Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2017

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2017 [1].


Sarawak

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about everything in Sarawak, a territory at the northwest Borneo. Notable of its old rainforests, Mulu cave systems and orangutans. This article has undergone extensive peer-review and copyediting process. All the issues in the previous FA nominations have been addressed. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this article for FA review. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

Interesting article! A few comments:
Hope these comments are useful! Smurrayinchester 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second point, about the creation of the Supreme Council, is still not resolved to my satisfaction - it still talks about an event that happened in 1867 as if it happened as a result of something done in 1928. If the Supreme Council came before Thomas Stirling Boyd was appointed Judicial Commissioner then it should come first, or not be connected to him. All the other points look good. Smurrayinchester 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester: Issue addressed. The appt of legal judge happens after the first general council meeting.Cerevisae (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! All looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 11:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments Support

I'm deeply disappointed this was nominated for FAC before Sabah. I look forward to this lamentable lapse being rectified in the future :P (I'm biased because I've been to Sabah and not Sarawak, but I look forward to rectifying that lamentable lapse in the future!).

  • and the independent state of Brunei in the northwest. Brunei is to the west of Sabah but I'd struggle to call it to the northwest of Sarawak. I'd rephrase. - Then I call it north of Sarawak. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 16th century, the Kuching area was known to Portuguese cartographers as Cerava, one of the five great seaports on the island of Borneo.[26][27] By the early 19th century, the Bruneian Empire was in decline The empire is introduced as being in decline over the area - you really need to introduce it as being in the area at all before you do that. The article is a little biased towards colonial and post colonial history, so maybe flesh out pre-colonial history out a bit if you can. - Mid 15th century, Brunei controlled coastal regions of Sarawak before declining in 19th century. Most of the details are dedicated to the Bruneian Empire itself, so there is no mention on what happened in Sarawak during Brunei's rule. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you need to summarise it briefly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
Bruneian Empire, as noted in its own article. I have reordered the statements as you wanted them though. Parcly Taxel 09:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • You do a good job of explaining the expansion of the Brooke rule, but the statement and brokered a peace in Marudi. cries out for a little more context. - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and became federated with Malaya, North Borneo, and Singapore to form the federation of Malaysia it's unclear what is meant by North Borneo in this context. Sabah? Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak? Maybe unimportant but would be helpful to clarify. -Done. Clarified as Sabah Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, there are several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues yet to be settled with Indonesia this begs the question about what they are. If they are uninteresting or of low import, maybe rephrase There are also several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues with Indonesia or similar. -Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dominant trees in the peat swamp forests are: ramin, meranti, and medang jongkong. I would link to the articles for these trees if you're going to use the local rather than scientific or English names, as you can't search for them in EN:WIKI - Done. Added scientific names.Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state is the habitat of endangered animals, including the borneo pygmy elephant, proboscis monkey, orangutans and rhinoceroses. I'd name the rhino species (
    Sumatran Rhinoceros
    )
I'll finish my review tmrw. In general though this is a good article and I don't see many problems in getting it featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC) - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Definitely Sabah will achieve FA soon, because the article is much more detailed and the state is more well-known to the tourists when compared to Sarawak. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarawak has a large immigrant work force with as many as 150,000 registered migrant workers working as domestic workers or in plantation, manufacturing, construction, services and agriculture Are these international migrants? (I ask because it's noted earlier that migration from other states is regulated. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Yes, they are foreign migrant workers from other countries.[reply]

Otherwise I'd like you to address one more point above, but still I'll Support. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Sabine's SunbirdCerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: I think that this article has reached the FA status. Your help in closing this FA review and formally promote it to Featured Article is very much appreciated, thank you and have nice day. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, FACs require a minimum of 3 supports, plus an image and source review. So this one has a little way to go yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review, support (Parcly Taxel)

I live in Singapore, not far from Sarawak…

Therefore all the images are under free licences or public domain. The captions are also short, sweet, descriptive and related to the surrounding text; the images themselves are neither too few nor too many and complement the text. So the article passes on the images.

Parcly Taxel, thanks for your extensive image review. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Second-last paragraph of History section: Thousands of Sarawak communist members went into Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, and underwent training with the Communist Party of Indonesia. The most significant engagement of the confrontation was fought at Plaman Mapu in April 1965. The defeat at Plaman Mapu ultimately resulted in the fall of Sukarno and he was replaced by Suharto as president of Indonesia. Negotiations were restarted between Malaysia and Indonesia and led to the end of the confrontation on 11 August 1966. Needs a source (or is it already covered in the preceding sentences? If so you can clone the references to here).

The source review is finished and they are all completely fine except for the one issue I pointed out above; once that is fixed I'll support. I've corrected some minor typographical errors along the way. Parcly Taxel 04:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Parcly Taxel:, citation added. Cerevisae (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All sources are reliable, formatted with citation templates and archived where things have changed. I've changed the wording of some passages too, further addressing the close paraphrasing issues in the second FAC nomination of this article and which I believe have been suitably addressed in the time afterwards. Therefore I support. Parcly Taxel 18:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! :-) Cerevisae (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

It's always good to see a high quality article on a 'big' topic such as a state. I have the following comments:

  • "The Gawai Dayak is an annual festival celebrated on a public holiday, and a lute called sapeh is a traditional musical instrument." - this looks out of place in the lead
    Well it does seem out of place. I've removed that. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British forces retreated to Singkawang in Dutch Borneo bordering Sarawak." - it was previously stated that the garrison had been withdrawn to Singapore - which is correct?
    Read closely. It said that the air and marine forces were withdrawn. Thus the ground troops must have been left to defend against the Japanese invaders, which I've added in as a clarification. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That clarification was added after I posted the review. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of Australia in the War of 1939-1945. Series 1 - Army - Volume VII - The Final Campaigns (Gavin Long) should be identified in the citation
    You've done it already. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make that change. Why are you posting ill-informed responses to my comments? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: I must have been confused while editing the article in response to your comments together with Cerevisae; this includes the immediately preceding point. I am sorry for that. Parcly Taxel 11:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the history section effectively stop in the 1960s?
    - Developments after 1960s are already addressed in the Government, Economy, and Infrastructure sections. Cerevisae (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose so, but it does seem surprising that there's nothing worth mentioning. I suppose it says a fair bit about the one-party state and the country's generally positive economic sitution. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Government' section should make it clearer how the government is formed (eg, that the state is - at least nominally - a democracy)
    - democractically elected state assemblymen Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Sarawak's democracy rigged like that for the national government? - the fact that the governing party has never lost an election implies so.
    -Added the allegations of vote buying. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Divisions and districts' section should note whether the positions described are filled by appointees or through elections (or a mix of both)
    - Except for state assemblymen, all other positions in Sarawak are appointed. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak has land and maritime disputes with neighbouring Brunei" - given that the previous paragraph notes that the Malaysian Government now handles foreign affairs, wouldn't this be a dispute between Malaysia and Brunei rather than the state and Brunei?
    - Yes, it is a dispute between Malaysian government and other countries, but border disputes is located at Sarawak borders. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with average daily temperature varying between 23 °C (73 °F) in the morning to 32 °C (90 °F) in the afternoon" - is there a specific location this applies to? This also implies a uniform climate, which seems unlikely given the geography - are the highlands cooler than the lowlands?
    - Added highland temperatures.Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the 'Economy' section, how do living standards / GDP per capita in Sarawak compare to Malaysia as a whole - are the citizens richer or poorer? Are there notable differences in wellbeing across the state?
    - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The latter two are satellite campuses of Curtin University in Perth and Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia" - while uncontroversial and correct, this sentence needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport My comments are now addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber

First of all, kudos in tackling a subject as broad as this. The lead looks good.

The generally-accepted explanation of the word "Sarawak" is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony. - a bit repeititve but hard not to be for obvious reasons, I'd tweak to "The generally-accepted explanation for the state's name is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony."
"Saya serah pada awak" (I surrender it to you), when he gave Sarawak to James Brooke in 1841. - add who/what Brooke was at the time.
However, the latter explanation is flawed - "flawed" is not a word, I'd use, I'd just say, "wrong/incorrect"

Actually, article looks really good overall. Well balanced ( a feat in itself given the size and breadth of the article), and prose good enough to make me forget I was supposed to be checking it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D and Cas Liber, thanks for your support. I have addressed the comments by Cas Liber. Cerevisae (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Given that concerns were expressed by Graham Beards at the last FAC about close paraphrasing, I'd like someone experienced in this area just to give this the once over before we think about promotion. I should also point out that issues were found in places that weren't directly cited as well, so I'd be grateful if someone could check this too. It might be best to put a request at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe I went through this prior; while checking the references and prose I copy-edited the article to break up close paraphrasing. Earwig's detector does not turn up anything significant after my edits, with the great majority of similarities being small and coincidental. Parcly Taxel 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. But as fairly major concerns were expressed, I'd just like another set of eyes on it. Maybe Casliber could have a quick look as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Blackmane already fixed the issue of close-paraphrasing from March to mid-May. Cerevisae (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that this is correct, based on a comparison. also earwigs clear otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Comments from an IP"

This was left on my talk page by an IP. It raises a few valid points, so I'm posting it here, with a little pruning of things not directly relevant: Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I first got involved with Wikipedia about 10 years ago
2. My involvement with Wikipedia dates back about 10 years.

In this context, the words "ago" and "back" are synonyms. Take a look at paragraph two in the lead. The first sentence reads: "The earliest known human settlement in Sarawak, located at the Niah Caves, dates back to 40,000 years ago". The error here is one a schoolkid could spot.

Done. Parcly Taxel 23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere in the article we are told that Sarawak became a British Crown colony on 1 July 1946. The source for this (reference #54) is the Daily Mail. Yes, really. The link has been archived, but is blocked by a robots.txt file. Try it and see.

I've replaced that reference with the 1997 Porritt book. Parcly Taxel 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the "rate of deforestation is 3.5 times higher than found in neighboring Asian countries". Two sources are given, only one of which (the Daily Telegraph) discusses comparatives rates. The Telegraph's headline is "Malaysia destroying its forests three times faster than all Asia combined". Do you see the problem here? The author of this Wiki article is comparing Sarawak's deforestation to neigboring countries; the Telegraph talks about "all Asia combined". And why is an issue as important as this sourced to a newspaper rather than a peer-reviewed academic study?

Cerevisae I invite you to correct this issue. Parcly Taxel 02:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14.207.36.231, Sarawak is known to bar its critics from entering the state. So, studies can only be conducted from Google Earth images. Besides, you also noticed that the statement in the Telegraph newspaper is quoted directly from the source (Wetlands International report). I see no problem with that. You know that Wetlands International is a notable organisation. Its report should be reliable. The most recent report I can find is from the Wetlands International. If you can find another recent one with "peer-review" quality, I would be very grateful to you. Thanks. I also tried to find any state government response to this article for the sake of neutrality but to no avail. If you can really find one, I would be very thankful to you too. Thank you again. Special thanks to Parcly Taxel for helping me to address the issues. Cerevisae (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bit better if you (or someone else – ping them all?) could get the original Wetlands International report and use that as the reference (I couldn't find it on first search). I do think this is minor though; we should be ready to promote. Parcly Taxel 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parcly Taxel I have already included the original report in the citation in addition both the newspapers citations. Cerevisae (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this paragraph

Sarawak has a number of national parks including Niah National Park, within which the Niah Caves are located, and Lambir Hills National Park, known for its various waterfalls. The Gunung Mulu National Park, which was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000, is also located in Sarawak. The park is known for Sarawak Chamber, one of the world's largest underground chambers, Deer Cave, the second largest cave passage in the world, and Clearwater Cave, the longest cave system in Southeast Asia.

1. The phrase "a number of national parks" is meaningless. Why not be specific? How many national parks does Sarawak have?
2. Why the need to tell us that the Gunung National Park "is also located in Sarawak"?
3. Notice the repetition re: "known for".
4. What does "various waterfalls" mean? Are we talking about quantity or variety?
All points addressed. Parcly Taxel 02:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14.207.36.231 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now have:

Varying claims have been made regarding the area of forest coverage remaining in Sarawak. Former chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has stated that between 2011 and 2012 Sarawak's forested land area fell from 70% to 48%. In contradiction with Taib, Resource Planning and Environment Second Minister Awang Tengah announced in 2012 Sarawak was 80% forested area. The Sarawak Forest Department also held that the forest cover was 80% in 2012. According to Wetlands International 10 percent of all Sarawak forests and 33 percent of peat swamp forests were cleared between 2005 and 2010. This rate of deforestation is 3.5 times higher than found in all Asian countries combined.

My version is:

According to Wetlands International 10 percent of Sarawak's forests and 33 percent of peat swamp forests were cleared between 2005 and 2010, a rate 3.5 times higher than all Asian countries combined. Varying claims have been made regarding the extent of forest coverage remaining. Former chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has stated that between 2011 and 2012 the state's forested land area fell from 70% to 48%, while the Sarawak Forest Department and Ministry for Resource Planning and Environment maintained that as of 2012 forest cover stood at 80%.

I've switched the chronology and stripped out repetition / redundancy. If you want the moderator, Sarastro, to promote your article, ask him. IMO it's currently an Oppose. If you want me to help I could do 30-60 minutes per day over the next 7-10 days, but we'd need to re-write almost every paragraph and iron out several more factual errors. 14.207.36.231 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Parcly Taxel 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are thirty national parks, including those at Niah with its eponymous caves, Lambir Hills with its many waterfalls, and the World Heritage Site of Gunung Mulu. The last contains Sarawak Chamber, one of the world's largest underground chambers, Deer Cave, the second largest cave passage in the world, and Clearwater Cave, the longest cave system in Southeast Asia.

1. Notice the repetition re: "with its".
2. The source for Lambir Hills does indeed mention waterfalls, but begins by telling me that "Lambir Hills National Park is probably the world’s most complex and diverse forest eco-system". In a tourism-oriented article you could get away by focusing solely on waterfalls; for something more encyclopedic you need to mention this intricate ecosystem. Note that my word "intricate" is a possible replacement for "complex and diverse".
3. You tell us that Deer Cave is the world's second largest. The source tells me that "When you reach the cave entrance you are left in no doubt that you are about to enter the largest cave passage in the world." The word "second" is not present in the source. 14.207.36.231 (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed, but lest you flare up again: I can help, but I did not nominate this article nor did I copyedit it prior. I also do not have much familiarity with the sources as Cerevisae should have and I'm working on the lead FAC too. Parcly Taxel 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) the points are valid. I concede I am good at big-picture but my eye for detail can be lacking at times. I did think the material on logging and forests needed good sourcing and concede I skimmed over this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and he are in email correspondence should not mean that block evasion gets a free pass.
These comments were just removed (ironically, by another anonymous IP). I have replaced them. All the points are valid and related to the FA criteria. I'd be grateful if they could be left where they are, at least for now. To be blunt, the identity, or otherwise, of any IPs are not a matter for FAC. I think our priority here should be the quality of this article. Any further discussion of this IP needs to take place elsewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than edit-warring, it might be better to wait to see what happens at ANI. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Parcly Taxel, for your help. It is tiring to address the unending issues of this article. Hopefully, after this checking by Mike Christie and Singora (if able to comment on this page), there will be no more issues for this article. Cerevisae (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I read through. Please revert my copyedits if I screw anything up.

  • "Sarawak, along with Sabah and Brunei, became a British protectorate in 1888. This agreement granted Britain jurisdiction over Sarawak's foreign affairs but administration was still handled by the Brooke government. Towards the latter half of the 19th century, Charles Anthoni Brooke succeeded his uncle as the next White Rajah of Sarawak." Not sure why you don't give the date of succession, but since it's 1868 these events are out of chronological order; I'd suggest reversing the sentences and giving the year.
Done. Parcly Taxel 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map showing the sequence of territorial expansion is excellent, but I was surprised because I had no idea from the text that the initial land ruled by Brooke was so small in comparison to the modern state. I think this should be made clearer in the early part of the history section.
    Done. Added (now known as Kuching) to clarify on the matter.Cerevisae (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that doesn't do it, since the reader is likely to think that Kuching was then the name for the entire area now known as Sarawak. How about "...was well rewarded with antimony, property and the governorship of Sarawak, which at that time only referred to an area of a few square miles [or whatever the size was] around the town of Kuching", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Parcly Taxel 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a bit, but now the problem is that the statement about the extent of the land is unsourced. Presumably there's a source for what is shown in the map gif; can we use that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who would become Rajah Muda in 1939": the article does not explain that this means he was heir apparent.
Done. Parcly Taxel 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[In 1941] a new constitution was introduced that would limit the power of the Rajah and granting the Sarawak people a greater role in the functioning of government": the source says "the introduction of a democratic Constitution" which is later described as being "based on democratic principles". I think this is not enough to support the sentence as written. Also, the article 1941 constitution of Sarawak (which is unsourced) says that the constitution was never actually implemented; if so, we should say so. A look in some Google Books sources finds other references to it only being preparatory, e.g. Frans Welman, Borneo Trilogy, volume 1 p. 177, though I don't know if that's a reliable source for our purposes.
    Done. I used the hansard at the UK parliament to support the sentences. Cerevisae (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a much better source, and it fully addressed the first sentence. For "this constitution was never fully implemented due to the outbreak of the Pacific war" it says "...enacted a new Constitution.... This process was interrupted by the Japanese invasion and occupation". There's not much of a time gap between the outbreak of war in the Pacific and the Japanese invasion, but I think it would be better to be specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this, which I think you can cite; it's a bit clearer than the source you have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to "due to Japanese occupation" and added the source.Cerevisae (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. I think it needs a little copyediting but that can wait. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time it was divided into three provinces – Kuching-shu, Sibu-shu, and Miri-shu": unless I'm missing it, this information is not in the source provided. I also recall seeing something in one of the sources I found when looking for information about the 1941 constitution to the effect that the Japanese left the existing administrative structure almost completely intact; perhaps they simply renamed the provinces, but the current wording makes it sound as though they set up a new structure.
    Under Brooke, Sarawak was divided into five divisions, but under Japanese rule, Sarawak was divided to 3 divisions only, but otherwise the Japanese retained the government structure intact. Anyways, I have re-added the sources.Cerevisae (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I can't see the source page in Google Books but I'll take your word for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak was immediately placed under British Military Administration until April 1946": the source says "Sarawak...was immediately placed under British Military Rule administered by the Australian Military until 15 April 1946", which doesn't make it clear whether it was the British Military Rule or the Australian involvement that lasted until 1946. It would seem more likely to be the latter given that the next governmental transition quoted is the cession, which doesn't pass till May and doesn't take effect till July.
    Added another reference in support of the statement. BMA under the management of Australian forces seems to be true.Cerevisae (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the second source helps -- it only seems to talk about the Australians in Labuan. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I switched to another reference. Is it ok? Cerevisae (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cerevisae, I have to admit I'm baffled. Are you perhaps not a native English-speaker? I don't see support there, either, but you're clearly acting in good faith so I think we must have a communications issue. The statement as it stands is unclear about the sequence of events, and the new source doesn't clarify that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thousands of Sarawak communist members went into Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, and underwent training with the Communist Party of Indonesia. The most significant engagement of the confrontation was fought at Plaman Mapu in April 1965. The defeat at Plaman Mapu ultimately resulted in the fall of Sukarno and he was replaced by Suharto as president of Indonesia. Negotiations were restarted between Malaysia and Indonesia and led to the end of the confrontation on 11 August 1966." This is cited to pp. 86-87 of Ishikawa, Noboru; Between Frontiers: Nation and Identity in a Southeast Asian Borderland, but I don't see any mention of Plaman Mapu there.
    Added "Savage Wars of Peace: Soldiers' Voices, 1945-1989" as the source.Cerevisae (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time tonight; I should have more time tomorrow and will try to finish the review then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, take your time, do check as thoroughly as possible. Cheers. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another point above, and am still going through the article, but I have to say I'm becoming slightly concerned about the sourcing. Most of the points I've raised above are straightforward cases where the source doesn't support the information given in the article. It's not that I think the article is inaccurate, but it has to be sourced accurately for it to pass FAC. I am not opposing at the moment because (a) everything I'm raising is being fixed quickly, and (b) there appear to be no factual errors, but I think a thorough review of the sources is necessary. I will continue to go through the article, but if someone else could volunteer to help, perhaps by dividing up the article, that would make it go much faster -- source checking is a slow process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far better with prose and layout than with references. I can definitely help, but I may not have access to some of the listed references, so I may only be able to report on which individual references are reliable/confirmed or not. Parcly Taxel 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new list:

  • "To guard against future uprisings, a series of forts were constructed to protect Kuching, including Fort Margherita, completed in 1871. By that time Brooke's control of Sarawak was such that defenses were largely unnecessary" is cited to an article in the New York Times by a financial journalist; essentially a travelogue piece. The NYT is generally reliable source, of course, but I don't think it's appropriate for a historical summary when it's clearly written by a non-expert. I think a better source should be used. That source is also used to support mentioning the Sarawak Museum, and I think it's fine for that.
  • The mention of Stewart's assassination followed by "Despite the resistance" makes it sound as though he was assassinated before Sarawak became a Crown Colony, but in fact it was three years later.
  • "He was only allowed to return 17 years later after Sarawak had become part of Malaysia". The source does not say this.
  • "In 1950 all anti-cession movements in Sarawak ceased after a clamp-down by the colonial government": this is not supported by the given source, at least not on page 10, and is directly contradicted by the obit for Anthony in the Telegraph. Neither of these sources -- an obit 60 years later, and a colonial administrator's memoirs -- are the right sort of source for this.

I'm going to stop here and Oppose. Sorry; I can see a lot of work has gone into the article, but when I find this many problems in such a short stretch (I'm still in the History section) I don't feel I can do anything but oppose. I would not be comfortable with this article being promoted without some reassurance that the sourcing has been thoroughly reviewed, for the entire article. That's not something that can be effectively done at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I give up already. Sarastro1, please close this FA nomination and fail this article against FAC. Cerevisae (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments to Mr Cerevisae

I left some more comments last night on the talk pages for Mr Cerevisae, Mr CaslIber and Mr Sarastro.

Mr Cerevisae -- I read your comments here and on your talk page. I'm sorry to see you're quitting, but you're doing the right thing: everything will need to be re-checked. Do remember you got four supports. Once the sources are in order you'll be able to take the article further. IMO, Wikipedia's best featured article about Malaysia is currently the piece I wrote last year about George Town's Seri Rambai cannon. But if you can sort out the issues in this Sarawak piece (and I'm sure you can) it'll be you rather than me that graces the summit of Mount Olympus. Go for it, and good luck to you. AuricGoldfinger (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AuricGoldfinger for your encouragement. I don't mind anybody take credit if he/she is able to bring this article to FA article status. Besides, I believed I have reached my limitations on bringing this article to FA. Apart from that certain history sections in Sarawak are not well researched by historians so there are conflict of facts such as British military administration being administration by Australian and the year the anticession movement in Sarawak ended. Cerevisae (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (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) 12:15, 21 June 2017 [2].

Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about actor Peter Dinklage, I have worked on this article for a while and I believe it meets the FA criteria. AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JC

Oppose - I'm just going to take a look at the "Personal life" section for now, to get a feel for the article. Comments, suggestions, and questions as I read along...

  • Dinklage and Schmidt are expecting a second child. - Ideally, this would tell us when they announced that they were expecting a second child (or, failing that, "as of" the date of the source, so it's easy to tell whether this is up-to-date.)
Added when it was announced. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage face - grammar.
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • severely injured - "severely" seems like editorializing that isn't supported by the given source. I believe it's possible to sustain a large scar from an injury that falls short of "severe".
Removed "severely". - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • early 90's - per
    MOS:DECADE
    , present decades in four digits when identifying a period of time.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the scar notable at all? As far as I can tell, it hasn't really been discussed in-depth by any reliable sources, just the one interview and banal "x things you didn't know about Peter Dinklage" listicles. It just seems really trivial and out-of-place stuck at the end of a paragraph about his wife and family. If it is to stay, then you should explain how he became injured; just saying that he was in a band at the time doesn't answer any questions.
I have added how he got injured now, don't know if that's enough or if I should remove it all together? - AffeL (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, are there any reliable sources discussing his time in the band? If so, I think that should be fleshed out a bit and moved into "Early life".
Not that I know of. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he suggested that doubt is more needed than belief. - Really abstract and maybe not particularly important?
Removed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage has a form of dwarfism, achondroplasia, which affects bone growth. As a result, he is 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m) tall, with a typical-sized head and torso but short limbs. - What is the source for this information? The next citation, the Today article, doesn't support any of that, and in fact lists Dinklage's height as 4'6" instead of 4'5".
Added source. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "Dinklage has come to accept his condition", but he is later quoted as saying in 2012, "I don't think I still am okay with it. There are days when I'm not." Has his attitude changed significantly since 2012 or is this a discrepancy?
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinklage's wife suggested that he should say something, being that he is in a position to change the "way people look at people his size" - Say something about what? Was it his wife who suggested bringing attention to Martin Henderson?
Yes, Now fixed so it is more clear. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the dwarfism quotes seem to ramble on without saying anything new or enlightening. I would try to boil it down to the most pertinent snippets and fit them into one paragraph. In When talking about his sense of responsibility to other people who share his condition: "The idea is to get to that level where you don't have to preach about it anymore." the quote doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to its introduction. It's also redundant given that we're already told his opinion on whether he saw himself as "a spokesman for the rights of little people" in the previous paragraph.
I removed the last quote. - AffeL (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm sorry to say that the section I've reviewed falls well short of FA standards. Aside from grammar and style errors, sourcing deficiencies, and unclear prose, the narrative about his dwarfism – an important part of his life, no doubt – is unfocused and underdeveloped. In fact, I believe the final paragraph may constitute plagiarism per our

non-free content guidelines; the paragraph is composed almost entirely of material copied directly from one source. While quotations of non-free text are allowed, this probably falls under prohibited "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". On these grounds, I'm afraid I must oppose. Sorry, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have removed some redundant quotations and paraphrased others in that paragraph. Is that enough or should I trim it down a bit more? - AffeL (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also another thing is that Dinklage happens to be a very private person, he does not do many interviews, go to any talk shows and so on. So not much is known about his personal life, making it hard to find different stuff to add for that section. - AffeL (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: I found this source(http://www.hypable.com/game-of-thrones-video-peter-dinklage-delivers-commencement-speech-at-bennington-college/). I know "Hypable.com" is not a reliable source, but this particular source has a video of Dinklage talking about him growing up. Can I use it or just the Youtube video as a source? - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would depend on the information it's being used to verify. Even if the stories come straight from the man himself, they may well be exaggerated or embellished for the sake of an interesting commencement speech. I would personally prefer more rigorous sourcing, but perhaps there are some uncontroversial bits which can be gleamed from the speech (it would be nice to know what he got his degree in, for instance).

The section I reviewed looks a bit better, but I still believe there are too many irrelevant quotations. The first quote in the last paragraph is very difficult to parse, and contributes very little to our understanding of the subject's life. The bit about Martin Henderson seems to have been taken out of context, as you don't discuss any impact resulting from his being mentioned. this source says the speech brought attention to the act of dwarf-tossing, which is how Henderson became injured. On a similar note, this book seems like it might have some useful facts about Dinklage's upbringing and personal life. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: Added where he got his degree from and removed the first quote in the last paragraph, also added the impact of Henderson name being mentioned. Much of the other quotes has either been removed or re-written in my own words. - AffeL (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: How about now?, How does it look? I have removed some and paraphrased the many quotations in that section, all expect the last little quote in the second to last paragraph. - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: I have addressed all of your comments and I have been told that un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. So is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've struck my oppose for now so as not to impede the nomination. I'll take another look at the article if time allows. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: Hi, I'm wondering if you time, could you take another look at the article? - AffeL (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

  • "in the 2019 Untitled Avengers film" -> capital letter not needed
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction could have two paragraphs instead of four.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and appeared in NBC's 30 Rock." -> who did he play?
Added the name of the character he plays. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannister in HBO's Game of Thrones, an ada.." -> The paragraph needs to have some sort of date included, for instance, when he was cast and when the show premiered, or at least the year when he started playing the character.
Added dates. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section there is no indication how long he's been playing the character, how many seasons there are, or when is it gonna end etc. More background of the show is certainly needed, as GOT is the highlight of his career.
Added "as of 2011" in the beginning, also added how many seasons and when it will end. You said more background is needed, I already added his salary, casting information, awards won, reception, background on when the show started and will end, also added how many seasons the show will have. Should I add more or do you believe it's enough? - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting needs A LOT of work. Many missing dates, authors, publishers, wrong links (such as
    Telegraph
    ), 26 November 2016 -> November 26, 2016, New York Times -> The New York Times, etc.

Mymis (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: I fixed those you mentioned and others, I'm quite sure I fixed all the missing dates, authors and so on. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still unclear what the show is even about. You could add one sentence about it, and how it links to his character. Also, " George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series." -> add genre (a series of epic fantasy novels), or/and add "drama" before the show's title.
Added sentence of what the show is about and his character, also added "fantasy drama" before the shows title. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2011, Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannist" -> "Since 2011, ...."
Done. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the movie hade a modest commercial success with" -> "had". Also, there is no source to prove "modest commercial success". Just because it earned 200M, it does not mean it was commercially successful.
Fixed "hade" to "had". Also the movie earned $245 million, with a $88 million budget. That's an $157 million profit. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to add more timeframes in "Upcoming projects" section, for EVERY one of his upcoming role. "As of XXXX, ...", "In XXXX, ..." etc.
@Mymis: Added timeframes for all projects. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "For this he won the Emmy.." in the second paragraph in the introduction could be reorganized in a less confusing way.
Changed it to ", which earned him the Emmy.." - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Upcoming projects" need to copyedited, there are multiple grammar mistakes and repetitive phrasing.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is set to appear in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Three Christs in 2017" -> Those seem to be quite decent films, and deserve more than just a mention, I think.
Will add more once we know more about those movies, not much to add now. - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why do you think that Emmys and the Globes are literally the only awards that are worth mentioning? He has won and been nominated for many other awards.
I added the
Screen Actors Guild Award. - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mymis (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mymis: Anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that Pixels is a commercial success is
    List of box office bombs
    .
Removed that it's a commercial success. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence "Game of Thrones takes place on the fictional continents...", and the one after, could be put after the first sentence in the paragraph. I think it would flow nicer, now it seems a bit disorganized.
Done, moved up. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence "The series was renewed for a seventh sea" poorly links to the previous sentence. Maybe add "The series proved to be a commercial success; it was renewed for...." or something.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if IndieWire is in italics or not.
It's not, fixed all of them. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Lynne Segall??
Have no idea, I removed it. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boston Globe -> The Boston Globe
Done. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010 he appeared in the.. -> Add comma
Added comma. - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: All done. Anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to support it now. Good luck with the nomination! Mymis (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • "2017, Dinklage attended thousands at the Women's March demonstration " - "attended thousands"? This needs a bit of work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Dinklage attended the..." - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he'd been thinking " - probably better as "he had been thinking". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henderson is a person with dwarfism from England, who was badly injured for having dwarfism by " - this latter part needs to be reworded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " saying that 20 years ago he would not have turned down these offers, saying that".... "saying that... saying that". Bit repetitive. Needs rewording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede feels a little cluttered. I would consider a restructuring, perhaps splitting it into three paragraphs. I would mention that Dinklage has achondroplasia nearer to the beginning. Not because I think it needs to be over-emphasized, but because it just seems a bit out-of-place right at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I did split it into three paragraphs and moved the "Dinklage has achondroplasia" sentance at the end of the first paragraph. - AffeL (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an improvement, although I have rejigged things a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2011, Dinklage has portrayed Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones, which earned him the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series in 2011, and a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor – Series, Miniseries or Television Film in 2012, as well as receiving consecutive Emmy nominations from 2011 to 2016, and going on to win a second for Outstanding Supporting Actor Emmy in 2015." This is a very lengthy sentence; I would trim it in two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it a bit. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it "preparatory school". - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede claims that Dinklage was "Born and raised in" Morristown, but the main body then claims that, although born in Morristown, he grew up in Brookside. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the lead. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he played alongside Steve Buscemi" - I think that this could be reworded.; perhaps "performed" rather than "played". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even after the critical success of Living in Oblivion, Dinklage still couldn’t find someone willing to be his agent. After a recommendation from Buscemi to the director Alexandre Rockwell, Dinklage was cast in the comedy 13 Moons (2002).[" - First, change "couldn't" to "could not". Second, the two sentences are quite distinct in content; are they both cited to the same reference? If so, I would repeat that reference at the end of both sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are and I fixed it. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "American comedy" before the film title "O Lucky Day". - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2011, Dinklage plays" - "Since 2011, Dinklage has played". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "singing a brand new song called " - "singing a new song called" would suffice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most successful Finnish film of all time." - "of all time" feels a little melodramatic. How about "to date"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the independent film Rememory failed" - comma needed after film name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " $349.8 million[84], only" - the comma must go before the reference here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dinklage described himself as a lapsed Catholic in 2008" - This could be read as meaning that he was a lapsed Catholic in 2008 but not in other years. I would rearrange this as "In 2008, Dinklage described himself as a lapsed Catholic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth briefly adding that he is an animal rights activist and has spoken out on little people issues to the lede. Perhaps just a short sentence at the end of that third paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the lead. - AffeL (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I've removed the speaking out on little people issues bit. That wasn't really what Awas added (I assume you were referring to the Martin Henderson comment and the like, not Dinklage being a role model). Discussion of Dinklage's dwarfism in the lead was the subject of a large RFC last year, and so the consensus wording should probably not be overruled without discussion. The nominator really should have pointed you to the RFC as he did in this edit summary, but that is another matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC has been moved, not removed. It is still their. And their is not speaking out on little people part, it just says "He has been viewed as a role model for people sharing his condition.", which is sourced in the body. - AffeL (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, drop the trolling act by quoting my edit summaries back at me and messing it up. The RFC was never moved. The text incorporated as a result of the RFC was moved. But the point is that discussion of dwarfism in the lead was the source of a controversy last year, and it was decided that the discussion should be limited to "he has dwarfism and is so-and-so tall. He has appeared in such-and-such roles where his dwarfism was significant." If you want to add something else about his dwarfism, you need prior talk page consensus, as there was previously a clear consensus not to include anything else. Or you could try to get consensus to invalidate the previous RFC; AlbinoFerret's RFC closes are infamous and have been a terrible burden on the project, so it's entirely possible that his close was not a fair representation of consensus. I haven't read through the entire RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entire seperate thing and has nothing to do with his dwarfism, it just says his a role model. Also the RFC says that other minor things can be added. - AffeL (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henderson is a person with dwarfism from England, who was badly injured by being tossed by a rugby fan in a bar, the speech brought media and public attention to the act of dwarf-tossing with Henderson's name being trended worldwide on social media" - the latter half of that sentence does not really flow on from the earlier half very neatly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Added another image. - AffeL (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

I've read through twice and made several edits, and it all mostly looks very good. I just have a couple of minor comments:

  • "Being his first voiceover role, Dinklage prepared himself by making sure to rest his voice before the recording sessions, adding that he likes doing new roles that he has not done before." In the last clause in this sentence, "adding that" doesn't really work.
Changed it up. - AffeL (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked it some more. I should have maybe clarified before that what had bothered me with the sentence was that the last clause implied "Dinklage said that" while the first part didn't. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a couple of jobs of his characters are wiki-linked. I noticed "wedding planner" and "reporter", didn't notice if there were others. The wiki-link for "Reporter" at least seems unnecessary, "wedding planner" possibly too. But I didn't edit these in case it was part of a larger consistency thing. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: All done. - AffeL (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy to support now. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and focused. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hijiri88

I'm neutral on whether the article should be promoted as is, but it's worth noting that when nominated the article contained a very dubious unsourced claim about Dinklage's career choices, which the nominator added to th lead during the course of this RFC.[3][4] The original nominator (whose talk page I have on my watchlist) was the one who added this unsourced claim to the body last fall, and has a history of questionable sourcing issues, and pushing articles with said issues through the GA process; it wouldn't surprise me if, once one scratched beneath the surface, this FA-nominated article revealed similar problems. The only reason I'm not outright opposing this promotion is that the user in question actually has made fairly negligible contributions to this article, so if the article has severe verifiability problems, that is a fault of the system rather than a procedural factor I think should cause the FAC to be autofailed. That said, the only reason it doesn't include a bunch of coatrack-y links to sources that have no relation to the article text (a pet peeve of mine, FWIW) is because I happened to notice them.[5] Someone really should take a look to make sure the article still doesn't contain any more unsourced/potentially-contentious BLP claims and borderline-OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to oppose The article probably contains unsourced or questionably-sourced content (it definitely did until I removed it last week despite opposition/edit-warring from the nominator), and the nominator has refused to do a source-check to address this problem. The nominator claims to have checked all 150-odd citations (some of the "119 sources" are cited multiple times) and verified that all the article content, but also claims he performed this massive task in under two hours. He has also refused to provide evidence that he performed this task. Put simply, I think he is lying. Until someone does a source-check, I think we can't assume that following my removal of two randomly cherry-picked unsourced/questionably-sourced claims it contains no more such ccontent, and the article should not be promoted if it probably contains such content. This does not preclude my changing to support if AffeL or someone else does do the source-check he claims he did, and provides evidence thereof. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also naturally somewhat skeptical about some of the
normal profit) is OR. We shouldn't have done it for Pixels (or even used an adversative conjunction, which the article continued to do for more than a week after "success" was removed), we shouldn't have done it for Prince Caspian, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. (And at this rate it wouldn't surprise me if the nominator reverted back the OR that I already removed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Earlier discussions/controversies aside, this got way too long. No one is ever going to read it anyway, so might as well collapse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. If their is a problem somewhere in the article, you can tell me what and I will fix it. Those tags you said I removed, I removed those and then fixed the issues you mentioned just minutes or so later. So is their anything else? Cause you following me around is the most childish thing I have seen during my time on Wikipedia. - AffeL (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if any one have time do to a source review. That would be great. - AffeL (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You understand, that I don't need to find a specific problem with this or that specific article to point out that a very large proportion of your edits have such problems. If you were some random contributor to the page, that would be one thing, but you nominated this page. Your recent behaviour on
Draft:Game of Thrones (season 8) -- is evidence enough that you don't understand proper sourcing, and so your judgement regarding this article's sourcing should be taken as iffy at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So is their anything in this specific article that you want me to fix? - AffeL (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I don't want you fixing any articles after what I've seen you doing with the "turns down stereotypical roles" mess, among others. You need to wrap your head around Wikipedia policies/guidelines and how to properly read sources. Someone should do a thorough source-check on this article before it is promoted, but I'm increasingly skeptical of proper sourcing being a prerequisite for FA-status. Very few editors seem to understand that "AGF" doesn't mean "assume an article's sources are all fine". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i'm asking for a source review. If their is anything wrong, I will find a way to improve it. I have checked the sources and all that, I have been working on this page for hours and checked almost all the sources one by one, sometimes I may miss something. But I am trying to, as I said improv the article as best as possibly. Also I know about the policies/guidelines btw. - AffeL (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the [edit warring policy] btw Your recent behaviour on
List of highest paid American television stars says otherwise, but that's kind of off-topic. I am sure if I found a serious issue with something in this article, that you disagreed with me on, you would edit-war at me here as well. But I'd rather not start an edit war just to make a point, and I have better things to do with my Thursday evening than read through the article to find something over which for you to edit-war with me. Like sleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That has nothing to do with this article and is completly of topic. If you do find a issue with this article, I will make sure to work hard and fix what ever the issue may be. - AffeL (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed this. It certainly does not "have nothing to do with this article", nor is it "completly of topic", to point out that the nominator has been edit-warring over this page. Specifically, FACR 1(e) disbars articles that are subject to ongoing edit wars. At the time AffeL wrote the above, he was still attempting (at
Talk:List of highest paid American television stars#GOT actors' salaries are a rumour -- 3RR-blocked user Jojocc was right on the substance) to justify his edit-warring, in this and another article, regarding Dinklage's current salary for Game of Thrones. Yes, after I explained to him for about the umpteenth time why he was wrong, he finally seems to have gotten it, but that happened after he posted the above remark about how edit-warring is off-topic for an FAC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Making an off-topic comment and then criticizing others for responding to said off-topic comment is highly inappropriate. Cut it out. I raised a legitimate concern that the nominator of this FAC has a history of sourcing problems, including recently in this article since nominating it, and you responded by engaging in off-topic commentary about how you totally don't have these issues. I happened to randomly stumble across an unsourced claim about the subject's professional choices less than a week ago. It's entirely possible that more dubious unsourced BLP claims are still there. If the community is comfortable with this in an FA, so be it. I'm done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so rude. I understand that you and I have our differences. But it is only by working togheter that we can make improvments on this and other articles. - AffeL (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Call me rude if you want. As far as I am concerned, I just don't want articles with clear sourcing issues being promoted to FA status. The reason I am not opposing this FAC is because I don't know the article has verifiability issues -- I just think there's a fair probability. Pointing this out is not off-topic for an FAC. Whether your subsequent commentary and my responses thereto were off-topic for an FAC or "rude" is immaterial. Indeed, calling me "rude" for saying any of this is about as off-topic as one can get. Collapse everything after my first comment if you like. Don't blank it, move it to a separate page, make it invisible, or collapse my responses but not yours, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. I need to know what problems you have with the article, so I know what it is I should do, what I should change. As far as I know, I have checked all the sources more than twice and everything is in order. - AffeL (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I TOLD you not to attempt to hide my initial comment because I KNEW you would try to do what you did last time (on the Kit Harington GA review page) and what your spiritual predecessor did to me multiple times. If you think your comments and my responses to said comments are "off-topic", then you can collapse them. You do not have permission to hide comments that I specifically told you NOT to collapse. Do NOT revert my uncollapsing of my initial comment above, or I will report you for disruptive editing and request that you be blocked. Your opinion that you have checked all the sources and they verify all the content in the article and are adequately reliable is nice, but it is just your opinion, and as demonstrated your opinion that the article is adequately sourced is not worth much, since your reading of sources has proven to be questionable at best. You thought that the sources in the article before last week verified the claim that the subject rejects stereotypical dwarf roles, and you also thought that the sources you added after I tagged this material as unsourced verified it. Either you hadn't read those sources and added them to the article anyway, or you read them and misunderstood them. Either way, someone else should probably check the sources, or else this article being promoted to FA would be solely the result of one user claiming that it is fully sourced, which is not how it normally works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you said "collapse everything", so I did. All the tags you made to other articles, I have fixed all the issues you have pointed out. So I don't know what problem you have with this article. I can't do anything with an un-actionable comments. You have to tell me what you want me to fix. - AffeL (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "collapse everything after my first comment if you like". I did not give you permission to collapse my first comment, or to collapse all of my responses to you after your first off-topic comment. You can leave this whole section uncollapsed, or you can collapse everything after my first comment. I think it's quite likely the article contains unverified/unverifiable claims. It is not my responsibility to go through the entire article and try to find more of these claims than I already have. I tagged one claim that I thought was probably accurate but needed a source, and you (in a roundabout fashion) blanked the claim because you couldn't be bothered finding a source for it. FAC is not a simple "Do X and Y and the article will be promoted" process: either the article meets the FA criteria or it doesn't, and I don't think you are capable of fixing the article if it contains the problems that I have pretty good reason for believing it has. My comments are here for a closer, and other commenters, to see and ignore if they see fit. You do not appear to understand them (as you don't appear to understand the FAC process in general), and I would ask that you stop attempting to hide them or undermine them by specifically demanding that they be read in light of your misinterpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know what issues, I will say this again I have checked all the sources, and I can assure you everything is well sourced. If you don't believe me, then that's your problem. You tagged that claim, and I fixed it minutes later. I have no doubt what so ever that the article is well sourced. Just check the sources. Everything that is in the article is sourced. If you don't believe me, then theirs nothing I can do about that. - AffeL (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see you are not going to stop trying to either hide or decontextualize my comment, so you can consider my offer to allow the majority of this subthread to be collapsed withdrawn. Anyway, you did not "fix" anything. I tagged a claim I believed might be accurate but needed a source: you initially dealt with it by piling on a bunch of sources that had nothing to do with the claim in question (illustrating your general inability to read sources, and this isn't the only example I could give) and then when I challenged those, you simply blanked the claim. I may have been wrong to think it was accurate, but you didn't exactly "fix" the problem: if I thought that removing the unsourced claim was the best solution, I would have done that myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find a reliable source that made that claim, I seen numerous tweets from people with dwarfism state that they admire and look up to Dinklage for standing up for himself and for saying no to "typical dwarf roles". If I do ever find it, I will as you said fix the problem. I removed the claim, cause it was the best solution at the moment. - AffeL (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those tweets could very well be getting their information from Wikipedia, which would be
WP:CIRCULAR
. We would need information apparently coming from either Dinklage or someone associated with him that indicates that he turns down sterotypical/offensive dwarf roles. Or, possibly, some casting agent who was turned down by him when they offered him a stereotypical dwarf role for the expressed reason that he doesn't do those roles.
That said, "includes information on whether the subject refuses to do stereotypical/degrading work" is not one of the FA criteria. Making sure everything still in the article is properly sourced, on the other hand, is a priority. AffeL has on his talk page indicated that he may be willing to do some heavy lifting here. But he has also admitted (I may be reading something in here that he didn't say, though) that the reason for his recent sourcing issues may be his English proficiency, which is not something that he can button down and "fix" just because I told him to. So I think this FAC should probably be put on hold until either he or someone else has gone through and checked the sources. If he does it, someone else (I would be willing, but I should be upfront that I am stricter than a lot of people who !vote in FACs related to modern entertainment media) should carefully read his analysis and check that he has done it properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that English not being my first langauge, have anything do to with my sourcing. The sourcing with this article is fine, and as I said on my talk page, i'm willing to go through the sources one by one. - AffeL (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologize for trying to make excuses for your poor sourcing standards. As I said, it was possible I was reading something into what you said that wasn't there. Clearly you are still claiming that you don't have poor sourcing standards. We will see if your source-check solves the problem. As I said, I am skeptical -- you thought the sourcing was fine when you opened this FAC, even though the article contained not one but two unsourced and probably false claims in its lead, so your saying the sourcing is fine now is obviously questionable at best. Anyway, we shall see. Given your recent gaming behaviour (like suddenly claiming out of the blue that you have poor English ability to justify your bad talk page etiquette over the period of several weeks), I am actually increasingly worried that you will try to go through the innocuous parts of the article and the parts that are sourced first, to give the false impression that there are no problems, so you can take my statement that I would only go through about a dozen or so of your checks before taking your word for it as withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second link you mentioned was not unsourced, it hade a source from a reliable source, it was changed for other reasons. Also I just finished going through almost all 119 sources in this article. I do not have time to make an analys and write down which paragraph the information was gathered from, that would take to much of my times and is just unnecessary(I was thinking about doing it, but the time it would take, it would be much longer than I first taught). Also I do not need to do that for FAC, you don't have to write a whole page, just to explain where said information comes from. So, Until you have something new to say, I will now end this discussion for my part, as it is not going anywhere and the comments you made are un-actionable. I will not repeat myself. So, for the last time, as far as I know/checked the sources are fine and everything seems to check out. When ever someone does a source review, i'm sure and do hope that the person will take it seriously and do a legit review of the sources and what's in the article, as they always should. - AffeL (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you are claiming to have done a thorough source analysis of a long article in the space of two hours, and so are obviously lying, right? And that now that you claim the article contains no misrepresentation of sources or unsourced claims, anything that is found in the future to have been unsourced this will just be more evidence that you are lying? I will quite soon be opening an ANI report on you for your multiple abuses (misrepresentation of sources, blatant lying, IDHT with regard to casual/friendly notices, IDHT with regard to your own previous STANDARDOFFER, reverting edits wihout having read their edit-summaries, refusal to use the talk page, replying to comments without having read said comments, accusing other users of vandalism...) and you are just giving me more material at this point. More on-point for this FAC, your demonstrated poor reading of sources (in the recent case regarding Dinklage's professional choices, D&D's favourite characters, character deaths in the books versus the show, etc.) should make any FAC closer skeptical of your ability to perform a source check, even if you had actually gone to the effort you claim to have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have done a source analyse in a space of a couple of hourse. Just so you know an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. This comment holds no value, cause it's nothing I can do. - AffeL (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I asked you to go through the article and check that everything in it is verifiable in the cited sources, and (2) I asked you to provide even the slightest bit of evidence that you had done so (twelve sample source-checks to prove your good faith) You have outright refused to do the latter, and you very clearly did not do the former either. Articles that have sourcing problems (even suspected/probable ones) frequently fail FAC on that basis alone, so your (repeatedly!) threatening me with the terrible punishment of being ignored by the closing delegate is ... not helpful. More likely, your refusal to cooperate with this commenter and to do any of the heavy-lifting V-wise in this FAC yourself, your demonstrated past and current V/NOR issues including in this very article, and your edit-warring (including in this very article) are more likely to leave an impression on the closing delegate. Frankly, I think the other GANs (and maybe FLCs) you advertise on your user page should probably be reexamined. I have seen A LOT of GANs pass without even the slightest reference to V and NOR, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case there as well. Note that every GAR I have opened based on the original review not having addressed sourcing has resulted in a delisting, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sourcing of the first two paragraphs of the article body, and how long it took me (about 40 minutes) can be clearly seen in the time-stamps of my last few edits. AffeL's English reading level is definitely far below mine (see here), so we can assume that if he were being careful it would have taken him longer. I got six sentences down before I found a full sentence with no citation attached that verified any of its content, and even checking back over every other citation in the section brought up only one source that verified about half of it.[6] I added that citation, but tagged it as needing improvement. Is this a freak accident that the seventh sentence was unsourced? Or do we have a half-sentence of unsourced and potentially wrong/made-up content every seven sentences down through the article? Either way, it's obvious that AffeL didn't do the thorough source check he claims he did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm not nitpicking or being overly strict or critical here. If I was, I would point out that our article contained the somewhat incredible claim that at the time of the subject's birth, his father was already retired at the age of 37 or 38.[7] That is a minor copyediting issue. An entire sentence that is unsourced, and is mostly not verifiable in any of the cited sources in surrounding paragraphs, is another level not-good-enough-for-FA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed that one. So now, I have adressed all of your comments. I will remind you again that An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STOP removing maintenance tags without addressing the issues.[8] Either (a) you did not read my above comment and/or the reason parameter in the "better source needed" tag, (b) you didn't actually read the source you added before removing the tag, (c) you read it but did not understand how it didn't address any of the problems, or (d) you read it, understood it, and fired ahead anyway just to get a rise out of me.
You nominated this article without taking the slightest look at the sourcing. Then when an unsourced claim in the article was tagged you went and added a bunch of sources that didn't fix the problem. Then when I said the article probably had sourcing problems, you claimed that you had checked all the sources and they were fine, but the seventh sentence of the article body was still completely unsourced. Put simply, the article has sourcing problems, the nominator either didn't know that he should try to address them before nominating or did a terrible job of doing so, and now is unwilling to address them despite repeatedly being pointed out that they are there. FAC is not a place for other editors to give you advice on how to bring the article to FA standard, and it definitely isn't a place where other editors are formally obliged to work to bring the article to FA standard; you should have familiarized yourself with
the FA criteria
before nominating and made some effort to ensure the article met these criteria.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way -- you've copy-pasted your own misprinted "An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored" no less than four times. Are you actually reading my comments before repeatedly copy-pasting your own previous non-responses to them? You admitted elsewhere to having not read/understood my granting you permission to collapse most of this sub-section before repeatedly firing ahead and doing something I didn't say it was cool to do.[9][10][11] And that wasn't the first time you have admitted to not reading my comments before responding to them.[12] It would be really nice if you would actually read comments before responding to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway... I've been doing some minor source-checking and copy-editing. No new "smoking guns" yet: the article claims Dinklage's first film was critically acclaimed, but its source is RT, and all the reviews they checked come from around a decade after the film's release, and all of negative ones come from relatively close to the film's release, but ... well, entertainment and pop culture articles on Wikipedia are a mess, and this includes successful FACs. But the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Breakthrough (2003–2010)" needs work. Was Agent a critical success but only a moderate box-office success? "moderate success" is a difficult turn of phrase, but it's normally taken as positive. I considered changing it to "but saw only moderate success". But the figures don't quite match that, as we say it earned 8 mill against a 500,000 budget. I don't know box office statistics -- is a 1600% return on investment for a low-budget film normally considered "only" a moderate success? The article only cites primary sources (RT and BOM) for this sentence, so I can't be sure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are remarks like which earned over $877 million—his highest grossing release as of 2016 really necessary? He was not apparently a major box-office draw for the film in 2012 (he isn't even named on the poster, and while I haven't seen the film I'd be willing to bet he did not have that many lines in it). We could probably add the same piece of random information to just about any article on any actor who has ever lent their voice their voice to a Pixar or DreamWorks film, since those movies always make a lot of money because of family revenues and relatively simple translation/localization procedures leading to much higher international box office revenues. The only reason I would find this information remotely interesting as a reader is that it highlights that X-Men: Days of Future Past was not as successful as a lot of other superhero movies of the 2010s, which in turn draws the reader's attention to the fact that "his highest grossing release" will almost certainly only be accurate until May 2018. Are there even sources that rank actors' filmographies by box-office grosses? The statement is not currently sourced, and I can't imagine any source actually would make this random datum. I checked some other entries in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media biographies and they did have similar statements, but only in the context of established her as the highest-grossing action heroine of all time or when discussing films in which the subjects received top-billing: Cooper's highest-grossing live-action film and the third highest-grossing R-rated film of all time. This latter is interesting because it specifically sidesteps the talking raccoon in the room based on an implicit awareness that films in which he was only a voice actor or appeared as part of an ensemble should not have their box-office figures detailed. Our current sentence runs afoul of both in that Dinklage himself didn't appear on-screen, and not only was he not the lead, he wasn't even part of the main cast. The financial success of the film was because virtually all films of that genre and from that studio make more money than virtually all other films. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be in that particular poster, but if you have seen the movie. He is part of the main cast and is the main villain for the movie. Also even if he wasen't, it is still necessary, as it his biggest box office hit as of yet. - AffeL (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "for actor biographies, please specify their biggest box office hit as of yet (even if they are primarily known for television)" one of the FACRs now? I can't find any policy/guideline based rationale for this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"biggest box office hit as of yet" means it's the movie that has made the most money of the movies he's been in. Television don't have box office, because people watch it on their television, not in the cinema. "I can't find any policy/guideline based rationale for this", what am i supposed to do about that? Other FA articles of other actors have these kind of information, as it tells the reader what the biggest film of the actor in terms of box office is. - AffeL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know what box office is. Kindly drop the haughtiness act. It's unbecoming. Anyway, as I demonstrated above, other actor FAs do not have this kind of information. Our Bradley Cooper article, for example, very specifically doesn't give this information. It lists the gross of several films in which he was the lead and thus received top billing, but doesn't talk about Guardians of the Galaxy or its sequel the way the present article talks about Ice Age. If you can find anoher article on an actor primarily known for television, that lists the grosses of all the theatrical films they happen to have appeared in, and ranks their "biggest box office hit" as a film in which they were not part of the main cast and whose gross had lnext-to nothing to do with them, hen maybe I will reconsider. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your commments. An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. So is their anything else. Also you don't need to tag stuff in the article, just say what you want yo be adressed here, and I will adress it. - AffeL (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not. I asked you repeatedly to do a source check. You blatantly did not do so, but claimed (several times) that you had. Apologize for your deceptive behaviour, don't do it again, and get to work on that source check. No one is likely to take your word for it next you claim without evidence that you did the source check, so I strongly encourage you to keep an on-wiki record of the check (in the form of clarification of exactly where in each source each of our article's claims are verified). Note that articles with demonstrated sourcing problems are almost never promoted to FA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a source check, if you don't believe me then theirs nothing I can do about that. So is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AffeL: Please define "source check". It's clear you didn't do what I asked you to do. It would have taken you more than five hours -- even checking the first section took me about forty minutes, and I appear to be a faster reader than you. But by constantly dodging the question you are making life very difficult for the rest of us. What do you mean when you say you did a source check? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the sources, and everything seems to be correct. everything in the article comes from the sources(that is if I have not missed anything). So is their anything else?, cause I have adressed all of your comments. - AffeL (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's what you said on Saturday. And it's what you said (albeit implicitly) when you started this FAC. And it's what you said when you nominated the page GA last September, and during the GA review in November. The article contained the unsourced claims that he graduated in 1987 and that he is a role model because he turns down degrading dwarf roles since before then. You were actually the one responsible for the latter.[13] I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one who added it to the lede and had done so unilaterally in contravention of the previous RFC on how the lede should address his dwarfism. How many more unsourced claims are in the article? We won't know until someone does a thorough source check. You continue to claim you have, but you also claim that the two unsourced claims in question were accidental oversights. Whether this is true or you actually did no such source check doesn't really matter for FAC. FAs cannot include unverifiable content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An An un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. Do you have something more to add or not? At this moment you do not have anything, come back when you find something "wrong" with this article. Then we can discuss whatever it is you think should be changed. - AffeL (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: It's clear you are not going to listen. You've now copy-pasted the same inane non-response to me six times. I'm done here.
To any passing samaritan who wants to do a thorough source check on the article: Ping me when you arebdone and I will happily withdraw my oppose !vote. I of course reserve the right not to believe you if you (a) have not actually edited the article but claim that you checked everything and it was all perfect and (b) are not an experienced source checker.
To the closer: The article at the time of nomination contained at least two unsourced BLP claims, one of which was potentially controversial. The nominator was the one responsible for adding said potentially controversial claim to the article last summer, and during this FAC edit-warred to keep it in the article untagged. The nominator claims that he has since done a thorough source check, but this has been proven false. The article should not be promoted unless it is demonstrated that it contains no further verifiability problems.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet prove that the article contains unsourced claims, which it does not. So your comment is as I said before "un-actionable", so I guess this means you do not have anything more to add, since I have adressed everything. I'm confident that the person who does a source check will find no problems at all. - AffeL (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further note to closer: The nominator has been edit-warring to maintain/reinsert counter-consensus content discussed further up this FAC.[14][15][16][17][18] He has also been reverting constructive, good-faith edits with the bogus excuse that they are "vandalism".[19] I worry that this user "helping to promote" the article to FA will very likely make this problem worse, since he will make the claim that anything that was in the article when it was promoted was supported by the consensus of !voters in this FAC. Please bear in mind FACR1e when closing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nominator has been blocked for personal attacks made against me and one of the other editors he was edit-warring at one the article talk page. The nominator committing blockable offenses that have nothing to do with article content is not really a grounds for autofailing an FAC by itself, but I don't think anyone would argue that an article whose talk page looks like this is "stable". (That's literally the entirety of the talk page since the GA review, and that GA review was insufficient as the article contained several unsourced BLP claims at the time it passed.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are edit warnings. Please, stop making stuff up. I reverted your edit so you discuss it in the talk page before making such a bold edit by removing something that has been their for a long time. So do you have anything else? Cause I have adressed everything. I will remind you that an un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. - AffeL (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

Oppose on prose and sourcing issues. I was going to keep my proverbial mouth shut, as I'm "involved" on the talk page, but every time I skim this article I find more and more to fix, despite the number of editors who've gone over the text already (and "supported"). A couple of examples:

  • "... showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss noted that Dinklage, whom he described as funny, smart and witty, was their first choice ..."—pronoun problems.
  • "As of March 2, 2017, Dinklage are Schmidt were expecting a second child."—tense. This is months ago now.
  • "As of 2017, Dinklage will star and play ..."—tense will quickly be problematic.
  • " In 2017, it was announced that Dinklage has been attached to star ..."—"was", then "is"? Is "attached" an appropriate wording? I'm not familiar with it in such a context.
... and so on. Things like this are pretty easy to pick out, as well as
MOS:LQ
and other issues I've been correcting over the last couple weeks. After this many reviews, problems like these should have be smoothed out long ago.
The article will need a thorough copyedit to meet criteria 1a, and is suffering from editwarring that violates 1e.
The article will also need a very careful source review to ensure the sources are being used appropriately, without
WP:SYNTH
issues, like the ones that have already been pointed out.
Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I can't see any purpose being served by leaving this open; further work (by cooler heads) should be done away from the FAC process, and perhaps at some stage a new nomination can be opened. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2017 (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) 08:56, 19 June 2017 [20].

Cher

Nominator(s):
talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets all requirements to become a featured article. Several years and hard research and dedication have gone into this article and I would like to get this through the "final" phase. Thank you.

talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Siuenti says

Ip 122 says

Looks great, though I think there could be more coverage on her fashion influence, though perhaps not in this article. Something like the

ISBN 9781408820605., http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/the-dying-art-of-ridiculous-red-carpet-fashion-bob-mackie https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19940318&id=31BWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4282,3976645 ) --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

A lot of good work has gone on here so congratulations. Just a few points:

  • There are currently some tags put on the lede. I did not put them there, but I would concur with their general sentiment. This is something that needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we need to mention a little of Cher's early life in the lede. A short sentence about her place of birth and ethnically mixed background might suffice. See for instance the GA-rated Angela Lansbury article as an example of what I am talking about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We link to an article titled
    Cher as gay icon but do not actually use the words "gay icon" in either the lede or the main body of the article. That needs to be corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The lede seems to place a particular emphasis on what might be regarded as significant achievements ("By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide", "her first million-seller song", "watched by over 30 million viewers weekly", "earned $300,000 a week for her 1980–82 residency show", "reached a new commercial peak in 1998" etc). This results in it reading a little bit like an advert rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Grammar glitch in the lead: "becoming one of the best-selling music artists in the music history." Remove "the music" from the end of this sentence.
  • 1946–1961: Early life: Minor, but according to the
    Manual of Style
    USA should be either U.S. or US instead.
  • 1965–1967: There's double punctuation at the end of "behind the Beatles' Help!." In this case, just use the exclamation point in the album title as abbreviation; you shouldn't add anything else. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this review has been open almost six weeks since its belated transclusion on 10 May without approaching consensus to promote (I note the nominator hasn't been active for some time either), so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2017 (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) 10:55, 18 June 2017 [21].

Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Nominator(s): MagicatthemovieS

This article is about the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, a text which implies that Jesus was married, but that scholars believe is a modern forgery.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • The citations are a little all-over-the-place in terms of format. They really should be fully standardised if we are to have this as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • Do we have any academic sources that can be cited? At present we lean very heavily on the mainstream media? For me this is a real concern and a barrier to this article reaching FA status. If there are academic sources out there, they must be used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk) The academic sources about this gospel are used in the article.
  • The use of academic sources is very few and far between; as far as I can see it, only one academic article on the subject is used, and even then it is only cited three times. That's not really enough. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a quotation in the lede: "a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century." Do we really need this quotation here, or can it just be paraphrased? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • There is also quite a lot of direct quotation throughout he article. In many of these cases, we can paraphrase what the cited individual says just as easily. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • Both of the "Notes" contain no references to support the information contained within them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • "then-communist East Germany" - a minor point, but the term "communist" may be regarded as misleading at this point (East Germany never regarded itself as communist per se, but rather a socialist state etc). I would cut the "then-communist". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • "claimed that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife was real." - again, a minor point, but the artefact is of course real in that it exists. Perhaps better wording would be "was a genuine ancient text" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • "to make The Da Vinci Code a reality" - I think it best to explain that this is a novel, as some readers will not be aware of what this is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • "Professor Craig A. Evans of the Acadia Divinity College, suggested that the "oddly written letters" were "probably modern"." - There is no direct citation presented for this statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • "By the end of 2014 there was a general consensus that the papyrus was a fake"... and several sentences later "By the end of 2014, there was widespread scholarly consensus that the papyrus was "a fake."" Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)
  • The whole "Initial evaluations" section could do with a re-organisation; at present it feels a bit all-over-the-place, jumping back and forward in time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. MagicatthemovieS (talk)

Oppose: Recusing as coordinator as I have a few concerns about this one. Following on from Midnightblueowl above, I would like to see a far greater use of scholarly articles, of which there are plenty, as a quick search on google reveals. There seems to have been no movement on that one, and for a topic such as this one it is essential to use scholarly sources. Also, the main article which this should be mentioning, the article by King, is currently a dead link. There are other issues:

  • Several statements are given citations to sources which cannot support them. "A revised version of the article appeared in the Harvard Theological Review in April 2014, together with several scientific reports on the testing of the papyrus" is sourced to the article by King, which cannot support the idea that a revised version of an earlier article was published along with other reports. And "Also in September 2012, numerous news services announced that the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, had declared the fragment counterfeit. As of 29 September 2012, all that L'Osservatore's search engine identified on the subject was part of an article dated 28 September 2012 by Professor Alberto Camplani of Sapienza University of Rome protesting against "the excessively direct link between research and journalism [which] had already occurred before the conference"." is sourced to the article which is being mentioned. I'm afraid we can't have circular referencing like this in FAs; I would even argue that this is borderline OR.
  • The structure is odd here: The main body begins with "After Professor King's announcement of the existence of the papyrus fragment at the International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome on 18 September 2012" without clarifying who King is, or what the papyrus is. Starting with this publication might work in a newspaper article, but it is not encyclopaedic. It would make more sense to begin with the discovery, provenance, etc.

I hope to strike this oppose as this seems an interesting article, and the kind of different topic which it is good to see at FAC. But the major point for me is sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time (sorry). Some good work has gone on here but I just think that there really needs to be a far greater immersion in the academic sources. There also needs to be standardisation of the references; at present a variety of different formats are in use. I would also question the validity of certain sources, such as an article found on Scribd. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from IndianBio – I did correct several formatting and date issues with my edits here. However there are still outstanding issues in terms of accessdate missing, and in terms of some of the sources being used. A quick spotcheck revealed quite a bit of close paraphrasing also. Sorry I cannot support the article at this point. —IB [ Poke ] 05:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'd like to see the issues raised by reviewers worked on outside the pressure of the FAC process, so will be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 [22].

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a

BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Francis Schonken

  • Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([23]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: repeating my suggestion to (formally) close concurrent discussions about the same topic elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in a position to close a discussion formally, also don't know what you refer to. I said "closed" for the discussion mentioned above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (
    cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle
    .
    Advantages of this approach:
    In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:
    • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
    • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
    • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
    • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.
    Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.
    I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    New proposal (the three paragraphs proposed here would replace the first two paragraphs of the current lead section):
    his second cantata cycle. Its title translates as "My soul magnifies the Lord", and is taken from Martin Luther's German translation of the Magnificat canticle ("Meine Seele erhebt den Herren"). The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He wrote it for the Feast of the Visitation (2 July). The composition is in Bach's chorale cantata
    format.
    The Feast of the Visitation commemorates
    psalm tone. The sung version of the canticle concludes with a doxology, translated from the Gloria Patri, on the same tune. Bach based his BWV 10 cantata on Luther's German Magnificat and its traditional setting, working text and melody into the composition in a similar way as he did with Lutheran hymns
    in his other chorale cantatas.
    Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year as
    mixed choir and orchestra, consisting of trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo. Luther's translation of Luke 1:46–48 is the text of the first movement. The canticle's doxology is the text of the last movement. The five middle movements are a succession of arias and recitatives, with, between the fourth and sixth movement, a duet for alto and tenor. Soprano and bass
    each have one aria, and the two recitatives are sung by the tenor. The text of the arias and recitatives is paraphrased and expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55. The text of the duet is Luther's translation of Luke 1:54. The melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat appears in movements 1, 5 and 7.
    The music of two of the cantata's movements was published in the 18th century: an
    19th-century first complete edition of Bach's works
    . In 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice the cantata was often combined with other German-language cantatas, but also several times with settings of the Latin Magnificat, by Bach and other composers.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (added draft of 4th paragraph, to make this proposal for the lead section complete 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • It is unusual to not begin with the title, but let's try. --GA
    • I want to see BWV 10 bold, as an important redirect, and the part of the article title which distinguishes it from Luther's. --GA
      Re. "I want ..." – see more elaborate comment about "what I would do / I don't use..." below; also your own comment about maintaining a position in a FAC above. Imho it is about time to lose the idiosyncrasy in this instance, have the lead sentence conform to applicable guidance, and make it as inviting as possible for the reader (which includes removing clutter like footnoted explanations and optional boldface wherever such removal is allowed by applicable guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's not helpful to introduce a complex concept such as the chorale cantata cycle before even a translation is given. --GA
      ? The "chorale cantata cycle" concept is not introduced before the translation is given? What does the cycle concept have to do with translation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive my sloppyness, please, it's "his second cantata cycle", - but the same applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As does the same question: "What does the cycle concept have to do with translation?". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that we have to say that Luther's translation is called the German Magnificat. --GA
      Taken, worked it in the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand mentioning Bach's chorale cantata format between the term Visitation (which many readers will not know) and its explanation. Probably Visitation should come sooner than even Magnificat, because it explains why Bach set the Magnificat, at least when the prescribed reading for the feast day is mentioned. --GA
      First paragraph of the intro is "summary of summaries", short sentences about the cantata's essential characteristics; characteristics that set it apart from similar compositions receive a bit more attention. I see nothing wrong with that approach: it is not possible to have it all in one lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luther details (year of translation etc) seem too much detail for the lead (summary) of this article, - it would be appropriate in the body, perhaps in the lead of his German Magnificat. --GA
      Taken, leaves to be seen how this is mentioned elsewhere (body of this article and/or German Magnificat article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month ...",- also too much detail. If he didn't compose the cantata in one day, he composed it in June, - why mention any month? Perhaps: "When Bach composed the cantata ..." --GA
      The sentence says nowhere "composed", so I don't understand the last part of your comment. Early July refers to 2 July as mentioned in the first paragraph (when the cantata was first presented), i.e., without using the exact same expression which may be experienced as too repetitive in prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The details (SATB, translation of continuo) of scoring are way too much detail for the lead, also the follwing, which voice sings with what instrument when. --GA
      The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis, movement by movement, of the composition: a summary, in half a paragraph of the lead section, of some 50% of the prose of the article seems appropriate. Also, the current summary of the same, " Bach structured the cantata in seven
      psalm tone of the German Magnificat. He set the other movements for soloists as recitatives, arias and a duet. Using a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo, the music expresses the different moods of the text, illustrating God's force and compassion. [...] the cantata's fifth movement, [...] a duet for alto and tenor on the biblical text with the cantus firmus played by trumpet and oboes [...]" has more problems (including not linking on first instance, using specialist jargon that can easily be avoided, interpretations without in-text mentioning of the author of such interpretations) and is not particularly shorter. Example: "cantus firmus", a quite specialist concept, can easily be avoided in the lead section as the draft shows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Please look up what's appropriate, 50% seems way to high. I've seen a FAC review (of a short article like this one) where a limit of 2 paragraphs was requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Re. "50%":
      • "Context" topics: 7 paragraphs in one section (with 2 subsections)
      • Description of the composition: 10 paragraphs in one section (with 9 subsections)
      • "Reception" topics: 5 paragraphs in 2 sections
      So, calculated by prose paragraphs (which of course don't have the same length) it is somewhat under 50% (10 out of 22 paragraphs); by separate section titles it is way over 50% (10 out of 15). Devoting around 25% of the lead section to that content doesn't seem exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyhow, shortened the third paragraph a bit in my proposal above, so, unless I'm missing something, this suggestion is taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formal note: "sixth movement" not "6th movement". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A proposal for a replacement of the last paragraph of the intro, regarding reception-related topics, is still in preliminary stages and worked on at the article talk page: it is too dependent on how article content on publication/recordings/reception will evolve (see undecided suggestions below) in order too be presented here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially introduced into the article (with some additional rephrasing). This, however, far from concludes the work which imho is necessary to get this article up to FA grade (missing references, missing examples, various unresolved issues, etc.). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reviewers who wrote FAs before (one of them more than 100) approved this version. I don't know if I should call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since. - Repeating: I have to prepare Pentecost, and there's no deadline. I have no time to follow all your changes, sorry, but can tell you that I believe (to give just one example) that the addition of BWV 147a and a link to Advent don't help to understand BWV 10, nor does BWV 4, as another example. It's difficult for me to find a ref in Bibliography, split in so many sections. Do you know any FA that has it like that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since" – see my reply to Yunshui below. I don't think we should notify previous contributors of this FAC at every turn: when content and sourcing have settled pinging them once, from this page, would suffice imho, to see whether they want to amend their initial report.
    Re. "... and there's no deadline" – completely agree.
    Re. "... a link to Advent ..." and "... nor does BWV 4 ..." – no clue what you're talking about: Advent isn't linked, BWV 4 isn't mentioned in the article.
    Re. "... Bibliography, split in so many sections ..." – yes, that was getting unwieldy, simplified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other suggestions:
      1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1 – comment 1; change 2 – comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral [de], Choralbuch [de], Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Re. "... the German word Choral ..." (above), "... CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang ..." ([24]), etc.: I don't think we need to be solving the intricacies of (18th-cenury) German language here, but create an English-language narrative that is clear for 21st-century readers (whether they are experienced in the subject matter or not – understanding German is not a prerequisite):
        • Luther's "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" (German Magnificat) is, in English, "not a (Protestant) hymn"; in German: "... kein (evangelisches) Kirchenlied ..."
        • The cantata's last movement, "Lob und Preis sei Gott dem Vater" (doxology), first published as "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren", is, in English, a "chorale"; in German: "Choral" (e.g. [25]).
        Afaik, in the context of modern Bach studies, "(Protestant) hymn" and "chorale" are used interchangeably
        I expect to see two things in the article, i.e. (1) clear, non-confusing terminology used throughout; (2) an explanation *why* Luther's German Magnificat is not a hymn/Kirchenlied (in other words: what did Bach do to turn something that was not a hymn into something that is a hymn – compare Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt where a 16th-century transformation of another "melody from Latin religious chant" to a Lutheran chorale is explained). For the second maybe an additional search for appropriate sources is needed. For clarity, "... the "chorale" tune ..." (currently in the article) misses the clarity I expect per (1) above, and lacks the explanation I expect per (2). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      3. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
      4. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
      5. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
      6. "Selected recordings" section
        1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the
          WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of
          WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a
          WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:
          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([26] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":
            • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
            • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
            • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([27]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing
        Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Proposal for the intro of the Recordings section (which I would rename to "Concert performances and recordings"):
        In 1963
        Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. A recording with the Regensburger Domspatzen was released in 2001. Sigiswald Kuijken included the cantata in his Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year series.[1][2][3]
        Most recordings present BWV 10 along other German cantatas. In concert programs and recordings BWV 10 has also been combined with Latin Magnificat settings. Münchinger's 1968 recording and Rotzsch's 1978 recording combined BWV 10 with Bach's Latin Magnificat (BWV 243). Also Michael Gielen's concert at the 1991 Bodenseefestival combined Bach's German and Latin Magnificat. Performances by Roland Büchner in 2000 and by Ton Koopman in 2003 combined the cantata with the 1723 Christmas version of Bach's Magnificat (BWV 243a). Koopman additionally featured the Christmas version of Kuhnau's Magnificat in the same concert. According to Bach scholar Yo Tomita the program of that concert added another historical dimension, allowing to compare two works by Bach with a similar composition by his predecessor as Thomaskantor. A 2007 concert at the Indiana University combined Bach's German cantata with a 2005 Magnificat by Sven-David Sandström.[1][4][5][6]
        This proposal would also cover what was suggested in 7.2 below; however, referencing in the above proposal may need further attention, see related discussions elsewhere in this section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
        1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:
          {|
          |-
          ...[table explanation goes here]...
          |}
        2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003
        BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      9. [28] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      10. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
      11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [29]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([30]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of
          WP:CIRCULAR
          references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) –
          WP:ABOUTSELF
          is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more
          WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [31]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Re. ... In the last FAC ... (please click the link, it is not the same "In the last FAC" as above) – Allow me to compare to another FA: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Bach's early cantatas is a much more elaborate context section than what I'm preparing now. Even after the content of that section was spun out to another article, it appeared impossible to condense that Bach cantata article section WP:Summary style-wise. In sum:
          • I'm still all but impressed by "former GA/FA" type of evidence: it can go in completely opposite directions; "Fair enough" in my comment above refers to not holding the nom accountable for these rampant comparisons, not to me having changed in any way as to how little impression these comparisons make on me. My assessment in this FAC is based on my own insights regarding what would be best for this article, insights which all things compared seem much closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than assessments merging an amalgam of fortunate and less fortunate "habits" from one FA to the next.
          • If and when this article would be FA approved its content on how it relates to nearby Magnificats and Visitation cantatas should have about the same depth whether or not a separate article on that topic exists: once it would have FA status I suppose it would be nearly impossible to fundamentally change the breadth of the coverage of these relations to other compositions. I'm working on a treatment in around three paragraphs, which would absorb some content now elsewhere in the article (the net expansion of the article maybe not more than one paragraph). My objective is that once inserted into the article such paragraphs wouldn't need fundamental change, like neither Bach's church music in Latin#Magnificat settings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Other Magnificats by Bach? nor Church cantata (Bach)#Visitation would need to be fundamentally rewritten, in the eventuality of a separate article exclusively devoted to these relations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          Re. "...liner notes..." – two (potential) problems:
          • The BWV 10 article currently links directly to several PDFs of such liner notes hosted at the BC-website. Might be a copyright problem. I expect this to be cleared by those more experienced in guarding over whether or not Wikipedia crosses a line here that should better not be crossed copyright-wise, before we continue to provide these links.
          • In articles on Bach-compositions liner notes might not pass
            WP:RSN in that respect), even when written by established Bach-scholars. I understand the advantage of them being generally in English, and not in German, like much of the high-end scholarship on Bach. Nonetheless, content of the article should imho preferably be referenced to writings with a solid scholarly publication process ("peer review" is generally missing for liner notes, and more than often when a German scholar writes liner notes the English translation of these notes can be quite mangled, they may be unclear as to where the material derives from—as I already mentioned in suggestion 5.2 above—, etc), whatever the language of the more solid source. Liner notes can be mentioned (even linked if copyright-cleared per the previous point) in addition to the sources with a more solid publication process. The easiness of linking to liner notes sometimes prevents looking up in more solid sources (I did a few suggestions above but see no reaction to these suggestions yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            The liner notes by John Eliot Gardiner and Klaus Hofmann have been regarded as reliable in the past. Compare this GA review by Drmies who recommended to follow Hofmann. - I could avoid the link, but think it's a disservice to the reader to not supply what the author wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Was that before or after liner notes were rejected for use in articles on compositions by J. S. Bach at
            verified to high-end scholarly sources (whatever the language they are written in). I'd keep the more accessible/popular sources too (contrary to what was suggested at the "nasty" RSN on this topic), but that doesn't diminish the need to have the complete article covered by more solid sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            I don't talk about liner notes in general, but these specific ones, by a conductor who performed all cantatas, and one of the authorities on Bach [32]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes I know. Maybe the best way forward is to take this source, with all the content referenced to it in the BWV 10 article, to WP:RSN? Then there will be no discussion afterwards, when an incompatible idiosyncratic approach would board the article later (there are two opposing idiosyncratic approaches: one that references large portions of Bach composition articles to liner notes, and an opposing one that doesn't accept a single one of such references: I'm in the middle, i.e., apply
            WP:V as elsewhere, and if you're not sure whether a source is used correctly, then take it to WP:RSN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            Source reviews have been performed in recent years:
            A source review is likely to be requested for this nomination as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            @Gerda Arendt: please discontinue selectively pinging editors who supported your earlier FAC nominations. If you'd have listed the earlier FAC archives without pinging these editors I could have continued to just be unimpressed for the reasons I explained above: the added pings leave me negatively impressed. I'd advise against any partisan notifications regarding this FAC assessment. It is not because my earlier mentioning of this same point regarding this same FAC was worded too strong that its message would have been invalid. All of this only brings us further away from the issues in cue to be addressed in this FAC, instead of bringing us nearer to their solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            When I talk about users I also ping them, not talking behind their back. Most of them watch this page anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            Then don't talk about users (why would one need to talk about users other than the one one is talking with?) – it seems to only stall addressing the issues raised in the current FAC. I seemed to be perfectly capable of explaining such issues without talking about anyone beyond their back. Same goes, I'm sure, for addressing these issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      12. Wikipedia:In-text attribution
        (please take a look at that guidance, I use its concepts in what I write below)
        • In-text attributions to Hofmann:
          1. "This gospel reading is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art, and in music where it has become a traditional part of Vesper services"
            ✗ – somewhat misleading in the sense of the third example of the guidance: all parts of this sentence are fairly common knowledge, not as if Hofmann makes a contention that sets him apart from other scholars in the field. Looks a bit like
            WP:SAID
            .
          2. "Hofmann notes that it is the first soprano aria in the chorale cantata cycle"
            ✗ – same three issues as previous: fact not depending on the interpretation of the author
          3. "Hofmann interprets the bass line of "emphatic downward semitone intervals" as "sighs of divine mercy""
            ✓ – per first example of guidance
          4. "Hofmann describes the string music as "lively, shimmering chords""
            ✗ – not so bad as the first two above, but I would think this is a fairly standard description of the string music of this section: doesn't seem contentious to describe it as "lively" nor as "chords" – maybe the "shimmering" is a somewhat more exceptional qualifier, but not enough to require in-text attribution imho
        • In-text attributions to Gardiner:
          1. "John Eliot Gardiner, who conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, notes about these first cantatas of the chorale cantata cycle: "Together they make a fascinating and contrasted portfolio of choral fantasia openings.""
            ✗ – OK for the in-text attribution guidance, but not, as far as I'm concerned, for the name-dropping (Bach Cantata Pilgrimage) and the verb failing
            WP:SAID
        • In-text attributions to Dürr:
          1. "The following table is based on the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who notes: "At the beginning of the cycle of chorale cantatas we find–uniquely within Bach's output–the rudiments of cyclical composition"."
            ✗ –
            WP:SAID
            issue, and topic of the first half of the sentence too disconnected from that of the second half (not exactly the second example of the in-text guidance but somewhat similar:
            • either the data in the table can be confirmed by multiple sources (then no in-text attribution but only a reference to Dürr is sufficient) or Dürr contends something that can not be corroborated elsewhere (then this sort of formulation would indicate a kind of list copyright infringement)
            • second half of the sentence is not about factual data, but an interpretation of the author: this doesn't align too well with the first half of the sentence (but in-line attribution for this half of the sentence would be correct).
          2. "The keys and time signatures are taken from the book by Bach scholar Alfred Dürr, using the symbol for common time (4/4)"
            ✗ – Dürr was already introduced as "Bach Scholar", doing that twice seems exaggerated, and confirms the impression that this is again a name-dropping issue, especially as no in-line attribution to Dürr seems necessary here for the same reasons as the first half-sentence of the previous example
        • In-text attributions to Wolff:
          1. "... a project that the Bach scholar Christoph Wolff calls "fascinating" and "unprecedented""
            ✓ – although maybe a bit disconnected from the topic of the first half of the sentence
          2. "Wolff sees a systematic approach, especially in the four cantatas beginning the cycle, to be followed by Meine Seel erhebt den Herren as the fifth"
            ✗ – if Wolff only groups the first four, then the second half of the sentence is too disconnected (gives the impression that Wolff saw this as the fifth of the same set which either is true, and then the sentence should be worded differently, or not, then it is somewhat the problem as illustrated by the 2nd example of the in-line attribution guidance – although, again, not exactly as in that example)
        • In-text attributions to Spitta: I introduced one for this author (description of 3rd movment), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • In-text attributions to Tomita: I introduced one for this author (2nd paragraph of Concerts&Recordings section), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • Sentences that seem to be lacking in-line attribution (not all editors would interpret in the same way, for instance that a specific musical figure is necessarily to be seen as the expression of a specific emotion or religious concept,):
          1. "... expressing praise for God's works in the first section, while the more reticent middle section covers thankfulness for his help in times of distress"
            ✗ – such direct linking of musical texture and which religious or emotional content it expresses needs to be either firmly rooted in the words of the libretto (then: explain) or needs an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.
          2. "The thought that God "also uses force with His arm" is expressed with emphasis..."
            ✗ – similar to previous: notwithstanding that here the libretto is quoted the reader is left unaware *how* the emphasis is expressed: triple fortissimo? trepidus? emphatic repeats? ... either explain or use an in-line attribution of the author who interpreted it thus (compare description of fourth movement: there the musical figures and their relation to the libretto text is clearly explaiined, so for the description of that movement I'd say: ✓)
          3. "... in both cases expressing mildness and compassion"
            ✗ – the connection between lyrics and musical techniques is again missing in the explanation: so either explain, or give an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.
          4. "... the added strings emphasize the importance of the promise kept"
            ✗ – the kind of interpretation that would need an in-line attribution to the author who said it thus. Many composers "add strings" at a certain point, in thousands of compositions: I don't think that every time that happens it signifies that these composers then "emphasize the importance of the promise kept" --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Addressed the "Hofmann" and "Gardiner" issues mentioned above, and added {{non sequitur}} tags for the four last-mentioned passages that seem to be lacking a clearer explanation and/or an in-line attribution ([33]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      13. OCLC 978146515). Do we have the background on that? Maybe more something for the Meine Seele erhebt den Herren article, but I don't think the BWV 10 article should mention several times it's "Luther's" (without further explanation) when part of the literature would describe it as "Klug's". --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]

References

  1. ^ a b Oron 2014.
  2. ^ Johann Sebastian Bach: Cantata No. 10, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren," BWV 10 (BC A175) at www.allmusic.com website
  3. ^ BWV.10, "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" at www.muziekweb.nl
  4. ^ Yo Tomita. Bachfest Leipzig 2003 at www.music.qub.ac.uk/tomita/
  5. ^ Sven-David Sandström at Indiana University Bloomington website
  6. OCLC 291046339

Bibliography

Montanabw

Comments unrelated to review
  • Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a clean hands problem exists. It is inappropriate for an "oppose" !vote to be made by someone who has made a substantial contribution, particularly a large set of edits right before his !vote, particularly where the same editor had only made three edits to the article prior to it going up for FAC. Here any claim of "edit warring" fails spectacularly because the party responsible for creating this problem is also trying to poison the well with his !vote --particularly in light of also removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article:
    1. You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded
    2. I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade
    Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Media review

  • File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?
The text is applied to the given
psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch, Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([34]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas:
  1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
  2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
  3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
  4. http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/detail.php?ID=BWV0648 is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a link to downloadable audio of the entire cantata, to the "External links" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a few score extracts (examples from the cantata)? I'd suggest, for instance:
    • Movement 1:
      • Start of the cantus firmus in the soprano part (situated in the orchestral/vocal matrix)
      • first measures of where the alto takes over the cantus firmus
    • Movement 5: some measures of the interplay of the singing voices with the cantus firmus melody
    • Movement 7: four-part chorale setting of the non-hymn tune --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text: see talkpage for issues raised and resolved diff

Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui:

  • thanks for your recommendations here – can work with that.
  • Re. "... at this point ...": you're of course free to comment whenever you like, just wanted to say that by the time I'm satisfied with content and sourcing of the article I planned to ping those who previously contributed to this FAC page with their analyses to see whether their initial assessment would need updating. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and a re-review would seem sensible given the number of changes that have been made since my above comments. I'd prefer to give Gerda the chance to deal with just one set of issues at a time, especially if there are more changes that are likely to be made, so will wait until you guys have talked out the discussions above before adding further feedback here. Yunshui 雲水 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RSN for Hofmann source initiated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

  • " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.
That was changed (perhaps compare how the lead looked when I nominated), - I tried to fix the changed version now. --GA
  • "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.
yes --GA
  • "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.
I opened the piped link (to avoid the same word twice), and added "on". --GA
  • "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.
Commas are different in German and English, and sometimes I miss one, as here, thanks for pointing it out. --GA
  • There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"
ref doubled --GA
  • "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help welcome. "Elaborated" was introduced by Francis, in the table, where I found it too long when repeated for four movements. I'd usually say "paraphrased". Feel free to apply your wording skill, please. "added his own elaborations" would suggest - to me - that Luther also added "elaborations", but he only translated, in his free style of translation, of course.
Maybe "added elaboration"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "..."Elaborated" was introduced by Francis..." – no, it wasn't. I wrote "elaboration of ..." which (at least according to my dictionary) does not mean the same as "elaborated on ...". I don't agree with what is currently in the article, nor with the "added elaboration" suggestion: the librettist partly paraphrased and partly expanded the original text. That is an elaboration of the original. "added elaboration" only captures the "expansion" part ("expanded" is a less cumbersome way to say the same), not the part where the text is paraphrased. "Paraphrased" is correct, but doesn't really capture the expansion part. So I'd go back to "elaboration of", or, alternatively, go to "paraphrased and expanded". --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, "paraphrased and expanded" taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for careful reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but with the cantus firmus in the alto, because the text "Denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen" speaks of the "lowly handmaid"." The logic here is obscure. Are altos more likely to be handmaids? Or lowly?
It's the lower voice, - do you think that should be added? It seems a bit like saying a child is younger than its parent. --GA
(don't know whether this catches what Wehwalt indicates above:) The sentence containing "... cantus firmus in the alto, because the text ..." (emphasis added) seems
WP:OR: the sentence is referenced to a translation that nowhere claims a causal relation: "cantus firmus" isn't mentioned in the reference, which voice sings the phrase isn't mentioned, leave alone that that reference somewhere would have intimated a causal relation between one and the other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I replaced the "because" by "when", and would be willing to repeat the translation of the whole incipit if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still leaves the first half of the sentence unreferenced: only the translation, and nothing about "cantus firmus" or "alto", can be referenced to the source that is currently used for the entire sentence. Maybe split in two sentences, with an appropriate source for the cantus firmus related content?
"... second verse ...." (in the same sentence, before the part of the sentence that was quoted above by Wehwalt) is confusing. In Luther's translation (as in the original) it would be the third verse of the biblical text. I suppose somewhere between when Luther published his translation in 1722 and when the text became associated with the tonus peregrinus melody Luther's German translation of Lk 1:46 and 47 became merged into one "verse" of the sung version, but that is nowhere explained afaics: until such explanation is provided "second verse" is confusing terminology: it may apply as well to Lk 1:47 as to Lk 1:48.
Dellal's translation doesn't seem too faithful to the German original in this instance. The original Greek word ταπείνωσις means abasement, the Latin (Vulgate) translation, humilitas, could be rendered in English as "humility". In the libretto of the cantata the same word is translated as "elend" (miserable, wretched). Most English versions of the Magnificat use "lowliness" for this part of the text, and more modern German versions "Niedrigkeit". In this instance (she translates Elend as wretched elsewhere) Dellal seems to fall back on a standard English translation of the Magnificat rather than on the specificity of the German libretto of the cantata. "... the text ... speaks of the 'lowly..." seems a bit flawed... it doesn't really: it speaks of "elend" which is more appropriately translated as miserable or wretched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just one remark: the word "elend" changed meaning in German more than once, compare Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, and to look at translations seems more appropriate in the article on the German Magnificat. What would you call a faithful translation: of the meaning at Bach's time, or ours? Can we agree that translation often has more than one "faithful" option, and sometimes not even one? - Back to what brought us here: having the cantus firmus split this way happens only in this one chorale cantata, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, [Dellal] translates Elend as wretched elsewhere: BWV 75 is Bach's cantata for 30 May 1723. I don't think the meaning of the word elend/Elend would have changed in the 13 months between BWV 75 and BWV 10. For BWV 75 Dellal translates Elend as wretched ([35]), which I think a more faithful translation: it is certainly "the meaning at Bach's time". As said, I understand her choice for "lowly", but that seems rather inspired by KJV-like standard translations of the Magnificat, than by the intricacies of the actual German libretto of the cantata at Bach's time. KJV is old, and not a translation of Luther's German, so I'd rather avoid it in the context of this cantata (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remark 2: the thorough analysis of the Oregon Bach Festival (external link) has this: "At the third entrance of the chorus, however, Bach gives the Gregorian chant to the altos. This change of voicing is related to the text denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen [He hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden]. A low voice now takes over the cantus firmus." I use now the more idiomatic KJV instead of Dellal, and count the verses to three. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it may not be obvious that the handmaiden would be given to the alto voice, if you are not knowledgeable about music. But I gather there is a musical convention about such things, and that's acceptable given this is not a basic-level music article. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case there is no such musical convention, and the former content of the article was wrong to suggest it. The Oregon Bach Festival interpretation seems exceptional and should not be rendered in the article without in-text attribution of the author (which is a bit difficult as it is apparently an anonymous text). There's a lot that speaks against this interpretation. The verse goes from "low" to "high" in feeling (The second half of the verse speaks about being blessed for ever).
Affektenlehre thus would suggest to go from "low" notes to "high" notes: if that is performed by the same (group of) singer(s) there is no voice type that is particularly indicated. In his Latin Magnificat Bach composes this verse for the highest of two sopranos (with the chorus joining in on the last two words). Explanations by established scholars about voice type used for the cantus firmus in the first movements of cantatas 1 to 5 of the chorale cantata cycle (this one is the fifth) speak about the succession being built on soprano→alto→tenor→bass, leading to soprano→alto in the 5th cantata (nothing to do with text). Also the "elend" word of the libretto carrying less of a connotation of being "low-placed" than the conventional Latin "humilitas" and other variants (see discussion above) seems to confirm that the Oregon's explanation is rather to be regarded as an over-interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Re. KJV – I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination. Let's not link to or quote from "doth" and "hath" type of translations, which sound particularly stolid in 21st-century ears: such older translations can be found in the Magnificat article, linked from the lead paragraph, for those who savour them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the duet Et misericordia (And your compassion), in both cases expressing mildness and compassion." Even though it is a translation, can the repetition be avoided by a synonym? Possibly mercy?
Good point, but I don't know a synonym for compassion, with passion in it. I'd rather change the translation, literally misery [felt by the] heart, but its clumsy. Any synonym for that? --GA
No idea. I had thought of misericordia as meaning "mercy" but Latin is not my language. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All wind instruments and violin I support the soprano." I imagine "violin I" to be a technical term.
So far, in the whole article, it is "two violins". If an instrumental group is divided, yes, you say technically numbers from I (one), like Part I. Do you think we should say "the first violins"? --GA
  • "It has been held from 1948" I would say "since", not "from"--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the criteria. I'll leave the technical discussions on German language to those who will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Montanabw

OK, it looks like others have reviewed and notwithstanding the discussion above, here is my review, based upon the article as of this revision. Most of what I have to offer at this point is wikignoming to help the non-expert understand the article a bit better.

  • Lead:
    • I'd put the English title (My soul magnifies the Lord) in quotes: ("My soul magnifies the Lord"). Italics are fine too, but either way, not plain text.
      • It's not a title, just a translation. Few cantatas have an English title, such as
        Actus tragicus
        , - well, that's Latin ;) --GA
        • I see it is consistent style throughout and seen in other articles. I still think it needs to be in quotes. But also not a deal-breaker. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • put "also known as his German Magnificat" before Johann Sebastian Bach. The paragraph is a wee bit choppy
      • perhaps review an earlier version, which didn't know any "German Magnificat". I am tempted to ask "known by whom" and think it's no lead material, but it's debated. Whatever the outcome of that debate: Bach should come rather sooner than later. --GA
        • The problem is putting like concepts together... put the names (all of them) before composer. One way or the other. No position on inclusion of "German Magnificat", only a comment on paragraph structure... if it's in, put it before composer, up with other boldface titles. If it's tossed, no worries, I don't care. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          If it is kept in the lead, it should be mentioned much later, and with an explanation, not before Luther's German Magnificat was mentioned. - The concept of "all names first" is fine, but in case of so much foreign language, we should get to the composer soon. ---GA
          • My suggestion is either, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a], also known as his German Magnificat, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was composed in 1724..." (which I'd prefer) or, at least "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a] is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. Also known as his German Magnificat, It was composed in 1724..."
            • I will go over the lead, probably later today, see Ceoil below. ----GA
                • I'll close this bit then, and let that discussion sort out remaining issues. I think Ceoil is seeing similar problems but has a different approach.
    • A few more modifiers in "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented in his second year in Leipzig." same reason -- just smooth it out a bit, perhaps something like "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented during his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig."
      • split in two sentences --GA
        • OK.
    • the Magnificat -- should also be italicized and linked to Magnificat in the lede, not just lower in the body text
    • wikilink continuo to Basso continuo and clarify, somewhat obscure phrasing for people outside the classical music field (the other instruments are commonly known) people may not know the word.
      • There's a link to Baroque instruments, - otherwise we'd have to link trumpet and get a sea of blue. - Compare other FAs such as Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 --GA
        • Hmmm, I see no reason not to link the specific instrument somewhere... where no sea of blue... everyone knows what a trumpet is, though if I am wrong, a small sea of blue is not harmful.  ;-)
          • They are all linked (even violin) in the Structure and scoring section. In the infobox and lead, it would be two seas of blue. (I should make some "frequently answered Q&A.) ---GA
            • OK, I can live with that. Consider saying "basso continuo" in lede, to match link lower down, but not a big dea. Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • May want to put in the actual date he took office, non-Churched individuals may be unfamiliar with the Liturgical year, even though it's linked in the lede.
      • Well, we say already 1724, and second year, no? --GA
        • I'd encourage adding month also -- a supplement to "liturgical year". Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The month of performance comes later in the same sentence, and the month of composition we don't know. ---GA
              • No, I meant to note when Bach took the position: "In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. " Because non-Christians have no clue what that means, I suggest stating something like, "Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on 30 May 1723, the first Sunday after Trinity."
                • Sorry for misunderstanding. I reworded, - please check. ----GA
    • I'd be OK if you linked "Latin Magnificat" together to the name of the actual work, that or say "Magnificat in Latin" to avoid the "Sea of Blue" problem
      done, good idea --GA
    • In the chart, Overview of the first cantatas in Bach's chorale cantata cycle, I'd wikilink the items under "Form" that have not been previously linked -- not everyone knows what a motet is.
      • It's linked just above. --GA
        • OK. I personally like redundant links in charts and infoboxes, but that's just my quirk, not FAC or MOS.
    • Is the final entry for "Form" in the chart intended to be blank?
      • yes, just a "normal" chorale fantasia --GA
        • Hmmm... maybe link that? Not sure, just would balance chart visually. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • But all five are chorale fantasias, - I'm afraid it would be confusing. ---GA
            • In the chart, the others have different labels... I am rather confused now... ? ;-) Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought chorale fantasia in the style of a motet was clear enough, but now inserted the passage about the chorale cantatas in general from the last FA. Is that helpful? ----GA
    • I am unclear about "unknown librettist retained some parts of Luther's wording, while he paraphrased other passages" -- do we know when or why? It's kind of a random fact sitting out there. Was the librettist's wording used in the original performance or added later?
      • The libretto (booklet) is written before the music. It was the format/program/idea/concept of the chorale cantatas: rewording part of the hymn in (then) modern words. --GA
        • Maybe a modern clarification? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The concept is explained in chorale cantata. "Clarification" seems strange, because for our taste, the Baroque language is rather less clear than the straightforward gospel or chorale ;) ---GA
    • Maybe explain (perhaps in an endnote) what a " traditional 9th psalm tone" is
      • The 9th psalm tone is pictured ;) - "Ninth" repeated now in the caption. - I don't think we should explain the concept of reciting tone and its variants in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps add a helpful wikilink to the concept for those who can't read music??? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Link in caption repeated, and now ninth not 9th, to make the connection. ---GA
  • Music:
    • "based on the chant melody." --which? Clarify
      • The Ninth psalm tone, said before, - I tried to not be too repetitive. --GA
        • Maybe a minor rephrase? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • How? ---GA
              • Maybe a wikilink would work, possibly "The first and last are set for choir, and are based on the chant melody." ? Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That link seems like an Easter egg, I'd rather link to Gregorian chant again, but very reluctantly. ----GA
    • Wikilink recitatives and arias on first use, for the non-classical music expert.
      That is done, but happens in Readings, text and tune. --GA
  • Manuscript and publications:
  • Recordings:
    • "seems to have been recorded first in 1963." -- awkward. Suggest rephrase to "seems to have first been recorded in 1963." or "seems to have been recorded for the first time in 1963." -- or something similar to smooth the phrasing
      second one taken, thank you --GA
      • OK
    • Might want to link "Chamber" and "Period" in the chart on first appearance.
      • I dropped "chamber", but period instruments would have to go to Baroque instruments, linked before. --GA
        • Again, I favor repeating links in charts, but that's just me. Your call there. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to link period several times, nor recitative twice in the table above ;) ---GA
  • Sourcing, formatting, images look OK to me, and others appear to be going over them in detail. Overall, I am ready to support once we make the prose flow a bit smoother and clarify the
    technical language with more wikilinking and the occasional explanation for the benefit of the non-aficionado. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you for looking from a different perspective! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the issues I have raised have been addressed. Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

I cant parse and on the melody to which that German version of the - can you restructure please. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the question. - All other chorale cantatas are based on a strophic hymn, but this one is based on German bible text in prose, (traditionally) sung in Gregorian chant (or reciting tone), specifically the ninth psalm tone or tonus peregrinus). Can you word it better? - In German, both these things are called Choral, in English, however, chorale seems to mean only the strophic hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand the terminology around chorals. But its not explained properly as of yet in the lead; the phrase I highlighted above needs to be clearer. Impressed so far, bty. Ceoil (talk)
I will go over it, there are also (outdented) good suggestions by Francis above, - look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I recall reviewing a Bach cantata for FAC last year, but to my dismay I seem to have managed to forget just about everything, so by no means is this a review of an expert. Some comments:

  • in lead: German translation of the Magnificat canticle -> Ignorant as I am, I have no idea what canticle means. Would a link or little explanation be wrong?
the word canticle is there to explain Magnificat, and some think it's a sea of blue to link two terms in a row, - you could hope to find what canticle is if clicking on Magnificat, - but I'll just link ;) --GA
  • in lead: The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. -> should it not be in bold then, perhaps?
I don't know. I didn't add that, and I don't know who knows it by that name which appears in some writing but nothing I used. Not every redirect needs to be bolded. --GA
  • Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year -> by going for super-accuracy it doesn’t flow well for me. Perhaps try losing the “somewhat”
Looks gone. --GA
  • expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55 -> Just Luther’s would suffice, I think, so we can get rid of the clunky ()
My last version was this (funny: German Magnificat was bolded back then), - ask Francis. --GA
  • Poor  C. P. E. Bach: everybody gets full names but he just his initials
His name is just too long, - and look at the infobox: J. S. Bach ;) --GA
  • In 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice the cantata was -> I think is would be better.
For my last of version of the recordings look above, - I believe all comments beyond the factual listing should go to a discography page. --GA
  • in art, and in music -> Music is art, so maybe, if true, especially in music?
agree, changed --GA
  • New testament -> Capitals? Definitely a link
fixed (not my writing) --GA
  • for five part chorus -> I’m never sure about hyphens, but for sure Inconsistent with four-part you have elsewhere
fixed (not my writing) --GA
  • , the exaltation of the humble -> comma after humble?
yes --GA
  • LP -> link would be good I think
done, and CD also for consistency (not my writing) --GA

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for diligent reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator suggestion

Coordinator comment: @Francis Schonken, Yunshui, Wehwalt, Montanabw, Ceoil, and Edwininlondon: This FAC is becoming very long and therefore potentially intimidating to new reviewers. I wonder would it be possible for reviewers in this instance to move any sections of addressed commentary to the talk page, leaving a note on this page with a diff of the move? I don't normally advise this, but we have a lot of text to plough through here. This is not to judge the validity or otherwise of any commentary, and I guarantee that whichever coordinator closes this one will also read the talk page, but it would be much easier if we can see which points have and have not been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered as in #Francis Schonken above:
  2. (article lead section) – still active: intro proposal was introduced in article, and later again modified. Some of these later modifications were no improvements, but am taking these one small step at a time (e.g. [36]). Further: I'm primarily working on the body of the article (and refs) now and thought Gerda's "look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow" (in #Ceoil section) the best way to go forward.
  3. ("not a chorale" explanation) – not addressed yet, so suggestion not ready to be removed from this page
  4. (coherent use of "chorale"/"hymn"/etc. throughout the article) – not ready: the article currently contains as well "not a chorale" as "genuine (...) chorale melody" (the last one quoted from one of its reliable sources)
  5. (Spitta on BWV 10) – handled, moved to talk page
  6. (contemporary Magnificats & Visitation cantatas comparison) – handled, moved to talk page
  7. (1740s repeat performance) – handled, moved to talk page
  8. (Recordings) – still active (although already partially handled)
  9. (provisions for a table-less layout) – in progress
  10. (comprehensive approach to reception topics) – still active
  11. (origin of German doxology) – question unanswered
  12. (navbox collapse options) – handled, moved to talk
  13. (Oron website as source) – in progress (see also RSN)
  14. (in-text attributions) – still active (see also current tags in article
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Diffs: [38] – [39] --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with moving addressed comments to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Done. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator speaking. I confess that I have problems with this nomination. The version which was approved by Wehwalt and Yunshui was this of 25 May, the version we have today is this which I don't approve. To name just the most obvious differences:
  • Francis not only questioned the reliability of Bach Cantatas Website, disregarding experienced source checkers such as Nikkimaria, Prhartcom, Brianboulton and Wehwalt (their previous source checks linked above), but he eliminated links to the site and information based on it from the article. That leaves our readers deprived of the most detailed resource on the topic I know. The idea that the pdfs of liner notes are reproduced without consent of the labels seems absurd to me.
  • Francis added background about the Magnificat in Leipzig general, and the reception of Bach's chorale cantatas in general (about which he knows a lot) that seems too much for this particular cantata article, imho.
  • Francis added a paragraph about recordings before the factual table of recordings that accents labels (instead of musicians), talks about general trends in Bach cantata recording, and singles out some recordings. I recommended to write a separate article Discography with that material.
Instead of 10 more points that I'd oppose: we need to decide how to proceed.
  • I can withdraw the nomination.
  • We can leave the nomination but I remove my name from the nominator position, and Francis takes over (which he de facto did already).
  • Other ideas? It's a new situation, at least to me. In Bach's time, they'd celebrate the third day of Pentecost today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough one for you, but the article is clearly unstable; its content changes daily, and not just with minor fixes. When nominated the wordcount was 1,996 – it is currently 3,734 and rising, so it's virtually twice its original size. I'd advise that in future you get together with Mr Francis Schonken and iron out your differences before nominating any further Bach chorale articles. Otherwise this debacle will repeat itself. For the present, the only sensible course, since you don't approve the current text, is for you to withdraw the nomination. It shouldn't be renominated by you or anyone else until the content is broadly stable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the advice above, I withdraw the nomination. I nominated only one Bach chorale cantata article (if that is what you mean) before, which passed without any interference by Francis. I nominated six Bach cantata articles before which passed without interference by Francis, who tried to question one, but to no avail. I was unprepared, sorry. I would like to see Francis first learning a bit about FA reviewing before doing it again, or perhaps even write a featured article. The Magnificat has potential, imho. Accusing fellow editors of edit warring because one single revert seems not in the spirit of collaboration, nor accusing them of canvassing because of this piece of advice. I am concerned about the quality of the article, - see three major points above. Brianboulton: please say a word about the alleged copyright violation of the Bach Cantatas Website. - I thank Yunshui, Wehwalt and Montanabw for support, Nikkimaria for the media review, and Ceoil and EdwininLondon for good comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I have to agree with Brian that the article is currently unstable and has changed too much in the course of this review, which is never ideal at FAC. As Gerda has asked to withdraw this, it doesn't matter now, but I have to say that rather than changing an article wholesale during FAC it is far better for a reviewer to oppose outright, giving their reasons based on

WP:WIAFA, and wait for the end of the review to make large changes, away from FAC, if that is the consensus among those working on the article. Hopefully this consensus can be worked out before the article is renominated, after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2017 [40].

Fightstar

Nominator(s):
Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the

Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 78 is dead for me, and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive. Just as a note for the future, I would highly recommend archiving your sources to prevent all of your hard work from being lost due to link rot or link decay.
  • Reference 85 is not working for me (it leads to a redirect/"oops" screen), and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive.
  • While looking through the references, I noticed website names (i.e. gigsandfestivals.com or myspace.com) and other item (i.e. AllMusic and BBC Radio 1) being represented in italics when they should not put that way. I would advise you to correct this. There are also things not in italics that should be in italics (i.e. AbsolutePunk). I am noticing this in a lot of the references so I would go through each of the references to make sure that everything is correctly cited.
That's extra annoying. They should fix that. When putting something in the publisher parameter, it doesn't italicize, but under the website, where it's not supposed to, it does by default. That's bothersome. Regardless, I will do so, but I should talk to someone about this sometime.
Speak up! 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This is a note that I have received a lot in past FACs, FLCs, and even in a few GANs. Please make sure that all of your works/publishers for each individual references is linked. I think this is done so anyone can find out more information from clicking on any reference without having to go through the list of references to the first time a work/publisher was referenced and linked.
  • In the lead, you mention that they released an album of B-sides and rarities. Could you please define "rarities" in this context as it can be interpreted differently in different contexts? I could see this meaning unreleased material, album tracks that were never released as singles, or singles that were not as popular depending on the context.
From what I've known, "rarities" are almost always live performances or demos that were recorded but never released or were changed significantly before official release. Would you like something in the article changed based on this?
Speak up! 20:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • For the phrase "they were viewed sceptically" in the lead, who was viewing them this way? Music critics, the general public, fans of a specific genre of music? I would advise you to clarify this.
  • I am little confused by the placement of the image in the origins subsection as the title of the image places it in 2006, which would make it belong in one of the following subsections rather than this one. This is a really minor note, but it is important to keep the timeline straight for both the text and the images. Some clarification on the use of the image would be helpful.
  • In the first paragraph of the origins subsection, I am a little confused by the switch in pronouns for Simpson's quote on venting (i.e. second sentence). It may be best to substitute the "I"s with [he] and similar pronouns to keep the pronoun usage consistent with the start "said that he had".
A bit of a point, but I don't like this solution. I removed the quote altogether and paraphrased it. Does it look okay?
Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I would move the first sentence of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph as it is pertaining to the party discussed in that paragraph. When reading for the first time, I was a little confused on whether or not it was referencing the same part or another event entirely.
  • This is just a suggestion so feel free to say no to this, but it may be more beneficial to move the audio sample down to the "Musical style and influences" section as it may help to better illustrate the band's sound.
Lol, thought this before I even got to this point of the review.
Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The sentence on Fight Club should read "the EP was inspired by David Fincher's film Fight Club". Chuck Palahniuk wrote that book Fight Club, but David Fincher was the one to actually direct it. Also add in the release date for the film (1999).
I'm having a hard time remembering how I found this band too, now that you mention it. I would expect that this would be a band that mostly British hardcore kids were familiar with, for the most part, but I'm from northwest Pennsylvania, lol. Very much appreciate the look, will get right to work.
Speak up! 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As far as I know, I've done all of these. Thanks Aoba!

Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Closing comment: This has been open for a long time now, but there has been no activity for a month now. I'm afraid we have no consensus to promote and we will have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2017&oldid=788089527"