius...": More repetition.
Yeah, I must have forgotten to click "Publish changes" or something! Fixed.
  • "According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome's expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control combined with Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily to cause the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design.": I cannot comprehend the latter half of this sentence. Perhaps it is an issue on my part, though. A rephrasing couldn't hurt.
Before I tweak the article, how does 'According to the classicist Richard Miles Rome had expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control, while Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily. The interaction of these two policies caused the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design.' read?
Great.
Done. Although on rereading I tweaked slightly to "According to the classicist Richard Miles Rome had an expansionary attitude after southern Italy came under its control, while Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily. The interaction of these conflicting policies caused the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design."
  • "The region provided several types of fighter...": Is fighter supposed to be plural, or is that a special military word?
Ha! In 1PW I used "types of fighters". In 2PW a reviewer suggested that 'types of fighter' was already plural. I was bamboozled enough to be convinced. As you and I both agree on "fighters" I shall so amend both this article and the other.
  • "On occasion some of the infantry would wear captured Roman armour, especially among Hannibal's troops.": I think the article would benefit from introducing Hannibal in some way, even if it's as simple as saying "the general Hannibal's troops".
True. I am too close. Changed to "especially among the troops of the Carthaginian general Hannibal."
  • "As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels and so slower and less manoeuvrable." => As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels; thus they were slower and less manoeuvrable.
Done. Albeit a little reluctantly.
  • Could more be said about the usage and effectiveness of the corvus before the Romans stopped using it?
Certainly. I bang on about it at some length in the FAs First Punic War, Battle of Cape Ecnomus and Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) so I could readily cut and paste complete with cites. But would not more on one piece of equipment used by one side for less than six years - from 44 years of open war - be disproportionate? That said, anything in particular you think there should be more of?
During my first read-through, I really only saw the corvus as something that stuck out as unusual. The only reason I knew what it was and how it functioned is because I'm a huge history nerd, but the mention of such a strange device might confuse casual readers. I believe adding even just a singular paragraph about it would be to the article's benefit.
I am - you may have guessed! a history nerd myself and am always reluctant to give in to expound on the details of military equipment or tactics. (You may love the Polish Military Institute of Armament Technology take a day off from HESH and Chobham to work on the penetrative effects of longbows on plate armour and chain mail: Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy.) I'll have a look through what the article says about the corvus and see what I can add.
Great. When you finish, please let me know what you have added.
My response was both wordy and nerdy, so I have placed it on the articles talk page. (But move it back here if you think that appropriate.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should work. If that's all for now, then I'll gladly support once this article receives a copyedit.
  • "...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the south coast of Sicily." => ...the battle of Cape Ecnomus off the southern coast of Sicily.
Done.
  • "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC.": There should be a comma after "ships".
True. Done.
  • "...Hannibal defeated a force of local Gauls which sought to bar his way.": Would "who" be more appropriate here, instead of "which"?
Well now, "which" applies to "a force", so it looks right to me. But if you disagree I would be happy to change it.
Reading it again now, it sounds alright to me. It's alright the way it is.

I'd say I'm done with comments now. The rest of the article looks great, but there are several minor issues (punctuation, grammar, etc.), all of which I will not be listing here because that would take an eternity. I'll be happy to support once this article receives a throrough copyedit. @Gog the Mild: Awesome job on this article, and on the Punic War articles in general! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back tomorrow with some summary comments, and a read of your prompt responses, but right now I'm for bed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commas, grammar and copy editing. Obviously I gave the article a copy edit immediately prior to nominating it (per my checklist at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#GAN/FAC checklist), although the hiccup in Primary sources clearly shows that it didn’t all run smoothly. So, I have established that I am at least as likely as any other editor to make a silly error. And at as least as poor at proof reading my own work.
That said, I have a fair bit of experience at copy editing. While serving my Wikipedia apprenticeship I copy edited articles including well north of 500,000 words for
WP:GOCE – see a partial list here
. For several years I was the GoCE go to copy editor for GoCE Requests aspiring to an FAC nomination. I still get occasional requests from experienced FAC nominators to run an eye over articles prior to being put up for FAC. I mention this not to suggest that it should give me a pass on this article but in an attempt to establish that I am not some semi-literate who does not know what they are talking about.
I have had a further detailed run through the article and made a number of tweaks. The cumulative diff is here. Beyond there no doubt being the usual smattering of silly errors, I don't see that there is a lot of copy editing needed. Tell me, could our differing views on this be due to our belonging to differing schools of commaisation? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It actually could be. My English professors have always been insistent on comma usage, so it actually was shocking to me when I found out that not all introductory prepositional phrases needed commas! However, it's not just the commas that I'm concerned with. Several sentences (some of which I have pointed out above) didn't exactly sound right upon reading them. I'll read through the article again to see if everything's alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just skimmed the article and it appears to be in better shape; I'll support this nomination. Once again, great job on this article, and good luck with whatever it is you have in store for us next time! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. That sounds like my feelings when I discovered commas apparently scattered at random across an article. (My school had corporal punishment, and I would probably have received at least a smart swipe with a ruler for "Today, I ate breakfast" or "In 58 BC, Caesar invaded Gaul." Shudder! "Speech defect Gog? Pay attention!")
Ah, well. So many potential FAs, so little time. My "to do" page gives an idea of what I shall be choosing from. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that's quite the list you've got. Wishing you double the luck! Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment Comments by Borsoka

After quickly comming through the first section ("Primary sources"), my impression is that the article needs a thorough copyedit. The short section contains unnecessary repetitions, and also sentences that (at least seemingly) contradict each other. Examples include:

  • "Modern historians consider Polybius to have treated the relatives of Scipio Aemilianus, his patron and friend, unduly favourably but the consensus is to accept his account largely at face value. The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; Craige Champion describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian". The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value."
  • "The account of the Roman historian Livy, who relied heavily on Polybius, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy relied heavily on Polybius..."
  • "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view. ... Livy ... was also openly pro-Roman." Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka and thanks for bringing that up. You are quite right. Something went wrong with my pre-nomination copy edit for Primary sources, as other reviewers have also pointed out, probably my missing the vital stage of clicking "Publish changes".
  • Duplication of "consensus is to accept his account largely at face value" removed.
  • Duplication of "relied heavily on Polybius" removed.
  • The five uses of "modern" are all deliberate, and IMO each is necessary.
    • I still think that at least two of them could be changed or deleted. For instance, I am not sure that Andrew Curry is a historian at all ([2]). Or, do we need to specify that modern historians use Livy's account where Polybius's accouint is not extant?
  • I am not sure I understand your last point. In case the issue is around the use of "also", I have changed the phrase to 'as well as being openly pro-Roman.'
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy during the last week but I am planning to complete the review in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA

Will do a review when all these reviews above me are finished. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, this is probably ready for you now. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

Will also perform a review once the above are completed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iazyges, CPA-5 seems a little slow out of the blocks, so perhaps you would care to chip in? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force." the phrasing of this seems slightly weird, I suggest reorganizing to "Carthage provided materiel to the Romans against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force."
Ok. I am largely with you, although your suggestion might lead a reader to understand that the Epirian king's navy did the ferrying. I have trimmed t to "During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion used its navy to ferry a Roman force."
  • "with a better-off minority providing a cavalry component." suggest mentioning them by name, such as"with the equites, a better-off minority, providing a cavalry component.
Nope. I really don't like introducing foreign language words into English Wikipedia articles unless it is a technical term which I am going to use again. In any case, it seems unnecessary. And in the third place - :) - once i do it I will be asked to do the same for every other Roman and Carthaginian troop type!
  • ". (The latter were usually Numidians.)" placement of this with parenthesis seems somewhat awkward to me, suggest changing first period to a comma, or moving to a footnote.
Sorted.
  • "In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own." suggest reorganizing to "In 260 BC the Romans used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own ships when they set out to construct a fleet."
Why confuse a reader by reversing the chronological flow of the narrative?
  • It also seems to me that this sentence would serve better as the beginning of the next paragraph (before "As novice shipwrights...") than at the end of this one.
D'oh! Smacks forehead. Done.
  • "manoeuvring large forces difficult and favoured the defence over the offence" perhaps can be made simpler as "manoeuvring large forces difficult and favoured defenders"
Ho hum. How about 'manoeuvring large forces difficult and so encouraged defensive strategies'?
Good by me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved" I think this could use elucidation for "combatants", as this could, to me, mean nations, ships, or, as the case seems to be, personnel. Suggest changing combatants to "personnel" for clarity's sake.
"Combatant" has a perfectly clear meaning: wikt:combatant "A person engaged in combat, often armed." It is not grammatically possible for ships or nations to be combatants.
  • I do note that the phrase "heavily defeated" is used often in a short period in this section (three paragraphs back to back) and may benefit from some variation, if possible.
Oops. Two of them removed
  • "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed. By its terms Carthage paid 3,200 talents of silver" this seems awkwardly short to begin a paragraph, suggest "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed to, wherein Carthage paid 3,200 talents of silver..."
Good point. Sentences run together, but in a slightly different way.
Thanks for this Iazyges. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish this off tonight; one of the bits (now bolded) hasn't been responded to, I think as a result of my dirty trick of responding to it myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Romans beat off a Carthaginian attack" the usual suggestion to change this from "beat off" to "repelled" or something of the nature, given the American primary meaning.
You do realise that you are the only editor who ever notices/mentions this? Changed.
Well, it's an easy excuse to harass you, why not take it? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into combat by Hannibal at the battle of the Trebia, encircled and destroyed" suggest adding "where it was" or "and was" before "encircled or destroyed".
Done.
  • "The prisoners were badly treated if they were Romans, but released if they were from one of Rome's Latin allies" suggest "Roman prisoners were badly treated, but those from one of Rome's Latin allies were released."
I prefer the original wording. Any particular reason for suggesting a change?
Simply reads as slightly awkward to me in its current state, nothing huge.
Thanks again Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so; and happy to Support the article as featured quality, and see the Punic Wars featured topic full of bronze stars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iazyges, and interesting to see that I am not the only one aware of that lacuna. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

Done.
Done.
:) Sadly, it doesn't make the cut. It's a neat anecdote, but it didn't even get into First Punic War. Even our article describes the "battle" as a "skirmish" in its first sentence.
  • On that topic, there seems to be a scarcity of images of actual warfare, in an article about warfare. Perhaps lose the Hellenistic Prince as it may just be some other random fellow.
Not sure how losing an image gives us any more on a different topic. Most of my FAs on individual Punic War battles have no images of fighting at all. There just aren't m/any. Naff 19th C re-imaginings aside.
  • I think you should expand the "Aftermath" section, maybe retitling it as "Legacy". What was the long-term impact of the Romans' victory on their government and prosperity? If I remember correctly (although this may some other Scipio), Scipio Africanus opposed the total destruction of Carthage as he thought the Romans needed a constant threat to "keep them in shape" so to speak. I think there's some scholarly work on that. Try to pull up some other angles from the sources too.

Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"he thought the Romans needed a constant threat to 'keep them in shape' ". That was Scipio Nasica prior to the war, probably using the issue in his political disputes with Cato. (Of "Carthago delenda est" fame.)
Honestly, there really is little if any "legacy" specifically tied to the Punic Wars, which rather petered out while Rome was dealing with weightier affairs. As an illustration, Goldsworthy ends his book on the war with a chapter titled "Legacy". "Hurrah" one might think. It is almost entirely a review of the course of the war. Most subsequent developments are linked to either things changing at some point after the war, for reasons unrelated to the war, or are explicitly stated to not be linked to the war. ("Roman imperialism was not a creation of the Punic Wars ... The Punic Wars were not the sole cause of the major changes in Roman society ... Most of the longer-term claims for the impact of Hannibal's invasion have rightly been rejected ... etc") The two impacts of any consequence which the sources mention are the development of Roman marine power during 1PW, which I already mention, and the improvement in Roman logistics during 2PW, which I have now added. So thanks for making me re-trawl the sources to pick up that last point.
Hi HAL333, good stuff, all addressed now. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost ready to support... but I have to throw a final wrench in the works. How about representation in art and literature? I'm not quite as well-versed in Roman lit as I would like to be, but I know there's some possible forshadowing of the wars in Queen Dido's suicide in the Aeneid. I'm sure there are more tangible examples in classical art and literature too. In our times, the first epic film—Cabiria—was about the 2nd Punic War. There's lots of that. And as there's no article like Punic Wars in art and culture, I feel like this would be the best place for it on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand, that sounds like a deal breaker. This is an article on the war, not on popular culture about or around the war, no matter how refined or venerable it may be. As you say, "there's no article like
Punic War?" If the answer is "no", I don't see that it is an appropriate destination just because no one has created the appropriate article yet. If the answer is "yes", we have a different situation; if it is, let me know, I am keeping my powder dry. :) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2022 (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 December 2022 [3].

Tahmasp I

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My second attempt in nominating this article which is about Tahmasp I, the second (and my favourite) Safavid Shah of Iran. The article has been through two copy edits already and I believe both images and sources are fine as well. Pinging @Johnbod: who was one of the reviewers of the first nomination. I sincerely ask them to review this again, if they are not busy that is. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Phlsph7

Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.
  • The article oscillates between American and British English (like center vs centre). I would default to American English unless there is a significant relation to Britain.
I personally prefer to write in British English, so I'll be changing American to British if that's no matter. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • favoured -> favored
    • sheikh -> sheik
    • afterwards -> afterward
    • centre -> center
    • behaviours -> behaviors
    • rumours -> rumors
    • favour -> favor
    • favourable -> favorable
    • favours -> favors
    • travelled -> traveled
    • honoured -> honored
    • favourite -> favorite
    • travelling -> traveling
    • patronised -> patronized
    • characterised -> characterized
    • characterisation -> characterization
  • "Tahmasp was a patron of the arts, building a royal house of arts for painters, calligraphers and poets, and was an accomplished painter himself." The two "and"s following each other sound a little strange to my ears. What about splitting it into two sentences: "Tahmasp was a patron of the arts and was an accomplished painter himself. He built a royal house of arts for painters, calligraphers and poets."?
Done
  • "Sh'ia" Should the apostroph be after the "i" or should it be removed? Some later passages use the spelling "Shia".
To be honest both variations are correct.
  • earwig shows a copyvio with [4] concerning the passage "The reigns of Esmāʿil I and his son Ṭahmāsb I (r. 1524-76) are considered the most brilliant period in the history of the Azeri Turkish language and literature at this stage of its development."
Amended it
  • The passage "For their part the Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbalā, and Naǰaf. The treaty enabled the Ottomans to devote themselves to the western front and internal problems. Iran was able to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war. The peace was kept by both sides until the death of Shah Ṭahmāsb (984/1576), when the ensuing troubles in Iran encouraged the Ottomans to occupy those regions of the Caucasus claimed by both countries." contains various close paraphrases from [5]. For safety, it might be good to reformulate them a little more.
I only see two sentence resembling the passage, "The Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf." and "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from the war." And yet, I don't think they are quite alike with the linked article.
  • "seyyid": is the spelling "sayyid" more common?
Both are seemed to be used commonly
  • "... a storm erupted, with wind and rain and lightning.": remove one "and" and add an Oxford comma: "... a storm erupted, with wind, rain, and lightning."
Done
  • "Rumlu proposed a triumvirate to the two leaders which were accepted,...": "was" instead of "were"
Done
  • "Rumlu was blamed for the raids, and was executed by Tahmasp." no comma after "raids"
Done
  • "He appointed his brother, Bahram Mirza, governor of Khorasan and Ghazi Khan Takkalu as Bahram's tutor." I think the commas should be like this: "He appointed his brother Bahram Mirza, governor of Khorasan and Ghazi Khan Takkalu, as Bahram's tutor."
Done
  • "The first Ottoman invasion may have been the greatest crisis of Tahmasp's reign, since the Shamlu tribe ": no comma before "since"
Done
  • "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining forces and took refuge with Suleiman, promised to restore Sunni Islam in Iran and encouraged him to lead another campaign against Tahmasp.": It might be better to split it up into two sentences: "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining forces and took refuge with Suleiman. He promised to restore Sunni Islam in Iran and encouraged him to lead another campaign against Tahmasp." It's not clear to me who promised and who encoured whom, so maybe better repeat the name to make this clear.
Amended it; Alqas promises Suleiman.
  • "The long campaign focused on looting as they plundered Hamadan, Qom and Kashan before...": Oxford comma after "Qom"
Done
  • "These terms, in circumstances favourable to the Safavids, were evidence of the frustration felt by the Suleiman the Magnificent...": no "the" before "Suleiman"
Done
  • " One year before the Peace of Amasya in 1554, Tahmasp led his last military campaign to into the Caucasus.": remove "to" before "into"
Done
  • "Moving into a city which with an ancient route through Khorasan linked the realm,...": there is something wrong with this clause. What about "Moving into a city that linked the realm to Khorasan through an ancient route,..."? Maybe additionally drop the "through an ancient route"\
Done, though I'm afraid I have to keep the ancient route part
  • "as distant provinces such as Shirvan, Georgia and Gilan were brought into the Safavid fold. ": Oxford comma after Georgia
Done
  • "He sent copies of Quran as gifts to the Ottoman Empire; overall, during his reign, eighteen copies of Quran were " in both cases: "copies of the Quran"
Done
  • "A panel of calligraphic manuscript..." add "a" before calligraphic
Done
  • "his daughters were instructed in administration, art and scholarship": Oxford comma after "art"
Done
  • "..and instead of facing the Ottomans directly in the battlefield,..": comma after "and"
Done
  • "and also establishing a public image which was not maintained by his successors": "that" instead of "which"
Done
  • "despite his greed, piety led him to forgo of taxes of about 30,000 tomans": no "of" after "forgo"
Done
I hope these comments were helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response.
  • Concerning the similar phrases: The sentences in our article are "The Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf." and "Moreover, this treaty enabled Iran to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from the war." while the sentences from the source are "For their part the Ottomans guaranteed Iranian pilgrims free passage to Mecca, Medina, Karbalā, and Naǰaf." and "Iran was able to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war.". I'm not sure whether this falls under
    WP:PARAPHRASE
    . How about "The Ottomans allowed Iranian pilgrims to travel freely to Mecca, Medina, Karbala, and Najaf" and "Through this treaty, Iran had time to increase its forces and resources as its western provinces had the opportunity to recuperate from the war."
Done
  • I think the English variant doesn't matter for this article as long as it is consistent. For British English, the following should be changed:
    • centered -> centred
    • center -> centre
    • worshiping -> worshipping
    • behavior -> behaviour
    • centers -> centres
    • acknowledgment -> acknowledgement
All done
  • "Alqas fled to the Crimea with his remaining": no "the" before Crimea
Done
Some of these links are names that are repeated in a list and I would like to keep it that way because I think things in lists should always be linked. Your thought? Other than that, other links were delinked.
Phlsph7 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the details on the repeated wikilinks.
MOS:REPEATLINK has some information. Personally, I include more links at times if I have the impression that there is a good reason to believe that it would be helpful to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright, I went and delinked some of the repeated links, are they balanced now?
Amir Ghandi (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the following links: to Bahram Mirza and Isfahan in the regency section and to Khorasan in the early life section. Otherwise the links looks fine to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things that caught my eye in relation to
MOS:WTW
:
  • "The great poet, Fuzuli,...": great
Changed it with 'renowned'
  • "Tahmasp's most celebrated contribution...": most celebrated
Changed it with 'preeminent' and 'acclaimed'
  • "A remarkable and successful act...": remarkable
Deleted 'remarkable'
  • "Tahmasp held firmly to the extremist Shi’i belief in the imminent coming of the Mahdi": I don't know enough about Shia beliefs to assess whether the "extremist" is appropriate here. A weaker alternative would be "controversial". Should "Shi’i" be "Shia" to be consistent with the spelling elsewhere?
Replaced extremist with controversial and changed Shi'i to Shia
  • "...has been described as a lustful miser and a religious bigot.": "has been described as" is listed as one of the weasel phrases. Maybe "lustful miser" and "religious bigot" should be in quotes to make it clear to the reader that these expressions are taken directly from the source.
Done. Should I change the weasel phrase too?
Phlsph7 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about mentioning the scholar(s) who use these words: 'Tahmasp I made little impression on Western historians, who often compared him with his father. For example, scholars ... and ... describe him as a "lustful miser" and a "religious bigot"'. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I couldn't find the name of the authors but expand upon the statement. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the source: it confirms the claim but, unfortunately, it doesn't go into specifics who described him this way. It contains the term "miser" but not "lustful miser". So I propose we remove the term "lustful". Your newly added phrases are again very close to
WP:PARAPHRASE so I suggest either removing them or reformulating them, for example, by using synonyms and by changing the sentence structure. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Deleted 'lustful' and changed the phrases 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like this it works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Phlsph7 and Amir Ghandi: How is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised some points about close paraphrases and the prose and they have all been addressed. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the article's topic to be in a position to give a general endorsement. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine

Will have a look over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Did some copyedits for prose; feel free to revert.
  • He soon faced a longstanding war I think you mean long-lasting?
Amended it
  • The Ottomans, under Suleiman the Magnificent, tried to put their favoured candidates given that the Ottomans were just as absolute a monarchy, perhaps 'The Ottoman sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent...' and perhaps 'rival candidates' instead of 'favoured candidates', as the Ottomans just backed whomever opposed Tahmasp?
Amended it
  • sovereignty over Baghdad actually over most of Iraq, of which Baghdad was merely a part
Done
  • Tahmasp still negotiated alliances perhaps add that these were directed against his Ottoman rivals? And it would also make sense, given the emphasis on his Shi'a faith, to also add that the Ottomans were equally fervently Sunni?
Done, though I think the Ottoman part is excessively detailed for the lead section, after all, it's not a necessary detail.
Background
  • provide a gloss for 'tariqa', 'ulama', 'seyyid', 'mujtahid', 'vakil', and ensure that all non-English terms are denoted as transliterations by use of the {{transl|fa|}} or {{transl|ar|}} templates.
All done (vakil is the shorter version of the title vakil-e nafs-e nafs-e homayoun, which is already explained.)
Fixed the use of the templates, they are meant for the non-English terms, not the glosses. Please use the templates throughout the article, though. Constantine ✍ 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify the connection between Ismail I and Shaykh Junayd and Shaykh Haydar
Done
  • Make sure that terms are linked the first time they are introduced in the main text (e.g. Qizilbash)
Done
  • Clarify the ethnic origin of the Qizilbash tribes
Done
  • I suggest providing regnal dates for all rulers (use the {{reign}} template)
Done

Will do the remaining sections later. Constantine ✍ 07:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life, Regency
  • he was heaped with utmost joy and happiness I don't think 'heaped' is the correct verb here
It's the verb used by the source, I don't know what I could use as a replacement
If it is a quote, then please denote it as a quote. Otherwise find a way to describe it without WP:Close paraphrasing the source. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Be consistent in spelling 'Shia' or 'Shi'a' or 'Shiite', 'ulama' or 'olama', etc. And please use the transliteration template for all non-English technical terms, not just in this section, but throughout.
Should I repeat the transilation for the words that were already transilated? (Like ulama which is already explained in the Background section.)
Done
I think there is a misunderstanding here: a gloss, i.e. a translation, is what should be provided at the first mention of a foreign term. A transliteration (not a translation) is what the foreign term is, as you do not use the Persian or Arabic letters here. E.g. 'olama\ulema' is a transliteration and should be always enclosed in the transliteration template. There are many terms, e.g. ''tufangchiyan'', where this is still not done. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend glossing amir al-umara as 'commander-in-chief' because that it what it means. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now all done
  • Check again for
    MOS:OVERLINK
    .
In the process of doing
Done
Still a lot of
MOS:DUPLINKs. I recommend installing and using the User:Evad37/duplinks-alt tool. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright, I think I've cleared all the duplinks
  • a series of battles in northwest Iran battles between whom? for what cause?
The three of the tribes: Ostajlu, Takkalu and Rumlu
  • this event is dubbed "the Takkalu pestilence" which even exactly? the rule of Chuha Sultan, or his death?
His downfall and the massacre of his tribe (In early 1530, the Herat governor, Hossein Khan Shamlu, and his men killed Chuha and executed every Takkalu in the retinue of the shah in the royal camp)
Hmmm, but I don't understand how the massacre of the Takkalu is a pestilence; I can understand if Chuha's regime is dubbed 'the Takkalu pestilence' by his opponents, justifying their violent purge, but the event itself? Are you sure of this reference? Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source definitely meant the Takkalu purge. This is the passage from the source: 'Shah Ṭahmāsp symbolically disentangled himself from this political debacle by ordering the wholesale execution of those Takkalu tribesmen in attendance, and the event was dubbed “the Takkalu pestilence” (āfat-e Takkalu) in contemporaneous Persian chronicles and later scholarship.' I think its the usage of the word. Other sources like Savory 2007 use the term 'Takkalu disaster'.
  • Aggressive court behaviour what is that? Do you mean 'overbearing' or something like that?
I don't know; I only wrote what the source said.
Never mind; found information on what 'aggressive court begaviour' meant and added them to the article.
Reign
  • may have considered a strong Safavid empire a threat why 'may'? It stands to reason that another major empire on his eastern border is a threat. I would also recommend adding here why it was a threat: not just as a rival imperial power, but an ideological rival as well.
Well, the source does not seem to be so sure about assuming what Suleiman position about the Safavids was; although it has included a reason to why he would think them as a threat: a danger to Suleiman's ambitious plans in the west and the northwest of his realm. (Included the reason in the article by the way)
  • Olama Beg was one of many Takkalu members who, after Chuha's death, took refuge in the Ottoman Empire. The flight of the Takkalu should be mentioned above, when Chuha' downfall is told.
Done
  • may have been the greatest crisis of Tahmasp's reign since the Shamlu tribe unsuccessfully tried to poison him 'since' here is probably meant as 'as', or rather, 'as indicated by the fact', right? But the argument needs some elaboration: why is the poison attempt an indication that the Ottoman invasion was the greatest crisis? As you write, the Shamlu had enough reason to try and get rid of Tahmasp since he removed Hossein Khan from power.
Alright, so this one needed some rewording. It wasn't 'may have been' but rather, 'caused'.
  • "In Jumada II 961/May 1554 he left his winter camp in Aleppo for Amid and advanced as far as the Armenian territory of Qarabagh in the southern bend of the Araxes." why is this footnote needed? The text pretty much says the same thing already.
Not my doing to be honest. A user (allegedly Azerbaijani) claimed that the source of this sentence did not use the word 'Armenian Qarabagh' and another user proved him otherwise by adding this footnote.
I would recommend removing it. The modern Armenian-Azeri dispute over Karabagh is not relevant. It is not for this article to prove to whom the territory belonged. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • indicating a significantly larger Safavid army compared to?
The two former wars
...indicating a significantly larger Safavid army than what their number was before. -> "...indicating a Safavid army that had grown much larger than it was in the previous wars' or similar. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • against the divided state's many kings hmm, is it not rather that there were several Georgian states at the time, each with its own king?
Indeed; amended it
Georgian divided states is again problematic; 'divided' is a reference to the previous unitary Georgian realm, and thus is editorializing. Would you call the German states of 1800 'divided German states'? So just 'the Georgian states' or 'the Georgian kingdoms'. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • he brought 30,000 Georgians to Iran. One of those prisoners was Luarsab's mother, Nestan Darejan, who committed suicide as she was captured. the wording implies that Nestan Darejan committed suicide right after her capture, so how was she brought to Iran?
Reworded it
  • The conversation of these Georgian Princes I think you mean 'conversion'? Otherwise I don't know what is meant here.
Typo; amended it
  • A reminder to gloss and italicize (use the template) terms like 'gholam' and 'qurchi'.
Done
  • The fact that Ismail Mirza was imprisoned comes as a complete surprise to the reader. Why and when was he imprisoned?
Added a footnote explaining it
Looks good, but are you sure that '
immured' is correct? Immurement usually results in death pretty quickly, and Ismail was alive for years. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Replaced immured with 'imprisoned'

Will do the remainder later today. Constantine ✍ 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policies
  • The Safavid military evolved during Tahmasp's reign, particularly gunners (tupchiyan) and musketeers (tufangchiyan) If you mean that the latter were introduced for the first time by Tahmasp, say it.
Reworded that sentence; their actually were developed by Ismail I during his last years
  • The incorporation of Gilan is alluded to, but nowhere mentioned above.
I don't know where else should I mention it. Moreover, the incorporation of Shirvan is also only mentioned, so us there any special reason that Gilan should be discussed in a broader sense?
Well you write distant provinces such as Shirvan, Georgia, and Gilan were brought into the Safavid fold.. Georgia gets its own section, and Shirvan is at least alluded to as part of Alqas Mirza's revolt. But Gilan is only mentioned in the context of the Ottomans' trying to secure support there. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence regarding the incorporation of Gilan
  • Tahmasp's reign saw the Shia conversion of whom?
I meant to say that he continued the Shia conversion.
Again though, of whom? Of Iran, I assume? Write it out. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron. by whom?
Douglas Streusand calls him the greatest Safavid patron. Moreover, in my research, I stumbled upon two books by James Elkins and Stuart Cary Welch, who both are art historians, who call Tahmasp 'a prominent' and 'the great patron of arts' respectively.
Legacy
  • Such traits indeed would throw a murky light on Tahmasp as a person and as a ruler, however, his personality would appear in a more favourable light ... this is editorializing. If it is not your opinion, attribute or quote it.
Done
  • It is also an achievement in itself ditto.
Done
Sources
Done
  • Standardize whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Eh... I've consider doing this and attempted many times. But its just such a tedious task and I don't know what will it accomplish.
Not a problem for me personally, but it is considered desirable to have a common formatting of such for FA candidates. I've certainly been asked this often enough. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas, I added the hyphenated ISBNs to the sources that had one, for others, I just failed to find a hyphenated of their ISBNs
  • Add OCLC for Hinz
Done
  • Why are Dickson 1958 and Aldous 2021 not used in the article? They both seem relevant to important aspects of Tahmasp's reign.
I don't have access to Aldous 2021 and Dickson 1958 is just a really old source, though very informative about the early years of Tahmasp's reign
@Amir Ghandi: here you go. I also have institutional access to a variety of similar sources. If you need anything, ping me. Constantine ✍ 21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas Thanks; but I can't see anything except for a line saying 'the link is deleted by the owner' Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amir Ghandi: Odd. Try with this one. Constantine ✍ 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it worked; I'll be incorporating the new information in the following days. Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Overall the article appears comprehensive, well-referenced, and easy to follow (although I am somewhat knowledgeable on the period and topic). Will do another pass when my points above are addressed. Constantine ✍ 14:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas, I've addressed all your points. Amir Ghandi (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of outstanding issues (not stricken through) above, plus some additional comments, mostly to new additions/changes:

  • His patronage of arts had a large part in marking the Safavid empire an imperial entity of any significant I guess there are typos here for 'His patronage of arts had a large part in making the Safavid empire an imperial entity of any significance'? But I find this statement dubious; 'of any significance' according to whom? An empire of this size would have been 'significant' even if its ruler had been an utter philistine.
I decided to change that sentence, any thoughts about the new one?
  • German historian, Hans Robert Roemer argues that although such traits would throw a murky light on Tahmasp as a person and as a ruler, however, his personality would appear in a more favourable light when, despite his greed, piety led him to forgo taxes of about 30,000 tomans because collecting them would offend the religious law. Please break up this sentence.
Amended that sentence entirely.

Otherwise it looks good to me, and I enjoyed reading the article. I will be happy to support once the remaining issues are taken care of. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas All remaining points are addressed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amir Ghandi: Changes look good. Last remaining issues: refs #56 and #59 need correct dates. But I am happy to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • @Nikkimaria: I believe that the photographer of File:Tahmasp, Humayun Meeting.jpg needs to release the image on a GFDL or similar license for us to legitimately use it, am I right?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No - under US law reproduction of a 2D work, unlike a 3D work, does not garner a new copyright. However, the description does need to be updated to reflect that and provide evidence for the tagging used. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Updating the description along the lines that Nikkimaria suggested is on you, Amir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66 and @Nikkimaria Is there a template for a reproduction of a 2D work that I could add? Because I don't know any way else to provide evidence. Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the templates used in the other 2D images for ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The tagging now in place indicates that the work is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago and the work was published before 1927. However, the description states that the uploader is the creator and the date is given as 2012. This description needs to be changed to identify the long-dead author and the much earlier publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • I see that I commented and supported the previous nomination, but I will review again.
  • "tried to put rival candidates of Tahmasp on the Safavid throne". Sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe " tried to install his own candidates on the Safavid throne"
Done
  • "who inherited the Safavid order from his grandfather". I think "who inherited leadership of the Safavid order from his grandfather" would be better.
Done
  • "a state war-ridden after the collapse". External or internal wars? If internal, maybe "a state mired in civil war after the collapse"
Internal wars; amended it
  • "Ismail's realm contained the modern Iranian borders". This is unclear. Maybe "Ismail's realm included the whole territory of modern Iran"
Done
  • "(Islamic scholar who performs the Islamic law)" Performing law does not make sense.
Amended it
  • "Clashes between the Qizilbash leaders and Persian bureaucrats climaxed in the Battle of Ghazdewan between Ismail's vakil, Najm-e Sani, and the Uzbeks." This is unclear. You need to explain the connection between the bureaucrats and the Uzbeks.
Amended it; any thoughts?
  • "Clashes between the Qizilbash leaders and Persian bureaucrats climaxed in the Battle of Ghazdewan between Ismail's vakil, the Persian Najm-e Sani, accompanied by the Qizilbash, with the Uzbeks." This is still unclear. It seems to say that the Qizilbash leaders and Persian bureaucrats were on the same side against the Uzbeks. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were on the same side; Persians and the Qizilbash were both a part of the Safavid bureaucracy while the uzbeks were the enemy.Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to make this clear. I assumed that saying clashes climaxed in battle meant that they were on opposite sides. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Chingizid - this links to
    Descent from Genghis Khan
    , which does not mention Chingizid.
Chinggisid is a word meaning a descendant of Genghis Khan. The article itself doesn't use it but the source and many other academical researches use this word frequently.
  • If you are linking to the descent article you need to amend it to explain the meaning of Chinggisid. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Tahmasp Mirza for short". This is too colloquial, and also unnecessary as you almost always refer to him as Tahmasp.
Deleted it
  • "was a result of many of the Qizilbash forces leaving the vakil to fight on his own". Presumably not literally on his own. Maybe "was the result of the desertion of many of the Qizilbash".
Done
  • You describe both Sam Mirza and Alqas Mirza as Tahmasp's younger brother. "Younger" implies one of two, which is obviously not correct. You should clarify.
Done
  • "deferring to Sunni Islam, he banned the holding of Omar Koshan (a festival commemorating the assassination of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab) and expressing hatred towards the Rashidun caliphs, who are held dear by the Sunni Muslims" This is confused and ungrammatical. You appear to say that he deferred to the Sunnis and expressed hatred of caliphs they held dear.
@Dudley Miles Typo; I actually meant deference
  • "Tahmasp also had the governor of Tbilisi, Golbad, converted to Islam." "had" does not make sense here. Maybe persuaded or forced.
Amended it
  • Haydar Mirza was quickly eliminated" Murdered?
Amended it
  • "The description of Battle of Jam". This sounds wrong. Maybe "A description of the Battle of Jam".
Amended it
  • "He sent copies of the Quran as gifts to the Ottoman Empire" Empire or emperor?
Well, he sent Quran to several of Ottoman sultans, so I went with the Empire
  • So why not "as gifts to several Ottoman sultans"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended it. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he worked on Chehel Sotoun's balcony paintings" You mean that he personally helped to paint them?
Yes
  • "The departure of poets such as Naziri Nishapuri and 'Orfi Shirazi marked the rise of Indian-style poetry, introducing Persian to Indian literature." This is unclear. Why did the departure mark the rise of Indian-style poetry? Also, what is meant by introducing Persian to Indian literature? The Persian language was influenced by Indian literature?
Reworded the first part and deleted the second for redundancy
  • "The departure of poets such as Naziri Nishapuri and 'Orfi Shirazi and their arrival in the Mughal court marked the rise of Indian-style poetry (Sabk-i Hindi), known for its high-rhetorical texts of metaphors, mystical-philosophical themes and allegories." I still do not understand it. You seem to be saying that the arrival of Persian poets at the Mughal Court caused the rise of Indian style poetry in India. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles What if I replace the sentence with 'the immigration of poets such as Naziri Nishapuri and 'Orfi Shirazi from Iran to the Mughal court marked the rise of Indian-style poetry (Sabk-i Hindi), known for its high-rhetorical texts of metaphors, mystical-philosophical themes and allegories'?Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. How about "Iranian poets such as Naziri Nishapuri and 'Orfi Shirazi emigrated to the Mughal court. They were exponents of Indian-style poetry (Sabk-i Hindi), known for its high-rhetorical texts of metaphors, mystical-philosophical themes and allegories, and their arrival led to its rise at the court." Is this what you mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles I think I now understand what you were confused about. I didn't mean that their 'arrival' caused the rise of Indian-style, but they themselves pioneered it. I changed your sentence a little bit and incorporated it into the article. Hope the confusion has is resolved. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of his children were of Caucasian origin". Caucasian race is an outdated concept which is no longer considered valid. I would delete.
What if I link it to
Peoples of the Caucasus
?
  • They can only have been half-Caucasian as Tahmasp was not. Maybe "most of his children had [[Peoples of the Caucasus|Caucasian]] mothers". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended it
  • "Murad Mirza (d. 1545), governor of Kandahar; died in infancy". Maybe "nominal governor".
Done
  • The family section is oddly placed before coinage. Maybe move to the end if that will not cause any problems.
Done
  • The coinage section is a bit thin.
Expanded it a bit
  • What does shahi mean?
shahi literary means 'kingly'. Its the name given to the golden coins
Done
  • The collapse in the weight of coins from c. 8 to 3 g needs some comment if there is any reliable source.
Done
Replaced it with travelled.
  • "Old copper coins were also kept in circulation based on their validation." What does "based on their validation" mean?
Explained it a further in the article. Any thought?
  • "Tahmasp I's reign started through an era of civil wars between the Qizilbash leaders after the death of Ismail I that forewarned the realm of a deep crisis; a sign that Ismail I's charismatic characterisation as Messiah which had urged the Qizilbash to follow him had come to an end with Tahmasp's succession." This is clumsy. Maybe "Tahmasp I's reign started in an era of civil wars between the Qizilbash leaders after the death of Ismail I, whose charismatic characterisation as Messiah, which had been accepted by the Qizilbash, came to an end with Tahmasp's succession."
Amended it
  • "A successful act to break from the influence of the Qizilbash, taking the reins of power within ten years, after the realm had been through the civil war between the plotting tribal chieftains, and also establishing a public image that was not maintained by his successors as zealously as him." This is ungrammatical.
Amended it
  • "bringing Caucasian slaves into the Iranian mainlands". What does mainlands mean here?
Safavid borders
Replaced it with 'realm'
  • "in his grandson’s time" You do not say that Abbas was his grandson. This needs clarifying.
Mentioned their relation earlier in the article
  • "This characterisation has threw a murky light on Tahmasp as a king and a person." "murky light" seems unclear and misleading.
Amended it
  • "his speech to the envoys of Suleiman the Magnificent who had come to collect the fugitive Şehzade Bayezid which was a betoken of his political skills" Maybe "his speech to the envoys of Suleiman the Magnificent, who had come to collect the fugitive Şehzade Bayezid, showed his political skill"
  • I have copy edited the last part of the article. Change anything you do not like.
  • "adjusted the Safavid ideology with the main population of the realm" I am not sure what this means - changed Safavid ideology to agree with the views of most people? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the source says.
Done

@Dudley Miles All done. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

Name

  • Consider introducing the Shahnameh (perhaps as an early medieval Persian epic poem?)
Done
  • Consider introducing the Pishdadian dynasty (perhaps as a legendary Persian dynasty allegedly ruling thousand year before Tahmasp's was born?)
Done

Background

  • Consider mentioning that Ardabil is in northwestern Iran.
Done
  • Consider indicating when Safi-ad-Din, Zahed Gilani, Shaykh Junayd, and Shaykh Haydar lived or died. (perhaps "Safi-ad-din Ardabili (d. 1334)", or "Safi-ad-din Ardabili... became the master of the ... Zahediyeh in the late 13th century")
Done
  • ...Ismail I ... inherited the Safavid order from his grandfather... Did he inherit the order or its leadership?
The leadership
  • When Ismail's reign started in 1501 or 1502?
1501
  • Introduce the Shaybanids as Chingissids when they are first mentioned. The Shaybanids are lined twice.
Done
  • Was Najm-e Sani a Persian official and were the Uzbegs allied with the Quizilbash? Two actors are mentioned who are not obviously connected in tribes, groups mentioned in the previous sentences. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explained it further, any thoughts?

Drive by query

Does this article use US or UK English? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK English. Amir Ghandi (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Check for p/pp errors -- e.g. FN 9 should be "pp. 165–166"; FN 133 should be "p. 18." There are twenty or so that need to be fixed.
  • You're inconsistent about adding publisher locations to books -- about half have the location and half don't. They're not required, but if you use the location you should do so consistently.
    Done
    Still some missing location -- e.g. Aldous, Babaie et al, Savory et al (2012). I assume Encyclopædia Iranica has no location as it's really a web source and not a physical book? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do decide to keep locations, there's an inconsistency -- you use "London, UK" for Blow, for example, but just "Turnhout" for Berg. You could give the country in every case, or just in the cases where the location is not well-known.
  • Missing publisher for Amoretti & Matthee.
    Added the publisher
  • The Encyclopædia Iranica article titles should not be upper case, per
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    . Same comment for Roemer, and for the volume numbers for the Encyclopaedia of Islam.
    Done; I'm afraid the volume numbers are just part of the template for Encyclopaedia of Islam and are not removable.
    OK for now, but would there be any problem with editing that template to change the case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give chapter page numbers in some cases (e.g. Akopyan) but not others (e.g. Amoretti & Matthee, Babaie et al., Babinger & Savory and others). It should be consistent.
    Added Babaie et al. Unfortunately, could not find any page numbers for Oxford encyclopedia of the islamic world and the Encyclopedia of Islam
  • Any reason why you give the page numbers for the entire book for Newman?
    My mistake; deleted the page numbers
  • Suggest adding a translated title to Hinz (1975).
    Done
  • Typos: in Panahi: "Reaserch"; in Pārsādust: "Safavdis".
    Fixed the former; not sure could not find any Safavids in the Parsadust source
    I fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Ghasem Zadeh, can you confirm the transliteration of the journal title -- you give it as Afagh Journal of Humanities, but Google is giving me Afaq instead. There appears to be no DOI, which makes me wonder how we know this journal is a reliable source?

Spotchecks -- I've asked for quite a few quotes, since I don't have access to most of the sources.

  • "Ismail established the Qizilbash Turkoman tribes as inseparable members of the Safavid administration since they were the "men of the sword" who brought him to power." Cited to Bakhash 1983 and Savory & Karamustafa 1998. I don't see support for "inseparable".
  • "Ismail named the boy Tahmasp after Ali, the first Imam, told him to do so in his dream." Cited to Wood 2018, p. 79. I don't have access; can you quote the supporting text?
    "'Name your son Tahmasb,' came the answer. When the Shah awoke, he named the noble boy Shah Tahmasp, in accordance with the order of the commander of the Faithful. After that, His Majesty packed up and headed to Esfahan." I would like to note that Commander of the Faithful is Ali's title.
  • "Safavid superiority in the battle was due to their use of artillery, which they had learned from the Ottomans." Cited to Roemer 2008, p. 236. Please quote the supporting text.
    " This time a Persian relief force was organised and the shah accompanied it to Khurasan. He intervened personally in the battle of Jam (10 Muharram 935/24 September 1528) and won a victory principally by methods which his amirs had learnt from the Ottomans: for example, by the use of artillery, which was new to the Uzbeks."
    I think this is slightly inaccurate. The source gives artillery as one example of the Ottomans' methods; the article text makes it sounds as if this was the main reason for their superiority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Safavid superiority in the battle was due to many different factors, one of them being their use of artillery, which they had learned from the Ottomans"?
  • "Suleiman recognised him as ruler of Iran, which panicked Tahmasp's court." Cited to Streusand 2019, p. 148. Please quote the supporting text.
    "Sam Mirza sent his submission to Sulayman during the Ottoman ruler’s march west, and Sulayman recognized him as the ruler of Iran west of Azerbaijan. This situation caused panic at Tahmasp’s court."
    OK, but the phrasing is too close to the original. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can change 'ruler' to 'king' or 'shah' but otherwise, I don't know how to change the sentence.
  • "In 1555, following the Peace of Amasya, eastern Georgia remained in Iranian hands and western Georgia was ruled by the Turks." Cited to Mikaberidze 2015, p. xxxi. Please quote the supporting text.
    "1555: Treaty of Amassia between Persia and the Ottoman Empire divides Georgia, with Kartli, Kakheti, and eastern Samtskhe in the Persian sphere of influence, and western Georgia and western Samtskhe under the Ottomans."
  • "Although Tahmasp rarely left Qazvin from the Peace of Amasya in 1555 to his death in 1576, he was still active during this period. A 1564 rebellion in Herat was suppressed by Masum Bek and the Khorasan governors, but the region remained troubled and was raided by the Uzbeks two years later." Cited to Newman 2008, pp. 38-39. Please quote the supporting text.
    "Although it has been suggested that soon after the 1555 Amasya treaty Tahmasp scarcely left his Qazvin palace until his death in 1576,97 in fact the shah was continually active over this period in the face of a variety of internal and external challenges. In 1564 the same Masum Bek and a number of tribal amirs put down a rebellion in Herat and the next year this column moved North to check a potential threat. In 1566, raids were launched against Khurasan from Bukhara."
    As far as I can see, the source is saying that it is not correct to say that Tahmasp rarely left the palace, but the article says the reverse. I also think "Tahmasp rarely left Qazvin ... to his death in 1576, he was still active during this period" is too close to "Tahmasp scarcely left his Qazvin palace until his death in 1576,97 in fact the shah was continually active over this period". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the source says is that Tahmasp did not set foot out of his palace in Qazvin, yet, was active during the same time.
  • "The city, associated with orthodoxy and stable governance, developed under Tahmasp's patronage; the era's foremost building is Chehel Sotoun." Cited to Kleiss 1990. The source only discusses the building and doesn't support "foremost"; the first half of the sentence is not supported.
  • "He sent copies of the Quran as gifts to several Ottoman sultans; overall, during his reign, eighteen copies of the Quran were sent to Istanbul and all were encrusted with jewels and gold." Cited to Guliyev 2022, p. 62. Please quote the supporting text.
    "The largest numbers of the Qurʾan gifts for the Ottoman ruler were presented in May 1576 by an embassy headed by Mohammad Khan Tokhmaq Ustajlu. While Shah Tahmāsp sent eighteen copies of the Qurʾan (nine large and nine small), his envoy offered only one copy. the covers of the Qurʾan brought by the 1576 Safavid embassy headed by Shahgulu Sultan Ustajlu were encrusted with gold and jewels."
    The source says only one was encrusted with gold and jewels, but the article has "all were encrusted with jewels and gold", and the phrase is also too close to the original. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tahmasp lost interest in the miniature arts around 1555 and, accordingly, disbanded the royal workshop and allowed his artists to practice elsewhere." Cited to Simpson 2021, p. 473. Please quote the supporting text.
    "...around 1555 when Shāh Tahmāsb lost interest in the arts of the book and released the artists working for his ketābkhāna and allowed them to practice their art elsewhere, including outside Iran."
    Can you confirm that "miniature arts" and "arts of the book" mean the same thing? And I think the phrasing is a bit too close here, though it's marginal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they mean the same thing.
  • "In his coins, Arabic is no longer the only language used, in his fals (folus-i shahi) coins, the phrase "May be eternally [condemned] to the damnation of God / He, who alters [the rate of] the royal folus" is minted in Persian. Old copper coins were also kept in circulation through their validation by the countermarks folus-i shahi, 'adl-e shahi, etc. to indicate their new royal and national status." Cited to Akopyan 2021, p. 295. Please quote the supporting text.
    "Arabic was no longer the only language used in coin legends. Folus began to carry a uniform distich: peyvast-e beh la‘nat-e Elāhi / taghayyor deh folus-e shāhi (May be eternally [condemned] to the damnation of God / He, who alters [the rate of] the royal folus; Figure 14.6). This text contained a direct indication of the royal status of these coins (folus-e shāhi) and a prohibition to change their course under penalty of a curse – la‘nat. Old copper coins were kept in circulation through their validation by the countermarks folus-e shāhi, ‘adl-e shāhi, etc., which indicated their new royal and national status."
    Too closely paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edited it, any thoughts?
  • "Tahmasp had seven known consorts...A sister of Waraza Shalikashvili". Cited to Mitchell 2011, p. 67. Please quote the supporting text.
    "Kai Khusraw II's dowager, Dedis Imedi, ruled Meskhia with her lover, Waraza Shalikashvili, brother to the wife of Tahmasp."
  • "It was during Tahmasp's reign that the Safavid right to rule was established and gradually accepted among the Shia people, who were endeared to the idea of a descendent of Ahl al-Bayt (Family of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad) ruling over them. Thus the Safavid dynasty gained an ideological underpinning much stronger than the initial premise of the right of conquest." Cited to Khafipour 2021, p. 121. Please quote the supporting text.
    "We can clearly recognize that it was during the reign of Tahmāsb and largely due to such public religiopolitical strategies that the validity of the Safavid right to rule was gradually established among the people, a claim that was grounded in popular Shi‘i notions of legitimate authority (i.e., descent from the ahl al-beyt) and shielded by a historical awareness whose sentiment was broadcasted in the public sphere."
    Too close paraphrasing: "the Safavid right to rule was established and gradually accepted among the Shia people"/"the validity of the Safavid right to rule was gradually established among the people". I also don't see a reference to "the initial premise of the right of conquest".
Sorry, forgot about that phrase: "Effectively persuading a population that the sovereign in power is uniquely positioned to defend and implement the law (divinely inspired, in this case) has the potential to provide the ideological underpinning that an order needs to safeguard its legitimacy, consolidate its power, and survive beyond its initial paroxysm of conquest."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies and strikes above. Enough of these are problematic that I am going to pick out some more to spotcheck. Do you want to take a look through the citations yourself and check for problems before I ask for more quotes? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, please go on. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks:

  • "The first sheikh of the order and eponym of the dynasty, Safi-ad-din Ardabili (d. 1334), married the daughter of Zahed Gilani (d. 1301) and became the master of his father-in-law's order, the Zahediyeh." Cited to Babinger & Savory 1995. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "This belief weakened after Chaldiran, and Ismail lost his theological-religious relationship with the disappointed Qizilbash tribes who had previously seen him as invincible." Cited to Roemer 2008, p. 225. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "During his years in Herat, Tahmasp developed a love for writing and painting. He became an accomplished painter and dedicated a work to his brother, Bahram Mirza. The painting was a humorous composition of a gathering of Safavid courtiers, featuring music, singing, and wine-drinking." Cited to Simpson 2021, p. 471. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "Hossein Khan constantly undermined the shah's power and had angered Tahmasp many times. His confidence in his power, combined with the rumours that Hossein Khan intended to depose Tahmasp and place his brother, Sam Mirza, on the throne, finally led Tahmasp to rid himself of the powerful Shamlu amir." Cited to Savory 2007, p. 56. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "Through this treaty, Iran had time to increase its forces and resources as its western provinces had the opportunity to recuperate from the war." Cited to Köhbach 1985. The supporting text is "Iran was able to consolidate its forces and resources, while its western provinces were able to recover from war." This is too closely paraphrased.
  • "however, he refused to give him political assistance unless he converted to Shia Islam. Humayun reluctantly agreed, but reverted to Sunni Islam when he returned to India; however he did not force the Iranian Shias, who came with him to India, to convert" is cited to Savory 2007, p. 66. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "The Habsburgs were eager to ally with the Safavids against the Ottomans. In 1529, Ferdinand I (r. 1558–1564) sent an envoy to Iran with the objective of a two-front attack on the Ottoman Empire the following year. The mission was unsuccessful, however, since the envoy took over a year to return." Cited to Slaby 2005. It seems from the source that it was Karl V who sent the envoy, and the second sentence doesn't really follow the source which says it was not just the delay, it was the fact that by that time the situation "had changed completely".
  • "Tahmasp wanted the poets of his court to write about Ali, rather than him." Cited to Canby 2000, p. 72. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "His preeminent and acclaimed contribution to the Safavid arts was his patronage of Persian miniature manuscripts that took place during the first half of his reign." Cited to Canby 2000, p. 49. Please quote the supporting text.
  • "During the later years of his life, however, he came to despise poets and poetry; as his devotion to the Quran increased, he no longer counted poets as pious men, for many of them were addicted to wine, an irreligious behaviour. Tahmasp refused to allow poets in his court and ceased to regard them with favour." Cited to Sharma 2017, p. 21. Please quote the supporting text.

Fail. I'm going to stop here and fail the spotcheck. Of the twelve spotchecks I've requested for which I either had access to the source or the source has been quoted, three were fine, one was marginal (struck above) and the other eight all have problems -- inaccuracies in the way the text of the article reflects the source, or too close paraphrasing, or both. The only two for which I had access in the second pass both had issues. Even if the remaining spotchecks all came up clean I think further checks would be necessary. I can see that a good faith attempt has been made at paraphrasing, but I think more is needed. It may not be a question of rephrasing the individual sentences at issue -- it might be better to restructure the paragraphs to re-narrate the events in our own words, so that it's just the information that comes over from the source, not the sentence structure. Sorry -- I hate to do this at the end of an otherwise successful FAC but there are just too many issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note (2)

Tks Mike for that spotcheck. Noting also an earlier reviewer's concern following some source checks, we'll need to close this and allow improvements -- which as Mike suggests might need to be extensive to avoid close paraphrasing -- to take place away from the pressures of the FAC process and then hopefully return for another try later. A formal or informal peer review between the improvements and a new FAC nom might also be helpful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2022 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2022 [6].

Ontario Highway 8

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a failed initial nomination, in which only an image review was completed (and no further comments), I am renominating this with the hope that it receives additional attention. Highway 8 was one of the first two provincial highways in Ontario, and connected Niagara Falls with Lake Huron. It was initially a combination of a native trail along the Niagara Escarpment and a settlement road from Lake Ontario to the shores of Lake Huron, since upgraded over the past two centuries. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll try to look at this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The expressway initially follows the former alignment of King Street" - I'd recommend rephrasing this. Based on the Google Maps source, it appears that this is indicating that the path Highway 8 is King Street further to the west, but the current wording would be more likely to be read as stating that King Street formerly followed the path of what is now Highway 8, before King Street was realigned (this may be accurate, but it doesn't seem to be source-supported)
    • Yeah, rather confusing. I've just removed it.
  • "renamed Kitchener in 1916" - link this to
    Berlin to Kitchener name change
    • Done
  • "These include the Huron Road between Berlin (renamed Kitchener in 1916) and Goderich, which was built c. 1827" - source doesn't mention Berlin
  • "and the Queenston Road (later the Queenston and Grimsby Stone Road" - I tracked the source down on the Wikipedia Library, and it uses the name "Queenston Stone Road", not what's given in the article
  • "as well as Sir Isaac Brock and Tecumseh during the War of 1812" - the source doesn't say Tecumseh used it, is says that the Americans used it when traveling to defeat Tecumseh
    • I had about 25 sources open when I was writing some of the older history, so I hope you don't mind that the above three had some bloopers.
  • "establishing many of the towns in that area named after European counterparts" - pagination issue? I'm not seeing this on the cited page of the given source
    • I can't remember where that particular part of the text came from. It's trivial anyways, so I've cut the "European counterparts" bit.
  • " "Crastor Scott Recalls Schooldays with the Late James E. Carter". Wellington County Museum. Archived from the original on December 24, 2021. Retrieved February 14, 2022." - this isn't published by the Wellington County Museum. It's a genealogical website by the Clark family, and I don't think it's RS
    • Clarks of Tomford, and in particular Marjorie Clark, is a well-established local history expert for Puslinch Township. They have nearly a dozen published books sold by the township that cover its history. See [7]
  • "The route between Hamilton and Waterloo was improved to a stone road circa 1836" - unclear where 1836 is coming from. The source says someone moved to Canada in 1837 and was then working on the road the next winter
    • Typo, should be 1837.
  • "and most often the Dundas and Hamilton Stone Road" - no, the source says it was called the "Old Stone Road"
  • "commissioner Thomas Mercer Jones rode the muddy trail from Guelph to Goderich in June 1929" - presumably a typo for 1829?
    • Correct.
  • Is there nothing to say about the road between 1832 and 1918?
    • Not that I can find. roads generally languished in the mid-to-late 1800s as the railroad came about. Toll roads were the main exception, but I haven't seen any sources on toll roads existing along Highway 8.
  • " The Department of Public Works and Highways paid up to 60% of the construction and maintenance costs for these roads, while the counties were responsible for the remaining 40%. " - not seeing this in the source
    • Hmmm, thought it was in that one. Added a ref that does have it.
  • "until traffic congestion warranted bypassing several cities and towns along the route." - not seeing this in any of the sources in the paragraph
    • Rewritten, although methinks it's a fairly uncontroversial statement that you bypass a town because of traffic issues.
  • "to divert truck traffic from the King and Queen Street intersection" - not seeing where in this paragraph's sources the diverting truck traffic at this intersection is mentioned
    • Removed the word "truck" until I can dig up something in one of the annual reports.
  • "Provincial Highway Construction, 1928". Annual Report (Report). Department of Public Highways. March 31, 1957. p. 47. Archived from the original on August 13, 2022. Retrieved March 1, 2022." - do you mean "Provincial Highway construction, 1958"?
    • Copy paste relic, I've updated it to the correct section title.
  • "McGreal, Ryan (September 20, 2013). "57 Years and Counting: Hamilton's Love Affair with One-Way Streets Needs to End Now". Raise the Hammer. Archived from the original on March 5, 2022. Retrieved March 5, 2022." - is this high-quality RS? It's a community group website and the best credential I can find is that the editor once wrote for HuffPost, which I don't think is sufficient to meet
    WP:SPS
    enough for featured article sourcing
    • Good point. The Hamilton spectator ref from the Ramsey Evans bit covers the same info, so I just replaced it.
  • "At it, Ramsey Evans, whom had first suggested the one-way conversion" - source says that Evans was part of a committee that did this, not that he did this himself
    • Tweaked as such. I must've misread it.
  • "Fairway Road (renamed from Block Line Road in 1965)" - not supported by source, which in fact is from 1966 and is using the name Block Line, not Fairway
    • Removed the year, sources conflict on when it was renamed and it's fairly trivial.

I only made it to the Transfers and expressway extensions section, and I'm at an oppose here. This is way more source-text integrity issues than I'm comfortable with at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My responses are indented above. I would disagree about it being an integrity issue, and more minor tweaks to wording or a source missing to cover a small portion of a larger chunk of text because, as I mention in one of the responses, I had a lot of sources open at once while writing the early history. I still have to deal with the Dundas and Hamilton Stone Road bit, but it's late so I'll get that one tomorrow. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Floydian: - would you be willing to go through the references throughout all the article yourself to make sure all of the issues stemming from having massive numbers of sources open at once are corrected? I'm moderately busy in RL so I'd rather have some assurance that this issue is resolved before I move to reviewing the rest of the article. I know what it feels like to have so many sources open at once - Battle of Raymond was exhausting for me to do Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll go through it over the next couple days and will let you know. Floydian τ ¢ 04:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, should be good now. No new refs, just repositioning of existing refs and a few chops of text. as much as I'd like to include "Hamilton and Dundas Stone Road," the refs don't want to cooperate. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction began to widen the route as far west as Waterloo Regional Road 12 (Queen Street), south of Petersburg, on July 6, 1992, with a planned completion by August 1993" - a bit nitpicky, but the source is dated July 4, 1992, so it can't support something occurring on July 6, especially since road construction is the sort of thing that's frequently delayed due to weather.
  • "Construction began in August or September 1998 to widen the Conestoga Parkway from four to six lanes between Courtland Avenue and King Street" - again, stating the dates of construction beginning is really just a guess. We can't really say things like this based on an expected beginning date If
    MODOT
    started/completed things when they said they would, I'd be overjoyed
  • "It was completed, along with widening of the parkway between King Street and Frederick Street, in July 2000." - source doesn't mention Frederick Street
  • "The expansion of Highway 8 from four lanes to eight lanes between the Conestoga Parkway and Fergus Avenue was originally scheduled to begin in 2001, but was delayed as businesses along Weber Street fought expropriation" - I have several concerns with this statement. I tracked down the source on ProQuest, and it doesn't mention Fergus Avenue, instead referring to the Freeport Interchange. It also says the businesses that opposed it were on King Street East, not Weber Street, and refers to the opposition being against "the road closure plan", not mentioning expropriation.
  • "eight lanes from Fergus Avenue to northwest of the Grand River, in April 2006" - very minor nitpick, but the source indicates that this widening was to occur to the Grand River, not to northwest of it
  • "Both projects were completed and opened, except for one westbound lane over the Grand River, in November 2011; the fourth westbound lane was opened the following year" - again, we can't say with certainty that something opened the year after a source was published
  • "and the C$6.3 million roundabout was opened on September 25, 2012" - again, I have doubts about our ability to source something to the exact day when that date is two weeks after the source was published. Weather could well have delayed it
  • Some sort of short prose summary for the suffixed routes (probably just a description of what suffixed routes are and how many there are) should be added

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stick with my oppose her for the same reasoning as at

control risk to be high, and can't give out an clean opinion. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, @WP:FAC coordinators: , I would recommend that this be closed for further work outside of FAC. The degree of sourcing being "off" that I've noticed indicates that this article frankly wasn't ready for FAC. Hog Farm Talk 16:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since
WP:PR is kind of a dead horse, do you perhaps have any recommendations where I can get someone to make these kind of audits (particularly that outside-the-box take that is scrupulous of refs, which I'd look at and say "oh, yeah, common denominator") - Floydian τ ¢ 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I am going to archive this one. The usual two-week hiatus will apply, which I suggest the nominator uses to double check that the issues identified above have been resolved, prior to another run at FAC.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2022 [8].

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 08:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work recently for a FAC! K. Peake 08:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Starting to look. The prose are really good; struggling to find gripes here. Which is great, as this is a landmark album. Closer look on content to follow; v happy to see this page here in such good condition. Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update, still reading through. Ceoil (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the "Track notes" and "Sample credits" sections are woefully uncited. And even if could be spun out.
  • The "Personnel" sect is cited, but pointlessly long. I dont think we need to know who played what horn or violin on what track. Would cut this severely.
  • Done, only keeping musicians who played on multiple tracks or more than one instrument if this is alright? --K. Peake 09:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section should be binned, as too general. eg what use is "2010 in hip hop music". Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for the hip hop music part, but aren't the number-one lists acceptable? --K. Peake rather than "as well as"?
  • West released free songs through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, as well as the four singles.... - including?
  • although the lack of an Album of the Year nomination was viewed as a snub by several media outlets. - sounds like a gripe and not lead worthy
  • Why was Kanye in "self-imposed exile in Oahu, Hawaii"
  • A period of controversy, as is mentioned. --K. Peake 12:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amid the backlash to West's behaviour - in response, not amid (which sounds very journalese)
  • West admitted that he did compromise during this process - self-praise, prob from a press release - and avoiding the fact guff
  • stating the situation - alliteration
  • was recorded in sessions at Avex in Honolulu

Coord note -- 'Fraid this nom is looking very shaky with only one review after three weeks; I've added to FAC Urgents but if we don't see further commentary soon I expect we'll archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens, should I wait until a later point in time and put forward another candidacy since nobody has actually opposed this? K. Peake 11:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would probably be best. Possibly try and line up some reviewers in advance, but ensure that you use neutrally phrased requests. Meanwhile, I am timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus wll apply.


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2022 [9].

Mini mum

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a miniscule (ha) species of Malagasy frog, measuring just 8–11 mm in length. Other than its size and name, its unremarkable and poorly studied, although it does have very slightly more known about its ecology than the other two species in its genus. One of those, M. scule, is also an FA, and was TFA just a while back (which is actually why I decided to expand this article). AryKun (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Power / Elias

My FAC reviewing comeback! Here are some comments on prose

Resolved comments
  • The last sentence in the lead, which deals with the genus's publicity, seems better fit after "... being a pun on the word minimum."
    • Done.
  • In my view, the lead would be more cohesive if everything from "It has a burnt umber underside" to "due to its extremely small and highly deforested range." were split into another paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Lead has too many sentences in the "it [verb]" format for comfort
    • After splitting, there's only two consecutive sentences in that format, which I think is fine.
  • "on the basis of an" can we reduce this to "based on" ?
    • I don't see a need to change this, "on the basis of" reads better to me and this isn't a field guide where we have to pare it down as much as possible.
  • "in Atsimo-Atsinanana in Madagascar in 2014" -> perhaps these successive in's can be reduced? There are lots of ways to it
    • Reworded, please check.
  • Do we need a wiktionary link for the word minimum? I imagine most people know what the word means, plus you do not link to wiktionary in the lead. Keep it consistent
    • Removed.
  • "the other two species in its genus, the species" repeating "species" here is clunky - could simply substitute the latter instance with Mini mum
  • "It is part of the family Microhylidae, a widespread family of over 650 species of mostly small frogs." -> "the family Microhylidae, which consists of over 650 species..." I see no need to say it is widespread as the number speaks for itself
    • Widespread is used in the geographical sense, as compared to 600 species that all occur on Madagascar.
  • "related to a clade" -> "the clade" ?
    • This is the first mention of the clade, so "a" is correct.
  • "However, a 2021 phylogeny by Alain Dubois and colleagues instead" -> remove either "however" or "instead"
    • Removed instead.
  • "both" is redundant and should be removed
    • Done.
  • "that to be monophyletic" this phrase on its own is unclear. Is this referring to Mini and Plethodontohyla? If so, I'd change it to "for the two to be monophyletic, Plethodontohyla and Mini should be..."
    • For Cophyla to be monophyletic, reworded.
  • I don't think "lumping" has a degree of technicality in the context of this article such that it warrants a WL - feel free to contend
    • It does, I don't think many people know what lumping is in taxonomy. Specified the link to the relevant part of the article.
  • "The sides are black, with a prominent border between the sides and back." -> "between it and the back"
    • Changed to "them and the back"
  • "The underside is burnt umber, darker towards the front, flecked with beige" -> this is an incomplete sentence. Could be fixed by adding "and" before "flecked"
    • Done.
  • Remove the "to" in "than to the snout"
    • Done.
  • "with the head being wider than it is long and narrower than the body" is clunky. Change to "Its head has a greater width than length, and it is narrower than the body"
    • I think that the current version reads better the your suggestion, it's shorter and less split up.
  • The usage of it in "It lacks maxillary, premaxillary, and vomerine teeth" reads as though the fingers/toes lack teeth
    • Reworded.
  • There is a stray whitespace after "S. obscoena"
    • Removed
  • "Distribution and habitat" and "Ecology and conservation" are incredibly short sections. Can they be merged?
    • Not really, Ecology and Conservation are already two usually separate sections that I've merged, merging this with Distribution would result in a section that has a bunch of disparate info not really relevant to each other.

That is all from me ^^

What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments

Comments from Vanamonde

Please feel free to contest any copy-edits I make as I go. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some redundany in the lead's first paragraph, with wordplay effectively mentioned twice; can this be tightened?
    • I don't see how it's redundant; the first sentence states that the name is a pun, and the second states that it got noticed in the media because its name was a pun.
      • The redundancy is in the verbiage rather than the material; see here for an example of how to trim it, others could be devised. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the preservation method to the appearance?
        • Okay, I've implemented a slight variation of your change. AryKun (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mentioned in the last sentence of the first para in Description; " In life, the species is browner and less iridescent."
  • The structure currently strikes me as somewhat odd; I would combine conservation and distribution information, as closely related. Also, information about vocalization is currently split between sections. You could put it all in ecology.
    • Conservation and distribution aren't particularly closely related sections, they're usually separate in articles. The Conservation section has already been merged with ecology, and merging another section would just make a hodgepodge of everything known about the frog that isn't taxonomy or appearance.
      • Sorry, I disagree. Everything we know about conservation is a consequence of its distribution. Separating the info is confusing, and repetitive. I suggest placing vocalization and habitat choice in a section titled "ecology", and combining distribution and conservation in a separate section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really a standard format that any
          TOL
          article does, so I don't really think I can implement that unless more editors agree.
    • The vocalization info in description is there because it helps tell the species apart from similar Stumpffia. The info in ecology is there because it's more behavioral than about identifying the species.
      • Vocalization is generally understood as an aspect of ecology, however. There's no reason the ecology cannot be compared to another species. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As above, since this isn't a standard format, I can't implement it unless more editors agree.
          • That's not actually true; absent talk page consensus, or actual project-wide consensus on format (as opposed to common practice), you can format it however you like. You're choosing not to, which is okay if you disagree with my suggestion, but please don't pass the buck on responsibility for that choice. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less all I have. You've done a fine job here, and to the best of my knowledge no other sources exist to beef this up. That said; it's very sparse, and we know next to nothing about this species besides its appearance and phylogenetic position. Based on the way the community currently sees the FAC criteria, I will support once my concerns are addressed, but I do think it's fair to say that sometimes all the available material still doesn't add up to a common-sense definition of comprehensive. This reflects the state of some topics, rather than any failing on the nominator's part. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not opposing here as the concerns are relatively minor. However, I believe they do hinder understanding; in particular, the fact that distribution and conservation information are separated here makes a bigger deal of the conservation piece than is reasonable (a point also raised by Nick below), and combined with concerns about scarcity of information, makes me withhold my support for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I'm leaning oppose, as I don't think that the limited sources have been used as well as would be hoped in a FA:

  • "this wordplay led to the genus receiving media attention when first described" - not sure the article really supports this statement in the lead, as the body of the article says something different ("M. mum received publicity...") and the two works cited aren't really mass media. The concept here is also a bit clunky and inaccurate, not least as the mongabay article is actually focused on the very small size of the frog rather than it's name and the Smithsonian Magazine article notes the name at the outset as a way of focusing on the tiny size of the frog.
    • Both of the articles only cursorily address the other two microhylids the paper described, with most of the attention on the three species whose names are puns. There are dozens of microhylids described every year, and most get nowhere close to this much attention, because their names aren't interesting puns. As for mass media, there are other articles I haven't cited because I felt that would be overkill (by NatGeo, Mashable, Quartz, etc.), and that is a fair amount of media attention for an obscure Malagasy frog - it obviously isn't going to be front page of the BBC.
  • "Mini mum has an extremely limited range, being known only from areas in the Manombo Special Reserve" - given that the frog was only recently discovered and is obviously extremely difficult to detect, this seems much too conclusive. It also doesn't accurately represent the source, which states that the frog is also likely to be located in the area immediately outside the Manombo Special Reserve as well - the discussion of this in the source is quite interesting, and I'm surprised the article doesn't reflect this.
    • In any case, its range is extremely limited, as mentioned in the journal article ("extremely miniaturized frogs in Madagascar almost always are [extreme micro-endemics]"). The WP article says "being known only from areas in the Manombo Special Reserve", which is accurate, since it has only been recorded from areas within the reserve, even if it may occur in nearby areas just outside the reserve.
  • The mongabay article also notes the difficulty in actually finding the frogs.
    • That would perhaps be suited for an article on extremely miniaturized frogs in general, but doesn't really add much to the discussion of this species specifically. It's a bit like adding that bathypelagic fish are hard to find to an article about a specific species of bathypelagic fish - it's obvious and uninformative.
  • the authors of the article in which it is described recommended that it be listed as critically endangered due to its extremely small and highly deforested range" this also seems a bit simplistic given the authors note that similar species found in the nature reserve have received this classification.
    • The similar species also received the classification because the reserve is small and surrounded by heavily deforested areas.
  • The Smithsonian Magazine has some interesting observations of the frog and related species evolutionary paths that don't seem to be drawn on
    • Added some information on how the sister genus Plethodontohyla contains the world's largest microhylid frog.
  • "Scherz, Mark D. "Meet the mini frogs of Madagascar -- the new species we've discovered". The Conversation." - needs publishing and access dates.
    • Added.
  • The Smithsonian Magazine reference needs a publishing date
    • Added.
  • It's unclear why different date formats are used for the two academic articles
    • Fixed.
  • Mark D. Scherz notes in his blog (http://www.markscherz.com/archives/4055) that he also discusses the frog as part of his PhD, with this forming the basis of the journal article focused on it and the other two species. Is the PhD available online? (though it looks like it may be in German). This article also notes a bunch of news stories about the discovery of the frog, though they may not add anything. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked the PhD thesis (here, starting page 190) and there isn't anything on this species particularly that wasn't already published in the article describing the species.
  • For any concerns about the accuracy of the WP article, I asked Mark Scherz if he could look over the article once, and his comments are on his user talk here; he says the article is factually accurate, but has a couple comments. He thinks the Dubois phylogeny should be given less weight due to its problematic methodology, and that the article isn't sufficiently paraphrased to avoid FREECOPY (which you guys decide). AryKun (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D, I've replied to all your comments. AryKun (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for not responding here. My general view is that given the article is short and sourcing is limited (and will almost certainly always remain limited - it seems unlikely that anyone will do further studies of this obscure and hard to study species, though hopefully I'm wrong), there's some useful material you are choosing to exclude for reasons that aren't clear to me. I'll strike the oppose, but concur with Vanamonde's view that the article isn't as comprehensive as could be possible Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Well over three weeks in, just the single general support and a pair of reviews raising concerns. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus seems to be forming to promote this, so I am timing it out. The usual two week wait will apply.


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) 4 December 2022 [10].

The Mother of All Demos

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a famous computer demonstration from 1968 for the Association for Computing Machinery / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ACM/IEEE). This demo featured a variety of technologies that would become essential in modern computing, like windows, computer mice, video conferencing, a collaborative real-time editing. The name "The Mother of All Demos" comes from the importance of this demo in modern computing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Opppose from TAOT

I think this nomination was done in good faith, but the nominator has made exactly zero edits to the article. As it says at the top of the FAC page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." I checked, and nobody asked Abebenjoe, the author of most of the article. I am strongly inclined to oppose on principle. FAC is a very difficult process, and my first nomination failed, despite me putting extensive work into the article. I encourage the nominator to withdraw and gain some experience with the Good Articles process first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks TAOT. Yes we generally remove articles with no input from the nominator as out-of-process, as much as anything for the practical reason that unless one has been involved in the development of an article one can't be expected to field all the critical commentary likely to arise during review; I'll therefore be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings (talk) yeah, I wasn't consulted. This is usually the time of the year I take a look at the article and make corrections or add more material to it. I don't feel the article is ready to go through the process to become a Featured Article. It could be, might need a few more citations, and more copy editing. I probably don't have the time in the near-term to turn this into a Feature Article. I know some of the issues I'd like to correct, but that would require time in libraries with real books to get some answers, and I don't have the time to mine the University of Toronto library system or the City of Toronto's Research Library to develop better citations. But if someone else does that, I'm not opposed to that. Thank you for the heads up.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2022&oldid=1130862657"