Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2022

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 29 June 2022 [1].

Katana Zero

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite video games of the last few years has been this 2019 indie platformer, which blends the tone and themes of neo-noir cinema with fast-paced, insanely difficult side-scrolling gameplay and a killer synthwave soundtrack. Katana Zero was an intense labor of love for its creator Justin Stander, who developed the game almost entirely by himself over the course of six years. It was delayed repeatedly and switched publishers at one point, but was finally released in April 2019 to high sales and rave reviews.

I've spent a substantial amount of time since last year building this up from a mere stub to a fully comprehensive good article and I believe that it meets the criteria to earn a bronze star. Hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Katana_Zero_Gameplay.gif needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: added alt text and expanded the FUR. JOEBRO64 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at well over three weeks in without a single support, this nomination is liable to be archived in another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: I don't mind if you archive it. It's a shame it didn't attract much commentary this time around but hey - it happens. I have another article I'm working on to prep for FAC right now, so if I choose to nominate it soon, would the coords mind if I do it before two weeks are up? JOEBRO64 12:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go ahead and archive this then and waive the two-week hiatus due to lack of reviews here. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2022 [2].

Beverly White

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

  • "White also held multiple positions in the local, state, and national Democratic Party" — Suggesting "White held multiple positions in the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national levels"
  • "She was educated at Tooele High School and married Floyd White" — Does Floyd White has to do anything with the school? If not, suggesting "She was educated at Tooele High School and in 19XX, she married Floyd White"
  • "from 1964 to 2004, with the exception of 1976" — suggesting to link the DNCs
  • Link Satellite campus in the lead
  • "During the 1976 election" — Specify house of rep.
  • "She also helped establish" — specify her last name at the beginning of every new paragraph.
  • "White wrote Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993 which was a book" — "White wrote Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993, a book"
  • "from 1896 to 1993" — not required, already mentioned in the book's title.
  • ", and the university later" — suggesting "; the university later"
  • "an honorary doctorate's degree" — Shouldn't "doctorate's" be "doctorate"?
  • The "Capital punishment" section needs to be re-written; case titles are italicized, and what does those two decisions have to do with White's positions?

That is on the first read. More to come after these have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you. I did everything that you asked except for the last part. The reason I mention the Supreme Court cases is to give the context that she wanted to overturn a SCOTUS ruling rather than change existing state law. Jon698 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Do we need to mention her mother's death in the lead?
  • "In 1947, she married Floyd White, with whom she had five children, at the Salt Lake Temple" — Why is specifying 'Salt Lake Temple' important?
  • Anything we know about her career from 1947 to 1959?
  • "White supported the restoration of capital punishment in Utah and Utah became" — repetition
  • "Utah is one of twelve states to have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment as of 2021" — 'as of 2021' should be in the beginning
  • I think 'Write-in' should not be in the party column, Independent might work.
  • How are, in some of the elections, both the candidates incumbent? I assume they are incumbent from different districts?
  • Do we have no scholar sources discussing her?
  • Ref#25: ' United States House of Representatives' should be in the |publisher field
  • Ref#42: link the newspaper; same with Ref#54 and few others
  • Ref#79 is not via Newspapers.com; is it? And isn't https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ a primary source?
  • Specify that the Merrill Nelson portrait is from 2021
  • Suggesting to add ALT text
  • "as a part of Utah's twenty-six member delegation to the Democratic National Convention" — pipe 'the' inside the link to avoid
    MOS:EGG
    issues. Same with various other instances.
  • Check the last para of Later life, for italicization
  • Can we get her signature converted to svg file, background removed? Just a suggestion.

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kavyansh.Singh: I did most of what you asked. The reason I included Salt Lake Temple is because it is the largest Mormon temple so it seems important enough to mention. It is standard for both candidates to be listed as incumbents if they are redrawn into the same district with 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio being an example between Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich in the 9th district. Also they are are listed as incumbents even if they lose the primary with Joe Crowley in 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York as an example. I fixed the linking issue for the newspapers with the remaining unlinked ones having no Wikipedia page. Sadly there are no scholarly sources for White as I found nothing on Google scholar or the Internet Archive. I will convert her signature to a SVG momentarily. Jon698 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the information between 1947 to 1959, there were no major mentions of her and I assume it was mainly due to her being a housewife in the shadow of her husband and father-in-law's political careers. Also what do you mean by "pipe 'the' inside the link". Jon698 (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - as this nomination has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted only one general support, it is liable to be archived within the next couple days unless significant movement towards a consensus to promote occurs. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per above, the usual waiting period for renomination will be waived here because of the lack of reviews. Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2022 [3].

Sayf ol-Dowleh

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Soltan Mohammad Mirza, better known as Sayf ol-Dowleh, an Iranian prince of the Qajar dynasty and thirty-ninth son of Fath-Ali Shah, king of Qajar Iran. He was the governor of Isfahan, a city in central Iran which through the constant wars was damaged greatly. He contributed to its restoration with rebuilding the Safavid pavilions and even building a palace of his own design. His governorship was short-lived, and through a series of civil war between 1834-1835, he was removed from his position. He spent many of his years travelling and writing poetry, and died in 1899 in Malayer. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "better known by his honorific title Sayf ol-Dowleh". Is it known what this means in English? Similarly in the main article.
'Sword of the Dynasty' is a literal transilation.
  • "He was the governor of Isfahan" When?
Added the years.
  • "banditry along the roads". Roads within the city?
No, roads to, and from the city.
  • "Mohammad Bagher Shafti". Perhaps a one or two word introduction?
Done
  • "a famine followed, worsening the situation." The last three words are arguably redundant.
Amended.
  • Second paragraph of the lead - could some (or all) of the events mentioned be dated?
  • "Mohammad Shah ousted him". Who is Mohammad Shah? Is there a link? Could he be introduced?
  • "Unusually for his time, Sayf ol-Dowleh only married once, and later divorced his wife". Which of these was unusual? And, again, is there a date for either event?
  • "divan" is misspelt.
The Persian spelling is divan while the arabic one is diwan.

This is just from the lead and I am getting the impression that the article has not been adequately prepared for FAC. Has the advice on the main FAC page been followed - "Editors considering their first nomination ... are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor"? Why has the article not gone through peer review prior to nomination?

I thought that rule is only applied to a nominator's first ever nominee, because earlier this year I had another article first peer reviewed and then FA nominated.
It is not a "rule", it is a strong recommendation. Apologies for having missed your previous nomination. The bit I missed out of the quote above is "... and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion ..." The recommendation is there to try and avoid the situation which has arisen here - a nomination which has had a lot of work put into it, but which clearly isn't up to FAC standards. I appreciate how a barrage of negative comments can be demoralising to a first or second time nominater. (Or, for that matter, a fiftieth time nominator.) I would suggest withdrawing, and either getting a mentor to go through this with you, or running it through PR, or both. (You may also consider GoCER.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I better withdraw then, thanks for the review, in any case. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I am leaning oppose. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2022 [4].

Carlos Mesa

Nominator(s): Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Carlos Mesa, the former president, vice president, and active opposition leader in Bolivia. Notable for his work as a historian and journalist, was elected vice president in 2002 only to succeed to the presidency just over a year later following the Bolivian gas conflict. An independent politician, his tumultuous presidency attempted to appease left-wing calls for the nationalization of hydrocarbons and right-wing demands for regional autonomy, though unrest ultimately resulted in his resignation. Mesa's return to prominence as the spokesmen of Bolivia's Maritime Demand against Chile led him to challenge Evo Morales for the presidency, and he was a primary leader in the protests that followed the election. Unsuccessful in his second presidential bid, he is now the leader of the opposition in the legislature. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • General grammar rule is to be consistent with punctuations. As some captions are complete sentences and thus have periods, the others should probably be kept. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Some images are fixed to a particular pixel size - per
    MOS:IMGSIZE they should almost always instead use |upright= to scale images relative to user preferences. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • File:Signature_of_Carlos_Mesa.svg: where is this licensing coming from?
  • File:Carlos_Mesa_-_Family_(1965_photograph)_Biblioteca_Virtual_Carlos_D._Mesa.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Carlos_Mesa_-_Student_(1971_photograph)_Biblioteca_Virtual_Carlos_D._Mesa.jpg
  • Both appear to be personal photographs so it never would have been published by a media outlet and the like. Would their appearance on the sourced website count as the date of first publication? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:National_Cockade_of_Bolivia.svg: why is the uploader believed to hold copyright? Ditto File:BOL_Order_of_Condor_of_the_Andes_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png, File:OPMM-gc.svg, File:PER_Order_of_the_Sun_of_Peru_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png, *File:Order_of_San_Carlos_-_Grand_Cross_(Colombia)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:MEX_Order_of_the_Aztec_Eagle_1Class_BAR.png
  • PD-text logo for all as they're composed of simple geometric shapes. Exception is File:OPMM-gc.svg which now has PD-MaltaGov. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pope_johnpaul_funeral_politics.jpeg: source link is dead
  • File:2019_Bolivian_elections_map.png and File:Mapa_Electoral_de_Bolivia_2020_Bolivia.svg are missing sources for the data presented, and see
    MOS:COLOUR
  • Added source. Will change colors to match the other map soon. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Orden_del_Sol.jpg: what's the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean the medal itself, it dates back to 1821 so very much in the public domain. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a tag for that on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

This is the first FAC nomination from this editor. I am unsure if the advice on the main FAC page - "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor" - has been followed. In any event the article is far too long and is not written in the summary style expected at FAC. (FA criterion 4.) Almost every section needs boiling down to a more succinct presentation of the facts. The article may also benefit from a visit to GoCER. I recommend that the nomination is withdrawn for the nominator to obtain a/consult their mentor about rewriting the article with a view to renomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. I'll withdraw the nomination and look into having it peer reviewed first. Cheers! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [5].

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the slew of hurricanes during the disastrous 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Ophelia is a forgotten oddity. It took an incredibly erratic path along the Eastern Seaboard, coming tantalizingly close to land for eleven days and finally moving toward Atlantic Canada and its ultimate dissipation. While not a hurricane of major consequence, it had locally significant impact in North Carolina and resulted in four deaths along its path. I firmly believe this is the most thorough collection of information on Ophelia you will find. I combed through hundreds of newspaper articles, dozens of operational discussions, and dozens of scientific journals to arrive at the article you see now. Many of the journals had limited information or were incredibly detailed, beyond the level that would be useful in this article. After being a decaying Good Article for 13 years, this storm finally meets the level of detail expected of us. I hope you all enjoy the read and I'm looking forward to how I can improve this further. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator note - through no fault of the nominator, this is currently listed at
    copying within) before it passes. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Background. The copyright issue mainly affects older articles, and given that this is a 2006 GA promotion, this one falls into the group that needs a check. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @SandyGeorgia: If you have the time to help out with this it would be much appreciated since you've gone through a little bit of WPTC's mess before. If not no worries. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I can do the CCI work, but I may be delayed up to a week as I am just returning from an extended trip. If I have not weighed in within a week, please put a poke on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CCI check complete, all clear, see
    WP:CWW from the season article; now templated on talk and attributed via dummy edit summary. @Moneytrees: to doublecheck work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @SandyGeorgia Thank you for the check, I spent some time looking comparing some dead sources with archive.org and found nothing else. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • A lot of the images I can't confirm the source but will AGF
  • File:Hurricane Ophelia 2005 enlarged map.png — the stated source does not look like the backdrop actually used.
  • Lead paragraphs are inordinately long and would be improved with a couple paragraph breaks.

(t · c) buidhe 04:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the source links for the three satellite images, NASA reformatted urls years ago so we have tons of these images with dead links I guess. The enlarged map is the Black Marble, working on getting an appropriate source link since it's a slightly diff version. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
TropicalAnalystwx13. I think that covers the image concerns. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
We're good here: pass (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

  • Link named storm in the second sentence?
  • Over the next week, Ophelia's intensity oscillated between tropical storm and hurricane levels as intrusions of dry air, varying levels of wind shear, and gradual upwelling of cooler waters from its meandering path impacted it. - I suggest simplifying slightly. I suggest changing "as" to "due to", and removing the final "impacted it".
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record at the time "by almost all standards of measure" - I think you either need to attribute this quote (like saying "as described by meteorologist Jack Beven"), or remove it. Since the sentence is just as accurate without the quote.
    • I can't attribute the quote to a single author as the paper was written by the entire HSU. I do feel it adds a bit of flavor to the section rather than just rattling off facts and stats. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) described the dual lows as a "complex scenario" and possible tropical cyclogenesis would be slow to occur. - I think the grammar needs to be improved for the second part, maybe even just adding "that" before "possible".
  • Link UTC, and maybe add a note explaining what time that is relative to local time.
  • I suggest splitting the first sentence in the "Fluctuating strength and meandering" section into two sentences, as you have two "with" clauses.
  • "convection became increasingly organized as it moved back over the Gulf Stream" - you never said that it moved away from the Gulf Stream, as the previous mention of the GS was that upwelling occurred "even over the relatively warm Gulf Stream." Maybe here say something like "as it moved back over warmer waters of the Gulf Stream"? Or that it moved away from its previous area of upwelling?
    • I couldn't find an explicit mention of when it moved away from the Gulf Stream, just that it moved back over so I'm not sure how to remedy this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time the storm made its closest approach to Massachusetts, passing 70 mi (110 km) to the southeast." - is it worth adding "Cape Cod" here?
  • Given the decent impacts in Canada, I think you could describe the track with a bit more detail with regards to its passage near Nova Scotia and over southern Newfoundland.
    • Details of the extratropical track are pretty limited in reports but I added some basic info. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, 462 dropsondes were deployed in the storm between September 6 and 17, the second-most in a single storm during 2005." - behind what storm?
  • You don't go into much detail about Bahamas warnings or impacts. Unless I'm mistaken, the article only says: "Winds at Freeport and Settlement Point reached 30 mph (45 km/h)."
    • For whatever reason it's incredibly difficult to find information in the Bahamas. The wind observation is all I could unearth, not event a news report of rain showed up in searches. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumping of water into Lake Rosalie was authorized by the South Florida Water Management District, but the pumps were unlikely to arrive in time. " - I'm not sure this is needed. The "were unlikely" part seems like it was a contingency plan that didn't end up happening.
    • I disagree with its removal, there was action taken in response to Ophelia but it was just unable to be implemented. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secondary roads saw up to 12 in (300 mm) of standing water in poor drainage areas in the city." - just verifying, this is in Palm Coast?
  • "In South Florida, temperatures rose 3–5 °F (1.7–2.8 °C) above normal." - could you explain the relation between Ophelia and the temperature rise?
    • I couldn't find a source explaining the relation, just that the storm was the cause. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe clarify that the missing SC surfer was presumed dead? You include that as a fatality in the lead, but don't spell it out so clearly in the impact section.
    • Adjusting to specify just missing since it was never explicitly a confirmed fatality.
  • "A one million gallon sewage spill occurred in Wilmington." - was this due to floods? How long did it take to clean up? This is the only part of the impact that left me wanting more.
    • I wasn't able to find much, just a more precise location and revised spill amount. The spill is largely overshadowed by a larger one just two months prior in the same spot. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eventually slated for demolition in February 2010." - so was it actually torn down in Feb 2010?
  • Nothing for Virginia or Maryland?
  • "On September 15, Governor Easley requested assistance from the South Carolina Government." - IDK how to make this clearer, but Easley was NC's governor, so maybe clarify what type of assistance was requested?
    • I think just adding that he's the NC Governor helps out. The type of assistance is stated in the next sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Bush signed this request October 7, designating ten counties as major disaster areas" - presumably the six from the previous sentence, as well as...?
  • "Senate President Marc Basnight and House Speaker James B. Black" - maybe specify that it's just the state government leaders?
  • In the see also, any reason you link
    List of Atlantic hurricanes
    ? Also, I think you could explain why Arthur was included (similar impacts?)
    • Pretty sure it's just a leftover generic link, I've adjusted the overall links ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is a very well-done article, on par with any other featured tropical cyclone article. I just think there are a few things that need to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was able to address most, if not all, of your concerns. Many thanks for the review Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month on and despite additional interest still just the single general support. Unless there are clear signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next 48 hours or so I will have to consider archiving this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I am archiving this one. Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

Hi, I will take a look at this and leave comments within the next 48 hours (probably a lot sooner but leaving myself some wiggle room). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) In general, these will follow the sections of the article unless a comment applies to the article as a whole.[reply]

Lead

  • Link the first mentions of South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Atlantic Canada.
  • The greatest impacts were felt in North Carolina where more than 240,000 people lost power and more than 1,500 homes were damaged. Consider a comma after North Carolina.

Background

  • Many of the records set during the 2005 season were subsequently toppled during the 2020 season which saw 30 tropical or subtropical storms. Is this really relevant to the topic here? It seems to me as off-topic.

I will add more comments later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just leaving a note that I will be getting to the comments here and on the talk page within a few days. I’ve been busy with work and exhausted by the time I get home. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonebiskit, thanks for being patient. I'm taking a look at more of the article now:

Origins

  • Throughout September 6, the aforementioned MCS's Remove the apostrophe, this is improper grammar.

Fluctuating strength and meandering

  • This section title is kind of awkward, how about "fluctuation in strength and track" or something along those lines?
  • Early in the storm's lifecycle, meteorologists struggled with a track forecast that was "anything but straightforward" as models depicted a wide-range of scenarios for the depression. If this is a direct quote, there should be a citation at the end of the sentence in question, as far as I understand it.
  • High sea surface temperatures of 84 °F (29 °C) fueled bursts of deep convection throughout September 8 and following the formation of an eyewall and well-defined upper-level outflow, Ophelia intensified into a hurricane around 21:00 UTC on September 8 with sustained winds reaching 75 mph (120 km/h). This really ought to be two sentences, or be rearranged. There's a lot of information here for just one sentence.
  • this coincided with it regaining hurricane status for the third time. Coincident... You use coincided and coincident twice in a row here. Another word should be used in one of these instances.
  • Vertical mixing can be linked.
  • By 00:00 UTC on September 12, Ophelia weakened back to a tropical storm. How many times in a row had this happened by this point? It's hard to keep track without it being specified here.

North Carolina impact and extratropical transition

  • Link New England.
  • The ridge previously halting the hurricane's northward motion began accelerating off the New England coastline; however, westerly flow in its wake would not be strong enough to induce significant acceleration of Ophelia. Accordingly it began an "excruciatingly long passage" along the shores of North Carolina. I assume the second sentence is referring to Ophelia, but with the previous sentence talking about the ridge it's unclear as written. Suggest removing any ambiguity here.
  • Over the next two days, the hurricane's eyewall scraped the North Carolina coastline bringing hurricane-force winds to these areas. Is it worth mentioning and/or linking the Outer Banks here?
    • The eyewall and hurricane-force winds did not impact the Outer Banks, those islands are farther north. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Research

  • I see you refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "the NOAA" here. My understanding was that in its acronym form it's simply known as "NOAA" without "the"?
  • Surprisingly enough, The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment exists and can be linked.

I will work on the rest of the article soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trainsandotherthings, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I was waiting for the nominator to respond saying these comments had been addressed. I just checked and my most recent comments have not been. I can go over the remainder of the article but I want to be sure the nominator will be responding to my comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I missed that. Fair point. Cyclonebiskit ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me Opposed to this nomination until/unless Cyclonebiskit responds to my concerns here. At present I do not think the prose is quite up to FA level. I see Cyclonebiskit has not edited since June 6th. Real life happens, of course, but FAC runs on a limited timeframe. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Trainsandotherthings: sorry for the delayed responses. Personal life things happened but things quieted down so I have time again. I've addressed the comments brought up above with the exception of one which I replied to. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I have struck the oppose. I will provide comments on the rest of the article shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have been having issues IRL which have seriously restricted my time and energy to edit for the moment. I will not be able to continue reviewing. My apologies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive1 § SandyGeorgia comments.[edit]
  • There is one instance of pp for a page range (Angel et al. 2005, pp. 149–150.), but multiple instances of page ranges of more than one page using only a single p (sample: Rogers et al. 2006, p. 1,525–1,527). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need this editorializing in the image caption? An enlarged and annotated map of Hurricane Ophelia's track along the East Coast of the United States ... Can it be shortened to just "Hurricane Ophelia's track along the East Coast of the United States"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there italics in the image captions here and here?
  • Many of the maps breach
    MOS:COLOUR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @SandyGeorgia: We’ve been working on revamping the track maps for over half a year at this point to get the colors to adhere to ACCESS. After some issues with canvassing (and subsequent ArbCom case) I think we’ve arrived at a color consensus so the next step is how to improve the maps. Since that could take who knows how many months, would a map such as the one in Zelda 1991’s article be adherent to MOS? I’m fine foregoing the classic map if this is the route we have to take in the interim. With the second map showing the zoomed in track, I think that complies with ACCESS since the color of the track doesn’t convey info, it’s just aesthetic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not lodging an Oppose based on this, as I recognize this is an issue across almost all maps in almost all featured articles, and there is probably no easy solution ... just trying to raise awareness, and glad to hear work is underway. I can't make much sense of the Zelda map ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is hurricane-status hyphenated here (it is not modifying anything), and what is soon adding? The following day it organized into Tropical Storm Ophelia and soon reached hurricane-status on September 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gradually growing in size, the system reached its peak strength on September 14 upon reaching hurricane strength for the fourth time with maximum sustained winds of 85 mph (140 km/h). Convoluted, hard to follow, reach ... reaching ... vary wording ... maybe ? ... Gradually growing in size, the system reached hurricane strength for the fourth time and its peak strength on September 14, with maximum sustained winds of 85 mph (140 km/h). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another ... person ? (As opposed to fatality)? Rough seas led to one fatality in Florida and left another missing in South Carolina while rain-slicked roads contributed to a fatal accident in North Carolina. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is ungrammatical: Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center (NHC)[nb 2] described the dual lows as a "complex scenario" and that possible tropical cyclogenesis would be slow to occur. ... and stated that ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've made the suggested changes. Thank you very much for looking over the article and handling the CCI! I'll be excerpting this into the main review page for the FAC coordinates to see these comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I’ll be getting to these comments tomorrow or Monday, same old same old from work :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonebiskit, have you addressed everything? (If so, could you ping Sandy.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to continue; IRL issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [6].

Fallout (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a

WP:GOCE. I now believe it is ready for a featured article candidacy. Feel free to leave down any comments pertaining to the improvement of this article in preparation for featured article status. Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • @Buidhe: I have added a screenshot I believe to be a better illustration of the game. What are your thoughts on it? Lazman321 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "As demonstrated in the screenshot, much of the game revolves around the player choosing quests to accept from other characters." Again, seems replaceable with text since what is referred to here is the content of the dialogue. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if this was the only rationale for adding the screenshot, it could easily be replaced by text. However, as you can see from the non-free rationale on the file page, that is not the only rationale for adding this screenshot. The non-free rationale I added says it "illustrate[s] the dialogue in Fallout; particularly the user interface, the art style, the talking head, quest-giving, player choice, and Killian Darkwater himself." The illustration aspect is helpful, especially when considering how different the dialogue appears in the original Fallout compared to modern Fallout games and the fact that the rest of the game is in 2D. Without the screenshot, modern players looking at the page for the original game could be given a wrong impression of what dialogue looks like in the game, especially with the talking heads. Perhaps I should rewrite that sentence in the rationale and the caption of the image to demonstrate the illustration aspect better. Lazman321 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about comprehensiveness from Shooterwalker

I made some comments at peer review, and this article has come a long way in terms of its writing. But thinking about the comprehensiveness requirement under

WP:FAC, I think the legacy section omits the influence of this game on other games. For example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey cites this game as an influence on its open world design (which is impressive considering the decades separating the two games). There's even more influence on contemporaries like Neverwinter Nights 2
. A game like this has almost endless influence, which can be a daunting task to document and verify. But I think with a little bit of effort you could cover the broad strokes.

I don't know if I will have time for a more thorough review, but based on the peer review, I think the prose is well on its way. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I have added more games to the legacy section. Your second suggestion was really useful for including more games that were influenced by Fallout. I would have never thought to use it, so thank you. I didn't include Assassin's Creed Odyssey however. This is because the interview listed in the article seems to be talking about the series as a whole rather than the original game; the in-source mention linked to Fallout 4. I wanted to mostly include games that were either influenced by the first game itself or the classic games. Lazman321 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point about Assassin's Creed. The one-sentence list is a decent start, I think that readers would be interested to know where the influence is between these games. For example, was it the open world level design? Quest design? Skill system? It deserves at least a full paragraph, to really drive home what aspects of Fallout are part of its enduring influence. Especially if someone like Warren Spector had something to say about Fallout directly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking me to go through each game and describe how Fallout influenced them, I don't think that's necessary. There already is a paragraph in the legacy section dedicated to what aspects of Fallout were influential, which I think is sufficient. Besides, most of the sources do not mention how Fallout influenced them exactly, including the Warren Spector source. Detailing the ones that do would probably be adding undue emphasis on trivial details. Lazman321 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB

I'll aim to look at this in the next few days. Anyone else that wants to jump in before me feel free. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: It has been over a week. When are you going to start your review? Lazman321 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this hasn't pinged me for whatever reason or it was lost in a separate ping. Have all the oppositions been dealt with? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have addressed all the concerns raised so far in this candidacy and dealt with the problems raised. Lazman321 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You've got an opening sentence that says it was released in North America in October 1997, and then the last sentence of the second paragraph states essentially the same. I worked on Spider-Man (2018 video game) and the date isn't mentioned until discussing release. I'm not mithered which way you go but it shouldn't be stated twice within a two-paragraph span.
    Done: Removed the first mention of Fallout's in lead. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The copy editing still seems poor. I've tried to address a few glaring issues.
  3. "The Vault Dweller may recruit four companions." Ok so is it UP to four, are their four named companions? Are we going to name them? It's a short stub sentence and then goes into other characters.
    Done: There are only four companions in the game, and I have decided to list them. However, I am curious. Do you think I should remove the characters sub-section since no other Fallout game has such a section? Do you find it pointless? Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You don't mention the pip-boy until the characters/plot section. Is this not part of gameplay?
    Done: I have mentioned it in the gameplay section. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are tonnes of just little stubby sentences that don't flow particularly well and don't make it necessarily interesting to read, for example "Development on Fallout began in early 1994.[35][36] The video game took three and a half years to complete and cost approximately $3 million.[37][38] Initially, Interplay gave the game little attention.[36]" The first two especially could be easily combined into "Development on Fallout began in early 1994 and took three and a half years to complete," or "The nearly three and a half year development of Fallout began in early 1994," or you can take the "The video game took three and a half years to complete and cost approximately $3 million.[37][38]" part and move it to the end where you mention the date of completion.
    Point taken, and reading parts of it again, it does feel tedious. Alas I don't have enough energy to work on this, at least for a while. Ovinus (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Originally, each game of Fallout had a time limit of 500 days, which Taylor added to encourage the player to focus on the main story line, but the feature became controversial and was removed in a patch.[4][30]" I would move this to the gameplay section
    Done kind of: The sources did not actually back up the 500-day time limit, so I rewrote the sentence to convey what was actually stated in one of the sources: Taylor added the time limit to keep the player focused on mainline quests. The 500-day time limit information was then moved to the gameplay section in a footnote with a source that backs up the information. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You mention " The European version was released later on an unspecified date as version 1.2, which removed child characters to make it eligible for release in Europe." but no reason is given as to why this was an issue. I haven't played the original but I know this is something to do with you being able to kill children or slip grenades in their pockets or something.
    Done: Clarified why it was a problem
  8. "Fallout was highly well-received." Well-received seems fine on its own, "highly" sounds like puffery.
    Done by someone else: Ovinus removed it after you posted your review. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I still feel the article needs more copy editing, and some things just need clarifying such as the kid murder censorship Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Unfortunately, I am way too involved in this article to be able to do an impartial copyedit. Perhaps, you could list your specific issues with the article so I can edit accordingly. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing a few of your points, yes in narrative heavy games I think character sections do belong. Sometimes they can be merged into setting, but if you check out the Spider-Man link I posted earlier, that's the general style i promote and follow. I'm going to take a look at copyediting the article if you don't mind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lazman321, you could do with adding to the characters section what Super Mutants are. I know what they are from the newer games but to someone without knowing it just drops "Super Mutants" in there without context. It doesn't have to be a repeat of what is in the plot section, just something along the lines of what they are physically post transformation, super strong, mostly unintelligent, whatever the easiest description of them is. EDIT: Also check out Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, this is one I worked on that is a bit more contemporary with Fallout. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Added a description of Super Mutants in the setting sub-section
Addendum, I'm going to be honest, I've copy edited some chunks of the article but reading the development section I feel there are some flaws that a copy editing can't necessarily fix. Mostly in the development section. I'm finding it difficult to tell WHEN things happened in relation to others. Reading it it seems Tim Cain began building this engine for fun in his spare time in 1994, but most of the team was not hired by Feargus until 1996? So for at least a year Cain was working alone, but them it will say things like "After deciding on using the post-apocalyptic setting, they wanted to develop it as a sequel to Wasteland, but unable to obtain a license from Electronic Arts, the team decided to make Fallout a stand-alone game.[33]" So were they not making it a Fallout game until 1996? It is unclear, to me at least, unless I'm missing something. There are other things such as "He believed that the player character's knowledge of the game world should mirror the player's.[43]" How did he/they achieve this? It states their intent but not what they did, was this a narrative choice, were their gameplay aspects? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I have clarified parts of the development section such as your confusion about the team numbers. The article already stated that Cain was alone for six months, not a year. The team reached 15 people by 1995 and 30 by 1996. Urquhart was not responsible for recruiting most of the team but did recruit some in 1996. As for your player character knowledge confusion, it was mostly a narrative choice. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lazman, I've seen you've made edits, I'm going to take a look at them tomorrow but a quick glance showed a big improvement. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes made have been a big improvement to the article. As mentioned above I add the caveat that I'm not super familiar with this game beyond cultural osmosis so I can't say anything regarding its completeness but it seems to be comprehenesive. I will note that there are some references that are not archived such as #111, #121, #122, #123, etc making them susceptible to LinkRot and making the article not futureproofed. And at least ref #37 doesn't actually mention what game it is from as part of the reference so it doesn't appear to be complete as a ref. I won't remove my Support over it so that this can progress but it does need addressing before the article can be considered FA worthy IMO. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I have run the article through the
WP:SFN. Lazman321 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Quick comments from Spy-cicle

Unfortunately I will not have the time to undertake a full review though I do have a few quick comments.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a specific reason why there is no gameplay screenshot?
  • Comment: There was a screenshot, but it was removed by Buidhe for lacking context. I might add a better screenshot soon.
  • Done: Incorporating official title into the lead.
  • The official name does not appear in the body once as well.
  • Not Done: The official name is neither short enough nor common enough to be used in the body without unneeded awkwardness. If there is a secondary source that discusses the name, I'd be more inclined to use it, probably in the development section.
  • Per
    WP:VGBOX "art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture." The current box art uses logotypes could probably be replaced with a logoless one [7]
    .
  • Not Done: Also per
    WP:VGBOX: "The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release." The cover art used in the infobox currently is from the original release, while the image you are suggesting is from the version on Steam
    , which is nowhere near as notable as the original version on PC.
  • Chris Jones is linked in infobox but is a redirect
  • Done: I removed him; he wasn't even mentioned in the body.
  • Citations should be cited in order (e.g. [10][18][24] not [24][10][18])
  • Done except for instances where I felt changing the citation order would interfere with text-source integrity.

I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ovinus

The article seems reasonably comprehensive (although I know little about video games) but the writing needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, there's a fair amount of flowery language (e.g., "became incredibly successful, both critically and commercially"; "the first game in the series to sell incredibly well was Fallout 3"; "which contained multiple possible settings to play with") and vague language (e.g., "the inhabitants will be immersed in dilemmas"). I would suggest going back to peer review, and I would definitely review in-depth there. And since it's a relatively popular article, I'd be willing to undertake a copyediting effort in due time, if you would like that. But I can't support the article in its current state. Ovinus (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and copyedit the article. Honestly, when this article was listed on the
Baffle gab1978 accepting and copyediting the article rather than someone who had less than one year of experience on Wikipedia. I do have a question, however. Why can't you do an in-depth review during the feature article candidacy instead of the peer review? I do not want to have this candidacy archived just so you can review it on the peer review. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's an unfortunate situation because peer review gets insufficient attention, so instead FACs become the place for extended commentary. I can simultaneously review it and copyedit it, but I'd like to discuss changes, clarifications, etc. with you outside of this page. How about I'll get started on it, and I'll raise my questions on the article's talk? Also in the future, you can always ask me directly if you'd like! Ovinus (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you very much. Lazman321 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Coords shouldn't consider this a support, since I can't make any claims to the article's accuracy; I'm mostly commenting on my own work.) My copyedit isn't quite done yet—still a few quibbles from me on the article talk—but I believe the writing is better. That being said, it took longer than expected and I naturally got somewhat "close" to the writing, so I'm sure I made plenty of oversights. I'm also not experienced in video game copyediting, so there may be jarring tense issues and writing that is too "immersive" in the game. Ovinus (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from JimmyBlackwing

I'd like to second Ovinus's note about the need for copyediting. Scanning it, I see a number of snakes, and some awkward phrasing. Take this sentence: "Fallout was commercially successful, however, it was not a breakout hit upon release, especially compared to the other role-playing video games Baldur's Gate and Diablo; it failed to meet expectations in sales." (You can strike this note if Ovinus's copyedit is completed.)

Alongside that, regarding the number of copies sold, I question the framing that the game had "lackluster sales" that "failed to meet expectations." Based on the footnotes, these ideas come mostly from IGN's history of the Fallout series. I personally consider IGN to be, in terms of accurate history, a situational source. It's notorious for factual errors. Notably, the writer provides no direct quotation to support this claim, nor any numbers. Wide access to data on Fallout's sales wasn't available at that time—most of the sources in the sales section now, I had to dredge up from lost news archives and old magazines that would've been unknown to the writer of that piece.

And those sources call Fallout's sales solid. Compared to most computer games at the time, that was unquestionably true. Fallout was a good performer in Interplay's catalog, even compared to games with more mainstream appeal, like Carmageddon—which Fallout handily outsold in the US. It wasn't Diablo, but most games weren't, including the successful ones (see: Close Combat, Dark Reign, Quake II). I don't think the article should give IGN's framing pride of place.

I'm unfortunately too swamped with work to do a more comprehensive review than this. I'll leave that to other editors. I just noticed these points and wanted to mention them quickly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the changes and additions to the article since I made this comment have improved things. This isn't a "support," because I haven't assessed the article in full, but my few objections have been resolved. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching the five week mark and just the single general support. Again, if there are not clear signs of a consensus to promote at least beginning to form by the time this is five weeks old I will have to reconsider archiving. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, archiving. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2022 [8].

Bleed American

Nominator(s):
talk) 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act

signature song
.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago,

talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American now. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: Fixed [9][10] MusicforthePeople (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I remember this album fondly

Spotchecks probably have to be done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose from Ippantekina

My comments will mostly be on the prose. Never listened to this band's music, though (pardon my perception) I do know that they were a cultural fixture for emo teens back in the 2000s.

  • Template:Infobox album recommends against adding "specialty- or limited-release singles", and I think "A Praise Chorus" belongs to this category because you say it is a "promotional single" in the lead.
  • "In March 2002, Bleed American was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America, and was certified platinum that August" awkward sentence structure; you can simply state when it was certified platinum and omit the gold certification
  • "Capitol initially started to shelve the album" began to shelve would be more direct and simple
  • Can you elaborate on what you mean by "a few key radio stations"? Was the track "Lucky Denver Mint" included in the final track list, or what is its significance to the album in any way?
  • "they did not even have a stronghold in the United States" plus I prefer the positive to the negative, something like they lacked a stronghold
  • "breakaway" break away to make it a verb
  • "The tour was ultimately considered a success" by whom?

I have read up to the "Recording" section and figure the prose has minor errors that hinder flow. To this extent, I suggest that you request a copy-edit at

Ippantekina (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

In regards to Twitter, Danny has addressed this above. MusicforthePeople (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the thorough copy-edit, it'll have to be one of us if this FAC is going to proceed, because the backlog at the Guild is much longer than it used to be. It's currently approaching 3 months in queue time. I'm happy to fix anything you give, just let us know.
oops 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As much as I detest Twitter as a source, I withdraw my complaints. I do see that the GOCE queue is congested at the moment..
Ippantekina (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this article for promotion on prose. Hopefully the article receives more reviews and a ref spotcheck review if necessary.

Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2022 [11].

TRAPPIST-1

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a star in the constellation of Aquarius (constellation) which is known to have 7 planets orbiting it in a resonance. About 3-4 of these could be warm and cold enough to support liquid water; there has been a lot of research on whether these planets might be habitable and the star system has drawn attention in the popular press and even popular culture. It is an important target for the James Webb Space Telescope. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review no licensing issues found, but File:TRAPPIST-1 system to scale.svg should have a source in the image description for the data presented on the graphic. Also, the first image in the body sandwiches the infobox, which is really long. Would it be possible to collapse parts of the infobox or reduce the amount of info you're trying to get across there? I noticed that parts of the infobox are not cited either inline or in the body. (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a question about the data on commons:User talk:Cmglee. It seems like this is supposed to be the reference of many of the infobox data, but apparently they can't be collapsed so I've commented them out in the interim. I think perhaps they should be put somewhere else (with refs) but I'd like a second opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Update: The information in that image apparently comes from TRAPPIST-1#Planetary system; added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I have no domain knowledge, so here are my comments from a layperson's perspective:

  • surface temperature of about 2,560 K --> perhaps this too should be expressed in relative terms to the Sun, as in its absolute form it will be meaningless to many
    I see, but I am not sure how meaningful "half as hot as the Sun" would be to laypeople. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and thus --> and thus repetition not particularly elegant
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) --> perhaps an introduction to these odd names could happen a few sentences earlier. Something along the lines of "initially three, then seven terrestrial planets around the star, named TRAPPIST-1b through h.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact almost twice as old --> are you sure you need that "in fact"? sounds a bit colloquial to my foreign ears
    Yeah, that was superfluous. Cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is --> whereas in the lead I liked relative info over absolute, here I think we need both. I'd much prefer to know how many billions of years it has left, as well, how many left for our Solar system. Also include the age of the universe
    Added a source and this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • coronal mass ejections; these are eruptions of coronal material to the outside of a star --> I find that semicolon odd here, but also this explanation surprised me. Up until this point I had to click through to many technical terms I had never heard of (brown dwarf, photosphere, chromosphere, faculae, etc.) and I didn't mind. But "coronal mass ejections" I actually could kind of get directly from its name, and the explanation desn't add much even. I personally would favour seeing inline explanations of uncommon terms. I would not have one for coronal mass ejections.
    I actually decided to move this to a footnote for consistency reasons. I don't think we can explain all these terms inline without severely breaking the flow of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that would break the flow. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1b, TRAPPIST-1c, TRAPPIST-1d, TRAPPIST-1e, TRAPPIST-1f, TRAPPIST-1g, and TRAPPIST-1h --> bit more readable and still clear would be TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, ...
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • taking a few to about 20 days --> why a few and not something like "with orbits taking between 1.5 and 20 days"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • distances of 1.7×106–8.9×106 kilometres (1.1×106–5.5×106 mi) --> that's a lot of symbols munched together. Perhaps better to split it up and say something like "ranging from x to y"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury --> perhaps for extra clarity something like "all of them much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are named in alphabetic order --> I would expect this to come a bit earlier, right after their names
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance --> link planetary resonance
    Done and moved footnote up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • coplanar --> link or explanation
    There is a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a link to Coplanarity be ok? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption Orbital comparison. should not have a full stop b/c it's a fragment, not a sentence. The next caption is a sentence, and should have a full stop. Check the others
    I have to confess that I am not entirely certain when a stop is needed or not, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • similar to similar ratios --> duplication
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between each planet pair --> perhaps "neighboring planet pair"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resonances and the proximity to their host star has led --> have led?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making the matter of tidal locking more complicated and potentially more habitable --> not sure if this flows well, it now reads that tidal locking gets more habitable
    OK, no idea how that sentence was written. Rewrote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets --> the previous elements in this semicolon separated list had a verb, why not this one?
    I think "cause" is a verb here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not make that very clear, so trying again: the "likewise it would influence .." but has a subject and verb, but the next bit "cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;" does not have a subject on its own, and likewise the last bit "or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres" does not have a subject or verb. I would think that all semicolon separated fragments have the same structure. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ,[122] or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres --> should that comma not be a semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cannot --> can not per
    MOS:CONTRACTIONS
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • compared to a Sun-like irradiation --> link irradiation
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three or four[42] planets – e, f, and g[132] or d, e, and f --> why use bold?
    To highlight the letters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see quite which part of
    MOS:BOLD would allow for that. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Switched to {{em}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • glaciation --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other factors are --> for what?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kinetics, energetics --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soon more. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Magnetic and radiative effects of TRAPPIST-1 --> would be good to use the unfamiliar term radiative in this section, and link it
    Done. I do have one structural issue here, though - there is a discussion on mantle melting here despite the section itself saying that tidal heating is much more important. I wonder if there'd be a way to put all the mantle melting in one section without creating too many short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the higher wavelength --> 2 paragraphs in a row starting with because of
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water-dominated atmospheres --> why is water linked?
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxygen-dominated atmospheres can form --> I expected each bullet point to have some statement about the planets' atmospheres, whether likely or not. And ideally each bullet point starts with such a statement, and then additonial context. Like the first bullet point
    There isn't the same information available for every atmosphere, so that wouldn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the exoplanet and the visibility of its atmosphere scale with the inverse square of the radius of its host star --> not sure I get this: what property of the exoplanet scales? or do you mean the visibility of the planet? And would it be better to use "an" instead of "the"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • - in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water --> (in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact, TRAPPIST-1 emits amounts --> do we need that In fact?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 is moderately[23] to highly active --> in what way?
    That's the bulleted list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> previously it was X et al. Consistency would be better
    The pattern is that 1-3 names get spelled out and 4+ get an et al. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System --> are those 2 capital S's really right?
    I think yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • common volatiles such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and water --> most of these were alreeady linked
  • overall, so many terms are linked multiple times, really check the whole article for this. See
    MOS:REPEATLINK
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use the Highlight duplicate links under Tools in the left hand navigation, you can see which ones are still left to repair. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50% water by mass,[247] because of this --> this doesn't flow very well
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • favour the evolution of --> inconsistent with "could harbor": BrE or AmE?
    BrE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mix oceans and supply and redistribute nutrients[255] and stimulate --> a few more commas needed
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • carbon monoxide that are toxic to higher life --> I'm surprised by this fact. Higher life as we know it on Earth, sure, but any life?
    The source certainly thinks so, IMO incorrectly for the reason you say but we need to work with what sources claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the identification of close by ultra-cold --> I would add a hyphen between close and by
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • drawing widespread attention in social media, streaming TV and websites[ba][280] and it received widespread --> duplication of widespread, and would it not be more logical to start with newspapers? I assume they covered it first and then the public reacted
    Done, but I wouldn't assume that order of events - newspapers take longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Isolation's single --> should In Isolation not be redlinked? or do you think it is not notable?
  • same with Leah Asher?
    I don't know any of these people/groups, the fact that they mentioned TRAPPIST-1 is documented by third-party sources but the people/groups themselves probably aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the High Energy Stereoscopic System --> I assume by the people running the system, not some AI
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Namibia --> countries usually not linked
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owing to its relative closeness to the Solar System, the small size of the star TRAPPIST-1 and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, the planets frequently pass in front of the star, the TRAPPIST-1 planets --> I don't think this is correct: you have "its" but the subject of the main clause is plural. The whole thing is not particularly elegant, maybe consider a rewrite
    Changed to plural but I don't see how to rewrite this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps something along the lines of "The TRAPPIST-1 planets are the most easily studied habitable planets outside of the Solar System, owing to their relative closeness, the small size of their host star, and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, they frequently pass in front of their host."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future observations with observatories and ground-based facilities may allow future --> future duplication and are observatories not ground-based? And would you not get better observations from space telescopes? Ah, ok you mention that after the semicolon. Perhaps better to rephrase to avoid this at first reading
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together with the discovery of Proxima Centauri b, the discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and the fact that about three of TRAPPIST-1's planets are within its habitable zone has led to an upswing of studies on planetary habitability[299] and are considered prototypical for the research on the habitability of M dwarfs. --> perhaps a few commas to help the reader parse this?
    I don't think that's easy to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the subject of the clause "are considered ..."? I'm not a native speaker so if you think this is grammatically correct then I trust you. It just doesn't look ok to my foreign eyes. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, neither am I. I've done a small change there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest,[177] and the star has been subject of detailed studies, including studies assessing the habitability of each planet,[98] including the possible effects of vegetation and whether an ocean could be detected by using starlight reflected off its surface. --> twice includng, and the beginning is a bit odd since that was already clear from the preceding bit. And mentioning habitability feels repetitive, given the previous sentence
    I've cut the habitability bit, but the preceding sentence is more general than TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that "TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest" could be a good opening for the whole Scientific importance section. Where it is now is a bit jarring for me since by then this statement was already obvious to me from all the previous sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good suggestion; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spacecraft mission designs using present-day rockets and gravity slingshots would need hundreds of thousands of years to reach TRAPPIST-1. --> unsourced and would it not be better placed right after "by humans with current or expected technology"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a bit jarring for me: it goes from current and expected tech to theoretical and then back to current. I'd do the present-day before the theoretical. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reordered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is an unusual number of bullet point lists, but I think it is fine as I guess it falls under the exception of
    MOS:PARA
    Yeah, many of these things work better as lists than as paragraph(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the footnotes later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes a b and i need sourcing
    Sourced the first, the second is two mathematical formulae (gravity and logarithms) and the third is also an unit conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidal heating is heating induced by tides, which deform planets and heat it in the process --> should that "it" not be "them"?
    Yes and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • e.g carbon dioxide, is trapped within a "cage"-like assembly of molecules from another compound, e.g --> it's e.g. (twice)
    Deduplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say that e.g is misspelled twice: it is with a . after the g: e.g.
    Ah; did that fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10×1033 ergs (1.0×1027 J) --> should that not be written as 1×1034 ergs (1.0×1027 J)?
    Yes, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 58495 times that of Earth --> 58,495 times that of Earth
  • tidal stress 22735 times that of Earth --> tidal stress 22,735 times that of Earth
    I am concerned that using the comma separators might make people think we are talking about decimals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:DIGITS
    gives 2 options, commas or spaces. But it has to be consistent. In the 1st section you have commas: 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery was sometimes the top news. --> a bit of an odd wording
    Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which however may not have time to reliably detect certain biosignatures. --> I'm not a fan of these kind of half-sentences. But I can't see anything in MOS that suggests it is frowned upon.
    The MOS isn't the one and only writing rule. I think a question here would rather be how to write the sentence otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: frankly the writing doesn't seem up to the high quality FA standard. I started looking at how to massage the article, but gave up because it needs plenty of TLC. It's a B+ article with good referencing. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

I'm happy to check this over with a view to improving prose and making sure it's understandable to a wide audience. Has Edwininlondon ended his review? (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm done, go ahead. I'm sure you can improve the prose a lot. Your work on Corry Tendeloo was much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have precise numerical ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2." —in which order?
    Outward, but the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is predicted to lead to intense planet-planet interactions that could drive volcanic activity on the planets" needs to be clearer as to whether this volcanic activity is occuring in the present or future. If the former, "probably causes" is probably better
    Former, so changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of hedging "likely", "predicted", "could have", "hypothesized" etc. May be unavoidable but I'd see whether it's possible to rephrase some of these to be more specific about the likelihood
    Yeah, that's pretty much unavoidable until we get more precise data. I don't think that most of these theories have had their probability given. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not spell out trappist in the lead since you don't spell it out in the body text
    That was deliberate, so that folks know why the acronym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.0898 times" more understandable if expressed in percentage
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source comparing the mass to Jupiter? If not, axe the footnote. If so, incorporate into the text rather than writing that red dwarves are dense (dense compared to what?)
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rotation period of active regions" is there a link for this
    Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful it is to have footnotes defining terms that are basically the same thing you get from hovering over the link. I'm not super comfortable citing sources that aren't about TRAPPIST-1 and it seems to add considerable bloat to the article.

I am hearing you, but in other content reviews at FAC and elsewhere I've been told that links do not fully substitute for footnotes. Besides, relying on links wouldn't actually resolve the sourcing question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar to the ratios of the Solar System and of the moons that orbit its giant planets" -> I don't understand
    This is a sentence I struggled to formulate - the planet/star mass ratio resembles that of the Solar System and to the moon/planet mass ratio of Solar System gas giants. I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would have important implications for the climate of the planets" vague
    Yeah, it's a bit hard to summarize the effects in a few sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The distribution of the fragments would control the Earth-like mass the planets ended up having" I don't get it
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ohmic heating[f] of the atmosphere of TRAPPIST-1e, f, and g amounts to 5-15 times the extreme ultraviolet radiation" as what?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may be losing hydrogen at a rate of 1.4×107 g/s" — removed, if this is important needs to say where this number comes from
    Hmm? There was a source besides it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this based on some projection or what? (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was based on Lyman-alpha transit data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Would "based on Hubble Space Telescope observations" be clear enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of edits to the article, feel free to rv if unhelpful (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded a couple of footnotes per my comments above. The one about Kepler-90 is mainly b/c numerous sources say that TRAPPIST-1 is the star with the most planets, and I think that TRAPPIST-1e needs special mention as it's the planet most commonly discussed in terms of habitability. The misattribution to NASA is specifically discussed by the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can support or oppose the article, but I hope I did improve it somewhat. (t · c) buidhe 12:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ComplexRational

I'll give this a look, seeing as there hasn't been much activity here in several weeks and I've done a bit of reading about this rather fascinating system recently. Here are some initial observations on a first read-through – more to gradually trickle in.

  • The English variety is not 100% clear: for instance, favourable (en-GB) and visualized (en-US) are both present, though groups of spellings seem internally consistent.
    • Oxford spelling? (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking that could be it. In that case, could it be codified on the talk page? ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do try to stick to en-GB in my writing but sometimes the fact that English is my second language strikes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of short paragraphs; if possible, expanding or combining them may be better stylistically.
    Did it for two paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Et al. should not be italicized.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a number of minor copyedits to the article (mainly grammar, formatting, and other MOS stuff). I'll probably do a full top-to-bottom overhaul; there are a couple of small things I can fix without noting here.
    The edits so far seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references should have consistently-formatted dates – I see a mix of year, month-year, and month-day-year, along with dates such as "2014b". Since most of these are journal articles that may not have an exact publication date, I think best practice is to only give the year.
  • Likewise, either write out first names consistently or use only first initials consistently. Again, I believe the latter is easier to implement.
    Hmm, I need to ask if availability of information gives allowances here for the slightly inconsistent format as not all citations have the same information available and it would be a lot of work to cut the names and dates. "2014b" is because there are two sources with the same sfn name; I believe this is the accepted way to disambiguate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked several style guides, and indeed this is the way to disambiguate in APA. However, they also indicate that all sources should have an alphabetical index, so in this case "2014a" and "2014b" instead of "2014" and "2014b". ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source review should be done (I'd be willing to take it on), though the sources look solid and reliable at first glance.
  • Defining technical terms, as done here, is great for fostering understanding among non-experts. I wonder if any can be worked into the text to have more complete paragraphs and fewer footnotes. (I see that it's already done with Alfvén surface, for example.)
    Aye, that one was easier to fit into the sentence flow than others. I am a bit wary that integrating the other footnotes can't be done without constantly jolting the reader away from the flow of the text towards a definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I'll go through each of the footnotes individually and highlight if and where I feel this can be done. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, some of the non-definition footnotes could be integrated into the main text, also addressing my point above on short paragraphs. As an example, note [u] explains in greater detail why exomoons are unlikely, while the paragraph containing this note is one (long) sentence spanning two lines. Merging this note would flesh out the content and prevent a section from awkwardly containing a solitary sentence.
    OK, this specific example (and the one about Bourrier et al 2017 below) is a bit tougher since the footnoted information has a bit less
    WP:WEIGHT than the rest of the paragraph, but not so much less to justify a complete omission. Thus I have a slight concern that putting it into the paragraph or cutting it completely would give it undue weight/too little weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think the Bourrier note is good as is. I can see your argument, though will also note that the paragraph is short and a run-on sentence and can viably be expanded (split and elaborate?) from available sources. If some of the other studies that cast doubt on the presence of moons are discussed in greater detail, I'd think undue weight would no longer be a problem. ComplexRational (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seemingly fails to mention that the discovery of the planetary system was announced in 2017. It's hinted at in the lead, but since this is the date widely reported in the media, it should be mentioned.
    Problem is that the planet system was first reported in 2016 not 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see there is some confusion here, even among publications. Indeed, the presence of exoplanets in the TRAPPIST-1 system was first reported in 2016, while in 2017 the number of confirmed planets rose from 3 to 7 and the system was announced by NASA (even though, as the article correctly states, they were not the discoverers). This seems to offer some clarity. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem here is that often discoveries are announced the year after they were actually made (e.g the planets were first sighted in 2015 but identified as such only in 2016). I am not sure that the exoplanetarchive is strictly correct - Gillon et al. 2017 claims that the initial "TRAPPIST-1d" signal was actually a combination of the other planets, not the actual TRAPPIST-1d. I've expanded in the lead section to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if briefly, I feel something should be said about N-body simulations of the system. This is a fundamental aspect of research into the system's long-term stability.
    Expanded on this sentence a bit. Do you want more? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better now, in that I don't see a glaring omission. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like other dwarf stars, TRAPPIST-1 is dense. – how dense is "dense"? Especially considering the following statement, TRAPPIST-1 has an unusually low density for its kind of star, this bit of prose feels almost self-contradictory as written. I'd recommend combining these to precisely quantify the star's density and compare it (as "unusually low") to the average for M dwarfs.
    Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the Solar System will cease to exist in a few billion years – the Solar System will almost certainly still exist in a few billion years; this should be reworded to more accurately reflect the later evolution and death of the Sun.
    Rewrote that. Do you want a more complete description of the fate of the Sun? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better now. I'd still expand it slightly to read while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen) in a few billion years and move up the footnote defining main sequence. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three or four[40] planets – e, f, and g[128] or d, e, and f – does the source group all four (d, e, f, and g) as potentially habitable, or does the four result from overlapping sets of three?
    The latter, different sources have different ideas of what is habitable and what is not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the names of the planets will be decided by the International Astronomical Union – this statement dates to 2017; have there been any updates?
    Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • and with the cavity in the pre-planet disk – should pre-planet disk read protoplanetary disk? The former term is rarely used in the literature (and is not used in the source cited). ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should link to it, certainly. I've stuck with "pre-planetary" since it's a touch less technical than "proto-planetary" and a synonym, but you or anyone else can change it to proto if they see it as better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Seven weeks in, no supports, and a lot of basic copy editing which would have been better done off-FAC and which suggests that the article wasn't ready for FAC when it was nominated. Unless there are clear signs of a consensus to promote starting to form within 48 hours I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I hope not. I haven't had much luck on getting additional comments on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​If necessary, I'd be happy to continue my comments at a peer review. ComplexRational (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry [User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]], but I am timing this out. The usual two week hiatus in nominating will apply. It may be useful to run the article through GoCER and/or PR before you bring it back.

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [12].

Terry Sanford

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Terry Sanford, one of the most important United States governors in the 20th century. Arguably the earliest New South governor, he was the first Southern governor to call for an end to racially discriminatory employment and also put education at the top of the North Carolina political agenda for decades. He thereafter served as president of a university and was in the U.S. Senate for one term. This article was originally an FA from 2008 until I had it delisted in 2019 for obvious lack in comprehensiveness. After three years of work, I think it's ready for reconsideration. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • No licensing issues found
  • Why isn't File:Terry Sanford, 1961-1965 (8408755490).jpg the header image? Seems better quality
    • I think a photo which shows the actual subject is preferable to a painting which tries to replicate the subject. The file for the painting may be higher resolution, but it doesn't actually have as much detail of Sanford's face and has kind of an airbrushed look to it (because it is a painting). -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Oppose based on length/summary style—13108 words. Greater use of summary style would benefit the article and enable the reader to get to the main points expressed more concisely. Some sections especially "Race relations and civil rights" are really long and will be hard to parse for mobile viewers. Recommend using summary style to reduce length or breaking up with subheadings. For example, you could split off an article Governorship of Terry Sanford, similar to presidency articles.

(t · c) buidhe 12:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to get this all in one go due to current work situation, so just some quick thoughts for now ...

  • Drop the congressional bioguide EL as it's being used as a source
    • Done.
  • Campbell 2017 needs the editors
    • Done.
  • The dates of his Ethics Committee chairmanship need cited
    • Couldn't find the information to back up the exact dates (the ones given here may have been wrong), some of the info out there is contradictory, so removed from infobox.
  • " though their home was rented. " - note sure this is necessary; the mention of the rent issue in the next sentence doesn't really need this introduction
    • Removed.
  • Not sure that it's the best to list 1942-1960 as the dates of his military service as he appears to have been out of duty in 1946 and 1947?
    • Clarified his dates of service.

More to come tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the first 1948 Democratic gubernatorial primary, Sanford voted for R. Mayne Albright. During the runoff election he supported W. Kerr Scott, and after Scott was elected governor he appointed Sanford to a position in the North Carolina State Ports Authority" - it's not super clear what this signifies without stating what Albright and Scott based their platforms on, especially for Albright which we don't even get a link for
    • Albright is worthy of an article, but that is for another time. He took the urban liberal and labor union vote, while populist Scott got the farm vote. The important thing here is Sanford made a connection with Scott and was rewarded for it, so I've trimmed out the part about Albright.
  • Early political career - did Sanford have established views on segregation? He supported Graham who is stated to have supported civil rights, but then also supported Kerr Scott and helped write speeches for Scott about separate but equal
    • You'll see later in the article that Sanford had considered racism to be immoral since he was student at the University of North Carolina where, tellingly, Graham was university president. His early public actions with regards to racism and segregation were largely moved by pragmatism it would seem; during the 1960 campaign for governor he framed himself as a moderate segregationist but stood staunchly opposed to the racist candidacy of Beverly Lake. I don't recall seeing any of his biographers or other serious writers consider him a true segregationist, and he despised the tactics of Lake, George Wallace, and Jimmy Carter (when ran he deceptively for Governor of Georgia as a segregationist). Sanford only really dealt with racial issues when he became governor, and in those times he became increasingly convinced that the social and economic marginalization of black people was bad for the state.

Ready for the governorship section; hopefully can finish this off in a couple days but very busy with work so I can't commit to a firm timeline. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; work was really hectic last week.

  • "and for displaying a lack of familiarity with certain issues" - such as?
    • At one point Gavin excused an earlier mistake involving how to fund teacher pay (he did not realize you would need a significant tax hike to pay for a 50% wage increase for all public teachers) by saying that he couldn't turn to Democrats in the state budget office to give him information on the state budget. Sanford pointed out that the state budget and related info was a matter of public record. Sanford said, "He doesn't know his position, I don't know it and no one knows it." Gavin also said he supported one interest group's education improvement plan but not another advocacy group's plan, despite the fact that both plans were identical. This felt like extraneous detail to include.
  • Did he only serve one term as gov. by choice or by term limits (apologies if it's in there and I missed it)
    • By constitution; added.
  • "He traveled to Washington D.C." - Should there be a comma after Washington? I've got no idea how that works with the MOS
    • It would appear so. Commas added.

Ready for Senate career now; sorry this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 01:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and thought the body its wasted time," - I'm struggling to figure out exactly what this is trying to say, can it be rephrased?
    • I've removed this, since Sanford's quote thereafter really captures his feelings on the Senate.

Support - it's a longer one, but I didn't see anything that was really bloated or off-topic. I don't see the length as a concern, and I'm comfortable with the sourcing (spot checks not done) and the prose. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

Moved to talk page on 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, length is not a major issue for me. The article currently is ~75,000 characters. We had James Longstreet promoted some 8 months ago, which is over 96,000 characters. So, while the article is very long, we can take exceptions for people like Sanford and Longstreet. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Oppose on criterion 4. Recommend that the nomination be withdrawn to be rewritten in summary style. Over 12,000 words is far too long. Almost every section is prolix. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request to withdraw. The concerns about length aren't going anywhere. At the beginning of the the review the article had a readable prose size of 80kB, it is now at 72 kB. It would take more time than is desirable for an open review to trim further. That all said, if FA reviewers and coords are going to treat length limits as a hard and fast thing, they might as well incorporate that explicitly into the criteria (or create some "FAC outcomes" page). Why this at 72kB fails due to length concerns but James Longstreet at 93kB gets passed last October (currently now at 94kB) after having so many eyes on it has no logical explanation. Arbitrariness rules the day. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This
    WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
    goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [13].

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history and law of Israeli citizenship. This continues the series of nationality/citizenship law articles I have been steadily rewriting. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic so please point out any areas that may not be sufficiently neutral. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Added for both photographs.
  • File:Emblem_of_Israel.svg needs a US tag
  • Done.
  • File:British_Colonial_passport_for_Palestine_issued_by_Albert_Montefiore_Hyamson_in_1929.jpg: it would seem in this case that the first copyright holder would not have been the State of Israel but rather the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that since Israel is the successor state to Mandatory Palestine and Israel continued to use British copyright law until 2008 that the original uploader assumed that it was more appropriate to use the Israel template rather than the UK one. I've added the UK template but left the Israel one in for now.
Sorry for being unable to address comments more quickly. Horserice (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without progress towards promotion, the article is liable to be archived in the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BigDom

Not a topic I knew much, if anything, about but I didn't want to see this archived without any comments on the prose so had a read through. I have to say it was very well-written and accessible to a non-expert, just a couple of very minor comments I came up with:

  • "the Supreme Court" -> I'm from the UK and we have our own Supreme Court but as soon as I read this my mind went straight to the US Supreme Court since it's often in the news, maybe worth using the full name on first mention?
  • Done.
  • "comprehensive jurisdiction" -> is this a law term? If so, what does it mean? A Google search for the phrase brings up a lot of hits in the context of China & Hong Kong
  • Eh, I was using it as an alternative way of saying that Britain held sovereignty so I replaced it with exactly that.
  • "on request by the Israeli government" -> "at the request of the Israeli government"
  • Done.
  • "involuntarily deprived from" sounds a bit strange to me and a Google search for this exact phrase only brings up a handful of Wikipedia pages (and mirror sites) written by yourself. Maybe "removed from" (or another synonym)?
  • I probably was phrasing it this way in some other article to more explicitly distinguish between voluntarily relinquishing citizenship versus having it involuntarily deprived. Used "removed from" instead. I guess it really is weird phrasing if I'm the only person on the internet writing that.
  • "replaced by less restrictive conditions of stay until they become eligible for citizenship over a period of 4.5 years" -> "replaced by less restrictive conditions of stay over a period of 4.5 years until they become eligible for citizenship" (seems more logical to me this way)
  • Done.
  • "Haredi/ultra-orthodox" - NPOV issue? The page Haredi Judaism says the term "ultra-orthodox" is often considered pejorative.
  • Oh whoops, that's not good to overlook. Removed this.

Sourcing looks good and media check has already been done. One thing I would say is that the lead feels a little short for an article of almost 3,000 words. Maybe something about dual nationality and revocation of citizenship could be included? Hope these comments are useful. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I've also expanded the lead slightly and hope this addresses everything. Horserice (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, happy to support. BigDom (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

After nearly four weeks this nomination has only attracted one general support. Unless further attention is forthcoming over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [14].

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

These might be a tad nitpicky as the article overall looks very well-polished, but here's what I've got so far:

  • 55 Wall Street is linked twice in the body, once as the "Merchants Exchange" building (should it be Merchants' exchange?)
    • I removed the duplicate link and added an apostrophe. You're right, it should be possessive. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Columbia says that she is the female personification of the US, not a personification
  • Since 50 short tons is the same in both long and metric tons, is there perhaps some way to simplify the conversion?
  • Lintel is linked twice in the body; Only found this by chance, the article needs more thorough checking for duplinks (also entablature and George Gustav Heye Center)
  • To me, The primary figure of each group is female and flanked by auxiliary human figures seems to imply that the female figures are not human - Maybe clarify with "...of each group is a human female and..."?
    • That is a good point. I worded it this way because the previous sentence says the female figures are personifications; by definition, a personification is a representation of a human. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • eight carved keystones, which contain carved heads - Suggest removing the first "carved"
  • Same thing as above with tonnage conversions for seafaring nation statues
  • Suggest linking Great Seal of the United States for United States' coat of arms
  • There were elevators in each corner... - Did something happen to these elevators?
    • Oops. I meant to say there are elevators in each corner. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Ionic order
  • I may be missing something with both this and the elevators comment above, but The northeastern corner contained the cashier's office... - What happened to the cashier's office? When was it removed? What exists there now?
    • This is addressed at the end of the paragraph: "The former cashier's office has been incorporated into the Heye Center's museum store." I don't know when the cashier's office was removed, but it presumably occurred in 1973 when the Customs Service moved out. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since most Rotundas appear to be circular (at least from the pictures on our article), may be worth noting that this one is elliptical (I assume the measurements of 85 by 135 feet are the minor and major axes of the ellipse, in a geometric interpretation)
  • ...which are bonded using Portland cement. - Are the layers bonded to each other using this cement or are the individual tiles bonded together using the cement? If the latter interpretation is correct, suggest using "grouted" instead of "bonded".
    • Both. The layers are bonded to each other, and the individual tiles are also bonded. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wainscoting
    is linked, but is used in prose (without a link) earlier on. This may be an issue that exists with other terms.
  • The outer portion of the fifth story was initially used for document storage since the windows overlooking the fifth story were small apertures within the entablature - Why does this arrangement make the space more suitable for document storage?
    • The windows were quite small, so that story would not have been usable as offices. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a dollar amount is available for the customs collector's salary in the House's heyday, it would be great to have that in the article alongside an Inflation template
  • Suggest using Inflation template(s) for dollar values throughout - Not necessarily every mention, but at least for values that are important to the rest of the paragraph/section (e.g. The appraisal estimated that it would cost $1.96 million to acquire land at Bowling Green.)
    • I have now added inflation to all significant dollar values. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "federal-government buildings" be hyphenated? Not sure if the guideline calls for it in this particular context, but it is unhyphenated elsewhere.
  • A jury of three men - I only think of "jury" as being a legal term, would "committee" be a better term here?
  • Suggest linking United States Bicentennial
  • Standardize whether punctuation appears inside or outside of quotes (to my recollection it was always outside up until the last section, but this probably warrants another check).

Overall a very comprehensive and well-written article! Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. AviationFreak💬 19:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed all of your concerns now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it looks great! Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 16:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by PMC

Since this is the first time I've done an image review, I'm going to note every image so that my work can easily by checked should a coord feel the need. At this time, I have no concerns as to the copyright status or origins of any of the images.

  • Infobox image: building is public domain due to age, own work photo
  • Roof detail: own work and appropriately licensed
  • Asia sculpture: sculpture is PD-old, created 1903-1907, photo own work
  • Sculptures of seafaring nations: created when the building was, so PD-old, photo own work
  • Lobby and rotunda images: own-work photos of interiors too old to be copyrighted
  • Rotunda murals: all paintings are PD due to age, and all photos are PD due to being taken by federal government employees
  • Merchant's Exchange drawing: PD-old
  • King's Color-graphs: PD-old as the book was published 1910.
  • The version here looks a little pink compared to the archive.org scan - not sure which is more correct; that may be worth looking into.
  • 1912 image: book verifiably published in 1912, PD-old
  • 2008 building exterior: as infobox image, own work and building too old to be copyrighted
  • 2013 entrance: own work of PD building exterior
  • Interior detail images by Rhododendrites: own work of PD-old designs
  • The images are used judiciously - there is no over-cramming of unnecessary images.
  • I see one instance of sandwiching when my browser is set to my typical width of 1500px - the Asia sculpture and the "Sculptures of seafaring nations" images.
  • I'm curious about the choice to include a gallery of all the rotunda paintings but only including one of the Four Continents sculptures.

Overall another example of your excellent work in the topic area. I look forward to supporting on the basis of image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the image review. Regarding the Four Continents sculptures, I just added the other three images using Template:Multiple image. I also moved the "multiple image" template to the top of the section to avoid any sandwiching at all. Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything looks good to me. I'm happy to support based on excellent image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

After nearly five weeks this nomination has only attracted one general support. Unless further attention is forthcoming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the

wikicup
once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2022 [15].

Bryce Dallas Howard

Nominator(s): BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American actress and filmmaker, who is the daughter of director

WP:GOCE clean up the grammar and flow of it had it FA criteria. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

Everything looks good here for the most part. I'd just recommend adding ALT text to the images in the body of the article, expanding the caption for the infobox image, and re-examining the dead source/author link for the one image mentioned above. Once that is all done, this would pass my image review.

Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm no picture expert, but I think you're right about what you said about the images on that article. Someone will need to do that. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

I have some concerns about the article’s comprehensiveness. There are aspects of her public image that are missing in the section. For example, Howard has been occasionally called an “it girl”. I would also like to see some information about the reception to her acting overall and her working method. Such commentary is not always available, especially for young actors, but given Howard’s experience industry, I assume there is some.

I am not sure if these points are worth opposing over, but it’s definitely something that needs to be addressed if this FAC is considered for promotion at some point. Since this nomination is relatively new, I think this research can be done within the scope of FAC. I don’t expect there to be a section with large paragraphs in Howard’s case. I might help you later find some sources regarding this as and when I have more time. FrB.TG (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will have to time for everything you just said. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't entirely rely on me for this though. Given that you are the expert on Howard's biography, it's likely that you would find (or possibly did find) such information more easily than me. My time on Wikipedia these days is limited and almost exclusively devoted to expanding another actor's article. FrB.TG (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No supports after 3 weeks. Likely to be archived soon absent movement towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am afraid that this has timed out and I am archiving it.
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2022 [16].

Tullimonstrum

Nominator(s): Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Tullimonstrum, an enigmatic bilaterian animal from the Mazon creek fossil beds of northern Illinois. It has stumped paleontologists for over 50 years on its taxonomy. Some suggestions include, Conodonts, an Echinoderm, a fish, and an sea squirt larvae. The creature comes from the late Pennsylvanian of the Carboniferous period, around 307 million years ago. It is so far only known from the Mazon creek sites, so it is a very unique organism. I would like to thank anyone who can help give feedback. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Tullimonstrum recon.png — looks sketchy (both from a copyright and informational perspective) coming from a vanished user. I would take it out as there's probably no way to find out where the information contained in this image comes from or why it's trustworthy.
  • File:Tullimonstrum.png — what is the source for this image?
  • File:Tullimonstrum gregarium (obsolete reconstruction).jpg —marked as not factually accurate on Commons
  • Infobox is sandwiching with the first image (contrary to
    MOS:IMAGES
    ), but that issue could probably be fixed if you expanded the lead to 2 paragraphs, which you should probably do anyway.
  • Welcome to FAC! (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've gotten rid of the images that were sketchy or inarticulate, and also tried to fix the sandwiching issue. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    what should I do next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great! Image review is a pass. I would still advise expanding the lead to make sure it covers the main points in the body. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, ok I have expanded the lead, how does it look. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite improvement. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What could I change next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe did you get my ping Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at a glance, this seems to be a premature nomination, the nominator does not seem to be a main editor of the article, and it is very short for such a controversial subject. I would suggest expanding it after a thorough review of the literature, getting it
    WP:Good article before ending up here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @FunkMonk Thank you for the advice, I will try to get a good article review started tomorrow. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best would be peer review first, since again, most of the text here seems to have been written by other editors. I think it needs serous content expansion before going anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @FunkMonk, Thanks again, I am currently a little busy, so I will try to get a peer edit going soon. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal

Recusing to review. I agree with most of the above and suggest that the nominator withdraw this to work it up to FAC standard. Among other things:

  • I note two grammatical errors in "it seems this creature was free swimming predator that hunted in the oceans water column."
  • There are five single sentence paragraphs.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2022&oldid=1096462076"