Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2021

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2021 [1].

Socrates Nelson

Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The year is 1848. The

Born in 1811 in Massachusetts, Nelson moved westward at the young age of 25 to prospect and sell furs. As an early settler of Stillwater, he became a general store owner, a log boom and lumber mill operator, a real estate speculator, and an incorporator of numerous businesses. He quickly became involved in local politics and, in 1848, co-authored a successful petition to Congress to make Minnesota its own territory. He soon also became a founding member of the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Democratic Party, and the Minnesota lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, as well as a member of the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents. In 1859, he became a one-term state senator, and in 1864, he voted for George B. McClellan as a delegate in the 1864 Democratic National Convention. In 1867, during his twilight months, he all but donated a block of land for what is now Minnesota's oldest standing courthouse – not out of generosity, but to spur development near (and, by proxy, sales of) lots he owned. Nelson died of tuberculosis in 1867 with an estate of over $100,000, and his death resulted in the closure of most of the city's businesses in observation.

I found this article through the 'Random article' function last December. It had thankfully been created by RFD, and I decided to expand it a bit; eventually, it became a passion project that got way out of hand. Sorry for the middle-school-tier book report; I just wanted a hook to grab your attention.

PS: I've spoken to the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society, and he has doubts to say the least that a picture of this subject exists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• What sort of alt text? If I feel the captions are descriptive enough, should I add something like "See caption for more information"?

• Alt texts are designed for people who can't see the image, whether because of a visual impairment or because their device doesn't load images. Telling the former group to "see" the caption would not be helpful; if you feel the caption adequately conveys the contents of the image, "refer to caption" may be appropriate. See
  WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'd meant "see" as in the encyclopedic sense, but I agree that "refer" works better for sensitivity toward its target audience.

• @Nikkimaria: I added alt text to all of the images used in the article. Please let me know if you think it's too detailed, not detailed enough, etc. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably on the too-detailed side, but not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done.

• File:Stillwater,_Minnesota_-_15645910519.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque? Ditto File:Washington_County_Courthouse-Historic_Marker.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr; 2) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are for the photos. I'm asking about the plaques themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: The plaque was erected August 26, 1948 by the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, so the copyright of the plaque itself is technically unknown. The MTCC seemed to be working under the Minnesota State Bar Association. The marker was erected by the Minnesota Historical Society, and the MNHS took the picture and licensed it under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So literally no issues with the second one (the same people who erected it and would own the copyright uploaded a picture of it to Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0), and the first one seems to be at least fair use insofar as it's a) just large enough to be able to make out the text written thereupon and b) not replaceable by some other work. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Any way of determining status? If no, what would be the rationale for including as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose we could email the Minnesota Bar Association and ask them if they have any copyright on it; if not, then nobody should own the copyright, and the work would have lapsed into the public domain. If not, fair use rationale is as follows: image is small enough that much lower resolution would probably detract from readers' abilities to read parts of the text on the plaque (namely the bottom); image of the plaque commemorating the Stillwater convention is the only one of its kind; the use of this media contributes substantially to the article, as Socrates Nelson was at the center of the Stillwater convention – most importantly, he co-authored the petition to Congress. I've been in touch with Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society and may be able to ask him if he thinks the plaque is copyrighted in any way. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: As it turns out, I didn't need to go through any of that rigamaroll (thankfully, I didn't). The MTCC was formed by the Minnesota Legislature, who appropriated $150,000 in funding. So the MTCC—this plaque included—was a state-funded endeavor. There should be no problem with the copyright of this plaque. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically in the US state works - as opposed to works by the federal government - are not in the public domain by default. I'm aware that there are some exceptions - does one apply here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Is "god, I hate how nebulous and confusing copyright law is" an exception? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In all seriousness, though, I can't find any statute saying that public works are copyrighted beyond the fact that statutes are copyrighted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately not ;-). My reading of this page is that the Minnesota government asserts copyright over its eligible works. However, this particular work may be PD due to its age - do you happen to know if there was a copyright notice associated with the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: I agree with your interpretation. A requester can do whatever they want with it for personal use, but redistribution isn't allowed should the Minnesota government assert copyright. The MTCC erected the plaque on the centennial date of the Stillwater convention: August 26, 1948. So it's not old enough to be inherently in the public domain, but at the same time, I can find no copyright associated with the plaque. Also, since I just realized that I said "Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee" before, I believe they were under the MTCC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  WP:HIRTLE - that age plus no copyright notice does give a path to PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ayy. So would you say that all of the media check out copyright-wise? Like I said, I've found no notice whatsoever of copyright on the works of the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, let alone this specific work. If so, I can add alt text and then move on to finish addressing Wehwalt's comments. If you'd like to read through as well and add feedback about the prose, I'd say it's worth it if you enjoy super obscure US history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no visible copyright notice, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've taken the liberty of adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this

• Ref#2 — link — 5 instances
  1. Infobox children: "Emma A. Nelson" — OK
  2. "On September 22, 1848, Nelson and Betsey had two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson – but Ella later died in infancy on October 23, 1849." — OK for first part. Rest is sourced to other references.
  3. "Months after the Panic began that August, Levi Churchill died in St. Louis on December 24, ceding his estate to Elizabeth" — OK
  4. "Demoralized by deflated land prices, Slaughter and Hancock forfeited their claim to the lots." — OK
  5. "Owing to development sparked by the courthouse, the lots began selling for sometimes upward of $1000 apiece" — Which part of the source cites this?

• @Kavyansh.Singh: "Father Michael Murphy paid the astronomical sum of $4,000 for three of the best lots in the city".

• Ref#4 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Infobox children: Hettie Carson (adopted)" — OK
• Ref#5 — link — 6 instances
  1. "Infobox education: Deerfield Academy" — OK
  2. "Nelson lived in nearby Greenfield and attended Deerfield Academy, taking a partial course before returning to his hometown to become a merchant." — OK
  3. "There, he met his future business partner Levi Churchill and his wife Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)." — The source supports that Nelson met Churchill, but does not state that Nelson also met Elizabeth.

Bah. I hate it when I miss nagging little technicalities like this; fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was me being too nit-picky, but thanks for fixing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. "That same fall, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse," — OK
  2. "Note c: located near the St. Croix by the intersection of modern-day Nelson Street and South Main Street." — OK
  3. "With the Churchills remaining temporarily behind in St. Louis, the two parties would exchange goods through the Mississippi River – Nelson's furs for Churchill's merchandise." — OK
• Ref#8 — link — 1 instance
  1. "to Socrates Nelson and Dorothy Boyden," — OK
• Ref#15 — link — "Note a: but US census data from 1850 records her given name as 'Betsey D.'" — OK (for 'Betsey D')
• Ref#23 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and another calls both Nelson's and Walter R. Vail's the first" — OK
• Ref#33 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Nelson entered the lumber business in earnest on February 7, 1851, as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." — OK for some part, rest supported by other sources.
• Ref#46 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and the Minnesota Western Railroad Company" — OK
• Ref#47 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In 1854, a stock company consisting of Nelson and others published Stillwater's first newspaper, the St. Croix Union – a Democratic-leaning, weekly periodical which was printed until 1857." — OK
• Ref#54 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In April 1867, hoping to spur development and drive demand for nearby lots they owned," — Perhaps, OK.
• Ref#63 — link — 1 instance
  1. "That fall, Nelson was appointed master in chancery for the county by Territorial Governor Henry Dodge." — OK
• Ref#79 — link — 1 instance
  1. "As part of the committee on railroads, Nelson co-authored a report with Lucius K. Stannard on February 4, 1860, recommending the expungement of Article IX Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution – known as the Loan Amendment – which was introduced in 1858 to expedite the development of railway infrastructure and authorized a total of up to $5 million (equivalent to $144,000,000 in 2020) in loans for railroad companies." — Perhaps, OK. But please break the sentence. Its a long one!

• Yeah, looking at it here, it's a complete mouthful; I'll break it up into two or three sentences. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#88 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Reiner won the election held on November 6, 1860, defeating Nelson as part of a string of legislative gains for Minnesota's Republican Party." — OK
• Ref#97 — link — 1 instance
  1. "having been ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks." — OK
• Ref#100 — link — 2 instances
  1. "Four years later, Emma married attorney Fayette Marsh, a former engineer and chronic alcoholic who had studied law and moved to Stillwater to co-found a firm." — OK
  2. "before Emma died on November 23, 1880, at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness"." — OK for death date. The quote is from another source.

I review this article for GA, and also during the peer review. The spot-checks look very good. Clarification in needed on just few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up everything. Pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot check! Your peer review helped me find some inaccuracies as well, so I think thanks to you, this article is now 100% factually supported by RSes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

• A one-paragraph lede seems rather short. Can it be expanded at all?

• Possibly, but I'd have to really brainstorm for that. The intro was originally created by
  Howcheng
  in light of new information I'd gathered, and then expanded by me after more new information became available. It may require a complete rewrite to expand it to more than one paragraph, and I do really like how concisely it conveys the gist of the article right now. I could try drafting a rewrite and see if you think it's any better.

• @Wehwalt: Sorry for taking so long on this. I've expanded the lead out somewhat, but I did want to give you an example of an FA with a lead approximately the size of this one. The lead section for Socrates Nelson was 135 words long, while James A. Doonan – an article of approximately the same length – has 148. The lead for Socrates Nelson is now 201 words (I didn't mean to push it just over 200; that was a coincidence). Beyond this, I think I'm pushing it as far as lead length goes. Kavyansh.Singh and Nikkimaria, your thoughts as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." I suspect the term is "chartered", not "organized".

• Easton (1909) describes it as "organized", so that's what I went with.

• " He would use it scarcely over the next ten years," Perhaps, "He would rarely operate it during the next ten years"

• I prefer "scarcely" simply because I think it conveys "very rarely" or "basically not at all". The text states he "operated [it] but a portion of one or two seasons for the next ten years". In essence, I think "scarcely" in its connotation more strongly conveys how rare something is compared to just "rarely". I did, however, change "use" to "operate", since that's more descriptive. However, this is another instance of my "would [do thing]" addiction (see farther down), so please tell me if you think that needs fixed.

• The 1857 real estate activity sounds like they were trying to create a townsite. If this is true, can it be more clearly stated?

• I couldn't find anything about them creating a townsite. Zion's Hill, where the lots were, borders entirely on Stillwater (if you look at the sketch used as media, you can see the hill), so I think they were just trying to expand Stillwater. It's just that nobody wanted to build on lots up there because the trek to the top of the hill was way out of the way. Nelson donated land for the courthouse to spur development of infrastructure that would make getting up there easier.

• "On January 27, 1867, during his twilight months," Twilight sounds a little too poetic. Is the fact that Nelson died soon after really relevant to this?

• "twilight years" is a common turn of phrase for somebody's final years alive; I don't think it meets the standard for
  MOS:CLICHE
  . As far as relevance, I just like to occasionally keep readers grounded as to where they are in the person's life (like, for instance, the near-tautology "in 1839 on a prospecting tour at age 25"). I feel like doing this sparsely, while very slightly extraneous, helps keep readers better grounded than just "in 18xx this, then in 18xy that".

• While it's conventional to use "would" to indicate passage of time in the past, it isn't always necessary, as, for example, the account of the trustees under Nelson's will. I would change that to past tense.

• Done. I think I need some sort of rehab clinic for using "would [do thing]" in the past tense.

• "$1000" should be "$1,000", plus any others that may be similar.

• MOS:DIGITS
  states: "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped [...] with consistency within any given article." It's just a personal preference thing.

• You should make it clearer if the area around Stillwater was at one time part of the Wisconsin Territory, that it became part of the Minnesota Territory.

• I actually just realized that the only indication I gave was "St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory"; I'll figure out a way to fit this in, since it's crucial context for unfamiliar readers.

• @Wehwalt: I tried with this one. The best I could come up with was: "On November 26, 1849, Nelson was elected to serve as treasurer for the newly formed Washington County, Minnesota Territory, into which Stillwater would later be incorporated [as the county seat]." (Bolded indicates new text; brackets indicate extraneous text that could still be added in.) I have a source for the new text, but it just feels long-winded to me. Your thoughts?

• I see his nomination for state senator. Can anything at all be said about the election?

• I don't recall seeing anything about this election specifically. There may be raw numbers I can find (and I think there are), but certainly nothing about debates or campaigning or anything. I'll be able to find these more easily in a couple days when I can get to my desktop and access the MNHS' newspaper collection.

@Wehwalt: Update: those numbers were for local elections, not the state senate. The numbers for the local elections are pretty much extraneous (we're talking a few dozen votes), and I can't seem to find anything for the 1858 election. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be some mention of Minnesota statehood in the political narrative.

• As it turns out, our featured article on the History of Minnesota doesn't have a single mention of the Stillwater convention; I'll have to change that! As far as this article goes, I can say something like how he was elected in 1859, "three years after Minnesota was admitted as a state to the Union, but I'm really not sure how to fit it in super organically. Maybe "In 1858, two years after Minnesota was admitted to the Union, Nelson organized Baytown Township..."? The problem is that Nelson had literally nothing to do with statehood. If he'd served in the first state legislature instead of the second, it'd probably fit in more organically.

• Minnesota, I assume, at some point here went from two representatives per district to one. Can some brief mention of that be included between Nelson's two legislative elections?

• I actually have literally no idea why Minnesota went from 37 senators to 21. I can research this and get back to you.

• Several times, Nelson's estate is alluded to, and mentioned as continuing into the 20th century. Why?

• I could just address it up until November 1880. I just thought it was a noteworthy way to end 'Business ventures' — namely that Nelson's son-in-law basically squandered everything he'd built up through said ventures. I don't personally see it as distracting from or is extraneous to the overall article. As far as the 'Later life and death' mention, Nelson's estate is mentioned because of very severe disagreements between Nelson's wife and his son-in-law that are prominently discussed in Empson (2002).

That's all on first reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I'll address these as best I can over the next couple days and see what you think. I know you said you didn't have much time for new commitments, so I appreciate you taking time to perform this analysis. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi TheTechnician27, have you addressed all of Wehwalt's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just cut to the chase and Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wehwalt. I appreciate the support, but I did want to let you know that I researched the part about the Minnesota Senate shrinking. I couldn't find anything, unfortunately, so if that changes your answer, then so be it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This nomination has now been open for a while, with little sign of a consensus to promote beginning to form. Unless it attracts further reviewer attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Gog the Mild. Wehwalt, your thoughts on the new lead? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I know it's not your responsibility to save a stagnant FAC review, but I really would like the article to be the best that it can, so I was wondering if you had any comments or concerns about the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certainly not going to have time to do a proper review, but in passing:

• "
  Board of regents
  ". Either lower case b or upper case R.

• Done, and in doing so fixed an issue brought up by Kavyansh.

• The Bibliography and the Further reading should each be in alphabetical order of lead authors' surnames.

• Is it alright to leave them in chronological order? I can change this really easily; I just think chronological order is more intuitive. Just making sure before I change them.

See

WP:GENREF "are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wasn't familiar with GENREF; I'll have that fixed shortly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article opens as if it were a continuation of the lead. It should be a stand alone coverage of the topic of which the lead is an independent summary.

• True; done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put this on the list for a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kavyansh.Singh

Note that I had reviewed this article at GAN and also during the peer review. Will look once again to find anything else which needs to be fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was a member of the
  Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
  before being elected to the senate" work?

• Our article on Deerfield Academy refers to it without a 'the', thus I followed the same convention.

• "(née Proctor)" → ({{nee|Proctor}})

• Neato. Didn't realize that was a template. Fixed.

• "In spring 1844," —
  MOS:SEASON
  discourages the use of seasons to refer to particular time of the year.

• "Fixed" all instances of this, but I think it makes the article very marginally worse, since ironically it removes precision. Still, guidelines are guidelines.

• "Nelson's estate was valued at over" — the word 'estate' has been used before unlinked.

• Come to think of it, I feel that was a
  WP:OVERLINK
  to begin with. Fixed.

• "He was on the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents" — 'Board of Regents' linked in the lead, but not in the prose ...

• Fixed. Also gave a more specific wikilink.

• "wherein he voted for
  WP:EGG
  .

• Hadn't seen this part of the MoS before. Fixed.

• "Nelson died of tuberculosis in Stillwater, Minnesota," — can removed 'Minnesota', already mentioned before.

• True enough. No idea why I felt the need to specify here. Fixed.

That is all from me. I think this was my sixth or seventh time reading the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed now. Strangely, this review also helped me find a typo I made in the alt text, since it was right next to the word "spring". I really appreciate having another pair of eyes on the article, and I think you've easily done the most work in that regard. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your work on this article, and for resolving these comments. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments for Draft Eisenhower movement at its peer review page would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and probably do some minor copy-editing. I'll let you know if there are any moderate-sized issues to address. It may take a few days to get around to a full, proper review after a first reading, since I'm a bit busy this week. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Putting this here instead of their talk page so there's complete transparency.

• I have a problem with women being called just by first name, - please try to avoid it. Sometimes it's necessary to distinguish, but there many ways to avoid constructions such as "Nelson and Betsey" which just read unfair (to me).
  • I would refer to them as "Socrates and Betsey", but convention has it that I can't use first names for the subject of the article. I can't exactly refer to Betsey Nelson by "Nelson", and calling her "Betsey Nelson" every time feels just a bit too verbose. I could refer to her as "Nelson's wife, Betsey" or "his wife Betsey" on occasions when they're in the same sentence together, but that frankly feels demeaning compared to just using a first name. As examples of this, the article
    C.D. Howe refers to Alice Worcester predominantly by her married name. I think the former has less to do with any sort of double standard and more with the fact that Bill is a former POTUS, but it still reads to me as overly verbose. In effect, the only ways I see to avoid "Nelson and Betsey" are "Nelson and Betsey Nelson" (weird) and "Nelson and his wife, Betsey", which is needlessly giving the reader information they already know. As there's already plenty of FA precedent for referring to a subject's spouse by their first name, I really don't see it as unfair so much as a drawback of the fact that we're not allowed to call our subject by their first name to disambiguate between their spouses. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    First: indenting. Please, when replying to an asterisk, repeat that asterisk. (There's an essay on top of User talk:Drmies). Secondly: thank you for going into much detail. You are probably a man ;) - There was a discussion on Talk:Josephine Butler, and following the reasoning, I worked hard on Clara Schumann to avoid calling her just Clara, - double hard because biographies do it. Please consider to use "the couple" sometimes, or find other ways. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer fewer commas, fewer brackets, and fewer clauses within hyphens. Due to American date format, sometimes there's a a comma after every word, which I find hard to read. No reason not to support in the end, just what I notice.
  • Since this is MDY, I can't really sacrifice those commas without losing precision. Regarding brackets (I assume you're refering to parens), outside of two exceptions, they're really only used for unit conversions and inflation. Regarding en-dashes, I tend to think they cut down on verbosity (while being distinct from commas), but I can take a look and see what can be rearranged to still flow naturally.

Infobox

• Do we need relatives without articles? ... a cemetery without article?
  • Up to you. My philosophy on infoboxes is that, in a climate where most people stop at the first couple lines of a Wikipedia article viewed from a search engine, let alone reading the article, having a robust infobox with plenty of information is more useful than ever for a lot of readers. I acknowledge that precedent is against me on this, so what I could do is remove 'Parents' and condense children down into '2 biological, 1 adopted' to make it better conform with other featured politics and government bios. Basically, I don't think having it there is hurting anything, but I don't have really strong opinions on it either.
    • It doesn't hurt, but also doesn't focus. If this man was the son or brother of someone famous, a reader might recognize, or link and see. Names with no apparent significance don't enlighten, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
• can we have the Democratic party somewhere?
  • I'm a bit confused here. Nelson's affiliation with the Democratic Party is mentioned several times throughout the article.
    • Yes, but not in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's between 'resting place' and 'spouse'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• please devote a sentence in prose to the adopted girl --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually really wanted to, but the only thing I could find on Carson are that mention in Folsom (1888) and this irrelevant mention in The Stillwater Messenger. It's clearly worth it to me to mention that Nelson adopted a daughter, but I have no idea where to mention her outside the infobox, since I have no idea where she fits in chronologically. Do you think "The Nelsons would also adopt a daughter, Hettie Carson" after noting the birth of Emma and Ella? I'm somewhat afraid to put it there, since while it's not time-specific, it could imply that he adopted Carson around that time, something I have no way to confirm or deny. Also, this gave me an idea, so I went ahead and changed "Nelson and Betsey" to "the Nelsons". I would've used "the couple" like you suggested, but unfortunately, the last couple mentioned in the prose was Nelson and Levi Churchill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

• Isn't death part of later life, without mentioning?
  • I renamed it from 'Later life' to 'Later life and death' as Kavyansh pointed it out as an idea in a peer review. On the one hand, it does make the header longer, but on the other, it does immediately stick out to a reader who just wants to find out how a subject died. So I could go either way on this.

Early life

• This is much more substantial than the typical school and education, - perhaps a different header?
  • I could go for "Early life and Stillwater", or something to that effect. Frankly, I can't really think of another header besides that (which just reads weirdly) that isn't overly verbose.
• "Levi Churchill – married to Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)" - probably no need to repeat "Churchill" for her?
  • Went ahead and changed this.
• "at a site – maintained for several years but since washed away – known as Nelson's Landing or Nelson's Point" - perhaps say known for first, then washed away?
  • Done. Let me know how you think it flows.
• "two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson" - I'd say "twin girls, Emma A. and Ella".
  • Always a fan of reducing verbosity while maintaining detail. Done. I'll get around to the rest of these; I just like doing them in parts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business ventures

• "operated from 1853, the year which saw Nelson's departure from the mercantile business" - why let the year see? - Could be simply "... when Nelson departed from ..."
  • But how else am I going to to express my narrative flair? Nah, just kidding; done.
• "Robert F. Slaughter, half of which he deeded in turn to Hilary B. Hancock" - I'm not sure who "he" is here.
  • Didn't think of that. Done.
• "practical worthlessness" - what's that
  • Kavyansh asked as well, and I'm just going off what Donald Empson states in his report: "City lots became virtually worthless". Therefore, I don't have an exact figure; just that they were worth basically nothing. The Stillwater Democrat describes it as "land depreciated from fifty to seventy-five per cent", and Empson does remark that what was described here was "also true of Stillwater", so I could write "the value of the [...] land plummeted by 50 to 75%." However, the reason I don't have that included is because it feels too much like
    WP:SYNTH
    to me.
• "and as of 2021, the building is the longest-standing courthouse in Minnesota" - do we need the 2021 clause? ... it will be true until it collapses, no?
  • It will be. I only put that there because of convention that we date all "current" statements, but I'll be keeping a close enough eye on this that it being outdated shouldn't be any real issue for more than maybe a couple weeks at most should something happen to the courthouse
• I am not happy with what follows - tellings after his death - before he actually died.
  • Pretty much the only reason I do this is because it's relevant to his business affairs. However, I could move the post-mortem information back over to 'Later life and death'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Having changed some more indents: may I ask once more to please reply to an asterisk by repeating that asterisk?) Yes, please consider moving what happened after his death to later, perhaps a new section - it's not really legacy, nor his life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• I'd distribute the three images over the article. Especially the courthouse pic would be good where that house is mentioned. The marker could just go to the courthouse article, as the print is too small to read the story.
  • So you're suggesting having the image of the courthouse under 'Business ventures' and the Nelson School under 'Legacy'? Unthinkable! (Actually, that's a really good idea. I'll change it, and you can let me know what you think.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also

• I'd not need that at all. Better link to the 2 items in context.
  • Done. I just removed "Economy of Minnesota" altogether, since it's frankly really lacking in any information about the early pine industry that would be relevant to those reading about Nelson. I put 'Territorial era of Minnesota' as a 'See also' atop 'Political career'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, - thank you for an unusual article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It really would be a weirdly obscure subject to have an FA about, wouldn't it? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I love weirdly obscure subjects. I finished the formatting of replies, but otherwise am too tired now, - will hopefully get back to your replies and the lead after sleep, then my morning routine including a DYK article and a long watchlist (which I'll prune to 50.000 tomorrow, promised), then the article of the day (a recent death so can't wait), - patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Back, Christine Haidegger on the Main page.

Lead

• "He was involved in the community of early Stillwater, being a founding member of the first Independent Order of Odd Fellows lodge in Minnesota as well one of the earliest members of the Minnesota Historical Society." - for me, it would be helpful to first read about his trade, business and politics, and then the fellows and society So Stillwater yes, perhaps "early community of Stillwater", perhaps with a start year, but the details much later?
  • I switched it to "early community", but I just feel like having the early community part flows better. I moved the 'early community' line below the 'As a businessman' one for a couple days, and every time I read it, it just felt very off. I feel like this order works best within the chronology of the overall article, even though some aspects of his business ventures are in 'Early life'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "before being elected to the senate. As a senator"- I suggest to close the previous sentence with a full stop and begin "He was elected to the Senate ..." + year
  • The reason I don't include the year he was elected to the Senate there is that I already state a paragraph beforehand that he "served one term as a Minnesota state senator from 1859 to 1861", rendering that redundant.
• "As a senator, he helped to repeal the Loan Amendment – intended to expedite the creation of railroad infrastructure – from the Minnesota Constitution." - how about first the link to the constitution, then the railroad purpose?
  • I'm not sure what you mean, sorry to say. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the slightest reason to combine the Democratic convention and the land donation in one sentence, - I'd perhaps even begin a new paragraph for the latter.
  • Done.
• same - no connection - for his death and the plaque, better connect the plaque to the house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also done.

The questions where I didn't reply again are solved, for me. Thanks for the changes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for more action, I'm happy now and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Assuming that spot-checks aren't needed. Sources are consistently formatted although I don't understand what the bolded numbers are supposed to mean. For historical laws such as #41, aren't there better online sources than Google Books? Are W.H.C. Folsom, Joseph A. A. Burnquist, Joseph R. Brown, Boyden, Wallace C.; Boyden, Merrill N.; Boyden, Amos J. and Lucius Frederick Hubbard reliable sources? Their credentials don't scream "reliable high-quality source" to me. Lots of local news sources, on whose reliability I cannot vouch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded numbers are volumes. This is the automatic formatting when you place a number under the 'volume' parameter. Folsom was heavily involved in the early politics of Minnesota. Burnquist, having been governor etc. of Minnesota, is used to attest to positions such as Territorial Auditor and the UM board of directors and – given his offices – is quite qualified to do so. Joseph R. Brown was the territorial printer and was merely a publisher of the source on behalf of the territorial legislature and supreme court. The Boyden source documents Boyden genealogy, and I've seen no reason that the source shouldn't be trusted. Hubbard is one of four editors for the series 'Minnesota in Three Centuries'; Hubbard's writing contributions are limited to chapters covering the Civil War which do not pertain to Nelson. The local news sources are from Brent Peterson, the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society. He's exceptionally knowledgeable in the region's history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, if no spot-check is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2021 [2].

Robert Howard Hodgkin

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Howard Hodgkin is best known not for what he accomplished during his career, but for what came at its end. After spending more than a generation writing it, he placed one of the first histories of Anglo-Saxons into the hands of both general and academic readers. Two years later (and five days into retirement), he reemerged to take on the role of provost at Queen's College, Oxford, after the previous officeholder died in a plane crash. In his second retirement, Hodgkin produced his second book: a six-century history of the college. And so did Hodgkin—son of a banker-cum-historian, father-in-law of a Nobel winner, uncle of another—etch his name in the annals of his family's so-called "Quaker dynasty."

This article was created in 2017; a green circle graced its top right corner two years later, following a review by J Milburn. Since then, and thanks in large part to an obscure but comprehensive book on Hodgkin, the article has been expanded nearly threefold. It is now ready for its turn here. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

Some minor points about the prose:

• Lead

• "historian of modern history" – the repetition of historian/history is infelicitous. And are the Anglo-Saxons regarded as "modern history"? (Question asked from the standpoint of my complete ignorance.)

• Good point, completely missed that. I've deleted the "of modern history". According to the relevant article, modern history began well after the time of the Anglo-Saxons. This is explained, I think, because while Hodgkin taught modern history, his research into Anglo-Saxon England reflected more of a side interest; a number of reminiscences of him mention how his work on the Anglo-Saxons was mostly a rumor before his book was published. (e.g., Hodgkin et al. 1955, p. 66: "As undergraduates, most of his pupils knew little of his private studies and historical work. There were rumours of 'the Anglo-Saxons' being in the background, but for us they were very much in the background, and became part of the legendary activities which pupils associate with dons. When his History of the Anglo-Saxons appeared we realised how much more there had been in the background than we had dreamed.") --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hodgkin was the son … Hodgkin matriculated … Hodgkin volunteered" – a pronoun or two might relieve the repetitions of the name.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "ultimately led to him being forced to leave the Society of Friends" – is it painfully pedantic to observe that this fused participle ought to be "his being" – a gerund with the possessive?

• Nope, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1904, he was made a fellow, in 1910 a tutor, and from 1928 to 1934 he held the post of" – the AmE-style comma after a date is becoming regrettably common in English usage, but if you must use it, oughtn't it to be used three times in this sentence, for the sake of consistency?

• I prefer no year-following commas to three of them, so removed it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "B. H. Streeter fell ill, then resumed teaching" – it's asking a bit much of "then" to press it into service as a conjunction in formal English.

• Reworded, but what's wrong with using "then"? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of us, I think, use words like "then" and "so" as conjunctions in informal speech, but in encyclopaedic prose it is better, in my view, to stick to traditionally recognised conjunctions, adding "and" or "but" or suchlike before a "then" or a "so". I am, however, an old codger and younger editors may disagree with me. The latest edition of
  Fowler is fairly relaxed about "so" used as a conjunction, though it doesn't give "then" the nod. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "for two significant works" –
  Gowers
  has these wise words on that adjective: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?

• "important" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Early life and education

• "In his first year at Bamburgh, Hodgkin's father became acquainted with Arthur Smith" – I don't think this says what you mean it to say. It was presumably RH's first year, and not his father's.

• Fixed: "In Hodgkin's first year at Bamburgh, his father..." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "once per fortnight" – on the generally sound precept "prefer good English to bad Latin" it might be well to make this "once a fortnight".

• Done, though what makes "per fortnight" "bad Latin"? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Per diem" or "per mensem" is good Latin for daily or monthly; I don't, to be honest, know what the Latin for "fortnight" is but it certainly isn't "fortnight". (I've now looked it up and it seems to be "quindecim [dies]"). But why use Latin at all when a shorter, crisper English alternative is to hand? Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Boer War

• "due to his military service" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

• Changed to "because of". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Career

• "On May 19, 1904" – unexpected date format in a BrE article. Not wrong, by any means, but rather strange looking, and you use the more familiar form "On 6 August 1908" later on.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" – not sure what the empty square brackets are for.

• They're to indicate an alteration. The source reads "His method as a tutor was thus suggestive rather than purely instructional, and, having signposted the roads and tracks, he would often leave his pupils to explore for themselves." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I've ever run across that exact usage before. It makes perfect sense now you explain it, though I'm not sure how many of your readers will be familiar with the construction or understand its - dare I say? - significance?. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• First World War

• "watched the college population gradually dwindle as people were accepted for service" – men are undeniably "people" but the latter looks a bit odd in the context of an all-male college.

• Changed to "as its members were". I take your point, but its possible that there were female staff/faculty members who also left to serve, hence the initial use of the gender-neutral "people". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "his four years of service was primarily spent" – plural subject with singular verb

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "in coastal defense" – why use the American spelling rather than the English "defence"?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to Queen's College

• "who joined Queens" – Queen's or Queens?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Due in large part to the sabbatical" – another "due to" pressed into service as a compound preposition.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hodgkin had spent around two years looking for a retirement home, such that" – "such" seems strange here. For an adverbial use like this one might expect "so that".

• Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Provostship

• "who likely saw his office as a trusteeship" – although a plain "likely" in this sense is good AmE it is not good BrE. "Probably" is the idiomatic form. (Curiously, as The Guardian's style guide points out, when modified by an adverb, "likely" becomes normal English usage.)

• Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• References

• Ref 35 is in need of first aid.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The content looks fine to me: well and widely referenced, balanced and easily comprehensible. – Tim riley talk 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim riley. I always enjoy your reviews, not least because I inevitably walk away having learned something. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. It is well written, well and widely sourced, balanced, and, I suppose, as well illustrated as possible (though couldn't a picture of Queen's be found? It wouldn't tell the reader all that much about Hodgkin, admittedly, but would break up the prose; I do not press the point). I look forward to seeing the article featured on our front page. Tim riley talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wehwalt

• "In 1894, meanwhile, Hodgkin and his sisters Lily and Ellen were taken by their father to Italy, where they spent time in Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples, Ravenna, and Vienna.[19]" This makes it sound like Vienna is in Italy.

• Good point, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " Saint Petersburg before travelling down the Volga and exploring the Caucasus," Would it be preferable to say "up the Volga" as they were going upstream?

• Changed to "along the Volga". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can it be made clearer why he was not called upon to serve in South Africa if he joined the service in 1900? Was this regiment eligible to serve outside the UK?

• I've been able to find next to no details of his
  Northumberland Fusiliers went to South Africa, and of those who did, most or all volunteered to do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I know the Volunteer Force were not required to serve outside the UK before the Army was reorganised in 1907. It may be that what he served in formed part of that. Our article on his regiment mentions volunteer battalions, and I note a V.B. in what you wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" I have the vague impression that footnotes are to go outside of parentheses.

• I would think inside, since the citation supports only the material inside the parentheses, but am happy to be proven incorrect. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bradmore Road is linked on second usage.

• Took out the first mention of Bradmore Road. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Oliver Franks need a second link in the final paragraph?

• Nope, removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I didn't do a thorough spot check except for some of the sources cited in the bibliography. Source #107 says that Betty was 11 not 12 as the article claims and I am not sure what information #112 supports in the sentence cited to it. Is #101 a reliable source?

It seems like the sources are reasonably formatted - save for Ferry 2014 which has no page numbers, and Magoun 1954 which JSTOR has 1952 - and have the necessary information. Andy Croft is being used as a source for some lightweight claims but are they a reliable source?

Is it just me or are there more sources about his book than about him? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed age of Betty Hodgkin. She was 11 years and 11 months (per Wolfers, she was born on 8 October 1915 and died on 8 September 1927).
• Source #112 (namely footnote 17 therein) supports the fact that the poem was about Betty Hodgkin, which is not obvious from the face of the poem.
• The above two are the only sources for which Croft is used. The first is backed up by Wolfers (who has the specific dates), and the second is I think reliable given that Swingler was the specific subject of Croft's research, and the source is being used simply to identify the subject of Swinger's poem.
• #101 doesn't support any information in the article, it's just a nice link to follow for someone looking to see what the house looks like.
• Ferry 2014 is a placeholder—I'm trying to get my hands on the physical book, but have just seen the Google Books version so far, which (as it's formatted from the e-reader version) doesn't have page numbers.
• I'm not seeing where JSTOR lists Magoun as 1952;
  JSTOR 2853872
  gives it as January 1954.
• There are definitely a lot of reviews cited—pretty much every review I could get my hands on. But Hodgkin et al. 1955 is a 99-page book with information on Hodgkin by 19 separate people, and there are a number of works on Hodgkin's family members (e.g., Wolfers's 2007 book on Thomas Lionel Hodgkin) which contain a lot of information on him as well.

Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROBERT HOWARD HODGKIN, A History of the Anglo-Saxons. Third edition. Oxford University Press, 1952. Two volumes. Vol. I: pp. [xxxiil+[1I, 381i; Vol. II: pp. xii, 383-796, with plates, figures, and maps. Cloth. is the part of the JSTOR that says 1952. The reason why I wonder about the reviews is because if the book is better known/more frequently described than the author, an article about the book seems to be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the book is from 1952, but the review is from 1954. The book could no doubt sustain its own article—it probably meets both criteria 1 and 4 of the notability standards for books—but that is a project for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mike Christie

• "Following preparatory and boarding school": if you're not going to name them, I don't see the point of saying this in the lead -- of course he had schooling before college.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "a role he would reprise": "role" seems the wrong word for a military career.

• Changed to "which he would rejoin during the First World War". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a possible link for "pro-provost"? I'd never heard the term. A Google search gave me a very specific definition for UCL's pro-provost but I doubt that's what this means. Later in the lead you describe him as provost, rather than pro-provost, so I wonder if the term just means interim provost.

  I'm not sure what pro-provost would link to, although I've added a clarifying citation to the statutes of the college. Pro-provost appears to be a temporary role, bringing with it the powers of the provost, used only when the provost is unable to exercise his duties. According to the 1877 statutes of the college, "The Provost shall be required to reside in the College seven calendar months at least in each year, whereof seven weeks at least shall be in each Term ...: Provided that in case of the Provost's sickness, or for any other urgent cause, it shall be lawful for the Visitor to dispense with the Provost's residence for such a period as the case may appear to the Visitor to require: Provided also, that if the Visitor dispenses with the Provost's residence for a period of one or more Terms, of if the Provost being resident shall be through sickness temporarily incapable of performing his duties for one or more Terms, the Provost and fellows may nominate one of the Fellows to act as Pro-Provost, who shall during the absence or sickness of the Provost perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Provost." While Edward Armstrong was pro-provost for well more than a decade (1911–1927), this appears to have been a special circumstance, and not one that the college was keen on. Per Armstrong's obituary, this occurred because "Dr. Magrath in 1911 resigned his functions as Provost, though not the title". And per the article on Magrath, "Having been reclusive for the last ten years of his provostship, seen only by the servant that brought him his meals, Magrath's refusal to participate in college affairs led the college to seek to get rid of him". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a footnote then? Saying something like "The college's statutes allowed for a pro-provost to be appointed, to act as provost when the holder of the position was unable to perform their duties", and cited to the statute? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest moving at least some of the contents of note 1 into the body text, since you later quote his sister referring to him as Robin, without explanation.

• I'm not sure there's an elegant way to work it in, particularly since the attribution ("Per his wife") would introduce yet another person (not to mention one from much later) into a paragraph already filled with names. But "[note 1]" is fairly noticeable already, and the nickname "Robin" is given in bold in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd avoid using "matriculated" for entering Repton -- I think most people who even know the word think it refers only to entering university, so as you phrase it it sounds like Repton is a college.

• Changed to "enrolled". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "one sister speculated, was possibly": seems redundant to have both "speculated" and "possibly".

• Changed "speculated" to "wrote". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "at the end of 1893, the family sold Benwell Dene": the article on Benwell Dene says it was donated, not sold; just checking that your source specifically says it was sold.

  I'd noticed that discrepancy too, especially as some sources also say it was donated. But the source used is both close to Thomas Hodgkin (it's largely a book of his letters), and specifically says the house was sold. It's possible the considerable grounds were donated (they became a park), or that the house was sold cheaply, given the intended use. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck; your source is much better than the one in the article on the house. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "was proxime for the Stanhope essay prize": suggest glossing "proxime".

• Now "In 1899, Hodgkin was proxime, or runner-up, for the Stanhope essay prize". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "For years, Hodgkin spent vacations working at the history of Anglo-Saxon England": since this is the first mention in the body, I would avoid "the"; perhaps "working on a history" or "writing a history".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hodgkin and his wife were then only a month removed from the death of their daughter": since we haven't mentioned any children at all to this point, I would mention the death before giving the information about the sabbatical.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hodgkin finished his first major work, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, in 1933": we've mentioned the book earlier in this section so I think it would be natural to make the connection here. Something like this might work" "Hodgkin finished the book he had been working on for so long in 1933: titled A History of the Anglo-Saxons, it was his first major work", though I'm sure that could be improved.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to the sabbatical, Hodgkin finally finished A History of the Anglo-Saxons, his first major work, in 1933". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Much of the first two years was spent with committees, guests, and socialising": suggest "and in socialising".
  • "in socialising" sounds off to me, though I've now read it and "with socialising" so many times that both just sound weird. Tim riley, do you have any thoughts on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grammatically the sentence is fine as it stands. Adding "in" before socialising would be fine too, but you'd need to change "committees, guests" to "committees and guests", I think. Whether the acquisition of "in" is worth a repeated "and" is for you to say. Tim riley talk 08:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Tim riley. I think I'd prefer to stick with it as is. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        Tim, what I was concerned about was that it implies "was spent with socialising", which isn't a construction I've ever seen used -- it would normally be "it was spent in socialising". Are you saying that "with socialising" is acceptable in British English, or that the construction doesn't require parallel application of the preposition to each of the terms in the list? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        What sounds most correct to me (AmE) is "was spent socialising". This construction adding with does not seem correct to me. I would rephrase: "was spent socialising, with guests, or in committees". (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        buidhe's wording looks good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. All minor points, and I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, further comments addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Not to rush, but just a friendly heads up that all issues have been addressed. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Recusing to leave some comments here, I don't expect there to be many

• ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" - something has gone wrong here with the brackets

• See comment beginning "They're to indicate an alteration" above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes total sense after reading that explanation up there, although I don't believe I've ever seen this usage before, either.

• "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered for being "suggestive rather than purely instructive", offering signposts for "the roads and tracks" but "leav[ing] his pupils to explore for themselves"" - this is in the lead, but the body attributes this to the opinion of a single student. I'm not sure the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, as we are saying this in wikivoice, when this is only the opinion of a single student.

• Fair enough. It's now "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered by a student for being..." --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " split nearly equally between Northumberland (1915), Herne Bay in Kent (1916–1917), and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" - It's unclear what is supposed to be sourced to what, as ref 48 does not mention Herne Bay or the 1915 or 1916-1917 date ranges

• Put the two cites that support the dates together. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hodgkin was unofficially selected at a meeting on 22 September, and officially elected on 5 October; his six days spent as an ordinary fellow set a record for brevity," - I'm struggling to figure out what these six days are; this seems to be the only mention of ordinary fellow in the article

• His resignation was effective 29 September, so add six days and that brings us to 5 October. Per the source, "The resignation of his Fellowship became effective on September 29th: on October 5th, he was elected Provost, having held an Ordinary Fellowship for six days, a record for brevity." I read "ordinary fellow" not as an official title (the title, I think, is just "fellow"), but as a distinction from, say, "senior official fellow", a title which was presumably knocked down to "fellow" upon retirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can this be explained a bit better in the article? I think even just noting that the resignation was effective on 29 September would help, as where the six days is coming from is more obvious that way. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarified. It's now mentioned twice, but as the first mention is in the preceding section (see the last sentence thereof), I can see how it gets missed. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "It also added the duties of the Ilmington Home Guard" - link Home Guard here to Home Guard (United Kingdom)?

• Done, thanks for pointing that out. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm _Talk 07:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, replied above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (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. (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2021 [3].

Jim Lovell

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about the second oldest living American astronaut after his

• "Naval aviator" Our article on same says "naval aviator".

  De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can more be said about the astronaut selection process Lovell passed? If I recall, Lovell describes it in some detail, including the interview.

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama" I might describe it as being in the Panama Canal Zone.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps something more can be said about Lovell's experience on Gemini 7? From what I recall, the flight was so long that in the final days they were uncomfortable and just counting down the time to the return to Earth.

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What role, if any, did Lovell have in NASA's recovery from the Apollo 1 fire?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth mentioning that Lovell led the crew that spent two days in April 1968 in a CM in the Gulf of Mexico testing the effects of seawater on the CM?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps in the Apollo 13 mission material, a bit more about Lovell as an individual, perhaps mention he echoed Swigert's "Houston, we've had a problem" and his comment that NASA wouldn't be returning to the Moon for a while that got him into slight hot water.

  Added the former. Do you have a source for the latter? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's page 323 of the 1998 edition of Chaikin's book. On the chance you have different pagination, it's the episode described as April 16 at 3:21 am Houston time. I think Lovell talks about it in Lost Moon, too. There's brief discussion of it in the Lunar Flight Journal here (search for

"last lunar")--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I retrieved Chaiken from the library, which is open again, and have added a paragraph about this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Two of his classmates were Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra, but Lovell graduated first in the class I think it would be better as "however," instead of "but".

  Dome editors dislike "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He became McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager. I believe this is missing an article after became.

  Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a nonbreaking space to the infobox to keep Apollo 8 from going to two lines. Same thing with United States.

  It's a link, so this is included automatically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I added it in and fixed it. It actually doesn't occur for links automatically when there is a space. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• achieved Eagle Scout, the organization's highest level I think it would be more appropriate to say rank instead of level.

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon his return to shore duty, he was reassigned to provide pilot transition training for the North American FJ-4 Fury, McDonnell F3H Demon and Vought F8U Crusader Serial comma.

  Seems okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the article uses the serial comma. If this is intended to be in American English, then the serial comma would be required. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to get the rest of the article from Gemini down tomorrow. Noah^Talk 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why you are using nautical miles instead of statute miles? Most readers do not understand the unit.

  Nautical miles was the old measurement used for orbits, and was used in the contemporary sources. (After the loss of a spacecraft due to unit confusion, NASA now uses metric only.) For the readers, metric conversions are provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After the flight this was traced to the fact that they had an old type of laminate in the thrust chamber instead of the new type that had been developed to solve this problem. Comma after flight.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• By day thirteen a warning light was burning continuously and it was feared that the cells Comma after thirteen.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• However tests were carried out in St. Louis that demonstrated that Gemini 7's batteries could sustain it for the remainder of the flight. Comma after However.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead Aldrin, who had written his PhD on the rendezvous, Comma after instead.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• and aftwerwards it underwent a series of qualification tests Typo

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On Christmas Eve the crew broadcast black-and-white television pictures of the lunar surface back to Earth. Comma after Eve.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1999 the Lovell family Comma after 1999.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Duke of York.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to Richard Nixon.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

• "the 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission" this could be read as if there's e.g. a 1971 Apollo 13 lunar mission. Maybe "the Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970".

  Changged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link Mission control center for "mission control".

  Linked instead to Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also worth linking night fighter as it's jargon.

  Pravda? Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Class 20. His classmates ... the class" thrice class in quick succession.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "He became the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager." rather brief and without temporal context.

  Added temporal context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox mentions total duration in space of "29d 19h 03m", where is this referenced?

  Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly, his occupation in the infobox is listed as "Test pilot" yet that is not listed in the lead, where it says he's a retired "astronaut, naval aviator, and mechanical engineer".

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. To avoid this prospect..." doesn't flow right, "this prospect" appears to be the outbreak of the Korean War.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link liquid-propellant rocket.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "while they ... While she" quickly repetitive.

  Re-worded. Midshipmen are not permitted to marry, so marriages immediately after graduation were common. Today, there are fewer early marriages, but Naval officers are more likely to be married than the US adult population. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "NAS Pensacola " can we spell out NAS first time?

  Nah, spelt out in full instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially as you subsequently have "at Naval Air Station Patuxent River"...
• "His classmates included Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.[18] Conrad gave Lovell the nickname "Shaky" could we not reverse the order of Conrad and Schirra in the first sentence and then merge it with the second to avoid these two very short sentences?

  Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "sets.[20][18]" ref order.

  Reversed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "time John Young served " are we supposed to know who that is?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Any need to have (USC) when you never actually use the initialism?

  None. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "NASA career", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "NASA test pilot Warren J. North reduced" comma after North.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "finalists.[26][27] The finalists" repetitive.

  Concatenated sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "on September 14.[31] He became" merge.

  Moved the text around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "announcement, but it was" why "but"?

  In comparison with the Mercury Seven. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and " overlinked and if you want to introduce it (i.e. "in Florida") suggest you do that on its first mention.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "for Gemini 4.[43] This was" merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "astronaut Deke Slayton.[43]" overlinked, and do you need to repeat his first name?

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "a United States Air Force (USAF) officer" you've already used USAF before this point.

  Abbreviation defoined on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "had a zippered hood" is this referenced?

  Added a bit about zippers to the main text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Gemini 6 mission" our article calls it 6A? Indeed you switch to 6A later...

  It became Gemini 6A on the second attempt. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Agena target vehicle that" overlinked.

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gemini 7 during the two weeks while Gemini 7 was in orbit.[48] The only change to Gemini 7's " bit "Gemini 7"-centric...

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "eight were medical" what were the other 12?

  (Has a look at the list) Added a summary. The Gemini VII article should have listed them all, but it is a mess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "was less exciting." according to?

  Grimwood and hacker. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Drums Along the Mohawk has a capital A in Along.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Gemini 12", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Previous) "... potential astronaut candidates..." overlinked.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "On January 24, 1966, Lovell... " massive sentence, lots of run-ons and repeated phrases.

  Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " (EVA). EVAs had" repetitive

  Joined sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lovell asked him if he could change the oil too." I assume this is a joke, so it might be worth saying "jokingly" in front of asked.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "discarded some unneeded items" whaaaaat? He just chucked stuff out into space?

  Correct. Source [4] says: "Aldrin began the second standup EVA which included photography, additional experiments and the jettison of unused equipment." [5] (p. 377) says: "First, he just stood in the hatch, becoming acclimated. Then he cast loose a garbage bag." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "December 24 (Christmas Eve) " etc not sure why Christmas Eve/Day is relevant. This is about spaceflight, not Christianity.

  It is relevant because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Please be informed, there is a Santa Claus."[78]" I mean this is "funny" but who said that Santa lived on the Moon? He's in the north pole, everyone knows that. Or is it an American thing to think he lives/lived on the Moon?

  In American lore, Santa and his reindeer fly around the Moon. eg [6]

• "the right numbers" -> "the correct values".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "computer keyboard" that's an Easter eggy link to computer, call it by it's piped link.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image captions seem a bit hit-and-miss as to the consistency on full stops.

  Removed a couple of full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "prime and backup crews, who trained together" this is very surprising to me. I thought the whole point was to separate the teams in totality. That's not a correct assumption then?

  There was no effect to separate them; prime and backup crews always worked closely together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "We have a problem here" " comma after "here"?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put this seminal conversation into a quote box rather than single-sentence paragraphs in the middle of the prose.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "becoming CEO in 1975. He became" repetitive.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Awards and decorations", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll finish up tomorrow, sorry for the delay today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes anecdotes-spatiales.com a high quality RS? It looks like a self-published blogesque site to me.

  Replaced with a book reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "by His Royal Highness the" do we need "His Royal Highness"??

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "1966. It was " merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "in 1969. Lovell accepted" similar. This paragraph reads quite choppily to me, could use smoothing out as it's like reading a list of bullet points in prose form.

  Smoothed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lovell was on " featured on? I mean it's pretty certain that Lovell's image appeared on hundreds magazines/newspapers etc, but I guess these two instances were proper features?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare format of ref 11 with ref 116, e.g. linking, location etc, be consistent.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 34, we don't normally do "double quotes".

  Changed to single quotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 57 vs 62 format inconsistency.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 67, what is Features?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 67 vs 79, NASA format inconsistency.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 80, you tend to put locations for printed newspapers, but not always. Be consistent.

  MOS:CITE requires "city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Any reason why some URLs are archived and other aren't even though they're live?

  No idea how that happened. Removed archive URLs where site is live. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 90, NASA here instead of NASA elsewhere. Check throughout and be consistent.

  Should be consistent now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 91, you tend to link newspapers, but not consistently, suggest you do so here (and consider location too as this is a non-US work).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 136, Boy Scouts... was italicised previously.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 139 no access-/publication date?

  Added one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 148 no location information

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 150, TIME is just Time and can be linked.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that The New York Times has no location information in any refs yet Los Angeles Times does (for instance) so I imagine for consistency all of these should.

  Removed from Los Angeles Times. As noted above, MOS conformance requires inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 133 ISBN has no hyphenation while all those in the References section are hyphenated.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably just about it on the first run. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

I've read the lead and had a couple of minor quibbles but I'll wait til you've addressed TRM's comments so we're not duplicating each other. Ping me when you're ready for me and I'll get to it as soon as I can. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• through the efforts of the crew and the Mission Control Center Is this really relevant in the lead of Lovell's biography?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• which included future astronauts Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra Again, doesn't feel like an important detail for the lead

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They had four children: Barbara, James, Susan, and Jeffrey I don't think we need the names of non-notable offspring

  We normally note children at least to the extent of whether they were daughters or sons, their names are widely sourced, and they do appear later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually the top graduate was assigned to Flight Test on graduation, but Lovell was assigned to Electronics Test Is that a proper noun? Also, do we know why? Was it his choice?

  Yes, we do. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• and Conrad for refusing to take the second round of invasive medical tests not relevant to Lovell's biography

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• During which time future astronaut John Young served under him. relevance to Lovell? And during what time? This is a new sentence.

  Young appears later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Borman rejected suggestions that Lovell and Stafford exchange places on the grounds that it was hazardous and likely to jeopardize the fourteen-day mission objective through loss of oxygen I had to read this several times and I'm still not quite sure what's going on. Why was this Borman's decision? Why was the suggestion made in the first place, and by whom? Switch which places? What was the hazard and how did it jeopardise the mission?

  Borman was the commander, so he was in charge of the mission. Try and imagine what was proposed. We have two Gemini spacecraft, each about the size of a car, moving through space in tandem. We tether them together with a nylon rope. All four astronauts don space suits, and we open the doors of both spacecraft, letting out the cabins' oxygen. Then Lovell makes his way across to Gemini 6A, making sure not to fall off and become orbiting space junk, and boards Gemini 6A. Stafford then does the same, moving to Gemini 7. Borman disconnects Lovell's oxygen hose on Gemini 7, and Lovell reels it in and has Schirra re-attach it on Gemini 6A. The process is then repeated for Stafford. Both spacecraft then close the doors and repressurize the cabin. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• White was laid to rest in the West Point Cemetery, with Lovell serving as a pallbearer the ", with" connector is ungrammatical. Suggest splitting the sentence or, better still, re-casting it to make Lovell the subject.

  HJ Mitchell you've mentioned this in "another place", could you link me to some style guides (even our own one) which suggests this construction is ungrammatical, just for my interest please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man, the best we have on-wiki that I can find is User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing (Tony cites the Chicago Manual of Style). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This did not seem to bother Lovell, Duke regarded it as his worst experience comma splice

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• However, he accidentally erased some of the computer's memory "however" implies a contradiction but there isn't one here

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There was one more change. Seven days before launch That entire paragraph seems off-topic for Lovell's biography as opposed to the article on Apollo 13.

  We need to introduce Swigert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The restaurant was sold to son and executive chef James ("Jay") in 2006.[117] The restaurant was put on the market for sale in February 2014,[118] and it closed in April 2015, with the property auctioned the same month. All feels off-topic. Beyond the point where the Lovell family were involved, it should suffice to say that it was sold and later closed.

  The family were involved with the closure and sale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Not much to criticise. I've seen Apollo 13 a few times but hadn't realised that Lovell was the captain! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now you'll have top watch it again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with your responses, and I'll look out for Lovell next time I watch the film! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No issues with licensing found. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Seeing as this one just needs a source review, I will contribute one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• - getting a 404 error, recommend archiving

  Which one? Checklinks isn't reporting any problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, looks like a CNTRL+V fail. It's " "Capt. James A. Lovell Visits with Wisconsin NROTC Midshipmen". United States Navy. January 3, 2017. Retrieved December 3, 2019.". Hog Farm _Talk 06:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "As a college student, Gerlach had transferred from Wisconsin State Teachers College to the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., so she could be near him while he was at Annapolis" - how much of this does the public record link actually support? the other ref doesn't support all of it

  I don't have access to it; replaced with a reference to Lovell and Kluger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• - "Evans, Ben. "'The Best All-Around Group': NASA's Astronauts of '62". AmericaSpace. Retrieved February 12, 2018." - Given that this is one of four refs just supporting the "New Nine" name for the group, I think this ref can go, as it appears to just be a middle-tier source in reliability.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Honourable Company of Air Pilots where it is used as a source

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " "James A. Lovell". The Hall of Valor Project. Retrieved November 27, 2019." - is this valor.militarytimes.com source RS? I've never gotten a good answer for this question.

  Reputable publisher. Military Times is a well-known newspaper that specialises in US military news. The Hall of Valor is not crowd-sourced material, but reproduces the citations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hintz, Martin (2000). Wisconsin Portraits: 55 People who Made a Difference. Big Earth Publishing. ISBN 978-0-915024-80-3. OCLC 44508414." - very obscure publisher, what makes this high-quality RS?

  I've added an additional source, from the Chicago Times, but Big Earth is neither obscure nor small [7] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes " "Life Magazine cover: Jim Lovell". Oldlifemagazines.com. Archived from the original on November 29, 2011. Retrieved March 9, 2013." high-quality RS?

  It was a site that sold old Life magazines. Substituted a link to the issue via Google. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources look okay for major formatting issues/reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 20:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: you have to put "recusing" in the edit history if you want the bot to credit you as a reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some books missing publisher locations? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like an oversight. Added missing ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2021 [8].

Benedict Joseph Fenwick

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination of this article, after the first failed for lack of input. I have taken this article through GAN and believe it is up to FA standards. Fenwick led a fascinating life, full of controversies and disputes navigated from senior positions. Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

• "with it officially shuttering in April 1814" - shouldn't that be "shutting"? Or is "shuttering" a synonym for that in US English?
  • Shuttering is a common Americanism but it sounded a bit colloquial on second glance, so I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fenwick served alongside Kohlmann as pastor of Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1809, an office he held until 1815" - he held the office in 1809 (implying only during that year), but until 1815? That's a bit unclear......
  • Agree that that was poor wording. I've fixed it. 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose construction" => "St. Patrick's Cathedral, the construction of which" ("who" should only be used when referring to people, not inanimate objects)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to link Georgetown College again in the section of that name
  • That link doesn't go to Georgetown College; it goes to List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "In May 1822, Fenwick returned to Washington, D.C." - when was he in DC before? The city hasn't been mentioned up to this point......
  • The Early life section discusses how he lived in and then studied in Georgetown, which is in Washington. Ergo Sum 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I've got as far as the end of the Georgetown section. I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "This was followed by the establishment of a co-ed day school." - what does "co-ed" mean? I suspect this is possibly a common US term with which I am not familiar
  • I don't think co-ed is a strictly AmEng term (but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I've expanded it to co-educational and linked it. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the school began charging tuition" => "the school began charging for tuition"
  • I've never heard that particular construction. I've only ever heard "charging tuition." I suspect this might be an AmEng vs. BrEng matter. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "As they left, a mob of 2,000, wearing masks or painted faces encircled the convent" - needs a comma after faces to close off the clause
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "All but one of the perpetrators was acquitted" => "All but one of the perpetrators were acquitted" (the subject "all but one" refers to multiple people)
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. Ergo Sum 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " The school was opened in 1808, in a house on Mulberry Street,[10] across the street from the original St. Patrick's Cathedral" - based on our article about the cathedral, construction did not start until 1809, so the school would not have been across the street from it in 1808. Maybe rephrase to across the street from the future site of the original St. Patrick's Cathedral?
  • Good catch. Clarified. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "succeeding Giovanni Antonio Grassi at the former" - you've already introduced him, so you can just refer to him as Grassi
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Later that year, Ambrose Maréchal, the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick to Charleston, South Carolina," - is there a more exact date for when he was sent from Georgetown?
  • Unfortunately, the source does not give specific dates. Ergo Sum 18:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fenwick remained in Charleston one year beyond the erection of the new Diocese of Charleston and the appointment of John England as the first bishop" - more exact date? At least a year?
  • Added year. Ergo Sum 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So he was acting president of Georgetown and Bishop of Boston at the same time? That seems geographically difficult, especially in the 1820s era
  • I'm not sure I follow. I don't see where it says he held the positions simultaneously. Ergo Sum 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On September 15, 1825,[28] the Jesuit mission superior, Francis Dzierozynski, again made Fenwick acting president of the college and vice rector, as the incumbent president—his brother, Enoch—refused to return to the college after leaving for St. Thomas Manor" and then says he held the position for less than a year. And then he's consecrated as bishop of Boston on December 21, 1825. So does "less than a year" mean ~3 months here? Because I think that most readers would be like myself and assume that "less than a year" suggests a time period greater than three months. Reading Dubuisson's article, it looks like that Fenwick did have a very short acting presidency, so could the "less than a year" be rephrased to make it clearer that this time frame wasn't even close to a year? Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased to clarify it was just a few months. Ergo Sum 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a more exact date as to when his 1825 acting term ended?
  • I was able to find the precise date he became president for the second time, but the sources are silent as to the date his presidency ended. They all seem to suggest that he just held the presidency until he went to Boston, following his appointment as bishop. Ergo Sum 19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox says he died in Boston. I don't doubt this, but it actually isn't specified/cited in the body
  • Most every source simply says that he died as the Bishop of Boston, implying that he died in Boston. However, I was able to find one source that says he died at the then-cathedral of Boston, which is in Boston. I've added this to the article. Ergo Sum 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ""From the Pastor's Desk" (PDF). Holy Trinity Catholic Church Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Holy Trinity Catholic Church. December 6, 2015. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 16, 2018. Retrieved January 4, 2019" - Since you're citing a column written by the pastor, shouldn't he be given as the author?
  • That makes sense. Done. Ergo Sum 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Fenwick cropped.jpg - does not have a real source link. The source link takes me to a different file, which merely has a circular source link back to the file description page.
  • The original was a photograph, so there's really nothing to link to. I've slightly tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not constitute a formal image review, although I did look at the images. Hog Farm _Talk 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Hog Farm. Apologies for the delay. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Looking good, except for one point that I think can be addressed with a phrasing improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Grapple X

• Overall sources seem to be academic publishing—good to see a mix of university presses here and not a preponderance from Georgetown, the range speaks to breadth well.
• Tager 2001 has a URL but no access date, unlike the other sources with URLs provided. I don't believe these are necessary for books but it should be uniform if used,
  • Added access date. Ergo Sum 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 52 mentions that the building was sold in 1980, not that the school ceased operating that year; can we get this backed up with another source giving the specific year it stopped operating?
  • I found a better source and replaced the previous one with it. (Also discovered that it was 1981, not 1980). Ergo Sum 01:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I have here. I don't believe a dedicated spot-check is necessary but I can conduct one if required. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review, Grapple X. Ergo Sum 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • New source definitely covers this better. Took a second read over everything just to be sure and nothing seems amiss. Happy to consider this passed on sourcing. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

• Three links in the opening three sentences of the lead to the Society of Jesus.
  • I actually think it's justified in this instance, because each of those three instances are very different. One is the term "Jesuit," the other is "Society of Jesus," and the third is "SJ." I think it's definitely worth it to link Jesuit and I think your average reader, especially a non-Catholic, would not know that the Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits, much less that SJ is the abbreviation for Society of Jesus, which is the Jesuits. It is also standard in Jesuit biography articles to link the first instance of SJ for that reason. Ergo Sum 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "founder of the College of the Holy Cross" might be contextual to say where this is.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "began his ministry in New York City as the co-pastor of St. Peter's Church, the pastor of the..." mildly confusing, he began his ministry with two positions simultaneously? Also, a year would be helpful I think.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "intra-parochial conflict" what's that?
  • Rephrased. I think "intra" is redundant here, and linked parochial to Parish (Catholic Church), of which it is the adjectival form. Ergo Sum 02:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fenwick's life, and the formation of the Montgomery Guards. Fenwick also addressed intra-parochial conflict, ultimately placing a Boston church under interdict. Fenwick ..." thrice Fenwick, perhaps replace the middle one with "He"?
  • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "His older brother was.." last "his" would relate to Cuthbert, is that the intention?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "earning highest academic honors" what does this mean?
  • Not entirely sure. I could speculate that the source means summa cum laude, but I don't know if this institution was using Latin honors at this time. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You link "philosophy" but not "theology"?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Society of Jesus, which" again, you've linked Jesuit in this section already.
  • It's always been my practice that the lede is discounted for the purposes of linking first instances of terms unless it's an especially short article. Here, this is the first instance of Society of Jesus after the lede. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "entered the Jesuit novitiate ... enter the restored novitiate..." repetitive.
  • Combined sentences. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "he was sent" re-assert Fenwick, last "he" was Leonard Neale. And it's a new section so nice to recall who we're talking about in any case.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick" overlinked.
  • This is the only place in the article where Archbishop of Baltimore is linked. I think it makes sense to do so. Plus, the earlier Archdiocese of Baltimore is not that close. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "returned to Washington, D.C. as" overlinked, and comma after D.C.
  • This, too, is the only instance of Washington, D.C. being linked. I always think it makes sense to link cities, especially for a non-western readership. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you've called it the District of Washington above and linked it as such. Did it change names? I would refer to the same entity with the same nomenclature here, and reduce the overlinking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and linked that first instance to District of Columbia (until 1871), which is really more accurate here. Ergo Sum 03:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a link for rector?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Archbishop Ambrose Maréchal served" overlinked.
  • Removed duplink. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "by Protestant evangelists" overlinked.
  • Though certainly a common term for a read-up person in the Anglosphere, I think it's worthwhile for those who may not be familiar with the Protest-Catholic divide/history. However, I'm amenable to removing this one if you really think it's unnecessary. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's already linked in the same usage earlier on so I don't see what this is linked here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very right. I didn't catch that. Removed the duplink. Ergo Sum 03:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "in Old Town, Maine for" comma after Maine.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a link for incardinating?
  • Yes, linked. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "from Emmitsburg, Maryland to" comma after Maryland.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "this paper survived" publication perhaps instead of the colloquial "paper".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• " The Pilot, which is today the oldest Catholic newspaper in the United States" the target article says it's the oldest still published because at least one other work was older.
  • Corrected. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Our article capitalised Greater in Greater Boston.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, The Rambling Man. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear to be suitably placed and alt text is passable. File:Mitre plain 2.png and its parent work File:Mitre - Heraldry.svg however need to explain the copyright status of the mitre design; I imagine it's some flavour of PD-old? File:Old St. Patrick's Cathedral on Mott Street, NYC 1831.jpg licencing is fine but is a direct link to the page where the image is possible? File:Ruins of Ursuline Convent 1834 Riots.jpg dating is a little sparse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the image review. For the St. Patrick's Cathedral image, the link at present does go to the original work (a book), which is made available via Internet Archive. I'm afraid I can't find any more detailed a date than the year for the convent image. For the mitre image, which comes in as part of the template, I think the CC 2.5 license applies to the design of the mitre, since it's just a generalized depiction of a mitre. I don't think it copies anything, so the author's released under 2.5 is a release of the whole image, which includes the digital design. Otherwise, I'm not sure what they would be releasing. Ergo Sum 04:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the image depicts a generic mitre, it should be removed - the way it's currently used it strongly implies that the image is the official design and style of this particular cleric. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, to clarify, the mitre is not specific to Fenwick. It’s a long-standing symbol of Catholic bishops and, indeed, many Christian bishops generally. It cannot be removed without removing {{Infobox bishop styles}}, which is used on a great many (perhaps the substantial majority) of Catholic bishop articles and those of other Christian denominations. It’s a useful template, and I think the mitre is a minor but welcome stylistic touch to the template. Either way, that’s something that has to be addressed in the context of the template, not this particular article. Ergo Sum 15:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus just to make sure they saw the above response. Ergo Sum 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be That Guy but I still think that it is misleading when the template says "Styles of Benedict Joseph Fenwick" (emphasis mine). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think we just have a difference of opinion. Granted I am fairly well versed in Christian, particularly Catholic, imagery, I don't think your average reader with at least some degree of familiarity with Catholic (or Christian) bishops would conclude, given the context, that the mitre depicted is Fenwick's uniquely. I think it is pretty well known that a mitre is the signature symbol of a bishop, and that is the reason it is used here. I would go so far as to say that is common knowledge among the average, educated reader. This is especially so, given the context of the vast majority of other Catholic bishop biographies on WP bearing that same mitre. If someone is not familiar with that, then one need only click on the image where there is the description. If it is any help, I have beefed up the description of that image on Commons to clarify that it is an image of a generic mitre, not any one bishop's in particular. Ergo Sum 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with being overridden on this one, but from my perspective as someone who knows about heraldry but little about the Catholic Church that kind of infobox image is misleading as my first assumption - endorsed by the text over the image - is that the mitre is specific. I wouldn't assume that readers coming here will be familiar with other bishop articles and their writing conventions, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ergo Sum, any further comment? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would've liked a another set of eyes on the question. As I say above, I think the average reader would understand the image in context, but if others think otherwise, then I'd be open to removing the template for the time being and opening a broader discussion on the template page about whether the current use of the image is warranted. I just wouldn't want something rather minor like this to hold up what would otherwise appear to be a successful FAC. Ergo Sum 03:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Gog the Mild, recusing to give a second opinion on this.

• I am afraid that I agree with Jo-Jo. The phrase "Styles of Benedict Joseph Fenwick" immediately followed by the mitre symbol will, IMO, inevitably lead a reader to believe that the symbol is part of Fenwick's personal style. It seems to not be a terribly well designed template. Regardless, the article, IMO, needs tweaking such that any risk of such reader confusion is removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Gog here. When I read the article, I had assumed that the mitre would part of the style. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It would seem the people have spoken. I've gone ahead and removed the template. Perhaps the template can use some tweaking to avoid this issue. Ergo Sum 02:11, 22 December 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2021 [9].

Great Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of two lose series that have been on my back burner for a while (railway company war memorials and Charles Sargeant Jagger's war memorials). It follows on from my previous nominations of Jagger's works, the Royal Artillery Memorial and Portsmouth War Memorial. I've been working on it on and off for a couple of years but only recently got round to giving it a full overhaul when I had a bit of time on my hands and wanted a project I could complete without having to buy any more books (I already have a bookcase full of material on war memorials!). It's not a very long article becuase the subject seems to have been overlooked in favour of larger, outdoor works, but I hope the bibliography shows that that is not for want of research, and I think it contains everything that can be expected. As always, I'm eager to hear any constructive criticism. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Done.

Comments by Thryduulf

• Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them. This feels too detailed for the lead and is also contradicted by the railway company built a stand on platforms and 2 and 3, and moved wagons into the tracks between the platforms in the history section. Were the stands built across the tracks or not?
  • I think it's relevant to the lead that there was such a crowd that accommodations had to be made. I've clarified in the body that there were stands on the wagons and it was one continuous crowd.
• The GWR was also responsible for running a train to remove the Austrian ambassador. More detail please - where was he being removed from and to? Why were they being removed? Why was a special train needed, and why the GWR? Some of this would probably be better provided by a link to where this information is elsewhere, if it's anywhere, an offline reference that may or may not include this information is not helpful in this case.
  • I don't think any more detail would be relevant here. The aim here is to provide a brief overview of the GWR's activities in the war as background to the memorial. We don't have an article on the Great Western Railway in the First World War or even anything similar, and the coverage of WWI in the main GWR article is two sentences so we don't have anywhere useful we can point readers.
    • I see your point, but the current sentence jars me out of the narrative with a "wait, what!?". As Extraordinary Wit suggests, toning down the language and adding a destination will resolve that. If you don't want to do that then remove it all together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Having slept on it, I think it's venturing off topic, and it's distracting (there could be an article to be had there, there's definitely enough sources for an article on the GWR in WWI, but neither is within the scope of this article) so I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• the GWR ran ambulance trains and ... and ... too many "and"s.
  • Reworded.
• the modern successor to the GWR suggest linking this to Great Western Railway (train operating company)
  • Not sure this is helpful or necessary; the casual reader doesn't need to know about the modern TOC to understand the article, and introducing a second GWR is likely to cause confusion.
    • What I'm suggesting is "the modern successor to the GWR", providing a bit of relevant context for those who don't know or aren't sure what organisation you are referring to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, I just don't think it matters. Those of us who already have a detailed knowledge of 21st century UK railway operations already know where that article is, and those who don't and just came to read about a statue probably don't care. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• but it explicitly include in the grade I listing change to "but it is explicitly included..." Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. @Thryduulf: thank you for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Extraordinary Writ

Looks to be in good shape. A few nitpicks below:

• Comissioning – typo
  • Fixed.
• The GWR considered several schemes... – this sentence would probably flow a bit better if you split it into two.
  • Done.
• During the Covid-19 pandemic – our article has COVID in all caps (and I would too), although that's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on.
  • Not the hill I'd choose to die on either. I think I prefer it in sentence case because it's not an acronym where each letter corresponds to a word so it feels a bit SHOUTY, but if there's a consensus or a MoS subsection that says I'm wrong I'll concede the point.
• Gloucesterhsire – typo
  • Fixed.
• a train to remove the Austrian ambassador – "remove" to me connotes some sort of involuntary expulsion, which (to Thryduulf's point above) really makes the reader curious. I see the source uses "return"; perhaps something like "a train to transport the Austrian ambassador back to ____" would be best.
  • I've removed this. See my response to Chris above for rationale.
• its ships – perhaps link Great Western Railway ships?
  • Might be helpful. Done.

More soon. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your comments. I'm back at work and on early earlies for the next couple of days so it might take me a day or two to act on any further comments. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered using Template:Inflation to auto-convert sums like £5,625 to their present values?
  • I've considered it. I just don't think the output is meaningful or useful. Maybe not apples and oranges, but it feels a bit like comparing apples and pears when you consider the changes in purchasing power over the course of a century.
• The GWR chose Jagger to design... – I'm a bit confused by this sentence. What was Blomfield recommending Jagger for? How (if at all) was "the government" connected to the memorial?
  • Clarified.
• To give such a large crowd... – this sentence is long and complex; it might be more readable if you split it up. The same is true for the following sentence (The ceremony began....
  • I've broken these up a bit.
• MOS:TIME
  seems to insist that times be spaced, so "10:45 am" and not "10:45am"
  • We can probably dispense with the "am" and leave it in 24-hour format.
• Several of your footnotes cite Gibbins, but the name used in the bibliography is Gittins.
  • Fixed.

That's about all I have for you. Sincere apologies for the delay: time just got away from me! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ no apology necessary, though it took me a few days to get back to you! Thank you for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Good work, as always: there wasn't much to nitpick here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

A railway I remember my boyfriend mentioned, made an Oooo sound when seeing this FAC. Here we go.

Other than that, nice article. Comprehensive and detailed, using RS-es. If my comments are resolved, I'll support this. GeraldWL 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I haven't been able to enact all your suggestion for reasons given above, but thank you for taking the time to read the article and leave a review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the responses! I've responded to them back; you would want to see those in the Commissioning part. GeraldWL 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: replies inline above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And with all that resolved, I'm happy to support this article. GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

• "on a polished granite plinth and Portland stone surround": I read this to mean that the memorial is on the surround; surely the surround is the arch within which the soldier stands?
  • Clarified.

    Could we make it "...plinth, within a Portland stone surround"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them": Again I misread this: I took the first half of the sentence to mean that the GWR was responding to the size of the crowd that turned up. Just making it "expected size" would prevent that.
  • Done.
• "encouraging people to write to a letter": looks like editing debris?
  • Fixed.
• I think the last sentence of the lead should make clear that this is in reference to Armistice Day.
  • Good point. Done.
• "the railway was forced to implement controls": can we get a word or two more of explanation? Maybe "the railway was forced to limit the rate of enlistment", if that's what they did?
  • Added half a sentence; see what you think.
• "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625 though the completed memorial came in around £1,000 under budget": can we avoid the repetition of "budget"?
  • Tightened.
• "a conclusion with which academics Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin concurred": you might move "with" to after "concurred" here; neither is wrong but I think the latter reads a little more fluently.
  • I was taught that it was poor form to end a sentence on a preposition.

    Struck -- I guess I'm on the other side of that debate, but it's OK the way you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look for newspaper articles about the dedication in 1922, and found a short piece in the Observer on newspapers.com. About the only thing it contains that you don't already have is that GWR's General Manager, F.J.C. Pole, laid a wreath on behalf of GWR's staff. If you think it's worth including and if you don't have access I can clip the article for you. Otherwise there are just the minor points listed above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Felix Pole. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believe I've addressed all your comments, Mike. Yes please to that snippet from The Observer. It's a nice little detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly struck above; I will get you that article shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The clipping is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good, as usual. Harry, if you don't have newspapers.com access and are interested in getting similar clippings for other memorial (or other) articles you work on, I'd be happy to clip what I can find for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Will do soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I'm just now getting to this - had some crazy stuff come up over the weekend.

• A handful of harv/sfn errors - I think you'll need to add |ref=none to King, Black, Matthews, and Pullinger, based on the citation style you're using for the others
• Sources look reliable enough
• Are Gibbins and Gittins suppose to be the same source? Only a Gittins in listed in the bibliography
• "and moved to RAF Northolt in 2007 when the army unit responsible for it relocated" - not finding this detail in the cited source?

Looking good, pending the items above. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm, no apology necessary. I wasn't available much over the weekend anyway. Believe I've fixed everything you mention. The old and new locations for the replica statue are both mentioned in the IWM source, but I've found another one that spells it out a bit more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Support from KJP1

Harry, two quick comments. Although not mentioned in Pevsner, I have found it in a little book I've just obtained, The Immortals: London's finest statues. It doesn't actually have much that you've not already covered but I wonder if it might be included for completeness. Where I think it may be useful is the end of your Design section, in the discussion of Jagger's wartime experiences. Here, Blundell and Hudson have: "This memorial was created by someone who 'knew whereof he spoke'. Jagger was wounded at Gallipoli in 1915, and again on the Western Front in 1918, when he was awarded the MC." See what you think. You can find the full details for the book, here, and the page=16. My other quick observation is that, although the WWII rededication is mentioned in the Design section, it's not covered in the History section. I think there should be a mention of it in the latter. Perhaps a slight rejig/trim of the wording in the former section could avoid repetition. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - Gog, I’m guessing Harry’s busy IRL. If, in your view, it’s got enough Support, I don’t think my comments need stand in the way. They’re marginal. Alternatively, I could weave the Blundell in? What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1, you are probably right about Harry. All of your points seem on the money to me. Would you mind working into the article what changes you consider would improve it? I will then check your edit and consider whether th e nomination can be closed. If Harry is not happy with anything the three of us can have a post-FAC discussion; I have always found Harry to be reasonable in these sort of situations. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, the day job is insane this time of year! It'll probably be Christmas Eve by the time I can do any substantive editing (ie not just mashing buttons from my phone!). KJP, if you can make those tweaks before then, by all means please do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added Blundell and Hudson to the Bibliography, dropped their Jagger quote in to the Design section, slightly trimmed the WWII text in that section, added a short mention of the WWII rededication in the History section. Hope the changes meet with approval. Have read the whole thing through twice. It’s well up to HJM’s usual high standard and I’m pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [Permalink][Image].

Pomona College

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a liberal arts college in California, one of the four level-5 VA liberal arts colleges.

I have been working intently on it for the past year or so, hoping to create a new model article for WikiProject Higher education, which has seen a devastating trend: of its 15 FAs on extant institutions in September 2020, all but 4 have now been delisted after failed FARs, and most of the remainder are in poor shape.^[a]

I am grateful to have already received substantial feedback on this article in three prior venues: a thorough GAN, the previous FAC, and most recently an extensive peer review and source spot check. It includes some novel elements, like an interactive campus map (the first of its kind for a college, I believe) and 360° interactive panoramas accompanying some photos. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to addressing your comments! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• This article includes a large number of images, which is causing some layout problems

  I've focused on ensuring that there are no layout problems on New Vector, as that's what will be in widespread use shortly. If you have any particular concerns, please let me know. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Skin isn't the only thing impacting layout - also screen size. On my (average-sized laptop) screen there is extensive sandwiching, particularly in the Campus and Student life sections, as well as headings getting shifted right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct that screen size has traditionally been a main determinant of sandwiching—with the old skins, on a big enough screen, any article with any images on the left will have sandwiching. But New Vector limits content to a maximum of 960px. When it is deployed soon as the default mode, it will be the experience for 99% of desktop readers, so that's what I'm designing around. Let me know if it's different for you, but when I read the article with New Vector, the only place where sandwiching concerns might arise is the athletics section.

  That section presents a tricky scenario, as it would be a significant loss to the article to remove either the table of athletics teams (a pretty standard element) or the sole photo of contemporary athletics, and it is not really possible to retain both without creating a minor sandwich. To alleviate that concern as much as possible, I ensured that both the table and the photo are thinner than average width, so the text is still as wide as it'd be with something like {{Multiple image}}. Ultimately, it boils down to whether minor sandwiching or the removal of useful content is the greater loss for readers, and my view is that the content loss would be more significant, making this an appropriate instance to invoke the note at MOS:IMAGES that occasional exceptions may apply. Do you find that rationale satisfactory enough? We can explore what to do if it's a dealbreaker, but I think it'd be a loss. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there is a free logo, what is the justification for also including a non-free logo?

  Having both a seal image and a wordmark is built into {{Infobox university}}. The "free logo" in this case is just a wordmark that doesn't pass the threshold of originality. It would be insufficient to fulfill the seal's purpose of use as described at the file page, as it is the seal, not the quite generic and undistinctive wordmark, that is the primary visual identifier of the college. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggest elaborating on this in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done here. Let me know if I should change anything further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Exterior_view_of_Pomona_College,_Claremont,_1907_(CHS-3857).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:President_Roosevelt_speaks_at_Pomona_College,_1903.jpg, File:Men_protest_opening_of_Frary_Dining_Hall_to_women.jpg

  For the first one, I'm not aware of the initial publication date, but the current rights holder is USC, and per the description page they've released it into the public domain. For the second, it was published 9 May 1903 as can be seen here. For the third, it was published in the 1957 Metate, Pomona's yearbook, per here and my correspondence with the Pomona archivist (see here). I looked through the copyright renewal logs to confirm that the Metate copyright was not renewed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For the first, if this is believed to be PD because of a release the tagging should be changed to reflect that. For the second and third, that information should be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PD tag for first adjusted. Information added for second and third. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Pomona1.jpg is tagged as lacking a description

  Description added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Johnson_spanish_music_1916_4.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I added PD-US-expired. Did I do that right? My understanding is that both the sculpture and the photo need to be properly licensed. For the photo, that's pretty easy, as it's own work by Seauton. For the sculpture, it was created in 1916 and the artist died in 1927. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Just quickly following up, please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm just now getting to this - have had some stuff coming up. The review will probably be in a few chunks due to article length and Thanksgiving

• Exact quote of "college of the New England type" is only in the lead, although a paraphrase is found in the body. Shouldn't the exact quote be used in the body as well, if its significant enough for the lead?

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "On October 14, 1925, Pomona's 38th anniversary, the Claremont Colleges were incorporated." - specifically state that it's a founding member of the Claremont Colleges? Implied but not directly stated

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "He and dean of women Jean Walton also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life," - maybe mention that this was how the college ran things before mentioning that it was ended? It comes a bit out of the blue in the current form

  Done here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The 21st century section is a little
  WP:PROSELINE
  -y. Not a terrible example, and not a sticking point for me, but could the paragraphs flow together a bit better than all starting with various constructions of "In 20XX ..." or "In the ..."?

  I attempted a small fix here. The reason the more recent history is like this is that the most recent scholarly history of the college ends in 1969, so most of what came after has to come from newspaper reports of individual events. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "and are designed to facilitate both indoor and outdoor use" - Maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do you have outdoor use of a building

  Here's the relevant quote from the source: Throughout all its history, though, a strong emphasis on spaces that facilitate both an indoor and outdoor lifestyle have remained. Almost every single residence hall, for example, is situated by or around courtyards, with calm bubbling fountains, benches and tables for lounging and socializing and cool, inviting trees and lawns. Most dining halls have patios for outdoor eating, and there are many spots with tables outside where students frequently study or hang out. As a brochure guide to Claremont's campuses puts it, "As open spaces the courts are not merely voids between structures; they are compositions of space and landscape elements." {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "They include the Carnegie Building, a neoclassical structure built in 1908 as a library" - specify/link that it was a Carnegie library

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " The college has 821 total employees as of the fall 2020 semester" - through in the full-time educational faculty number, as well? Since the majority are non-educational faculty

  I mention that in the Academics section a little further down. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its operating budget for the 2019–2020 academic year was $229 million" - is the 2020-2021 operating budget available, since that academic year has been completed

  Not yet, at least from here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is bond rating encyclopedic?

  I'm not a finance expert, so someone who is might be able to address that question better. But the reason I added the sentence is because this section ought to give readers a sense of the institution's overall financial situation, and the credit ratings agencies seem to be the best independent source for that information. When I read the Fitch rating commentary, I was struck by the level of detail it went into about the college's financial operation—there seems to have been a lot more that went into it than just "it has a giant endowment so it gets AAA". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, then. (I'm an auditor who does some work with government entities, and any random road board or high school can get a bond rating. But this sounds more significant than those minor ones) Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note g probably needs a source

  The ref for note g is Enrollment Policies (currently 218), which appears at the end of the sentence in which the note is embedded. The schema I've been using for note references is to include a separate reference for them only if it's different from the reference supporting the sentence. When a note appears at the end of a sentence (as is the case for most of the others), I place it before the body reference if that's the reference supporting it and after the body reference if it has its own reference. This did come up in the prior FAC; is it something you think I ought to change? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the 2015–2016 academic year, 175 employers hosted on-site informational events at the Claremont Colleges and 265 unique organizations were represented in 9 career fairs" - somewhat dated, anything newer available? If not, maybe remove as this is old enough that relevance is questionable by now

  I wasn't able to find anything newer, unfortunately—the office seems to put together a comprehensive annual report only once every several years, and this was the most recent one. I wouldn't imagine that the numbers have changed all that much, though. I included the sentence since I think the paragraph on career development ought to have some quantitative information on the level of recruiting that happens on campus. Does that seem reasonable or should I take it out? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Student life - note sure the tooltip note for 5C is needed - it's already been introduced in the article

  I've been musing lately about

  MOS:REPEATLINK and related issues, given research that most readers jump around and read only parts of an article, rather than going top to bottom. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that someone in the student life section has read the academic affiliations section, and an {{abbr}} tooltip seems like a low-cost way to inform (or remind) them if needed. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "The Golden Antlers publishes satirical content" - recommend a better source than the Golden Antlers itself to demonstrate significance

  Yeah, given the purported 1726 establishment date, I think we'd be wise to steer clear of the Golden Antlers about page even for

  WP:ABOUTSELF info haha. I've swapped to this feature from Scripps, which has the most detailed info I could find, and I could add this article from The Student Life if you'd like a secondary source. I think it's important to mention the Golden Antlers not only because of its significant presence on campus, but also because, as an online publisher, it has a bigger presence off-campus than most 5C clubs—a reader researching Pomona is far more likely to encounter a Golden Antlers article than they are e.g. something about the orchestra. Having a mention helps contextualize it, which is particularly important for a satire publication. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• " and undocumented or DACA recipient students" - DACA's already been linked, don't think you need the tooltip

  See above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Pomona Student Union (PSU) facilitates the discussion of political and social issues on campus by hosting discussions, panels, and debates with prominent speakers holding diverse viewpoints" - recommend a better source than PSU's weebly site to support significance of this activity

  I added a post from the

  WP:ABOUTSELF source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Post-2013 Newsweek is listed as iffy at
  WP:RSP
  , is this good enough for FA standards?

  I swapped it out for Fiske. The Pomona College Magazine article has the most detailed info, but I wanted to supplement it with a secondary source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the Hidden Pomona podcast a high-quality RS?

  That's a very reasonable question. I use it in three places, and in each I found it to be the most comprehensive historical account of the event it's supporting. There are a few things I'd note in support of it meeting the

  WP:WHYCITE guideline rather than the verifiability aspect and defer to the other sources for verifiability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "Trendacosta, Katharine (May 28, 2013). "The Longest Running Gags in Science Fiction Movies and Television". io9. Gawker Media. Retrieved April 7, 2020." RSP does not say positive things about Gawker, recommend replacing

  I removed it since the material is fully supported by the other references and there's not much in that one not also in the others. For the record, I would say it's reliable, as io9 is an independent publication that was under Gawker Media (≠ Gawker). Two years after this piece was published, it was acquired by RSP-greenlit Gizmodo, and when it most recently came up at RSN in 2019 most editors seemed to consider it reliable. All that's moot with it no longer in the article, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Burt, Brackett, and Bernard are in the bibliography, but not used? Moved to further reading, as they seem to be generally dated and don't represent gaps in the research here?

  Sumner and Brackett are the two earlier scholarly histories of Pomona, and Bernard is the most recent scholarly history of the consortium. I didn't see a need to use any of them as references, since everything significant enough for the article is covered by Lyon. But I did want to include them in the bibliography due to their potential usefulness for readers, particularly given that they're all freely accessible online. I wouldn't be too keen to break up the bibliography, as it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one's in pretty good shape. It was interesting to read about Pomona - the college I graduated from not long ago was the polar opposite - a fundamentalist Christian college that banned on-campus dancing. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed on talk and have no concerns, but please ping me to continue review after Hog Farm is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: - I think I'm comfortable with supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Got it; will review thoroughly today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Very fine work, nitpicks on talk, anticipate supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Support, all my nits picked, and I took a stab at copyvio checking on talk, as this will be Sdkb’s first FA; I found no problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

• I have already made extensive comments on this article, and I'm very satisfied with the work done by Sdkb. I'm happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. I see this has received a thorough spot check at PR, so I will not do so here. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I'm kind of thinking this already had a source review, per the talk page comments and the PR source review. @WP:FAC coordinators: is this needed, or? There's a lot of sources, so I wanted to check first before going through them. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 I’ve done a bit on talk here, and there are also some pieces elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are quick! I didn't see your comment before I left my earlier one, I may end up leaving some content comments instead then. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to do a bit more than time permitted me to do. There is no copyvio/too-close-paraphrasing concern, but you can look over what I did on talk to see if maybe more is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The type of source review this article hasn't had yet is a source formatting review, so it might be helpful to focus on that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed
• I'm two thirds through the refs, though may need to take another look at the second third. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Version reviewed for second look Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• I don't really understand your location rationale in the Bibliography, sometimes its city, sometimes city and state? Are you just listing better known cities without the state? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, my approach is to include the state only if the city is not internationally recognizable. Claremont, Naperville, Walla Walla, and Anaheim fell short of that threshold, whereas New York, Los Angeles, and Boston met it. If you're looking for a more formal definition of "internationally recognizable", we could use VA level 4 or the AP Style list, but it wouldn't really come into play unless I added another entry to the bibliography. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Bernard, Brackket and Sumner are used, should they be in further reading? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm asked about this above; ctrl+f for "Sumner and Brackett are" for my reply, and let me know if you'd like me to expand on it further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree that "it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section". In the past I have included historical sources in the further reading for the same reason you're saying, so would think it makes sense here? Though I would not oppose over this, it just seems fundamentally confusing Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the most likely reason a reader would go to the bibliography section is if they wanted to read about Pomona in more depth than is covered in this article. For that purpose, they won't really care whether or not a source is used directly in the article (I say "directly" because Lyon used the earlier histories by Brackett and Sumner to inform his history). I think part of the confusion may be coming from the fact that "bibliography" has multiple definitions—it can mean either "list of works consulted" (#3 here) or "list of works relating to a topic" (#2), and I'm using it more in the #2 sense. (I wish that there was another less ambiguous word; see also the lack of standardization at

  MOS:REFERENCES.) With all that said, if you'd still like to see this modified, one thing we could do would be to change the section title to "Bibliography and further reading"—let me know if I should do that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  OK, how about we keep it as is, but maybe you add invisible comments along the lines of "Though this reference is not cited directly, it is kept in this section in order to preserve a single bibliography section"? Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good; done! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fundamentally misses the point that the bibliographies are meant for the works cited in the article. In the past I've created large further reading sections of historical source

• Ref 258 needs a publisher/website/work or something

  Good catch; I'm always amazed at how there's still stuff I manage to miss after looking over the refs so many times haha. Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 291 needs a publisher

  Another good catch; fixed (Springer Nature). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Page number for 296?

  Added (pp. 43–44). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 303 is the only The New York Times ref with a subscription icon, and regardless is should probably be an access limited one anyways

  That's intentional—ref 303 the only NYT ref in which the article has not been digitized, so a subscription is required to view it on the TimesMachine; the others are all available for anyone. Re "limited", I've never been persuaded that we ought to be using that, as the symbol is confusingly the same as the "registration" one and it makes it seem like the source is less accessible than it likely actually is. I don't feel all that strongly about it, so let me know if you do, but the current formatting is consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't 307 also in the time machine? That was part of my confusion. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All old NYT articles are available in the TimesMachine, but most of them have been digitized through optical character recognition, so they're also available freely as text. 307 (and a few others) have been digitized, whereas 303 is not and has the note "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." That's why it's labeled differently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Are the Hidden Pomona (Podcast) sources needed? I'm not sure that the pod cast can be considered "high quality" and the references are seemingly being used in addition to other ones already Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm also asked about this; ctrl+f for "That's a very". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if that's its use, I would suggest putting it into notes for something like "For a comprehensive overview" or "for further information" rather than references. In general, citing an entire podcast without time stamps feels like citing a book without page numbers. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am using it as a reference, for the reasons stated above. And even if it was only a "further information" link, I think those fit better in the references section (where they're allowed per the

  WP:WHYCITE guideline) rather than in the notes section, which in this article is for content rather than sources. Re timestamps, it's not possible to add them because in each instance, the entire episode is about the event it's supporting. I'd view a 20-min. podcast episode as more analogous to a feature article than to a book, as its transcript would be more article-length than book-length. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ah I agree with your video-book vs article-podcast comparison. No worries here then. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• Was ref 66 "pt. 3" meant to be "chpt. 3"?, otherwise, switching between page numbers, chapter numbers and parts seems a bit much, and the latter seems too broad to offer real verifiability anyways Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is part 3; the broadness comes from the fact that the sentence covers World War II through 1969, and that's the last third of the book. I'll go ahead and remove it. The secondary verification there comes from the Los Angeles Times. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aza24, you seem to have gone through these fairly thoroughly, for which thanks. Do you consider that you have also carried out a spot check on source to text accuracy? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog, my apologies I should have been clearer. See my above comment "Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR"; you'll see at the talk page and peer review there were already comprehensive spot checks and source to text checks by others. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, no, no, thanks for squirreling them out, I would probably never have found them. And apologies that I missed the point of what you were communicating. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [14].

Bad Times at the El Royale