Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2024

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

2023 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC), User:HurricaneHiggins[reply]

This article is about the annual FAC for the main snooker tournament of the year. A bit later than usual as the GAN took a while to get looked at. Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Licensing and descriptions on the player photographs is complete and appropriately done.
  • Non-free image has the appropriate disclosure and copyright information.
  • Flags are appropriately used and labeled per
    MOS:FLAG
  • Captions are generally fine, but I think the Davis one is too long and Brecel's is just shy of being too much.
  • Consider adding
    alternative text to images where possible. SounderBruce 05:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you, @SounderBruce. I reduced the length of the Davis and Brecel captions per your feedback. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOntheLoose

To my surprise, I'm listed as 2nd on the authorship list for this article; this is almost entirely due to me running IABot on it. Co-ords, please let me know whether it would be appropriate for me to express a "vote" on this one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be entirely appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:LEADLENGTH
    says "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words."; although this is a long article, and so four paragraphs are fine, the lead is close to 600 words which IMO could probably be condensed slightly. (e.g. some of the stats like "marking the first time since the 1988 event that two Crucible debutants had reached the last eight" could perhaps be omitted)
  • World Snooker, which isn't independent, is used for a significant proportion of the references. I suppose that this is fine where simple facts are being supported, or quotes from players used.
  • Most of the wst.tv sources have "World Snooker" as publisher, but #24 has "World Snooker Tour", #30 has "WST"
  • Publisher for refs #5 and #184 should be World Snooker (and not WPBSA). (The WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST)
  • As Metro is "generally unreliable" at
    WP:RSP
    , alternative sources should be found for the two intances where it's used.
  • The sources cited for Main draw don't verify the dates of matches, or the details of the final (referee, frame scores, breaks)
  • "Preview: The five women" - author is David Hendon, not "Ivan"
  • 'described as "one of the most exciting"' - I think this should be attributed to Calladine if the direct quote is used.
Thank you @BennyOnTheLoose. I've tried to address your comments by shortening the lead to three paragraphs and under 400 words. I've also addressed your concerns about references #5, #24, #30, and #184, and have inserted Dave Hendon as the correct author of the article you noted. I also attributed that quote to Calladine.
Agreed that World Snooker articles are used frequently as a source, but they are accurate when it comes to scores, match summaries, post-match quotes from players, and other factual information, and would suggest that relying on this information does not introduce any bias into the article itself. As for using Metro, I'd note that the cited articles were written by the respected snooker journalist Phil Haigh, co-host of the Talking Snooker podcast with Nick Metcalfe, and might request that they be allowed here on the basis of Haigh being an established and reputable commentator on the sport.
I did not work on the Main Draw section, and might request those who did to address your concerns with references. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted little interest. 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) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week on and no more progress, so I am regretfully going to archive this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (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) 28 February 2024 [2].

Nintendo Switch

Nominator(s): Notdmsforlife1 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Notdmsforlife1 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw, please. The nomination is hardly complete, another entry was removed on its filing here, the nominator has no major (indeed, any) contributions to the article, it is only a B-class at the moment, it has tags, uncited and poorly cited material, and from where I'm sitting, MOS breaches including but not exclusively sandwiching problems. All of which this litany tells of a drive-by filing by a nominator who will be unable to bring up to scratch an article that is far, far from reaching the WP:FA? criteria. Cheers, ——Serial 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) x 2! Oppose There unsourced information (not much, but still), and there are some less than 100 per cent reliable sources. There's an 'update section' tag that's dated February 2022! In addition, the nom is not a major contributor. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2024 (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) 28 February 2024 [3].

Thomas Carlyle

Nominator(s): Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most influential English prose writer of the 19th century. Sinopecynic (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • See
    this guidance
    regarding captions
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • File:Thomas_Carlyle_lm.jpg: missing US tag, source link is dead. Ditto File:Crayon_portrait_of_Thomas_Carlyle_by_Samuel_Laurence,_circa_1838.png
  • File:Signature_of_Thomas_Carlyle.svg is mistagged
  • File:Silhouettes_of_Thomas_Carlyle's_father_and_mother_made_by_Jane_Welsh_Carlyle_with_captions_in_Carlyle's_hand_2.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Jane_Baillie_Welsh,_Mrs_Thomas_Carlyle,_1801_-_1866._Wife_of_the_historian_Thomas_Carlyle.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Carlyle_Maclise_Original.jpg, File:Thomas_Carlyle_Reading.jpg
  • File:Dr_John_Carlyle,_Thomas_Carlyle,_Miss_Mary_Aitken,_Provost_Swan_(Crop).jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Mr._Carlyle_delivering_the_address_on_his_installation_as_Lord_Rector_of_Edinburgh_University,_April_2,_1866.jpg needs a UK tag. Ditto File:Carlyle's_Seal.png, File:Froude_besmirching_Carlyle.jpg
  • File:Commemoration_Medal_for_Thomas_Carlyle_LACMA_79.4.41_(2_of_5).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Thomas_Carlyle_in_1851._Medallion_modeled_by_Thomas_Woolner.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

I may stop in and do a full review, but a few points:

  • Per
    MOS:QUOTEPOV
    , I would excise or paraphrase the many short quotations, which read as scare quotes. See in particular In the summer of 1818, following a "Tour" with Irving through "Peebles-Moffat moor country", Carlyle made his first attempt at publishing, forwarding an article "of a descriptive Tourist kind" to "some Magazine Editor in Edinburgh", which reads as if Carlyle was up to something sordid.
  • Per
    MOS:BIRTHDATE
    , generally don't include people's dates of birth and death after they are mentioned in the text.
  • Terar dum prosim is translated here as "May I be wasted so that I be of use". A better translation would be something like "May I be worn away, as long as I may be of use": terar means "wasted" in the sense of "worn away to nothing" (related to our word attrition), and dum means "so long as" rather than "so that" (which would be ut).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ffranc

I'm going to oppose right away because the article needs quite a lot of work. It's definitely salvageable, but I don't think it can be done within the normal time frame of a FAC.

  • First of all, the article is unbalanced. There are separate articles about Carlyle's philosophy and prose style, which is a good way to keep the article size under control, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an appropriate amount of coverage of those things in this article too. The article has a lot of detail, probably too much, about meetings, letters, the publications of individual essays etc in the biography section, and then quickly checks off the main things Carlyle is known for, such as the great man theory, his approach to history, his impact on major novelists etc. Try to find a better balance where you don't remove actually important content to give room for more trivial details.
  • The article relies too much on illustrative quotations rather than straightforward information.
  • The Works section lacks sources for some statements.
  • The Legacy section contains a lot of quotations and name-dropping but little useful information. We get a long list of writers Carlyle influenced, but we learn almost nothing about what his influence consisted of.
  • There is a massive controversy section that needs to be removed. The content is relevant, but needs to be restructured per
    WP:CSECTION
    .
  • The bibliography is largely unsourced and has a lot of external links, which is not recommended per
    WP:ELBODY
    .
  • Some of the sources are very old, especially the ones that cover minor details that probably are irrelevant anyway. It should be possible to find more recent sources for almost everything that's relevant.

You've done a lot of good work with this and other Carlyle-related articles. I definitely think you can bring it to FA, but as I said, I don't think it's possible within the typical time frame of a nomination. Ffranc (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this nom seems to have stalled and is still a long way from consensus to promote so I'm going to archive and recommend

peer review before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2024 [4].

Shigi Qutuqu

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to his contemporaries in the early

WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Apologies @WP:FAC coordinators: , but I'd like to withdraw this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • Is there no good image of the subject that could be included?
  • File:Siège_de_Beijing_(1213-1214).jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2024 (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) 24 February 2024 [5].

Narwhal

Nominator(s):
talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is about the narwhal, or as it's sometimes known, the unicorn of the sea. With a tusk protruding out of its head, the narwhal is one of the strangest beasts I know of. Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species. Special thanks to

talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Just for reference: Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive1

Image review

  • Alt texts shouldn't duplicate captions
  • The charts are not really legible at the displayed size - suggest scaling up
  • File:Narwal_brehm.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
  • Has File:Odobenocetops_BW.jpg undergone
    paleoart review
    ?
  • File:Нарвал_в_российской_Арктике.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Narwhal_size.svg: from what source is the data underlying this image? Ditto File:Narwhal_distribution_map.png
  • File:White_Whale_Narwhal_150.JPG: source link is dead, and because this is on Commons it also needs a tag for status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • File:Odobenocetops_BW.jpg is a user-generated image without associated supportive sourcing - on what basis does it seem legit?
  • File:Narwhal_size.svg is own work, but presents a real-world assertion of the relative sizes of what it shows - on what is that based?

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll see if I find the time to do a more thorough review. For now, I'll say that the second half of the "Cultural depictions" section lacks proper sourcing, relying improperly on

WP:Primary sources. Do sources on narwhals (or the cultural depictions thereof) bring up these examples? TompaDompa (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 04:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not right now, I'm afraid. I have a few other things that I need to prioritize first. TompaDompa (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC

As ever, my admiration for anyone committed enough to bring a big, visible article here -- never an easy task. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved


  • After going over the references a number of times, I think I've covered everything. I am, however, unable to edit the first citation because it is not in a citation template.
    talk) 09:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It sounds like the easy fix is to put it into a citation template, then? On another note, I notice you seem to be going for sentence case for all titles (though this is not yet consistent): note that
MOS:TITLECAPS advises title case for titles of books. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I am done now? What am I left with?
talk) 15:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not all of the above is sorted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and I'm done. If not, please specify.
talk) 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Three major things: capitalisation (see above re.
MOS:TITLECAPS, falsely precise dates of "1 Month Year" (should just be "Month Year" or even "Year" unless we know for sure it came out on the 1st), and the Linnaeus citation. ISBNs also need consistent formatting. New one: note 65 needs an endash, not a hyphen, in the title. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You first stated that ISBNs issued prior to 2007 should be assigned a 10-number system, and now you're saying that they need to be formatted consistently?

I find nothing wrong with the Linnaeus citation—that's how most articles cites it, anyway. Completed the Title Case thing. For the date, we are precisely sure that it came out on the first, and I don't see the need for a change here.

talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

On ISBNs -- yes, they do need to be consistent: not as to how many digits they have, but as to whether they use dashes or not. On Linnaeus: where's Holmiae and who's Laurentii Salvii? We keep titles into the original language (optionally using {{{trans-title}}} to show the English), but translate other details, such as place and publisher. I find nothing on the Canadian Journal of Zoology website to show which day of the month it publishes on, but please do point me to anything you've found that does so (likewise for Biological Conservation). UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and Laurentii Salvii is a place not a person.
talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not: it's Lars Salvius [sv], Linnaeus' publisher. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@

talk) 15:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 11:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I notice a lot of points where you've written "Fixed" and no change seems to have been made, or the fundamental issue has not been addressed. It's fine to ask for clarification or help, but it does take a lot of quite tedious work to respond to actions that haven't in fact taken place. Some comments resolved, others replied to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwell; I think I have the
talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you: I'll get to them when I can.
@
talk) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If I may, the biggest time-sink here has been chasing up comments which have not been fixed as stated, or where the fix has introduced a new problem. FA reviews can be very quick, but I can't vote support on an article where I've raised issues and they haven't been addressed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a little rude to try to give a deadline on a reviewer (especially a one-day one!), and perhaps unwise: after all, the reason the review is still going on is because I don't feel I can vote "support", but feel that there's a realistic chance that the article will be improved to a point where I can. In this particular case, though, I'm surprised that you've asked for a quick conclusion while also pushing one of the key points to the Teahouse, meaning that you know it isn't solved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I wait for you, I'm working very hard to make this article better. However, the CAD to USD conversion is really overwhelming me; I've never been this defeated before, and not even the Teahouse seems to be able to help. Since I've finished most of your items, I think the review can be completed today. I have Saturday free, so I can afford to waste it. Remember that this is my first nomination and that doing this on my own is extremely difficult. So I ask you to please be patient with my foolishness.
talk) 12:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 06:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Just done another pass. Most of the text issues are sorted (though see a few outstanding above): I've given the bibliography a look and raised some issues there. The main thing format-wise is to be consistent: without wishing to unduly repeat myself, you need to go through it carefully and make sure that all the nit-picky stuff like title capitalisation, which parameters to include, date format, and spaces, dots/no dots after initials are absolutely consistent. Some of these issues are stated as resolved in Esculenta's review below but are not, in fact, fully resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 13:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I see the discussion you've started on Talk: hopefully that's helped put this into some sort of perspective. I'm not intending to cast a vote at the moment: the article is changing quickly and other reviewers are picking up substantive points, so I will wait at least until the dust from that process settles. While I can't speak for them, other reviewers may be having similar thoughts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll just wait.
talk) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Esculenta

  • the first sentence of the article states that this animal is "also known as the narwhale", yet this alternative name is not mentioned again in the article
    • Edited
  • "It is a member of the Monodontidae family" -> "It is a member of the family Monodontidae "
    • Edited
  • "deepest diving marine mammals" -> "deepest-diving marine mammals" (compound adjective needs hyphen)
    • Edited
  • link gestation, Inuit
    • Edited
  • the references section formatting needs some fine-tuning throughout. Some examples:
  • what's the formula for "et al." invocation? I see FN#33 is 1 author + et al., whereas FN26 is 10 authors.
    • Edited
  • is there spacing between author initials ("Mead, J. G.; Brownell, R. L. Jr.") or not? (Laidre, K.L.)
    • Yes
  • should there really be an ampersand between two authors? ("Laidre, K.L. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P.")
    • Edited
  • some citations missing bibliographic information (e.g. FN#12 doesn't have the author or publication date
    • Edited
    • Edited
  • last name, first name ("Bianucci, Giovanni;") or otherwise? ("Jorge Vélez-Juarbe & Nicholas D. Pyenson")
    • Yes; changed second item.
@
talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Just leave it. Esulanta is active and will hopefully wrap up the review in their own time. If not we are happy to form our own view based on their comments and your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • Okay, all material in the lead needs to be present in the body of the article. Alternate names needn't be in the lead if they are uncommon. I'd find a source that discusses the name "narwhale" (with the 'e' on the end) and slot it after sentence 2 in the Taxonomy section. If you can't find any reliable source discussing it, I'd drop it entirely.
  • There are estimated to be 170,000 living narwhals [in the world] - bracketed bit is redundant (I mean, there aren't any populations on the moon or Mars are there...)
  • The first sentence of the Evolution subsection is somewhat beyond the scope to be emphasised. I'd rewrite as "Genetic evidence suggests that within the Delphinoidea clade, porpoises are more closely related to the white whales and that these two families constitute a separate clade which diverged from dolphins within the past 11 million years.
  • Why did you opt for plural instead of singular all the way through the description section?
  • Narwhals are medium-sized whales and are around the same size as beluga whales. - comparison is unnecessary here. Why not something like, "Medium-sized whales, narwhals range from 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft) in length, excluding the tusk."
    • Completed all, and opted for singular.
      talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
@
talk) 17:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I need to do another read-through. I found the writing could be tightened in a couple of places and pondered about it overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Sandbh

You mention that, "Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species." OTOH the article mentions naught about any of this. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who studied at Harvard University said his mission to tracking narwhals failed miserably back in 2011; I'm simply quoting what he told me when we last met in January. He's a qualified biologist, so I trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
talk) 13:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Googling around, several sources mention the narwhal is hard to study. This being so, the article should say something along these lines.

The quality of images of narwhals on the article are not, IMO, up to FAC standard. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wish I could use better images, but this are best images I could find.
talk) 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not done: There are plenty of better images of narwhals on the web. Go and look for them, check their copyright status, and if needs be write to their owners requesting permission to use their images on Wikipedia. Someone mentioned the "really high" FAC standard. This is a good example. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find one; the rest are copyrighted or missing a copyright tag. There aren't many good photographs of narwhals, so we have to work with what we have. At least the images used are enough to illustrate what the text states.
talk) 16:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If they're copyrighted ask the copyright owner for permission. If they're missing a copyright tag then you're not doing enough research. Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • I think that the section "Vestigial teeth" needs to be re-written. The main issue is that it is really difficult to understand. As written, it is also contradictory (are they toothless or not?). Also, it specifically only is about males (since it states "The tusk is" …), with females not covered at all.
    • Done
  • There could be more about adaptations to the arctic habitat. For example, mention the blubber in the description, and how thick it is. This study [8] states that Myoglobin content "is one of the highest levels measured for marine mammals". Such things should be covered.
    • Done
  • "Distribution" section should come before "behaviour"
    • Done
  • Narwhals typically visit Baffin Bay […] – This, and what follows, is about a particular location and should be replaced with general information (e.g, do they generally travel north in summer)? These sentences could stay to support such a general statement, but only as an example. Also: Why is this not discussed under "migration"?
    • Done
  • The distinctive tusk is used to tap and stun small prey, facilitating a catch – Why is this not discussed in the paragraph that discusses tusk function?
    • Done
  • Between June 1978 and September 1979, a team led by K.J. Finley – Why is the year and scientist's name mentioned here, but elsewhere you only say "a study"?
    • Done
  • The second paragraph of "Diet" partly repeats what was already stated in the first paragraph. Those need to be combined, and the information re-arranged.
    • Done
  • aspartic acid racemization – too technical, replace with easier term (amino acid dating or something like that).
    • Done
  • Major predators are polar bears, which typically wait at breathing holes for young narwhals, and Greenland sharks.[18][62] – Please check the part about Greenland sharks as major predators, that seems to be incorrect.
    • Done
  • Hunting is better discussed under "Conservation", not under "Lifespan and mortality".
    • Done
  • Provide common names in the cladogram where available.
    • Done
  • it was suggested that the rubbing of tusks together by male narwhals is thought to be – "thought to be" does not make sense.
    • Done
  • Its neck vertebrae is jointed, – singular/plural
    • Plural
  • In the "threats" section, the Inuit are the first to be mentioned, but in fact the IUCN mentiones them as an instance of sustainable uses. Most of that info should probably go under "Relationship with humans".
    • Done
  • The biggest and most fundamental issue I see is the relationship with humans. Some information are provided, but the information is spread over different sections and the important connections are not made. Maybe think about a major section "Relationship with humans" that discusses all this stuff in a well-structured way. It should discuss the history of the interactions between narwhale and humans. E.g., everything related to Inuit; then the significance in European culture, i.e. why was the horn so important? What were its uses? Since when? I heard that already around 1100, Vikings traded with them. This needs to be discussed more deeply I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jens Completed all; what are your thoughts?
      • Will have a second look now.
  • Can you explain source [84] to me? It only consists of two sentences but is supposed to support four sentences in the article? Or I missing something?
  • The narwhal tusk has been a highly sought-after item in Europe for centuries. This stems from some medieval Europeans' belief of narwhal tusks being horns from the legendary unicorn. – Can you tell me where your sources state that the unicorn belief stems from the middle ages? The German Wikipedia states that it came to Europe from Asia during Antiquity. You even contradict this a few sentences later: The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages implies that the trade existed before the Middle Ages.
  • Around 1,000 AD, Vikings collected tusks washed ashore in beaches of Greenland and surrounding areas, and traded them. – One of your sources says that during the middle ages, the Vikings traded most horns with the Inuit. So this is at least misleading.
  • In 1555, Olaus Magnus published a drawing of a fish-like creature with a horn on its forehead, correctly identifying it as a "Narwal". – This lacks context. Why is this drawing significant?
  • The "European" section reads a bit like a rather random assemblage of anecdotes but does not really provide the big picture. Did they believe the tusks were from a sea animal, or from a horse-like unicorn? When was this belief refuted? How does the belief about the powers of the tusks develop in later centuries, and when does it stop? No coverage on these important points.
  • Source [86] is an entire book about Narwhal (the only one I see), but is only cited once, for a single sentence? This makes me wonder if the available sources (particularly the secondary sources) are sufficiently taken into account.
  • Continuing with "taxonomy" now: Its name is derived from the Old Norse word nár, meaning "corpse", in reference to the animal's greyish, mottled pigmentation,[7] and its summertime habit of lying still at or near the surface of the sea (called "logging"). – Your source states "might be", which is an important difference.
  • The scientific name, Monodon monoceros, is derived from Greek: "one-tooth one-horn".[7] – We usually provide the words from which the name is derived (you did hat for the Old Norse, but not here).
  • and its summertime habit of – this phrase is directly copied from the source, making me worry about Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This is an issue here since this phrase is quite distinct and creative.
  • indicating that the remains belonged to a narluga; – you need to explain what a "narluga" is; it might be obvious to you but we should not let readers guess.
  • suggesting that it hunted on the seabed, much as walruses do – Your source only states that walruses feed on the seabed, while isotope signatures are like those of walruses. But it does not claim that the hybrid hunted on the seabed; this is therefore a clear case of
    WP:Synth
    .
  • Stopping here now (as I am running out of time for today). There seem to be some major problems with the sources in the two sections I looked at in a bit more detail. I hope this is not the case for the other sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnbod

  • I probably won't do a full review.
  • The lead is only 3 paras. It is supposed to summarize the whole article.
    • That depends on the size of the article; currently, the article is not large enough to warrant a fourth paragraph. I believe I summarized the whole article.
      • At 76 k raw bytes that's very doubtful. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • See
          MOS:LEADLENGTH
  • At the end: "This caused the narwhal tusk to be one of the most sought after prices in Europe for many centuries. .... Ivan the Terrible had a narwhal tusk covered by jewelry embedded on his deathbed". Both sentences have language issues. I hope this isn't typical. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • Your fishy links are rather a mess - "Greenland halibut" is not linked at first appearance (in the Migration section), then linked twice later. Arctogadus is called both the "artic" and "polar" cod within a matter of a few sentences. Boreogadus saida is also called both. I think this is right - I just got completely confused. Probably you should always use the Latin names as well. Generally the article reads well, but I keep turning up stuff like this (I haven't completed my read-through) which makes me think the article has not been adequately prepared for FAC. You may have to be still more patient. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    talk) 19:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

General comment

Pinging all reviewers @

talk) 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I have been putting off doing a full review for a few reasons. One is that I'm actively working on other things at the moment. Another is that this is a fair bit outside of my wheelhouse, so I'm less confident in my ability to ascertain whether the article is indeed up to the high standards set by the WP:Featured article criteria. A third thing is that an admittedly fairly cursory look at the comments and replies above indicates to me that the article is likely not up to those standards at the moment. All of this makes me reluctant to commit the fairly substantial amount of time and effort it would take to conduct a full review at this time. I do not anticipate a full review from me to be forthcoming within the month of February. Should the article garner significant support from other editors that have reviewed the article more thoroughly, I will be significantly more likely to do a full review of this nomination. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Fine, I just wonder if it's me, the reviewers or the article? I fixed all issues yet nothing. I'm probably the problem, so giving up is the only sure way to fail, which is what I'm seriously considering right now. But I'll try this patience thing one more time; 6 days to go.
talk) 13:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Whoever told you FAC was a quick process was wrong. Take a look at the bottom of FAC. The oldest nom began last year. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least that article has 2 supports. I believe this nomination should receive a support by now, because I've addressed all comments. You guys are all unwilling to complete your reviews. Johnbod, or someone else, at least finish your review. You haven't told me what's wrong with the article; you've just let me wait and waste days. I ping, expecting a reviewer to at least finish their review, but none did. Reviewers basically write random comments, I respond to them, and then they go away without finishing or voting, which makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. All in all, this is extremely frustrating. And I don't get why this nomination has more than a 1,000 views when nobody is supporting it. I need to take a break from this nomination and come back next week.
talk) 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For a persons's first FA nomination, it's going better than most would. I'll take another look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on, based on my experience, is that the comments and responses to the article run to > 12,000 words. Evidently the article was not ready for FAC consideration at the time it was nominated. The article has never been stable enough, or reasonably so, so that an editor could form a view of it. As well, > 12,000 words of comments and responses make other editors wonder what other shortcomings the article has. The next thing I am going to say may seem difficult to accept but here it is: In listing an article at FAC and responding to reviewers, take the attitude that, barring any confusion, the reviewer is always right in framing your response. Disagreeing with reviewers or effectively saying things are too hard to do, except in egregious cirumstances, is a guarantee of no support or an oppose. You always get to choose your attitude to the FAC process: complaining about reviewers and insuating that they let you wait and waste days is one (unhelpful) option. Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is supporting because no-one particularly wants to engage with extensive issues still extant after 115kb of comments (see Jens above) and a nominator increasingly grumpy that people aren't sticking to imaginary deadlines, but no-one also wants to oppose a first-time nomination which has clearly received significant attention from the same nominator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 good points, but I'll leave it at that. I'll resolve Jen's issues tomorrow, withdraw, then, if I have the courage, return. I used to fantasize that I would write Featured Articles, but apparently it was not meant to be. Farewell, FAC; I withdraw.
talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well it has become more of a peer review than a FAC. I appreciate you went for PR before FAC, as people are advised to do, it's just a pity more comments were not forthcoming at that stage. You could try another PR after actioning Jen's comments, pinging the FAC participants, and then having another go here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2024 (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) 23 February 2024 [9].

Letterpress (video game)

Nominator(s): TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When hearing the phrase "mobile games", you often think of tawdry knockoffs choked with blatantly inappropriate advertisements. It seems as though good mobile games are of short supply these days. But, looking far enough, past "offline" .io multiplayer games, and Homescapes-esque puzzles, you discover Letterpress, Loren Brichter's beautifully produced word game with a sleak user interface and tactical gameplay. From a simple dinner conversation, this game ended up ranking second place in the App Store's Best of 2012 list for an iPhone game. I'm very proud to nominate Letterpress as my first FA. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC.

Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Aoba47: I have addressed all your concerns. Gimme whatcha got! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for addressing everything. I will re-read the article sometime over the weekend.
Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I hope this review is helpful. I think I would like to see how other reviewers respond to this FAC and the article in general. I do not mean that in a bad way just to be clear. I am just not as familiar with reviewing video game articles, although I wanted to help you as a first-time FAC nominator. I will keep a close eye on this nomination. I hope you have a great weekend.

Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Vami

Will review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later today. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can take as much time as you need. No rush. c: TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.... Um.... I just- I just read your user page and... oh my... no. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIP. Your contributions mean everything! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rest in peace. Sending my salutes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

On a quick glance, the reception section especially seems a bit thin. A quick search of newspaper archives turn up a fair amount of coverage, from capsule reviews up to more substantial reviews. Also looks like a lite bit about how Letterpress' flat aesthetic helped influence the design of iOS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Could you provide me with some direct links? TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrademarkedTWOrantula They're from Global Newsstream. If you email me I can forward PDFs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

  • This nomination is three weeks in and has attracted a fair bit of support but no indications that it is ready to promote. It may be that it was a little under prepared for FAC. In any case, unless it makes significant progress 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) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is now more than six weeks in and more than three weeks since my post above, and there is still no discernible movement towards a consensus to promote. So - with apologies to all involved - I am timing this out and archiving it. I would suggest that the various comments made by the reviewers are addressed off-FAC - a trip to GoCER may help here - possibly followed by PR, where the reviewers above are quite likely to to be willing to give the article another scrutiny, before bringing it back. In any event, the usual two-week hiatus re nominating any article at FAC applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • The mention of "stalling" in the lead is not in the body as far as I can tell, and I don't understand what these players were doing.
    • I believe Brichter changed the gameplay because he noticed that the players could select the same tiles again and again, thus hindering any progress in the match.
      I've now played the game a couple of times, and I still don't understand what this is referring to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalling happened back when the game was in beta testing. Maybe I should clarify that... TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Clarified. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a bit thin -- could some more of the comments in the reception section be summarized in the lead? E.g. mention the praise for its minimalism, and perhaps mention that it was one of Apple's inspirations for iOS 7's design approach.
    • Expanded.
  • I think the gameplay description needs to be expanded a little. I've played a few word games on mobile myself, but the description here doesn't give me a sense of how the game works. What does a player do in a turn? Select a sequence of adjacent letters that form a word? Select any letters they like that form a word? In the screeenshots, COWARDNESS is in multiple colours, but I don't see some of those letters on the grid. And what does it mean that some of those letters are blank -- they are the ones selected to make the word? That seems likely; so the letters can't be re-used in a given turn? I'm guessing now that the way it works is you can choose any letters in any order, but not "surrounded" letters. So a player should try to generate as many "surrounded" letters as quickly as possible, as this removes those letters from their opponent's repertoire. Is that all correct?
    • I think the game goes something like this: You select letters across the board to make a word. Then, once you submit that word, all the letters in it change to your color. However, locked tiles (tiles that are surrounded by other tiles) can't be changed. The game keeps going until every square is taken or if both players pass a turn. I will play a round of the game and take detailed notes.
  • You say Brichter founded atebits 2.0, and that the previous version had been acquired by Twitter in 2010. Our article on Brichter says his version was sold to Twitter in 2010, which seems to imply he founded the first version, not the second. Can you just confirm the version of events you give is correct?
    • He is the founder of both the first and second Atebits. Clarified. And uh, here's confirmation.
  • Is it "atebits" or "Atebits"? You use both.
    • Changed to "Atebits".
  • The account of Brichter and Whitehead playing SpellTower in the NYT source makes it clear the inspiration for LetterPress was that they found themselves playing the same non-multi-player game while standing next to each other. I think that's a point worth including in the article.
    • Mentioned. Actually, I think that would repeat information.
      Not sure what you're referring to here -- this isn't already mentioned, is it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I want to say "standing next to each other". Seems a little excessive... Actually, considering SpellTower is a single-player game, that does seem like a worthy detail to include. Added. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Brichter realized that players would avoid remaining tiles": I don't follow this.
    • Neither do I. I'll review the sources. Already rephrased.
  • "He developed the sound effects by spitting in his microphone": not quite; the source says this was just one of the ways he created the sounds used.
    • You are right. The source says "mostly", meaning that not all of the sound effects were created the same way. Reworded.
      You now have "Most of the sound effects were created by spitting in his microphone". I think the point here is that the sound effects were created by making noises with his mouth, including by spitting; they were not computer-generated noises. How about "Brichter created most of the sound effects himself, by spitting or making other noises with his mouth into a microphone"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was challenging to explain, he explained that": avoid repetition of "explain".
    • Reworded "explained" to "claimed".
  • You use "is" to describe the game in the reception section. I know the game still exists, so in the context of a discussion of gameplay that's the right tense to use, but a sentence such as "He said that Letterpress is" is jarring. I'd suggest using "was". Or is this standard usage in articles on video games?
    • To me, using "is" sounds right. However, comparing the article for Halo 3, they actually do use the word "was". Changed.
  • "and would fit with "word nerds and strategy-oriented thinkers" respectively" -- what does "respectively" mean here?
    • "Respectively" attributes the reviewers. Moved word.
  • What exactly was Larsen saying Game Center might do? (And I think you want "might", not "may", in that sentence.)
    • Changed word.
      But what did he think Game Center would do? How could it interfere with stats and matchmaking? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original source says: The game’s greatest and perhaps only major fault is its heavy reliance on Apple’s clunky GameCenter app as a means of competing with others online. There is very little information given in terms of stat-keeping and even less about how matchmaking or setting up games with friends works. - I'm not really sure how to answer this question; Larsen doesn't really elaborate on the problems Game Center would cause. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Sentence has been rephrased. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Friedman noticed and praised details": suggest dropping "noticed and"; it's implied by the praise.
    • Cut.
  • "Apple took inspiration from minimalistic apps": it's a subtle difference but I think this should be "minimalist", not "minimalistic".
    • Changed. Thought "minimalistic" sounded right.
  • Why list "Words with Friends" in the "See also" section? There are many word games on mobile; why single this one out?
    • It was the only turn-based multiplayer word game I could think of. Keeping it for now.
      I've struck this; not sure it's the best link but it's not really a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on video games, but David's comment above that there are sources you haven't used is a concern.
    • I have emailed David. Not sure if he responded.

I'm not opposing, but I think there's a little prose work to do here, and I'd want to be sure that David's concerns about completeness of sourcing are resolved before I would support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. I've looked at the edits you made to address these points, and most things are resolved. I'm going to hold off on going through again until we hear from David -- if there are more sources that'll mean more content added so I'd like to wait before re-reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have added David's PDFs; however, I had to remove the URL links as they triggered an edit filter. Also, the sources didn't really add any new information, but they did help verify some details. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. David, are you satisfied that the article does not omit important sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie I think it's satisfactory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll take another look through the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have now struck or replied to the original points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause my review; TrademarkedTWOrantula, I see you've made some more edits in response to my comments, but I think there are still issues. Since another reviewer has jumped in I'm going to watch how that review progresses and will probably come back to the review at that point, and do another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Teratix

At the moment I'm inclined to oppose this nomination on comprehensiveness grounds. I've turned up quite a few substantial sources unused in the article:

  • Used as a case study for game design in Game Developer
    • Hmm... not really sure how I'll add this
      • Okay, I've used this source, but not as much as I hoped
        • What's keeping it from use?
          • It's the fact that it's a "design lesson". I'm not really sure how this can fit in the article.
            • You could broaden one of the existing sections or even add a new section or sub-section. Maybe have a look at some other videogame FAs for inspiration?
              • Tried looking at Killer7. The article has a legacy section; maybe I could try adding some stuff there?
  • An article in Wired regarding strategy and whether the game is "solved" in the technical sense
    • Same thing for Game Developer source (but I think I could work this in the reception section) Nope. Still can't find a way to put this in.
      • What seems to be the problem?
        • I'm not really sure how I'd cite a "how-to" guide on beating the game.
          • But that's not what the article is? Focus on its discussion of whether Letterpress is solved.
            • As I said above, I will make a legacy section for the article if I have the time.
  • Reviews in The Verge, TNW (plus short followup), MacStories, The Telegraph (paywalled, let me know if you need full text), ABC News, iMore
    • That's a bounty of sources. I'm rich!!
      • Update: I've used all of these.
        • Not sure these have been used to their full potential, particularly the Verge and TNW sources.
  • The defunct and confusingly-named The Magazine has a review, though the author does credit Brichter for helping with the article. Might be more suitable for expanding descriptions of the game.
    • Okay... Again, I'm not really sure how to implement this source, but I've used it anyway.
      • It seems to have many more details on exactly how the game's mechanics function and I understood much more about how the game actually operated after reading this particular review. (Also, the source you linked in the citation is a different "The Magazine" – very confusing I know!)
  • An interview on GigaOM survives on Wayback
    • Is that source reliable?? Used.
      • I'd say it's at least reliable for communicating Brichter's own reflections and views.
  • (lower priority) A longer version of the Financial Times interview, a transcript of Rene Ritchie's interview (easier to cite)
    • Cited text version of interview, but I can't seem to access the Financial Times one.
      • I was able to access it if I came from a Google search, but not if I clicked the link directly.

Apart from these, I have the following comments on prose:

  • would avoid remaining tiles on the board, thus delaying a game. I kept getting confused by this sentence because the position of "remaining" suggests it's a verb when it's actually intended as an adjective. I think you mean something like "players would tend to avoid claiming the remaining tiles on the board, leading to excessively long games".
    • Changed. Also clarified what part of speech was used for the word "remaining" in the development and release section.
  • Along with other apps, the game inspired the design of iOS 7 source doesn't give this much weight to Letterpress in particular as an inspiration for iOS 7
    • Mmm... I'm gonna keep this detail. Sure, it's only mentioned briefly, but still, that's pretty significant. I'll try using your sources above (nice finds!).
      • I agree it's significant to mention – the problem is the way the sentence is written implies Letterpress was a central influence and other apps were merely "along with it", when the impression the sources gave me was Apple's designers drew inspiration from quite a few minimalist apps, with Letterpress being one among many.
        • Reworded.
          • Still think this puts too much emphasis on Letterpress. Compare to the passage from the source: Among those impressed has been Apple, which redesigned iOS this year with a flatter, minimalist look championed by Any.do. Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS.
  • own the most tiles does "own" refer to coloured tiles or locked tiles?
    • Colored tiles in general.
  • Do locked tiles become unlocked if your opponent retakes the tiles surrounding the locked ones, or are locks permanent?
    • Yes. Locked tiles do become unlocked if the opponent selects the tiles around it. Added detail (will be cited later).
  • Once every square is occupied do they have to be locked or just coloured?
    • Just colored. Clarified.
  • playing Zach Gage's iOS game SpellTower together, he and his wife, Jean Whitehead you haven't mentioned Whitehead before using "together", which is jarring.
    • Good catch! Mentioned.
  • tiles would only turn into the player's color I'm confused – tiles do turn into the player's colour, don't they?
    • Original source states: In the first version, if you played a tile it just turned your color, which was fun for a bit but not very interesting because there was no strategy and little defense. - I assume that means players could just select the same long word over and over again (thus creating a stalemate).
      • Oh, I think I understand – locking didn't exist in the first version? Maybe make it clearer that the tiles were coloured in contrast to locked.
        • Clarified.
  • Brichter realized that players would avoid remaining tiles I share Mike Christie's concerns here
    • Tried changing it to "...that games would be endless due to players avoiding the remaining tiles".
      • But why would this happen?
  • gave players bonus points for surrounding tiles ... he made surrounding tiles unclaimable in these sentences, does "surrounding tiles" mean "tiles that have been surrounded", or "tiles that are surrounding other tiles"?
    • Have been. Clarified.
  • determined the name maybe "determined the game's name"
    • Changed.
  • chose screenshots of Letterpress to promote it on the App Store why is this significant?
    • I have no idea. Technically, every game on the App Store uses screenshots of their game soooooo... removed.
  • updated with a replay feature "replay" can mean a few different things – explain what it means in this context
    • The game's replay feature isn't live. It shows individual turns in a game with an interactive slider for you to see the game in action. Explained.
  • The player selects letters to form a word. Which player?
    • Changed to "a player"; isn't really specified as either one of them could do it.
      • But which player is selecting the letters in this particular case? In general I'm not sure the screenshots unambiguously illustrate what's going on in the game. I would investigate making your own diagrams or animations, like those that appear in our article on chess.
        • Clarified. It's me (the dog with a blue circle around it). Also, I'm not sure how I'd make those.
          • I'd probably use Inkscape, Commons has a tutorial. Actually, this would hit two birds with one stone because it would reduce the use of unnecessary non-free media. You could also use Inkscape to create a vectorised version of the Letterpress logo, which would look much cleaner.
  • he claimed that
    using "claimed" can imply doubt
    • Changed to said; only solution I could think of.
  • Lex Friedman of Macworld and AJ Dellinger of Gamezebo shared similar views respectively what function is "respectively" performing here?
    • Again, "respectively" attributes the two quotes to their authors. I'm not really sure how to rephrase the sentence... (moved "respectively" after "views" and before "writing"
  • he shared that Game Center might interfere with player statistics and matchmaking I share Mike Christie's concerns with this sentence
    • Once again, Larsen doesn't really explain his criticism. However, I took another look at the original text and realized how I could reword this. Reworded.
  • I also share his concern with the See Also section.
    • I'm just gonna remove it entirely.

– Teratix ₵ 15:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off on further follow-ups until the newly-identified sources have been incorporated. – Teratix ₵ 04:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna a quick break because of... yeah. He's not reviewing it :( TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I just saw. Awful, awful news. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix and @Mike Christie: I have replied to all of your comments. Let's keep going, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followed up. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the new sources have been at least partially added, the reception section desperately needs a rewrite to avoid falling back into X said/Y said/Z said monotony. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 19 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 February 2024 [10].

AC/DC

Nominator(s): VAUGHAN J. (TALK) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start with the lyrics from one of their songs: "It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll!"

This article is about Australian rock band AC/DC, first widely known about their seventh studio album Back in Black (1980), an album in tribute to one of their members Bon Scott, due to him dying of alcohol poisoning in February 1980. The article was created in 2002 by an IP user (203.36.248.17), first promoted to GA in 2006 by No-Bullet, and promoted to FA in 2007 also by No-Bullet, which then sadly got demoted in 2018. Five years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard cleaning up the article to look like what it is now, and it is currently promoted to GA since 29 December 2023. This is my very first ever FAC nomination, so I can tell that this review could get a bit hectic at times, so all feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done
  • Suggest adding
    alt text
  • Done
  • File:ACDC_In_Tacoma_2009.jpg is a pretty poor-quality shot for the lead image - is no better option available?
  • Hopefully File:AC_DC_Black_Ice_Tour_2009_Buenos_Aires_6_de_Diciembre_(4238189133).jpg will work.
  • File:"T.N.T."_song_sample.ogg uses a generic rationale - it would be helpful to be more specific about why this sample is needed and appropriate for this article. Ditto File:ACDC_"You_Shook_Me_All_Night_Long"_sample.ogg
  • The summary of the "T.N.T." sample says: "The audio sample is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as sample. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The audio sample is placed in a section or article where the article or topic, contains commentary on the specfic artist(s) that feature within the specific sample selected." This also applies to the second to the second song sample.
  • You could write the same about a sample of any song mentioned in the article. Why these? What specific contribution does it make to user understanding? Keep in mind that having more non-free material requires stronger justification - if we have one of these, why do we need the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you make a point. I've just removed the second sample per your request. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 04:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ACDC_-_Toronto_November_7,_2008.JPG is also quite low quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it to File:Madrid-acdc_22.JPG now, since it is higher quality than the other one.

@Nikkimaria: I think I have fixed everything including a comment on the samples. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

AC/DC are far from being my favourite Australian band, but they've been one of the most important Australian musical acts ever, so it's good to see this article at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "Sydney, New South Wales, Australia" in the infobox could be simplified to just Sydney, or at most Sydney, Australia
  • Done.
  • The first para of the 'History' section feels rather abrupt. It would be good to start this with a para or so noting how the band fitted in with the Australian rock music scene at the time. The Musical style section discusses this much later in the article, but it would be good to cover some of this earlier given that the band didn't emerge from a void.
  • I've made a start at such a ¶ but it may need checking and more work.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This para is difficult to follow to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 01:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This remains unnecessarily hard to follow. I'd suggest splitting the first sentence and deleting or paraphrasing the third sentence. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for that. I've had another go, hopefully it reads easier now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott had worked as a chauffeur for the group in Adelaide " - I suspect that 'driver' would be more appropriate here given that the band was a minor and broke outfit at the time.
  • Done.
  • "their appearance at the 1976 Reading Festival failed to gain a positive response from the crowd" - this seems a bit evasive, and wordy as a result
  • What do you want me to copy edit to?
  • Something like "their appearance at the 1976 Reading Festival did not impress the crowd" (or fewer words to the same effect depending on what the sources say) Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • The first sentence in the 'Brian Johnson joins and rebirth (1980–1983)' section would work better as two shorter sentences.
  • Done.
  • " and was called one of the best live albums of the 1990s" - by who?
  • Done.
  • "During the tour, three fans were killed at a concert at Salt Palace in Salt Lake City on 18 January 1991: when fans rushed the stage crushing the three and injuring others" - this wording is rather clunky
  • " During the tour, three fans were killed at a concert at Salt Palace in Salt Lake City on 18 January 1991, when they were crushed and fell to the floor at the beginning of the show." – hopefully that's fine.
  • "AC/DC settled out of court with the victims' families. As a result of this incident, Salt Palace eliminated festival seating from future events." - was the band at fault here, or the venue? (or both?)
  • Both are at fault.
  • The article notes several times that 'rare' photos and recordings were included as part of major releases, which seems a bit awkward.
  • Removed the word "rare".
  • The 'Popularity confirmed (1999–2014)' section is heavy going, as it's rather repetitive and lacking in the interesting personal details about the band of the earlier sections. Splitting this into a couple of sections might help, as would removing some of the factoid-type material.
  • Fixed.
  • "In response to reports that the group may disband due to Malcolm's illness,[164] Johnson stated on 16 April 2014, that despite Malcolm's absence, "We are definitely getting together in May in Vancouver. We're going to pick up guitars, have a plonk and see if anybody has got any tunes or ideas. If anything happens we'll record it."" - this is a bit hard to follow, and the tense seems off
  • Hopefully this works: "In response to the rumours that the group may disband due to Malcolm's illness,[164] Johnson stated on 16 April 2014 that despite Malcolm's absence, they are returning to Vancouver to record their sixteenth studio album Rock or Bust."
  • Hopefully that will work: "Fans were speculating that the group may disband due to Malcolm's illness,[166] but Johnson stated in an April 2014 interview with the Daily Telegraph's Jake Wallis Simons, that despite his absence, they are returning to Vancouver to record their sixteenth studio album Rock or Bust." — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tense remains all over the place here. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AC/DC's remaining members issued a statement clarifying that the tour promoting Rock or Bust would continue, but did not indicated whether or not Rudd would participate or whether he was still a member" - the use of 'remaining' here is confusing
  • Removed the word "remaining" in that sentence.
  • "His most recent show with AC/DC was on 28 February 2016; at the Sprint Center in Kansas City." - who was the lead singer during the recent shows?
  • Removed the sentence, considering he played for the Power Trip festival more than 3 months ago.
  • The article would greatly benefit from a timeline of the various members of the band, which similar articles usually have
  • A majority of other of featured articles about groups/bands doesn't have timelines on band members since they have a separate article showing the timeline of the members that joined and left/got fired from bands.
  • Is there such an article for AC/DC? As the article has a focus on comings and goings at it looks like AC/DC is turning into one of the ever-green bands that continue indefinitely with new members, it would be helpful here. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was about to say that that article has a timeline. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The impact of Australian pub rock on AC/DC was documented on ABC-TV's Long Way to the Top (2001), episode 4: "Berserk Warriors 1973–1981" - this seems like a factoid.
  • Removed the episode part.
  • "They sold over 1.3 million CDs in the US during 2007 despite not having released a new album since 2000 at that point. Additionally, the group's commercial success continues to flourish despite their choice to refrain from selling albums in digital online formats for many years." - this is a bit hard to follow, and seems a bit dated
  • Removed second sentence since it doesn't make sense to have it there despite the first sentence is saying that they sold more than a million CDs.
  • I suspect that the 'Tours' section needs references, and should probably be titled 'international tours' or similar given it doesn't cover their early touring around Australia and the UK
  • Added refs on the tours that doesn't have an article yet.
  • It would be good to discuss the notable tribute bands listed in the see also section in the article, ideally as part of a broader discussion of amateur and professional tribute acts, of which there are many. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed section

Hey Nick-D! I think I have sorted out everything except some comments. Thank you! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D: Does the article look good now? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D: Sorry to ping you again, but what's the status of the review now? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D: Again, sorry for the ping. But shaidar cuebiyar has sorted the remaining comments out to hopefully make everything readable. How does it look now? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D: Status? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 22:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien

I'll have a look at this one some time this week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose at this time. The article is pretty strong in terms of content, but it needs thorough copyediting. I've read the first two subsections, and there are a lot of places where fixes are needed for grammar, clarity, and flow. I'll leave the notes for those subsections as examples of what I'm seeing.

WP:PR
might be helpful here, but keep in mind they can both be very slow. I also strongly recommend reworking the criticism section. The article should evaluate reception to the band in its totality without compiling all of the negative things that have been said about it and featuring them separately from everything else.

Formation and name (1973–1974):

  • The entire first paragraph of this section could probably be cut down to a couple sentences. We don't need all that info about bands that aren't AC/DC. If any of them are relevant later, they can be brought up when necessary.
  • "brothers Malcolm and Angus Young both on lead guitar formed AC/DC" – The order this is written makes it seem like they were AC/DC's lead guitarists before they formed AC/DC.
  • Fixed.
  • "not the United States group of same name" – "United States" is used as a demonym here, so it should be "American".
  • Done.
  • "although the pair left before it appeared" – I don't understand how "appeared" is being used in this context.
  • Fixed.
  • "and finally Angus joined" – The way this is written makes it feel like an afterthought.
  • Done.
  • "some form of glam or satin outfit" – Are there articles these can link to?
  • "while trialling few original songs" – The use of "few" here seems to emphasize that they did original songs but they did very little of that. Is that how it's intended?
  • "plus a smattering of old blues standards and tentative originals." is what the source states.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were incompatible, consequently other members" – comma splice
  • Done.
  • "developed bitter feelings toward Evans" – This leaves me wondering why. Because he was incompatible with Loughlin?
  • "the band's raw energy, power-driven performances of their music" – I suggest swapping this for "the band's raw energy and the power-driven performances of their music"
  • Done.
  • "A week after this session Burgess was fired" – needs a comma
  • Done.
  • "due to intoxication – he was unconscious during a performance" – A dash might not be the best transition here.
  • Done.
  • "Subsequently, Van Kriedt was removed as "[his] heart was always in jazz,"" – This is unclear. They kicked him out for liking jazz more than rock? Also, this should end in a period.
  • Yeah you make a point. Fixed.
  • "Shortly after, Browning received a call" – Shortly after what? We're on a new paragraph and it should specify where we are at this point.
  • Done.

Bon Scott joins (1974–1976):

  • "an experienced vocalist previously with" – We don't need to say he's experienced if we then list other bands he's been in.
  • Done.
  • "his former bandmate Vince Lovegrove recommended him to George. Scott had worked as a driver for the group in Adelaide" – It's unclear how this played out. Was he a driver for AC/DC and then Lovegrove recommended George his own driver?
  • Fixed.
  • "and vocals re-recorded" – and the vocals were re-recorded.
  • Done.
  • "With the replacement of Evans by Scott" – Awkward structure, it can just say with Scott's inclusion or introduction.
  • Done.
  • "[their] working-class style, boogie-rock sound and earthy humour fell into place" – Whose opinion is this? Right now Wikipedia is asserting this as a fact.
  • Done.
  • "band during its recording, however, Clack played" – This should be "but" or "though", not "however". Also, this whole sentence runs on and could be split into two or even three.
  • Done.
  • "Both Bailey and Clack were fired in January 1975" – Why? And again, this sentence tries to pack in a lot of information and would read more smoothly as two sentences.
  • We don't have a clue why they were fired in the first place. Also, fixed.
  • "and was incompatible with Scott" – Not clear what this means.
  • This section goes on to list several more hirings and firings without explaining them.
  • They unfortunately don't give an explanation as to why they got hired then fired.
  • "they went home without performing following an altercation with the management and crew of headlining act Deep Purple" – I'm left wondering what sort of altercation.
  • added "physical" to altercation. Source describes it as a "fist fight".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released exclusively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)" – If we're going to go to the trouble of saying "Australia and New Zealand" anyway, why bother with the term "Australasia"?
  • Fixed.
  • "Later that year they released..." – A lot going on in this sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • "It reached the top ten." – Top ten on what?
  • Fixed.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This has been open for over four weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to promote forming. 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 going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Attempting to address significant issues solely within the FAC framework creates unnecessary pressure. It's more effective to handle them outside of the FAC venue. Once these concerns are resolved, I encourage you to resubmit the article, adhering to the standard two-week waiting period before making another nomination, of course. FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2024 [11].

Lokrume helmet fragment

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lokrume helmet fragment is not, perhaps, what one would think of as a Viking helmet; note the absence of horns. But it is one of only five exemplars, and the first to have been identified as such. Like many artifacts, its significance outweighs its size.

This article was created in 2018, and, thanks to the input of Gog the Mild, brought to good-article status a year later. It has been refined and revised since, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_(GFB1683)_1.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
  • What sort of tag works here? Does PD-old-100 do the trick? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_-_1907.png: source link is dead.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. One question above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

It's hard to get away from the obvious that this is a very short article. From reading the GA nomination, it's clear that to even pull out this much is a significant achievement and represents a lot of good work by the nominator. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • A question: given the very international nature of the Viking Age and of "Scandinavian" peoples during this period, I'm curious about the line "only two of which were found in Scandinavia". Is there an argument that this might be a red herring, since the peoples in the vaguely "Viking" cultural sphere definitely weren't limited to Scandinavia (I'm thinking especially of the example from Yarm, which is well within the Dane-est of the Danelaw)edit: I'm not sure I'm quite right as to whether it was in the Danelaw, but think the point stands: "Vikings" had been living in that general area for generations by the C10th).
    • A number of the sources treat the Scandinavian ones as worthy of separate mention; Hjardar & Vike 2016, for example, writing a book titled Vikings at War, mention only the Scandinavian ones from the period. (Granted, they may not have known about the Yarm helmet then, but they very likely knew about the Kyiv fragment.) This also makes some conceptual sense. A "Viking Age helmet" found in Scandinavia is more likely to also be a "Viking helmet" in the sense that it was a helmet used by actual Vikings (as, it would appear, the Gjermundbu helmet is); a "Viking Age helmet" found in Ukraine or England may also be a "Viking helmet", but there's a higher probability that it was used by non-Vikings. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Tjele fragment was discovered in 1850, but mistaken for a saddle mounting until 1984: do we only have this at second hand, or do we have any idea of who corrected the record, and how?
    Ah: I had misunderstood, and thought that our fragment had also been mistaken for a saddle mounting -- on reading more carefully, I don't think that's true, and so the current presentation is good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short description confidently calls the helmet tenth-century, whereas the article only says that its decoration dates to around the tenth century. Suggest cutting the date from the short desc, which is already not that short.
    • Good point. You're the first person to call my attention to an article's short description! It's now Decorated fragment from a Viking Age helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lokrume helmet fragment is the remnant of the eyebrow piece, and part of the nose guard, from a helmet: suggest cutting the first helmet, so that from a helmet sounds less redundant.
  • the others are the Gjermundbu helmet from Norway, the Yarm helmet from England, the Tjele helmet fragment from Denmark, and a fragment from Kyiv.: all but the last are named with countries; is the logic that all of those countries (more or less) existed when the helmets were worn, but Ukraine didn't?
  • I'm open to suggestions, but the difference is mostly because it doesn't (yet) have its own article or established name, so "and the X helmet fragment from Kyiv [or Ukraine]" wouldn't work as well. Also, Kyiv is a major city, so needs less of a clarification about what country it's in. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fragment's style of interlaced pattern dates to around the tenth century AD: This is pretty pedantic, but I think we could frame this a little more precisely. As presented, it sound as if the decoration "is" C10th, so the helmet must be too. However, it's a little less clear-cut than that: it sounds like we've got basically no decent evidence for the fragment's date, but it's decorated in a style that was used in the C10th, so the helmet itself is generally dated to the same period (by way of comparison, I've got papers on my desk written in Latin, which dates to the Roman period, but they were written last week). Perhaps something like "the helmet is considered to date to the 10th century BC, on the basis of its style of interlaced decoration: similar patterns appear on tenth-century swords..."
    • Now The fragment is dated to around the tenth century AD, on the basis of its interlace pattern; similar designs appear on tenth-century swords. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the above, I'd amend contemporaneous to tenth-century, since we're using this to make an argument for the helmet's tenth-century date; saying that they're contemporaneous with it assumes the conclusion before we've proven it.
  • Do we know that the helmet is Swedish, or simply that it was found in Sweden? Presumably it could have been a trade object, trophy or something similar from elsewhere?
  • Fair point. Clarified that it was found in Sweden rather than that it is Swedish. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had been having the same thought. I originally left it out because it's closer to the line of what constitutes a reliable source than are the peer-reviewed pieces. But it's a thoughtful piece, and includes some valuable insight, such as from a maker of replicas as to what materials were likely used. I've moved it up to the bibliography, and may add it as a cite in another place or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the bibliography, it should be cited somewhere in the text: I'll trust your judgement as to what is the best material to draw upon directly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is; what I meant was that I had moved it up to the bibliography because I cited it for a point, and that I may cite it for another point as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perhaps have an image of the Gjermundbu helmet to give us an idea of what the overall thing might have looked like?
  • contemporaneous swords, including from Norway and one found near Lipiany in Poland: examples from Norway? I understand the Norwegian connection, but what makes people think that the Polish sword is likely to be connected? Seems a long way away.
    • Now "examples". I'm no expert on Viking Age trade routes, but is it so surprising that a parallel is found in Poland? Norway is next door to Sweden; Poland is right across the Baltic Sea, and Lipiany is near the coast. Indeed, the Kyiv fragment is the farthest afield, and (if its find spot is the result of trade or other travel) may well have gone through Poland. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, absolutely; I'm just mindful that, in my field, archaeologists often have a habit of throwing together evidence which is superficially similar and comes from about the right time/place, but may not actually have a direct causal link (particularly with patterns: there's quite a lot of simple designs that people hit upon independently and use because they're pretty!). I suppose I'm asking if we've got enough in the sources to say something like "contemporaneous Viking swords", "Scandinavian-style swords" or similar -- that is, to be explicit that the Polish sword and the helmet might have some sort of relation? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a quick sentence at the end to explain what came after these helmets?

Since the nomination seems to have gone cold: I'd like to put on record that I believe this article is close to FA status, but would oppose promotion in its current state (that is, before the points raised in my review and others have been addressed). I am very open to reviewing that vote, and expect to do so if further changes to the article are made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Absolutely, but just to clarify that Usernameunique hasn't edited for a week, anywhere, so it's nothing personal to your review, I'm sure! Hope he's OK. Too much / not enough fruit beer perhaps; delete as applicable  :) ——Serial 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there I was assuming it was just the headache of handling my GA nomination... I don't mean the vote as a slight on the article at all: I'm just aware that co-ords may be looking at these reviews with a view to seeing where the consensus is at the moment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

This takes me back a bit. UC seems to be doing their usual classy job. Ping me once you have finished with their comments and I'll see what else I can find to poke at. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about adding File:Gjermundbu helmet - cropped.jpg, so a reader can more readily visualise where the fragment fits into a helmet, and what a complete helmet looks like? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I've been holding off on this one, because I'd really like to get permission to use one of these photos of replicas. But this will do the trick for now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with silver and niello that forms an interlaced pattern." Maybe 'with silver and niello to form an interlaced pattern'?
    • Now It is made of iron, the surface of which is covered with silver and features an interlace pattern in niello or wire.
  • "he fragment was first published in 1907". No it wasn't. A description of it was.
    • Jumping in to say that this is standard archaeologist-ese ("X was published" means "X first entered the scholarly literature"), but there's a
      MOS:JARGON argument for finding a more universal way to phrase this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • ChrisTheDude mentioned this below also, and it does seem to generate similar reactions from a number of people. With that said, the OED's definition I.2.a for the word is "To make public or generally known", and I.3.b is "To make generally accessible or available for acceptance or use (a work of art, information, etc.); to present to or before the public; spec. to make public (news, research findings, etc.) through the medium of print or the internet." A quotation demonstrating the latter use from 1931 is "H. R. Hall publishes an Egyptian axe in the British Museum." Any reason why we shouldn't let that dictate? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the audience that Wikipedia is aimed at won't understand what is meant. I am aware of the (exclusively) academic usage and if I were previewing this article for Medieval Archaeology, or even Current Archaeology, I would be happy, for Wikipedia, I am not. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited accordingly. I do wonder, however, that we may not be giving readers enough credit—to either know the meaning, or be able to intuit it given the context. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interlace pattern". 'interlace' or 'interlaced'?
  • Linking Denmark is
    WP:OVERLINK
    .
  • Could we have a description of what the function of the helmet was, with emphasis on the roles of the eyebrow piece and nose guard in this? (Betraying my military history background here.)
  • I take your point, although I'm not sure there is much we could pull out of the sources other than that "the helmet was intended to protect the head, the eyebrow piece was intended to protect the eyes, and the nose piece was intended to protect the nose." It's possible that having a prominent eyebrow piece was partly intended to help deflect glancing blows from swords, in the way that crests (such as on the Sutton Hoo helmet) likely did. As far as I'm aware, however, there would be nothing to cite for this. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You managed a lengthy section on the possible function of the Benty Grange hanging bowl with minimal reference to the subject of the article. I see no reason why the same cannot be done here, given the plentiful literature on the actual, assumed or postulated functions of iron helmets from various periods. (As part of a helmet, I feel that the function of helmets needs covering as a starting point.) I struggle to see how the article can be considered to "place the subject in context" without anything on what it is for. Any more than BGHB would have passed FAC without its section on function, nor Benty Grange helmet similarly. A cursory search on "nose guard" and "nasal piece" threw up things like page 251 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, pages 39-40, 75, 256, 298 of Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History, page 224-225 of Warfare in Medieval Europe c.400–c.1453, or "Helmet" in The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. I haven't even searched on things like "helmet". Searching on the rest of the fragment - the eyebrow guard part - is trickier, but I would take some persuading that the literature has been exhausted. Even then, there seems plenty of scope to place the fragment within a broad context. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! See page 25 of this: "spectacle ... guards protected against cutting blows across the face"! :-) Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

  • I don't see where on Fornvännen 1907, p. 208. it supports "The fragment is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide."?
  • The precise measurement is in Thunmark-Nylén. Fornvännen is cited because it also speaks to size by noting that the image is 2/3 scale. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding a wikilink to "niello" again in the Description section.
  • "It was first described in print in the academic journal Fornvännen in 1907" – This is cited to Fornvännen 1907, p. 208, but I don't see anything in that source saying that it had never previously been described?
  • Added a separate cite; per the source, The first information about the fragment from Lokrume ... was first published by Fornvännen journal in 1907. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Thunmark-Nylén 2006a, p. 317. definitely support the statement that it is symmetrical? Because visually, it doesn't appear so.
  • Nope; I'm now not sure where I got that from, although it does look generally symmetrical to my eye (other than the fact that it was made by hand, so has obvious slight variations/imperfections). Here's what the source says: Der Beschlag ist aus Eisen und mit einer flächendeckenden Tauschierung versehen, worin man auf der breiteren Fläche ein Bandflecht-Motiv in Niello ausgeführt hat. Die anschließenden Flächen, gegen die Augenöffnung, besitzen Querbänder. Translated: The fitting is made of iron and adorned with an extensive inlay, wherein a band-braiding motif executed in niello is visible on the wider surface. The adjacent areas, toward the eye opening, feature transverse bands. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gotlands museum page describes the pattern as drakslingor [sv], which seems to be a term with at least some common usage; possibly worth adding that terminology into the article?
  • The article says "..all examples of the "crested helmets".." in the lead, and "..the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared.." in the body. However, without a wikilink or an explanation, the reader actually has no particular knowledge of what a "crested helmet" is. Could you either find a suitable page to link to, or add a description of what a crested helmet actually is.
I think an in line description would be the better option. And I should have spotted this at GAN! Nice one Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me right now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully going to oppose this for the moment; the nomination seems to have gone stale, and in its current state, the article doesn't seem quite up to Featured standards. See the request for greater context from Dudley Miles below, as well as my own. I will be more than happy to reconsider if and when further work is done on the article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, I'll try to respond tonight, but please note that I was unexpectedly traveling for a couple weeks and away from my copies of the offline sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the fragment was first published in 1907" - can you really "publish" a chunk of metal? Maybe "documented" would be better.........?
  • Edited per above discussion. --21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • "It is one of five Viking helmets" - it isn't a helmet, it's part of a helmet
  • Now It is all that remains of one of five Viking helmets to survive in any condition. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the others are the Gjermundbu helmet from Norway, the Yarm helmet from England, the Tjele helmet fragment from Denmark, and a fragment from Kyiv" - three countries and one city?
  • That's mostly because Kyiv is a major city, so needs less of a clarification about what country it's in. Open to suggestions, though. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would just put Ukraine, for consistency with the other three. Is it really that important in the context of this article to note that the other helmet was found in the city of Ukraine specifically......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Chris on this. Let us a. be consistent and b. use the descriptor with which more readers are likely to be familiar. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Kyiv, Ukraine". Note that all the other examples each give two locations: country and find-spot (e.g., town or farm); the latter just appears in the name of the artifact, whereas for the Kyiv fragment, there is not yet a name. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Kyiv has
a particular connection with Viking history (in a way that Ukraine as a whole doesn't), I think it's good that the name of the city remains. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "from Scandinavia and England, respectfully," - respectively, surely?
  • It's funny, because I remember looking at that sentence during my review, and thinking "something seems off... hmmm... no, can't put my finger on it." Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "An iron core was either coated or inlaid with silver, which was itself inlaid with niello or wire." What is the difference between coated and inlaid. Also it does not make sense to contrast niello and wire, that is between a material and a shape.
    • Clarified: An iron core was either coated or inlaid with silver; under the former method, a grid would be cut into the iron and the silver hammered on, whereas under the latter, the silver would be filled into purpose-shaped grooves cut into the iron. The silver was then inlaid with niello or wire (possibly copper). Note that both niello and wire are materials. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wire is not a material, which is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as a material substance. A wire can be made of various physical substances, such as copper and tungsten. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the other four, the Lokrume helmet appears to have been a descendant of the earlier Vendel Period and Anglo-Saxon helmets from Scandinavia and England, respectively, and the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared in Europe around the sixth century." I found this statement confusing. I thought at first that you meant crested helmets derived partly from earlier Anglo-Saxon helmets, which would be surprising as they would hardly have had time to develop their own style by then. I assume the first and second half of the sentence are separate comments, and if so this should be made clear.
  • Could this comment not be expanded, particularly as the article is so short? What were the features of Vendel and Anglo-Saxon helmets, and which features did the Lokrume one inherit from each? Is no picture or reconstruction of a similar helmet available?
File:Gjermundbu helmet - cropped.jpg, which I have already suggested be included. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added (with the hope of eventually upgrading) as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Richard Nevell

Just a few passing thoughts.

  • "The pattern is patterned with intertwined bands and circles": perhaps this could be reworded?
  • I spotted Thunmark-Nylén 2006a but no Thunmark-Nylén 2006b, so the a probably isn't needed.
  • Similarly, there's a Thunmark-Nylén 2000b and Thunmark-Nylén 2000c but no Thunmark-Nylén 2000a.

It's an interesting topic and I'd like to see it end up Featured. I'm not sure I'll have time to review properly so will refrain from !voting at this stage. Good luck, Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would also be useful to include a note about Lokrume itself - is there evidence that the settlement was there in the 10th century, or does it post-date when the helmet would have presumably been in circulation? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: this has been open for more than five weeks now. With two opposes and several outstanding concerns, I think it's best to time this out now. The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia in nine days. Hopefully, when they have time, they can work with the reviewers to resolve their concerns and renominate it in the future. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2024 (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) 18 February 2024 [12].

Jacob Owen

Nominator(s): Spiritualism1234Spiritualism1234 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Irish architect whose work is most prominent in Dublin Spiritualism1234 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

This article is not even GA-standard, because it contains significant uncited material. It is clearly not ready for FAC, and so I oppose and recommend withdrawal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

@

criteria). However, for this particular candidacy, I'm also going to have to oppose. Let me know on on my talk page if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Coord note -- per TS69, GAN and then PR should be the next stages for this article; you could also consider the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2024 (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) 12 February 2024 [13].

Monique Ryan

Nominator(s): GraziePrego (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a current Independent member of the Australian House of Representatives. She is a thoroughly interesting person, having been a successful paediatric neurologist before entering politics, and is part of the "teal independent" movement in Australian politics that has recently become prominent. GraziePrego (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

Sorry, but this is much more a GA than a FA and would need quite a bit of work to reach FA standard. I have the following comments:

  • The lead is too short
  • The sourcing is exclusively news stories and internet resources. There are a number of books on the Teal Movement (as noted on the talk page) and 2022 election that should be consulted.
  • The 'Medical career' section is a bit disjointed
  • Did Ryan have any involvement in politics before standing for election? Why she decided to stand is also unclear in the article at present.
  • The material on Ryan's dispute with Sally Rugg feels a bit brief, and doesn't really capture the the issue
  • Ryan was well known for her positioning on Covid, including advocating for mask wearing and various other types of restrictions after they had been lifted, but this isn't mentioned at all - the 'put your masks on' comment in parliament was prominent and attracted praise, but later became an albatross around her neck when she was repeatedly photographed at various events unmasked.
  • The 'Member of Parliament' section is rather bitsy, and jumps from issue to issue. It would be better to discuss how Ryan has positioned herself as an MP, including her overall voting record rather than listing various issues of at times unclear importance (for instance, on what types of issues does she side with the government and on what does she side with the the opposition? Has she successfully influenced government policy?)
  • On what grounds were the 'Selected publications' chosen? Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to correct you on one point- the sourcing is NOT exclusively news stories and internet resources, as I have sourced several points from Margot Saville’s The Teal Revolution. The other points I agree can be worked on. GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sammi Brie

This is going to have to be a no as well on my end. The article reads very choppily. However, I do want to leave suggestions for improvement: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The lead is too short. A good lead section is like the article in miniature and reflects something from most if not all of the level-2 headers.
  • Ryan completed her medical qualifications in Melbourne, Sydney and Boston, before The last comma is not needed (
    WP:CINS
    ).
Medical career
  • at the Children's Hospital Boston, in Boston Holy choppy. Say that out loud. Remove "in Boston".
  • Provide the abbreviation (RCH) on first mention if you are using the abbreviation.
2022 election campaign
  • On 12 December 2022, Ryan's campaign to be the independent member for Kooyong was launched at the Hawthorn Arts Centre. Avoid the passive voice and do "Ryan launched her campaign to be the independent member for Kooyong at..."
  • "3700" is a figure and should not start a sentence.
  • Change "March of 2022" to "March 2022".
  • Wikilink Sky News Australia.
  • Ryan described the phone call at the time as "respectful", but stated in The Teal Revolution The comma is not needed as there is no subject separate from the first half of the sentence. See
    WP:CINS
    .
Dispute with Sally Rugg
  • Rugg claimed to have been forced to work excessive hours, and that Ryan had justified this by saying that she wished to be Prime Minister one day. Another needless comma
Member of Parliament
  • Needs a comprehensive overhaul to not read like an archipelago of subsections, as well as more variety in the beginnings of sentences.
  • Is there an article on Stage 3 tax cuts? I'm seeing lots of chatter but no article. As someone not familiar with the current topics in Australian politics, I'd want a link here.
Personal life
  • Ryan is a supporter of the Carlton Football Club, and lives Another needless comma
Other
  • Consider making The Teal Revolution a one-time cite in a Bibliography section and using {{sfn}} to call it where needed. One of my FAs, WBPX-TV, similarly has a reference called by short footnotes unlike all its other refs.
SC
  • Oppose Sorry, it's an oppose from me too. There are some clearly missing sources ("Doctor in the House" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 July 2022 has a 5,500 word profile on her, including some on her early life, for example); there's some stubby paragraphs and the whole thing is a bit choppy on reading - it's not a smooth read at all, which is what good prose should be. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Per above comments I'll archiving this shortly. I'd strongly recommend

peer review before considering another run at FAC. You could also try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2024 (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) 6 February 2024 [14].

Island No. 2

Nominator(s): jp×g🗯️ 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another sordid tale of 19th century life, love, and loss on a now-uninhabited island; but this one is in California. jp×g🗯️ 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bunch of stuff to add to this, but I don't think I have enough spare time at the moment to handle a FAC, and given the number of weeks that my "in a couple days" has turned out to constitute so far, I think I am just going to try again later. How do I withdraw the nomination for now? jp×g🗯️ 03:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your request has caught the eye of this coord, will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First impressions: This is a lovely short read. Thanks for your work on this.
One thing that is distracting is the inconsistent use of the serial comma. Compare the following sentences:
the area is "regularly used by hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, photographers, and hikers". (serial comma in use)
most marshland in the [area] was diked, drained, and being used for livestock grazing and farmland". (serial comma in use)
along with Island No. 1, Green Island and Tubbs Island, are labeled on a 1902 USGS map of the area (no serial comma after "Green Island")
"handsome new club house with 8 bedrooms, a huge club room, kitchen, pantry, showers, lavatories and all other modern conveniences" in addition to "a keeper's cottage, outhouses, blinds, ponds, levees, etc". (no serial comma before the first "and"; a serial comma before "etc.")
In November 1926, some interest in the property was sold from Ellen Weinstein, Estelle Meyer and others to a Z.S. Israelsky. (no serial comma after "Meyer")
Islands visible include, from bottom of image: Mare, No. 1, Knight, Russ, No. 2, Green, Bull, Edgerly, Coon, Little, and Tubbs. (serial comma in use)
I don't care whether you use the serial comma or not, but I think it should be used consistently throughout the article.
Is there any reason the URLs aren't archived? It usually only takes
IABot
a minute to archive everything and prevent the sources from getting link rot.
The 1902 map of Island No. 2 is greatly appreciated! Is there any way we can get a map that is larger? Even the largest "zoom" available is tiny, and my eyes are weak and old.
Comparing this short article to other FAs, such as your own excellent FA Powder House Island, the article feels stubby; are there really no external links that would be beneficial to the user? Nothing on Commons?
Many of the references are missing an access date. Compare, for example, references 6 and 7. Why does reference 6 have an access date but reference 7 does not?
These are just my first impressions. First pass. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC

  • Despite being a short article overall, the "History" section is extremely long. It also covers diverse topics: I'm sold that the island's administrative status, its partial inundation and its ownership history are all history in some sense, but I'm not quite sold that they're so similar as to belong in the same section. I think you could help both of these issues by adding some judicious subsections.
  • Flowing text shouldn't just jump into a quotation without some sort of context: either "a local newspaper described it as 'terrible'" or "the island was 'delightful', in the words of a local magazine". It's particularly important that the body text contains enough information to make the reader clear on who said/wrote it.
  • Relatedly, a lot of those quotations read as scare quotes: see in particular a mortgage on Island No. 2 was executed by Marie "with the utmost secrecy"; David was unable to sign the document "owing to illness".
  • I understand that the sources may not be as rich, but the contrast with your excellent Powder House Island is striking: the latter reads as far more obviously comprehensive. You may wish to compare the FA Caroline Island for some additional topics (geology, flora/fauna) that might be possible to expand upon. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Eddie891

  • Oppose, with respect to the work JPxG has done here. While an interesting article, and it's cool to see the work you have done on it, I don't think this article is ready for FAC. In addition to the above (unattributed quotes, unstructured article), the lead could certainly be expanded. For instance, its location in the Napa River feels like a fact that should be in the lead. Content-wise, it feels like something is missing. Sentences like "Around February 1909, David fractured a rib while "endeavoring to get into a bath tub at Island No. 2"" that are really not related to the island makes me feel like you're grasping at straws to expand the article. "Its restoration was carried out in Phase 2 of the project, completed in 2006. It is currently designated as "Pond 2"." leaves me really confused as to how an island became a pond. Points like these are ones that probably should have been addressed before FAC in my opinion. Honestly, if this is all that exists on the island, I would suggest it should be merged to an overarching article on Islands in the Napa River or something. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:17, 18 January 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2024 [15].

Geodesy

Nominator(s): Tinterest (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about

transportation to timing and trade. Tinterest (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - unfortunately this falls well short of the

FA criteria, particularly in terms of sourcing - much of the current content is lacking citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you an expert in geodesy or geophysics? Because half of the FA criteria require narrow expertise in article contents, and your categorical opposition without naming a single specific problem makes you sound incompetent. Tinterest (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many unsourced passages. This wouldn’t pass GA in its current state. (And Tinterest, please don’t insult reviewers as you did with Nikkimaria: she has listed a specific problem that runs throughout the article: it fails FA criteria 1.c.) - SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She states neither "1.c" nor a single statement that in her expert opinion should be referenced. (And SchroCat, please don't insult me with false accusations that I insulted someone.) Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing false in what I have said. Nikkimaria is probably the most experienced FA reviewer on the site. The fact that three others agree that this article is a million miles away from being of the required standard should give you a clue that this isn't suitable here. I'll only add that if you continue to be so aggressive and dismissive of others, not only will your time at FAC be short, so will your time on WP. @WP:FAC coordinators: I think this one can safely be considered unsuitable for FAC - it's already generating more heat than light. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - definite fail on sourcing alone, whole sections are completely unsourced. Sourcing is fundamental for FA status and one does not need to be an expert in geodesy or geophysics to identify that issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one does need to be an expert since only an expert can understand if a science article meets all the criteria, and especially that on sourcing. What's your background? Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nikkimaria -- while she is undoubtedly an expert on the FA criteria, it doesn't take one to see the issue here. Whether or not the material in the article is true, if it isn't cited inline to high-quality, reliable sources, it can't pass FAC. I notice that the nominator is relatively new to the project: it seems as though they have simply misunderstood what this process is, and I hope they will continue to work on the article, perhaps with assistance from more experienced editors through the
    good article process, and bring it back here when it is ready. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
She may be an expert on general criteria but definitely not on those requiring expertise, like the criterion on sourcing/appropriateness of citations. If the process is what you interpret it to be (ignoring any inaccuracies in citing as long as it complies with a style, which I doubt is the case), then nominating science articles should not be allowed in the first place. Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious - none of the above commenters is an expert, so the above "expert" opinions don't matter. Or as experts will notice: the commenters fail the weighted mean universal criterion - in which an expert's weight = 1 and amateur's weight = 0. Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

featured article criteria, which require content be sourced to high-quality reliable sources. I am closing this nomination. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our content and conduct policies or your time on Wikipedia is liable to be frustrating and short. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:58, 6 February 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2024 [16].

Operation Unokat

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1961 UN peacekeeping offensive against forces of the seccionist State of Katanga during the Congo Crisis. The article is well written and structured, informative and I believe comes to a FA standard. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swedish_troops_during_Operation_Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops clear building of Katangese resistance.jpg, File:Swedish roadblock in action during Operation Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops detain white Katangese sniper.jpg No evidence that these photographs were first published outside the US before 1989 as required by the posted license tag
  • Other images OK (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not great with images so please bear with me. Are these images not PD-1996 as they are in public domain in Sweden?Lankyant (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe just for info Lankyant (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be PD-1996, the images must have been published outside the United States before 1989. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe so does this image from Operation Grandslam fall foul of this? [17]
    Comes from same source. Lankyant (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an archive, so it doesn't prove that the images were published before they appeared on the website (which must have been after 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe apologies for being a pain, I have uploaded a new image with correct tags and will take the others out. Does this image comply, associated press photo [18] Lankyant (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that licensing is not correct. This is an AP (US company) photograph by a German photographer, so it is unlikely that Swedish copyright rules apply. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh heck. Okay let me try again. I need one for the infobox would this be acceptable? [19]
I will remove the rest Lankyant (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe pictures removed. Lankyant (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one should be ok (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture added and all the problem ones removed. Thank you so much Lankyant (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

A personal interest of mine - I'm claiming a spot here. If I don't return after a reasonable time, please ping me. ~ HAL333 21:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, better late than never:

  • Should "central Africa" be capitalized? As it is on its own entry?
  • "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese to cut off and limit the movement of UN forces within the city called for military action" is a bit overlong.
  • However, the agreement would not be carried out --- >"However, the agreement was not carried out" per
    WP:WOULDCHUCK
  • was brought in to provide --> "was sent to provide" for concision.
  • The United States also wanted reintegration to be achieved for this end --> something like "The United States also desired reintegration for this end"
  • The US and USSR are not wikilinked, although other countries are.
  • "Tshombe secured Urquhart's released"
  • If the UN is abbreviated, why not do so with the United States?
  • "have to take action against them" - "against them" is redundant
  • "UN officials came to believe that" --> "UN officials concluded that" for concision again
  • The captain beginning with "A Ferret armoured car formerly..." does not need a full stop
  • "It also had been reinforced" - what is 'it' referring to?
  • "At the request of Thant" --> "At Thant's request"
  • "destroying a dummy of" - clarify

Nice work. ~ HAL333 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the above changes, thank you Lankyant (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement 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) 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker: I'll review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude
  • "On 28 November members": I think you should add the year in here too – it's a new section and as a prelude, it could have been any time before the action started.
  • "assaulted UN Representative in Katanga": -> assaulted the UN Representative in Katanga"
  • I'm not sure what variant of English this is in: you seem to be using Commonwealth British (you have "authorisation", "realised", "travelled" and multiple others), but then you have the US spellings "signaled" "armored" and "fueling". Consistency is key throughout, and it may be advantageous to add a tag to the top to stop people swapping spellings later
Initial actions
  • 'enact a "scorched-earth policy".': I'm not sure you need the quotes on this – they come across as scare quotes with just the three words
  • "a patrol sent out to locate their position but was unsuccessful.": the grammar has gone a little awry here

Done to the start of "UN offensive"; more to follow. Interesting article so far, nicely written with the right balance between big picture and detail. – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything above! Lankyant (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nothing more from me on the rest (I made only MOS tweak to save having to hold up the review for that to be done), and I'm happy that—from a prose point of view—this meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Operation Morthor and the death of UN General Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld had led to a ceasefire between UN and Katangese forces earlier in the year." The main text does not mention a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death.
  • There is still a discrepancy between the lead, which mentions a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death, and the main text, which does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did a poor job on a lack of sleep! I believe I have addressed it now, but please check for me. Would take suggestions on how to reword it.Lankyant (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital of Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese called for military action." People call for action, not events.
  • "Following the Republic of the Congo's independence from Belgium in 1960 following over 50 years of colonial rule". Repetition of "following". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All addressed Lankyant (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point occurs to me. You show the country name as Republic of the Congo, which was then its name, with a redirect to Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville). Republic of the Congo goes to the other Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) as it is its current name. You need to clarify in both the lead and the main text in order to avoid confusion. You could add (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) or add a footnote explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Operation Grandslam which is a FA doesn't have that clarification but if it is vital I'm happy to add Lankyant (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the current name to the Grandslam article and I think something similar is needed for Unokat. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it Lankyant (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review(ish)

Reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent and nothing jumps out as unreliable or questionable. Keep in mind that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, any chance of a first-timer's plagiarism review and source to text integrity spotcheck? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not without a number of screenshots, since most sauces are offline:

  • 4 Can I have a copy of the article? The TimesMachine does not work.
added a link Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, pp. 35–36)
  • 20 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kennes & Larmer 2016, p. 47)
  • 21 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 130)
  • 25 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 122–123)
  • 27 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Hoskyns 1965, p. 451)
    • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is "suicidal" here really "politically disastrous"? Sometimes, these concerns are literal, not metaphorical, especially in case of wars. And the source does not say "local presence". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, p. 79)
  • 39 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Lefever & Joshua 1966, p. P-22)
  • 40 Not sure I see the hour in the source. (The Desert Sun. 5 December 1961)
it's there at the bottom of the first column highlighted. Got the job done by 2:30pm. Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Prasad 2005, p. 173)
  • 56 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 54–55)
  • 64 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 127–128)
  • 65 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 56–57)
  • 70 OK providing that the other sources support the rest of the claims. (Raleigh, David (16 December 2018))
  • 72 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 131)
  • 74 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, pp. 76, 79)
  • 83 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, p. 38.)
  • 85 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Dobbins et al. 2001, p. 17)
  • 89 OK (International Review of the Red Cross. March 1962)
  • 98 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Mockaitis 1999, p. 35)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm pinging @Indy beetle as he has access to most of the sources used and experience with source reviews. Lankyant (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Gog the Mild: I'm the editor who contributed most of the substantive content of this article, while Lankyant laid the foundation and has done most of the sanding around edges since then. I've got several FAs under my belt. Thus I don't know what the true necessity of a full source review is, but I'll try my best to access the source material at least in the spirit of the matter. Extra scrutiny never hurts in the long run and keeps us all honest. Anything cited to Lefever and Joshua 1966 should be accessible here, I think. I have Hoskyns 1965 in print so I can email you, Jo-Jo, a photo of Ref 27 "Hoskyns 1965, p. 451." Just use my email this user function or send me a token email at [email protected] so I can attach the file in a return message (best I can tell, I can't directly email you a file with the Wikipedia email function). -Indy beetle (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Seems you're going to have to send me a direct email, since WMF didn't provide me a return address. Otherwise I cannot send you non-text files (screenshots etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lankyant and Indy beetle: What's the status on sending the sources to Jo-Jo? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After having scoured my Wikipedia Library account, Google Books, and my physical collection, what I've provided above is what I can still access. I've exhausted my resources, so I can't provide anything to verify Harvey, Kent, Boulden, Mockaitis, or Forest. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-FAC comment) Those five sources constitute ~50 out of ~170 discrete references, amounting to slightly over 30% of the total. Having said that, three are used less than 20 times between them, so are hardly major players. ——Serial 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lankyant: Assuming you return to the process for the first time in three weeks (!!!), another thing. Indy beetle clearly wrote the vast majority of this article, so why isn't this a joint nom? Especially as the instructions are clear that Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. You would appear to be wholly unfamiliar with them. If this candidate is archived, I'd personally hope that the caveat is not so much a two-week period, but that you do not reopen as sole nom. ——Serial 18:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of progress in the source review and the length this has been open, the nomination is being archived. Serial's comments above are germane—nominators should be expected to speak to the content and address points brought up by reviewers in a timely manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 2 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2024 [20].

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 21:40, 31 January 2024 (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 back in 2022 for a FAC. I worked on it more again now, checking everything is still as it was and making other revisions because my belief is fully in this album deserving FA status as West's magnum ops after my dedication to it! K. Peake 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason
    ISBN 9781623565428, a book about the album, is not cited in the article? Heartfox (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is a valid point to raise although I was not actually aware of this book; do you know of any places I can access this free of charge? K. Peake 10:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat said everything I was going to originally, so I would also have to unfortunately oppose and recommend withdrawal. A book specifically about one album is a golden source, and I hope that and other scholarly sources can be incorporated in the article. The book is on Inernet Archive; you can get around the "borrow unavailable" by manually typing the page number after https://archive.org/details/mybeautifuldarkt0000grav/page/ Heartfox (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle, as well as the trick of adding a page number, the text search facility is a useful way of getting to any points in the book you want to research, as it allows access to all pages using the search searched for - there is no limit as to how many such searches you do either. Using both these methods will allow full access to the work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not something I like doing, but FAs are supposed to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and this isn't. The absence of Graves's My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is an egregious oversight. There is also significant commentary in The Cultural Impact of Kanye West and Monstrosity, Performance, and Race in Contemporary Culture, neither of which are used. All three of these are openly available on Internet Archive, as are several others which may be of use. Can I suggest you withdraw this nomination, go through the sources on IA thoroughly, search Google Books and use the facilities of the Wikipedia Library to extract as much information as possible before returning? On a positive note, a very quick skim through the article shows it is nicely written and some of the other requirements (formatting, etc) all seem up to scratch, so hopefully this will not be too onerous a task. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox and SchroCat Thank you for the comments and raising this book to light, I did not honestly have awareness of it before so this is very handy of you to bring up. I would use the trick tips mentioned to look through the book in relevant areas, needs to be utilized if there is heavy expansion possible from it and the nomination should be withdrawn too. The article is in overall solid shape it is great to see acknowledgement of that, writing the prose was quite a key part to be honest as well! --K. Peake 18:17, 1 February 2024 (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) 2 February 2024 [21].

Pachysentis

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent GA review by User:Mike Christie and a peer review by User:SilverTiger12. I've done by best to incorporate both user's suggestions and I've also added a bit more depth recently. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • I strongly disagree with the removal of the images of the hosts due to the nature of the Pachysentis species. As parasites their entire existence is dependent on the hosts, and with this removal there are no images of the hosts. As it is a list of Pachysentis species, a gallery of hosts does not run afoul of
    WP:NOTGALLERY. However your suggestion of citations in figure captions can certainly be addressed if you would permit a revert of the gallery deletion. Mattximus (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks for the comments, I also agree that images of hosts for a parasite article are critical, and I have restored the deleted gallery. Mattximus (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The captions still fail
    WP:VER. If they were relevant, I would expect that information to be in the article already. I suspect that it's not in the article because the sources needed to source them would not be about the genus. Contrary to what the other commentators said, I am not opposed to all galleries, but all images in an article need to be of encyclopedic relevance and connected to the sourced article text. If the picture is relevant, I would expect that what is depicted in the picture is (at a minimum) mentioned in the article's prose. Otherwise it would seem that the subject of the picture is not important to understanding the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Buidhe, as far as I can see the information is in the article -- in the "Species" section each species includes a list of the hosts found. I recall spotchecking some of these when I did the GA review. I think that means the gallery is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case the gallery should be moved to where the information is mentioned. I was expecting the information on hosts to be in the "hosts" section. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on humans as hosts

Congratulations on the good work that has been put here. As an occasional contributor to WikiProject:Medicine, I wonder if the question whether Pachysentis infects humans cannot be avoided. One's eye falls on the CDC image on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala, with human as an occasional host; and the parasite is mentioned right at the beginning of the article as a pathogen to primates, which include humans. I have not been able to locate a human infection cited anywhere. But lists of acanthocephala that infect humans do not include Pachysentis. I leave to the consensus of the contributors to decide whether something like "Humans have not been reported as hosts of Pachysentis species" can be cited to a review article like this[1], which does not include it in a list of reported causes of acanthocephaliasis.NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to add this sentence to the end of the "host" section: "There are no reported cases of any Pachysentis species infesting humans in the English language medical literature." and use the citation you provided. If you like this wording I can add this to the other featured acanthocephalan featured articles for consistency. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. And you'd be welcome to add this further. This leaves a discrepancy between the text and the CDC image. Maybe also add the sentence to the image description? NikosGouliaros (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the sentence, your reference, and also a note to the image. I will also repeat these facts for the other FA acanthocephalans, thanks for the suggestions!

References

  1. PMID 34076470
    .

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) 19:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to manage a review once Jens is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also ready to review, but I would also not want to tread the same ground as Jens, so am waiting for resolution of those issues. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattximus, can I remind you of the FAC instruction "Nominators are expected ... to make efforts to address objections promptly." Jens posted their review two weeks ago and it is still to be fully addressed. While the coordinators are reluctant to archive a nomination which has reviewers queueing up, at five weeks old and with no signs of a consensus to support forming that prospect is hovering. If RL does not permit a speedier response - and goodness knows we have all been there - perhaps consider withdrawing the nomination without prejudice and resubmitting it when you are better able to deal with the demands of a FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was sick for almost 3 weeks and could not work on it. I've been managing a few more edits in the past few days, I think I have addressed all above comments but only about half of Jens' comments. I will certainly need another week, but if that's not acceptable I can understand you closing this. Mattximus (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, while I sympathise with the ill health, I think it best if it be archived and then reopened once you are fully recovered. I am sure that those who have contributed here or offered to will be happy to pick up again if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • Pachysentis is a genus in Acanthocephala (thorny-headed worms, also known as spiny-headed worms) that parasitize primates and carnivorans by attaching themselves to the intestines using their hook-covered proboscis. – This might be a bit too much/too long for the first sentence of the lead. Maybe make it two sentences? Done
  • with a short proboscis covered in hooks used to attach to the inner lining of the gastrointestinal tract of their hosts. – This is redundant, as it was already mentioned in the first sentence. Done
  • Virtually all of the length is the trunk with a short proboscis – So almost the entire length is trunk and proboscis? What about the rest? (Edit: I think you just need a comma behind "trunk" to get your intended meaning?) Done
  • Pachysentis species are distributed across Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. – This information is so important that it could be mentioned much earlier, in the first or second sentence of the lead. Done
  • and confirms that this species forms an independent group – I am not sure what you want to say. If the species is not an independent group, it wouldn't be a species? Done
  • I'm also a bit confused but this is the wording used in the actual paper. I changed it so that it more closely resembles the paper's wording "supporting its independent status in the family Oligacanthorhynchidae". Does this work?
  • Phylogenetic linked twice in two consecutive sentences. Done
  • and have placed it in the family Oligacanthorhynchidae – include "also", as it is the same family? Done
  • The type species for Pachysentis is P. canicola.[5][2] In 1972, Schmidt reclassified six species from the Prosthenorchis genus and one species from the Oncicola genus into the genus Pachysentis. – These are two isolated bits of information without context that should be elaborated on. Who described the type species and when, and based on what specimen collected where? In what family was the genus originally placed? Was Schmidt 1972 the last reclassification, i.e., did this result in the currently recognized 11 species?
  • I see what you are suggesting but I am not sure what to add. Do you think any of these points are worth adding?
  • Specimen originally collected by Von Olfers and Sello form a canis species in Brazil prior to publication in 1931.
  • Family was not changed, just the genus.
  • Schmidt was the last reclassification though a new species was discovered in 2019.
  • Yes, I would say so, at least the first of your points. This is standard information in biology articles. I would suggest a sentence like "The genus Pachysentis was first described by the Czech helminthologist Anton Meyer in 1931 based on a specimen collected by Von Olfers and Sello from a canis species in Brazil --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But he was describing several species at once? In any case, something like this with other appropriate information would be great, including the number of species he described and what the type species is (you mention this later, but the type species clearly belongs within the "taxonomy" section). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace "et al." with "and colleagues", which is much more accessible to the general reader. Done
  • Pachysentis look identical to the closely related Oncicola – We usually use singular when talking about genera (i.e., "looks"). Alternatively, you could write "Species of Pachysentis look …" Done
  • The rows may be regularly or irregularly alternating and straight or crooked. Hooks have tips with or without barbs – Is this variation specific for separate species, for separate body parts, or is it intraspecific variation? Add something like "Depending on the species," to make this clear. Done
  • The trunk is fairly wide relative to the length with the anterior half usually wider than the posterior half. – No idea what "fairly wide" means; as this could mean anything when writing about a worm, it should, I think, specified (something like "around twice as long as wide" or similar, maybe).
  • There are eight cement glands compactly arranged each with a single giant nucleus used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation – Can you link or explain "nucleus" here?
  • the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) in Texas, – Was this a captive maned wolf? If so, it should be mentioned I think.
  • It was also found infesting the western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) – But the lead says it only infests primates and carnivorans.
  • P. dollfusi was found infesting the intestines of the common brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus) in a Brazilian zoo but originally from the island of Madagascar.[16] It is thus unknown if the worm originates from Brazil or Madagascar. – Same problem should apply to the maned wolf in Texas, no?
  • arranged into six rows of four hooks each followed by six rows of four hooks each. – add "another"? Done
  • You provide the meaning of the name for all species except Pachysentis ehrenbergi?
  • This species is named after Angola, the country where it was first discovered. – In all other species entries, the etymology sentence is always the last, except here where it is second. Done
  • The species name is a form of the Latin for "procumbent" – "is from the Latin "procumbent"? Done
  • with different measurements. – This does not make much sense to me. It would be an unlikely coincidence if the measurements would be identical. Writing something like "; these specimens were significantly larger/smaller" would be more helpful.
  • lemnisci – should be linked and/or explained in-text, not only in the table
  • It is the only known parasite of the crab-eating racoon in Brazil. – It can't be the only one since the title of the paper that you cite here is "Oncicola luehei in a wild crab-eating raccoon (Procyon cancrivorus) from the Brazilian cerrado savanna".
  • P. rugosus has been found to infest the large intestine of Azaras's capuchin (Sapajus cay) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Again, I would say the information "Rio de Janeiro" is misleading at best, since the species does not occur there (zoo animal again, I assume).
  • P. septemserialis is considered by Gomes (2019) to have an uncertain taxonomic status due to differences between the paratypes morphological characteristics and the original description, the similarity in hosts – what does "similarity in hosts" mean, and why does it suggest an uncertain taxonomic status? I can't follow here.
  • whereas a collar was observed – observed where (the paratype?) by whom?
  • A second discrepancy from another paratype is the incorrect number of hooks; – wrong wording, a "discrepancy" cannot be "incorrect".
  • The distribution of Pachysentis species is determined by that of its hosts. Pachysentis species have been found in North America (Texas), – see my comment above, this again does not make any sense when based on zoo species (the host is not distributed in Texas).
  • ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host. The intermediate hosts of most Pachysentis species are not known. Contradicts a cystacanth (larval) stage in an intermediate host such as the Egyptian cobra
  • Please check if
    mesenteron
    links to the correct article; the article is human-only so this needs additional explanation.
  • The acanthor are passed – singular/plural
  • Pachysentis species exclusively parasitize primates and carnivorous mammals as their primary host – "carnivorous mammals" is not the same as "carnivorans" (which is stated in the lead)! Done
  • Pachysentis species are distributed in Africa and North, Central and South America. – Already mentioned. Done
  • I worry a bit about language quality. I fixed a lot of grammar issues myself, in addition to those mentioned above, but I think the article still needs a careful copy-edit. But I hope these comments help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent comments, I've just started but I'm happy to go through all of them next week as I've become quite ill at the moment. Mattximus (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAC, please avoid using template markups like {{done}} as they are known to cause loading time issues with the page. FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Will do, will go through the remainder early next week. Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

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/February_2024&oldid=1211026941"