Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2023

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) 30 December 2023 [1].

Benty Grange hanging bowl

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Benty Grange hanging bowl, such that it is, could fit in the palm of your hand. Part of the spoils of an 1848 excavation of a richly furnished barrow—known for the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet found alongside—all that remains are two decorated fragments. But just enough remains to reconstruct their original design, an enigmatic motif of three dolphins (or similar) chasing each others tails.

This article was created in 2018, and brought to GA in 2021, thanks to a review by Simongraham. I've refined it since, and recently given it a close look and revision, making it ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Given that I walked by the tumulus last month I really ought to look at this. Nudge me if I haven't started in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". Actually the A515 only joins the course of the Roman road about 200 yards north west of the site (and leaves it again after 500 yards to parallel it 100 yards to the NE before leaving its course entirely after another 2 miles), so the Roman road passes quite a bit closer to the tumulus that the A515. Do you have access to the relevant OS 1:25,000 map? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Gog the Mild. The road (The Street (Derbyshire) it looks like) is plotted on this map. Does that look accurate to you? Assuming it's right, it looks like it would actually be a bit farther away from the barrow than the A515, but not by much—some 300 feet instead of 150 feet. But, as you say, they're different roads at that point. The sources currently used in the article say that (Ozanne 1962–1963) "The continued or revived importance of the Roman road between Derby and Buxton is illustrated by the construction of new barrows and the reuse of prehistoric barrows along its line. Benty Grange is close to the road, Hurdlow on the hills flanking it. Galley Low or Callidge Low near Brassington must have been near it, as also was the Garratt Piece, Middleton Moor, barrow." and that (Brown 2017) "This Anglian burial monument is located c.4.4km to the south-east of the Application Site boundary on a slight eminence immediately adjacent to the presumed course of the Roman road between Buxton (Ague Arnemetiae) to Derby (Derventio) known as The Street', which is followed by the A515 (according to the NRHE entry)." I think the error must have stemmed from me reading "followed" as specific rather than general.

Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [2] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?

Sent you an email. That faint circle is what I've been assuming is the barrow. It's almost exactly where the map displayed with the HE list entry says it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for those maps, Gog the Mild. Interesting stuff. I've added the Derbyshire County Council source, and changed the wording to its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road, now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area, possibly to display the burial to passing travellers. Incidentally, another map showing both tumulus and road is in Bruce-Mitford 1974 (at p. 224). It recognizes the uncertainty, denoting the road as "Roman Road (course of)". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the arrow in the 1974 map is slightly off. Per Bruce-Mitford 2005, p. 119, the mound is at "Map ref. SK149642, near high point 1226 ft, west of the line of the Roman road". He states that "I am grateful to Clive R. Hart of the Sheffield Museum for this adjustment from the position of the discovery apparently incorrectly shown in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 224, fig. 35.")

• Separately, if you're ever back in the area, would you be interested in taking a few photos of the mound? I emailed the owner of the Benty Grange farmhouse a few years back for that very reason, but no luck. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no public access. I will have a go next time I am up that way, but it depends on whether I can find a gate and what is growing in the field. (When I wrote "I walked by the tumulus" I meant, 'within 200 m'!) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• "with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension ... The hooks project from escutcheons". I am unsure that "hooks" is the best description. In the bowl pictured for example I see no "hooks", hanging rings, yes. Later you mention "a ring on the back of one fragment" And "from" the escutcheons, really? I don't see this in the bowl pictured and I don't see how it could be the case without a hole being made in either the escutcheons or the bowl.

• The hooks are not the rings, but the things around which the rings loop. See the example here. I've also clarified that the ring is not part of the escutcheon, but a small iron ring stuck to it that may have been part of suspension chains. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it known or speculated how the escutcheons were affixed to the bowl?

• Per Bruce-Mitford, "either by riveting or by soldering, any occasionally by both". Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and their place of manufacture". Is it agreed that "place" is singular?

• Nope, changed to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl." "the silver rim and ornaments" have been lost then?

• Those are from the cups that’s were also in the burial. You can see them in the last photo here (above the map at the end). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I meant to delete that. That was me getting confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." Perhaps a semi colon after "1968"?

• I think you missed the first word of the sentence, but I can reword if you think it's confusing: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each animal has ..." Suggestion: 'creature', to leave open the possibility that they are mythological. (And again at the start of "Parallels".)

• Good point, changed throughout. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Winchester hanging bowl" is red linked, but "Lullingstone hanging bowl" isn't. Is there a reason?

• Probably because I didn't realize how notable the Lullingstone hanging bowl was when I first wrote that part of the article—or even looked at a picture of it, which would undoubtedly have disabused me of that particular form of ignorance. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "is prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". I think that the maps, and other sources, all agree that the A515 does not follow the route of the Roman road.

• Changed as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "under the fold". Should that be 'into the fold'. Or, perhaps, 'under the authority' or similar?

• Went with "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If "The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer state between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte" then do we know why "the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655" matters. I realise that the latter is a quote, but it seems strange.
• "loaned the collection to Sheffield". Is it possible to be more precise? Eg, was it to the town council?

• Also the Corporation, it would seem, at least in the legal sense. Here's what the source says about all this: IN 1876 the Corporation of Sheffield received on loan from Thos. W. Bateman, Esq., of Middleton Hall, Derbyshire, the collection of Antiquities formed by his father and grandfather, and for many years previously arranged in cases in Lomberdale House, near Youlgreave, Derbyshire, where the collection had been open to the inspection of antiquaries and other visitors interested in it. Both the objects and the cases were removed to the Public Museum in Weston Park, Sheffield, where they remained on loan until 1893, when it was arranged by the Bateman family that the collection should be sold. The objects which had been discovered in the process of barrow digging in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, under the direction of Mr. Thomas Bateman and his father, Mr. William Bateman, F.S.A., were purchased by the Corporation of Sheffield, and comprise the collection catalogued in the following pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The city purchased". Similarly.

• The Corporation of Sheffield, i.e., the town council. Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "they would likely be yellow-on-red." "likely" is American English. Suggest 'probably'.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild. I think I've now managed to answer everything above—got myself thoroughly confused about hooks vs. rings before figuring that one out. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

That all looks good. There have been a few changes since I first looked at this, so I'll give it another skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and that sit outside the rim" sounds odd. Perhaps 'beneath the rim on the outside' or 'externally beneath the rim' or 'externally on the side' or similar?

• Now: bronze frames that are usually circular and elaborately decorated, and that sit along the outside of the rim or at the interior base. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." I am not sure that "however" is necessary.

• The however relates back to the first words in the sentence: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. Does that make more sense? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bateman astutely remarked on this as early as 1861". While I realise that you are paraphrasing Brice-Mitford & Scott I am a little unhappy that "astutely" is PoV and/or unencyclopedic.

• Removed the word. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Perhaps 'entered Bateman's extensive collection'?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "he related his discoveries". In person or in writing?

• At a meeting; clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to add a final sentence to "Excavation" describing the current agricultural use of the field containing the barrow?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a surprisingly controversial issue: see here. I've gone with The surrounding fields were designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 2013, and see agricultural use. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique, once you have addressed my last query, could you ping me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly enjoyed reading this one: the prose is generally a real strength -- skilfully written, clear and authoritative. Most of the below are prose nitpicks, matters of terminology and places where I think the facts are not quite clear. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for your close and careful read. I think I have finally(!) addressed all of your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support -- thank you for your good humour in handling what has been an intensive and, I'm sure, sometimes frustrating set of comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist. And not at all—it's always a pleasure to get a review from people with intelligent things to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How attached are you to the term
  Anglo-Saxon
  ? Within the field, there's quite a lot of movement against it now -- primarily because it is only very rarely (once?) attested in contemporary sources, whereas English and equivalent were the dominant means by which these people referred to themselves, and partly because of its appropriation by nineteenth- and twentieth-century racists. I believe "English", "Early Medieval" and combinations thereof are generally preferred.

  This is purely in America, because of contemporary political connotations! You believe wrong, and Yankee cultural imperialism should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure the "purely in America" label is quite fair; true, the debate was precipitated by the renaming of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England in 2019, and that initiative was mostly led (though by no means entirely followed) by the society's North American members, but the ensuing conversation has been international. The Welsh archaeologist John Hines has a good and even-handed article walking through the circumstances of the debate and its fallout, particularly in the UK (there was also a fairly large student petition to rename the eponymous faculty at Cambridge a few years ago, though I'm not sure much came of it). The most consistent and visible voice against the "Anglo-Saxon" term is Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is a Canadian trained largely in the UK: her arguments against it do reference present-day politics, but are based largely in the fact that the term is almost unattested before the sixteenth century, whereas people at the time referred to themselves and were known by others as "English". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just about all period terms are later inventions by historians, look at "Celtic" for heaven's sake, not to mention Byzantine, Hellenistic, Gothic, Romanesque, Renaissance.... You rightly seem to to be climbing back from "generally preferred". "English" doesn't help - an American student "boldly" converted one major article here to use "Old English" but that has no usage beyond the language. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I read Hines correctly, he doesn't see the term "Anglo-Saxon" as inherently objectionable, and thinks the debate over it both has come at the expense of worthwhile reforms and also counts as its most vocal supporters those who have contributed least to the field. But the more salient point, I think, is that we're in an encyclopedic rather than progressive context; the point is to state the facts as they are, rather than as they ought to be. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy with this: the general approach on here when a decision is remotely a matter of taste is to defer to the first person who made the call. I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you -- there's nothing here to impede promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• but on minimal and possibly incorrect evidence.: Could we have some sense of what that evidence is? Presumably, if it's possibly incorrect, it's also possibly correct, so I'm surprised that we're closing this hypothesis down so firmly.

• Fair point, now clarified. Basically, there's no evidence, other than the fact that red enamel is common, and yellow enamel rare. The "incorrect" part is that one of the yellow-on-red proponents cited Rupert Bruce-Mitford in support of the theory, when he said no such thing. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth explaining that one, if only in the footnote on "without evidence": our current framing implies that Henry and Haseloff said something like "I reckon it was yellow and red, but don't have any evidence for that", which they quite clearly didn't: the problem is that their evidence (the fact that B-M allegedly saw or reconstructed that colour scheme) never actually existed. Was that really all of their evidence, though? Often these conjectures are made by comparison with other similar objects, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "without offering evidence", but is this not already explained in the footnote? The main problem is that they just say it, without saying why. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not understood, clearly: from my first reading of your comment, it sounded like they did say why (because Bruce-Mitford said it, and that our priors for all-yellow decoration are pretty low, given that yellow enamel is pretty rare in the period), but that the evidence/argument is generally considered unconvincing. That's not quite the same as offering no evidence, and I think it's a little unfair to accuse Henry and Haseloff of simply making baseless assertions if they did not in fact do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Henry 1936, At present, out of all that was originally found, there remain only two half escutcheons, one in the Ashmolean Museum, the other one in Sheffield Museum. By combining them it is possible to reconstruct a pattern of three elongated beasts biting each other's tails ... They are enamelled in yellow on a red field, like several of the spiral discs, and the bronze has also been plated with silver. Per Haseloff 1990 (translated), Fragments of an escutcheon from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, show three animals arranged in a circular shape with ribbon-like, tapering bodies that end in a fish tail. These are clearly representations of dolphins, which appear in Irish art, especially book painting (Cathach of St. Columba; gospel fragment, Durham A.I.10. fol. 2r). The colors of the enamel are, in my opinion: yellow for the animal bodies and red for the background. The separating metal bars are tinned. According to R. Bruce-Mitford, there is only one enamel color, namely red. And per Ozanne 1962–1963 (probably taking her lead from Henry, who is cited in the following sentence), The Middleton Moor escutcheon is enamelled in red only, while the second attachment has both yellow and red, like the Benty Grange fragments. Henry possibly analyzed the escutcheons in person, but there is no indication either of the others did. In any event, however, none of the authors present any evidence for their assertions, and Haseloff gets a fact incorrect when he attributes an all-red theory to Bruce-Mitford. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it slightly to try to make it more clear: A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed, but no evidence for such a layout has been presented. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• according to the Tribal Hidage: I would introduce what this was.

• I'm a little bit reluctant here, just because there's so much to say, and so many qualifiers to add; just clicking on the link seems to better way to figure it out. But let me know if you disagree. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NOFORCELINK would always advise some kind of explanation additional to "just click the link", but I'll have a read and a think as to whether I can suggest something that's both brief enough and correct enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, in that case I've gone with a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The nearby farm was renovated between 2012 and 2014; as of 2023 it is rented out as a holiday cottage: I'm not sure how relevant or encyclopaedic this bit is; the last part in particular could be taken as
  WP:PROMO
  . Given that none of the sources cited here really pass HQRS muster, would remove.

• As noted below, I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, but the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's thus somewhat interesting to know the status of the farmhouse, just as it's interesting to know the status of the barrow and the surrounding fields. It's not a point I feel particularly strongly about, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm with User:SchroCat on this one: the farmhouse itself is interesting, but not the renovation and not the current use as a holiday cottage (it would be interesting if the barrow itself, or something more directly related to the artefact, had some current use, but this cottage is only notable by sheer proximity and the sentence with that citation does read like an advertisement.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention of it being rented out, to make it seem less like an ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Some initial thoughts:

• "seems to show that a hook may have been present" – this double-hedging is a pet peeve of mine: what's wrong with "seems to show that a hook was present"?!

• Good point. Now: a contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt suggests that a hook was present at excavation. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion of colour is slightly confusing: we are told that the yellow-on-red colour scheme has "also" been suggested before the all-yellow theory which it is additional to is mentioned! Either cut the "also", or mention Bruce-Mitford's all-yellow working hypothesis first.

• The first mention of color is The decomposed enamel background appears uniformly yellow to the eye, as it did when excavated. I've just added the "uniformly" to make this more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the description of the dolphin design seems uncomfortably close to Bruce-Mitford's text to me:
  • "each biting the tail of the animal ahead of it" / "each biting the tail of the one ahead of it"
  • "jaws both long and curved" / "long curved jaws"
  • "where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind" / "where the tail or ribbon body of an animal should logically pass through the mouth of the one behind it"

• Reworded all. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away": this is a little jarring on the first mention of this chain; I would say something like "a mass of corroded chainwork was discovered six feet away..."

• Changed "The" to "A". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark": Bruce-Mitford 1974, cited for this, says that the monogram is IN and the gospel is John; I don't have access to Bruce-Mitford 1987, so I can't see if that supports the claim. (Though I see this fragment of the Durham gospel is in fact Mark and has what looks suspiciously like the monogram described by B-M)

• Well, this one is interesting. Per B-M 1974, "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monogram from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs. The MS dates from about A.D. 650." Folio 2r of the Gospel Book Fragment (A. II. 10.) shows just this—but, as you say, it is the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, what does folio 2r of the Durham Gospels (A. II. 17.) depict? The Gospel of John, with a big N-looking thing, decorated with fish- or dolphin-looking things. I think B-M had to have been describing the fragment: it is the only one where there is a "lateral stroke ... built of two similar fish motifs". But the similarity between them is probably the cause of the error. (And as discussed here, there appears to be another, related, error in B-M 2005.) I'll also take a look at B-M 1987 when I have access to it again next week. But for now, I think we can be confident that the article here correctly navigates the intended meaning of the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bruce-Mitford 1987 does not shed any further light on this issue. It says just that the best analogy for its fish design [is] in the Northumbrian bible fragment MS Durham A.Il. 10, of c. 650. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "fosse"/"penannular": both uncommon technical terms. Can they be glossed, linked, or replaced with something more understandable?

• fosse and penannular are both disambiguation pages with definitions. The former suggests that ditch is a viable piped link, which I've gone with. I'm not sure what to link penannular to, though. Wiktionary? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that one of the fragments is (or at least recently was?) on display in Sheffield, I don't suppose there's any way of getting a decent photo of what it looks like now? If I remember next time I'm up there I'll have a go, but that's not going to be until February at the earliest.

• To be honest, I'm not sure where I got the information that it was on display; the link it was sourced to doesn't seem to have that information, and I've now removed it from the article. I've also emailed the museum a couple times about a photo, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public—interesting points. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto-public, just checking if the above responses are sufficient for your support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

• "A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. " Well, is it necessary to tell the reader something that disintegrated no longer survives?

• Well, it could have been tucked away in a box full of dust; were the excavation done today, for instance, there would presumably be better records of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I also was wondering about a photo of the one on display, either taken by a visitor or if the museum would co-operate with making one of its images available through OTRS. Having taken more than a few photos as a visitor to museums, I suspect the latter would be the preferred option. The Ashmolean might also be queried. Has either a Wikipedian in residence?

• I've sent both museums emails on the subject. The Weston Park Museum was kind enough to send photos of the helmet at one point, so I'm still hopeful they might find time for the escutcheon. I sent one to them recently; I'll try following up with the Ashmolean, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the objects mentioned in "Parallels" simply of similar design, or do the sources draw the parallels with the escutcheons in question?

• The sources always say either (a) "[object in question] is similar to the Benty Grange escutcheons", or (b) "the Benty Grange escutcheons are similar to [object or objects]". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1861 Bateman died at 39" age 39?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "having seen to his father's fortune," perhaps "dissipated" rather than "seen to"?

• Went with "spent." You're now I think the third person who has suggested revising that line; guess it's time to wise up. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get the same thing with cute idioms that don't work well in all ENGVARs Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974,[100]" Does this mean he went there?

• It wouldn't shock me, but it's now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IB

• The three location links should have some delinking to bring them in line with
  MOS:GEOLINK

• There are only two links, no? "Benty Grange farm, Monyash, Derbyshire, England". Are you suggesting that Derbyshire doesn't need the link? If anything, I think we could be adding a link, to Benty Grange. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting it,

  MOS:GEOLINK is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  MOS:GEOLINK says For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. Here, the "larger unit" is England, which is not linked. This would appear to be consistent with the example (Buffalo, New York, United States), where the city and state are linked, but not the country. (Granted, that example has only one link—"Buffalo, New York" is the full name of the article, whereas "Monyash" and "Derbyshire" are each full article names. Nevertheless, the "larger unit" remains England.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I read it differently, but your call. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation

• Is the C21st renovation of the farmhouse important? Or the fact it's now a holiday cottage?

• I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, although the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's somewhat interesting, therefore, to know that the farmhouse is still around and kicking. The article on the helmet also mentions the same facts and went through the same FAC process. With that said, I don't feel too strongly about it (especially, perhaps, because the owners never responded for a photo of the barrow), so won't push back if you think the article better without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll accept the first bit about the farmhouse being there (I suppose knowing the environment of the archaeological site is an important point), but not so much the holiday cottage, which seems superfluous. Your call, and it won't affect my support below one bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Nicely written - engaging and nice and clear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, just checking to see if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? (Obviously, neither is obligatory.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thanks for the ping. Only one of my two comments has been addressed, so I'm not going to come down off the fence on this one yet - but don't let that hold up the process if you're looking to pass this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs and SchroCat, apologies for the delay—had some computer issues which made editing more difficult. But SchroCat, I've responded to the remaining comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with a guarded Support for this. On the prose side it is certainly qualifies. Both UndercoverClassicist and Johnbod are eminently more capable than I to judge the content aspect and I hope at least one of them confirms they are happy with that part too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

• I've butted-in some above.
• I wonder if you came to regret picking an object that barely exists? You end up doing a lot of "the knee bone was presumably connected to the thigh-bone" stuff, which has perhaps understandably attracted much reviewer excitement.
• "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." See above - B-M does not mean "Early Celtic", before the Romans, but Celtic from the Romano-British, sub-Roman or "Late Celtic" period. Best to expand to clarify this important point. "Still" is misleading - he & others regard most of them as being made "during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times".
• "He suggested that this was the result of "a mixing or tempering with some corrosive liquid; the result of which is the presence of thin ochrey veins in the earth, and the decomposition of nearly the whole of the human remains." Any modern comment of this? Sutton Hoo similarly lacks the human remains, but I think this is just put down to natural soil chemistry.

• B-M 1974 says that "The disappearance of human remains may be due to the soil conditions observed by Bateman. The process of disintegration was no doubt advanced by the robbing of the grave." Given that B-M was very familiar with the conditions at Sutton Hoo by this point (he excavated there from 1965 to 1970), it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't discuss the possibility that it was simply the nature of the soil; it does suggest, however, that he thought Bateman's hypothesis had some potential. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You list "Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (2005). Taylor, Robin J. (ed.). A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with an Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-813410-7" As you know, Rupert Bruce-Mitford died in 1994, having started compiling his catalogue in the 1940s. Sheila Raven is credited as author of the Scandi finds section (not relevant here), and the entry authors (end of the pre-numbered pages) are these two and Jane Brenan. I don't see Taylor, Robin J. anywhere on a g-books view. I think a note explaining the situation would be good somewhere.

• That was a mistake. It was caused, most likely, by using as a starting point the citation template for Bruce-Mitford's 1997 posthumous work (on Mawgan Porth Dark Age Village), which was edited by Robin Taylor. Thanks for catching. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in
    ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's a helpful source, thanks. How do you feel about: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes - it might be tinkered with, but that does the job. There's sometimes talk of "native" Romano-British populations, at least in the early Roman period. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Johnbod. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• You should give the source in the image description of the reconstruction.

• The source is Carlinmack (thanks again), based on published designs. What are you suggesting? Something like "after Bruce-Mitford 2005"? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be a full reference including the page number so that anyone interested can find the source image. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "What remains of one escutcheon belongs to Museums Sheffield and as of 2023 was in the collection of the Weston Park Museum. The other is held by the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford; as of 2023 it is not on display." You imply that neither is on display but you should state this specifically.

• I'm not sure about the status of the Sheffield escutcheon, whereas the Ashmolean affirmatively states that theirs is not on display. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion of the date and provenance of the bowl is unclear. In the lead you say "a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artefact from the seventh century AD". In the main text "it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". This implies late seventh/early eighth rather than straight seventh century. But "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." This implies that it was not made in 7C Mercia but of ancient Celtic manufacture.

• I've tried to clarify this with the following: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This still seems vague.
  Post-Roman Britain redirects to Sub-Roman Britain, which is the fifth and sixth centuries. Is this what you mean? Vikings are irrelevant unless they also used them. The Vikings were active in Britain between the late eighth to the eleventh centuries, which is very broad. Presumably the bowls' dating can be more closely specified than that. (BTW the term "Celtic" is controversial except as applied to the language. An academic historian once objected to it in an article of mine and I replied pointing out that it was in a quote from another academic historian.) How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the [[Sub-Roman Britain|post-Roman period]] (fifth and sixth centuries). Some were acquired by Anglo-Saxons, probably by trade, and used until the ... century." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Driving by - I don't think that is supported by the sources. There are 28 examples from Viking period graves in Scandinavia,(B-M, 41) never mind Britain. B-M is very cautious in giving dates, except for burials when there is other evidence, but supports a much longer range than just the fifth and sixth centuries. Your presumption that "dating can be more closely specified than that" is I think wrong. Another context where "Celtic" is not controversial is artistic style, especially in fact after the end of the "Celtic" Iron Age with the Roman conquest. That is what matters here. Btw, I don't think we should exclude the possibility that, at least after the earliest period, the A-S elite (perhaps later joined by the Vikings) were the main market for hanging bowls, perhaps commissioning them direct from the workshops. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was trying to clarify the wording, and where I have wrongly interpreted it I think that this shows that the wording is unclear. Your comments help to clarify. From what you, say maybe change "used by Anglo-Saxons until Viking times" to "used by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings." My reference to fifth and sixth centuries was what I assumed was meant in the article by "post Roman period" for manufacture, not usage. You appear to say that both manufacture and usage carried on much longer than what is usually meant by the post-Roman period. If dating cannot be closely specified then I suggest saying so, not giving a vague and apparently irrelevant "into viking times". As to Celtic, I was commenting on "Celtic populations", not Celtic art. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've said similar above (in 2 places). But vagueness seems to come with the territory (perhaps partly because B-M was only published 10 yrs after he died ...). I can't today access B-M p. 17 where he summarizes his conclusions on dating, but it covers a long stretch, as I recall. From a google search they "occur mainly in Anglo-Saxon burials of the 6th and 7th centuries AD" but were at least often "antiques" when buried. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Scandinavian examples date to the Viking period, does that mean that they post-date the ones in Anglo-Saxon burials? The Viking Age is usually taken to start in 793, but that seems Anglo-centric and I do not know whether it is taken to start earlier in Scandinavia. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See B-M p. 43 (part of Raven's bit). C10th and (slightly less common) C9th are the Scandi burial dates, where we know them. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• So Scandi examples are much later, but that might be because by 9C the Anglo-Saxons no longer buried with grave goods, not necessariy because they had stopped using hanging bowls? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's right. The remarkable (and remarkably lost, after being exhibited in 1868) Witham bowl from the River Witham in Lincs. is dated by B-M to the late 8th or early 9th century. Perhaps significantly, this doesn't seem to come from a burial. B-M pp. 208-212. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Two notes that are relevant to the above discussion. First, Bruce-Mitford's conclusions on dating (2005, p. 40) is as follows: The main conclusions reached in this chapter on the dating of the hanging-bowls are as follows. The origins of the series is firmly placed in the late and early sub-Roman bowl-making industry, and Brenan's proposition that there was no continuity is not accepted. It is maintained that there was no bowl-making industry in Ireland before the eighth century, although the ornamental background of at least one group of bowls, the fine-line group, was well established there during the sixth century. Hanging-bowls were used in late Roman and early sub-Roman contexts, and the Faversham (1) (Corpus no. 37), Finningley (1) and (2) bowls (Corpus nos. 109-10), and the Newham Bog (1) (Corpus no. 71), and Silch-ester (Group 2, no. 5) escutcheons are (or may be) all examples of this. A bowls are by and large confined to the fifth and sixth centuries. The B bowls and the folded rim are a seventh-century development, and the folded rim everywhere supersedes the straight in-bent rim that descended from the late Roman bowls of Irchester type. However, some A bowl traditions continue, in not clearly apparent circumstances, into the seventh and later centuries. With the exception of the Wilton bowl (Corpus no. 97) and any others that may have shared its peculiarity (riveting on of the escutcheons), A bowls and B bowls had soldered escutcheons, following the Roman tradition. Riveting of escutcheons is found later in the C bowls, and becomes thereafter universal. C bowls are dated generally to the seventh/eighth century and D and E bowls are the last in the series and date to the eighth-eleventh centuries and even possibly later. Second, there's a 1999 article (
  doi:10.1080/00766097.1999.11735623; not cited in B-M 2005, probably because it's posthumous) that expressly argues that hanging bowls—whatever their broader dates of manufacture and use—were only deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves in the 7th and 8th centuries. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks again for the typing. Some of this could go into our main Hanging bowl, by a professional archaeologist, but rather short. For this article, one might simplify by restricting/distinguishing between this type of hanging bowl, and other later ones. Mind you, B-M doesn't seem to commit himself as to which of his letter types the bits come from. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Much as I'd love to take credit for the typing, this is a very handy tool.) I've edited the line about use to clarify that Vikings were amongst those who used the bowls, and added some of the above (namely, the article by Helen Geake) about when hanging bowls were included in Anglo-Saxon graves. We could add a discussion of the different bowls types, but I think that would be better placed in the main hanging bowl article, especially because here, the bowl itself (as opposed to the escutcheons) no longer survives—likely why Bruce-Mitford does not discuss what type of bowl the Benty Grange example was. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided travellers". to or for travellers.

• "for" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "stuck the back of one fragment" "stuck on the back of one fragment"?

• Fixed (went with "stuck to"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• The one outstanding point I see from the discussion above is "Celtic populations". The term "Celtic" is controversial in this context and "British" would be better.

• The problem with British, as a standalone term, is that it seems much more ambiguous than Celtic. The current sentence refers to Celtic populations in Britain, and we'd be changing to British populations in Britain—a phrase that could just as well include Anglo-Saxons in it. Per Johnbod's comment above, we could perhaps go with something along the lines of native Romano-British populations, although it's somewhat clunky. Bruce-Mitford 2005 unabashedly uses the word Celtic: No one doubts that the great majority of the bowls are of Celtic manufacture. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruce-Mitford died in 1995 and in his time the term "Celtic" as applied to people was not controversial, which it is now among academic historians. I am now away and do not have access to my books, but in British people see: "In this sub-Roman Britain, as Anglo-Saxon culture spread across southern and eastern Britain and Gaelic through much of the north, the demonym "Briton" became restricted to the Brittonic-speaking inhabitants of what would later be called Wales, Cornwall, North West England (Cumbria), and a southern part of Scotland (Strathclyde).". Changing "They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." to "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." would not be unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Usernameunique that an unexpanded "British" is at least as likely to be misunderstood or mislead as "Celtic". I'm not sure how "controversial" Celtic actually is - everybody agrees it is a weak term, with a lot of baggage, but it is univerally understood. I note that Leslie Webster's 2012 book has "...been argued that in the sixth century the majority of bowls were made by Celtic populations within Britain ..." and later "as the A-S kingdoms extended" the workshops seem to have retreated to modern Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [3]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we know all that! Webster (who is still alive) is a historian too, and a very distinguished one! Art historians, including "specialists on early medieval Britain" (only a couple of whom seem to feature in your impressive library list) are at once perhaps more conscious of the issues around "Celtic" than general/political historians, and less at the same time scared of using the term for this period. You might recall the name of the British Museum exhibition a few years ago. The issue is - what does Randy from Boise" make of a plain "British"? As I've said several times above, unpacking and explaining these terms is best for those readers who haven't read the Oxford History of Wales etc. What that review note actually says is "Commented [RNN16]: Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." which is certainly true. But to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’ here is not an option, as these areas seem to be firmly where hanging bowls were not made at this period. "British" in the A-S period has its own, much less well-rehearsed, issues - when do the "British" in modern England stop being British? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion is: "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." The meaning of "Britons" here seems to me clear to anyone from the context. However, you raise a point I was not aware of. I assumed that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made. So were they made by native Britons in AS areas? This should be clarified in the article. Of course you raise valid points about "British", but disputing historians' usage and using a term they reject because they have not discussed the issues is OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You suggested above "How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the post-Roman period (fifth and sixth centuries)." Just saying. The little we know on locations (essentially find-spots rather than evidence of manufacture) is summarized below. They may have been made in areas the A-S hadn't quite got to at that point - see Webster. Later on they probably were made in Ireland. There is I think nothing in the article to encourage you to assume "that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made", except the mention of "Celtic" style, but it might be best to head off that idea somehow. Btw, why not Scotland? The evidence for manufacture there is far stronger than for Wales or Ireland. Since the mere mention of "Celtic" seems to immediately generate different assumptions - Iron Age for Undercover Classicist, & Wales & Ireland for Dudley, I really think as clear as possible a statement of what is meant (and not meant) is needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have mentioned Dumnonia and Strathclyde as well as Wales and Ireland. I did not include Scotland as it did not exist at that period and I would be interested to know where in Scotland the bowls were made. The south-east is presumably possible before it was anglicised at an early date by the Northumbrians. Strathclyde is likely but it was not yet part of Scotland.
  Dal Riata covering the western seaboard of Scotland and north-east Ireland is likely. I assume Pictland is unlikely as it was a separate culture in the far north. A discussion of the areas and dates of manufacture would bypass the need to choose between Celtic and British. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I've added this line: One possibility is that they were originally made by populations outside the sphere of Anglo-Saxon control, such as in the Severn Valley in southwest England to the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxons extended their domain—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also. (Fun fact: this FAC is now twice the length of the article.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's make it even longer That framing seems imply that "the Anglo-Saxons" were a single political unit (in particular, the phrase extended their domain and perhaps the phrase Anglo-Saxon control). Is that accurate? If not, would suggest something like "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms/polities/realms/similar extended their domains...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms extended their territories". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, used that wording. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the reference for the image should be in the image description as well as in the article.

• It's in the footnote: "After Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pl. 3." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the article footnote. But the the description in c:File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg is just "Design used on 7th century Bowl." This is too vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call. I've expanded both the description and attribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "141 were from Britain and Ireland, 26 from Norway, and 7 from elsewhere in Europe." There are several issues. 1. MOS forbids - if I remember correctly - starting a sentence with a number in figures. 2. Is no breakdown of the figure for Britain and Ireland available? Anglo-Saxon areas, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland? 3. Europe should be "mainland Europe".

• (
  You're correct about the MOS.) I've reworded to Within the British Isles, England accounted for 117, Scotland for 7, and Ireland for 17; elsewhere, Norway accounted for 26, and the remainder of Europe for 7. I don't think Bruce-Mitford gives a more detailed breakdown (although it could be at least partially compiled from the bowl-by-bowl breakdown), though he notes that The bowls have come to light in all parts of the British Isles, from Shetland to the Isle of Wight, except for Wales, and Devon and Cornwall. Of those European (but not Norwegian) 7, meanwhile, I don't think "mainland" works, since Sweden accounts for a bowl. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Webster says, "some 150 bowls or bowl fittings are known from Britain (before 700)... most of them from England". Also 4 from Ireland. But B-M has more on this, maps at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Continental Europe article says "The Scandinavian Peninsula is sometimes also excluded as, even though it is a part of "mainland Europe"", so it covers Sweden, but this is a minor issue as "Europe" is often used - wrongly in my opinion - to exclude the UK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Benty Grange hanging bowl is typically dated to the second half of the seventh century". "typically" is an odd word in this context. Maybe "dated by most experts" Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder how many experts have actually made their own assessments, rather just following B-M. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much for all your input, Dudley Miles. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I see that Charles-Edwards refers to "Celtic craftsmen" and this seems better than "Celtic populations". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And better than "British Britain", which Youngs uses! Changed to "Celtic makers" so as to not gender it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Image placement is OKish. File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg should probably say that the underlying design is PD. Otherwise it seems like licencing is OK. Personally I tend to think that the ALT text needs to convey the same information on appearance as the image would, not merely say what the image is. Source-wise, spot-check upon request. Why do Liestøl 1953 and the 19th century Bateman sources have no page numbers in the References section? What do "pp. 223, pl. 73.", "pp. 223, 223 n.4." and "pp. 46–47, 47 n.a." stand for? Is Thomas Bateman (antiquary) a high-quality reliable source? Same question for William Henry Goss. I see there is some inconsistency in which information is provided by which sources - some books have ICCNs and/or ISBNs and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a PD template for the design. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added better alt text—have deserved to be called out on that for a while. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bateman works are being cited as a whole (in essence, "he published X book", followed by a cite to the book). For Liestøl, the whole article is about the idea being cited (that hanging bowls may have been vessels for liturgical use). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"pl." stands for "plate". "n." stands for "note" (as in footnote 4 or footnote a). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bateman and Goss are being cited as contemporaneous sources, not for modern analysis, and are high quality reliable sources in that context. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a missing ISBN. The intention, however, is to have book cites include whatever numbers (primarily ISBNs and LCCNs) with which they were printed; depending on age, some have one, both, or neither. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review—particularly appreciate you taking it so quickly after it was posted. Replies above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned that this isn't a field where I can instinctively recognize the relative reliability of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just a courtesy ping to let you know that all comments have now been addressed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (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) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (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) 27 December 2023 [4].

Teloschistaceae

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dive into the colourful world of the Teloschistaceae, the 3rd-largest family of lichen-forming fungi with about 1000 species and more than 100 genera. I think the article is an up-to-date summary – a curated and comprehensive compendium – of the relevant literature space, and, imho, the best single source of information about this topic either online or in print. Please read and comment, and look at the many pictures of attractive orange and yellow lichens! Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• There is a huge amount of whitespace in the Description section

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Ikaeria_serusiauxii.jpg: the license mentioned in Summary is different from the one in Licensing - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the cladogram size slightly, so that should help a little, but am open to other suggestions (whitespace doesn't show up me for unless I drag the window width to be quite large). I could put it in a show/hide template, but perhaps this sort of usage is discouraged? Have corrected the licensing on that image. I'll add alt texts, but the day is coming soon when multi-modal language modelling with image integration is built into browsers and will be able to describe images to viewers in any way they want. Thanks for the image review. Esculenta (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta:, could you move the cladogram up a bit in the article? It would still be in the "Systematics" section of the article, which seems appropriate. MeegsC (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea – done. It now starts where the bulleted summaries of the subfamilies are given, which is a logical placement. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fritz

• "its their frequent anthraquinone content"

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the thallus (the main body of the lichen) is either leaf-like (foliose), bushy or shrub-like (fruticose) to crust-like" this clause is a little confusing to me. Is the thallus leaf-like, bushy, or shrub-like... to crust-like? I'm having a hard time visualizing the different options. Additionally, is there a reason the technical term for crust-like is not given in the same manner as foliose and fruticose?

• Reworded this part, hopefully it's clearer? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Teloschistaceae lichens" is there mention of the non-lichens in the lead? I noticed the first sentence says "mostly lichen-forming fungi" but then I didn't see further elaboration on the non-lichens

• The final sentence in the lead para mentioned the 40 lichenicolous fungi in the family, but I've since added some words to make this distinction more explicit. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My next question would then be: does the second paragraph refer to all members of the family, or only the "Teloschistaceae lichens"?

• It refers to the vast majority, 960 or so lichens, so the wording is purposeful. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the link for "thalline margins" is broken. Could that just be written "edges of the thallus"?

• Switched to more lead-friendly wording; the link works for me. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Several dozen new genera have been added" since 2013? or earlier?

• The former, clarified. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "as ongoing molecular studies provide clearer insights into the phylogenetic relationships amongst taxa within this family" is a very dense clause to have in the lead. I think a layperson may have some difficulty here.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three Teloschistaceae species have been assessed for the global IUCN Red List." This seems very abrupt. I think elaboration on a few threats to their conservation, or other notes on their ecology, may be warranted here.

• Added some text to flesh this out. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "that shared the typical polar-diblastic spores / now recognised as the family Teloschistaceae" I would split this into two sentences, or cut the latter part

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "polarilocular or 4-locule ascospores" come again?

• Trimmed some unneeded historical details in these parts, and made terms consistent. I hope it reads more smoothly now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To what to télos (ends) and -schistós (split) refer? Laying it out for a dummy like me would be nice, even just a brief "referring to the split ends of the lichen in the family" or something of that ilk

• Good idea, done. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "independent molecular studies" I only see a single study cited here

• Added 2nd, corroborative, source. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was informally introduced" what does this mean? Was it invalidly published or not published at all?

• Clarified in text. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite these results, Kondratyuk and colleagues continue to use these subfamilies" clarify which subfamilies, I thought it were referring to the three original ones until I got to the end of the paragraph

• Also reworked this text, please let me know how it reads. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the Molecular phylogenetics section could use some work. I would suggest moving the third paragraph to the front. It gives an overview of why phylogenetics are necessary. I think the quote by Gaya and colleagues in P4 is overly long. Perhaps it could be moved to a quotebox, or just rephrased in more simple terms. I also don't see the relevance of much of P2 - I'm honestly having difficulty telling what exactly it's saying.

• Great feedback! I used all of your suggestions and trimmed lots of complicated stuff not needed for the general audience. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The link for "umbilical" is also not working for me

• This one works for me; other readers please let me know if this is a common problem. Esculenta (talk)

• "biatorine or lecideine forms may manifest" what does it mean to manifest? Does that mean develop in a single specimen, or arise evolutionarily within a clade, or something else?

• Again, reworked over my confusing prose, hopefully is clearer now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Asexual reproduction within this family, results in the formation of pycnidial conidiomata that yield clear, either bacillar (rod-shaped) to bifusiform (double-spindle-shaped) conidia" some construction/comma issues here

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is my personal taste, but as a reader I would prefer if all the lichen-jargon were explained within this description section. I understand I can click the links to find out what each term means, but that leads to an unpleasant and jarring reading experience. A few words that give me a rough understanding of what the hell "paraplectenchymatous" means would be most welcome

• I hear ya! Check if the read is smoother now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything "7-chlorocatenarin" could link to?

• I red-linked to the parent compound catenarin and will bluelink it before this FAC is over. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several more terms (like Sedifolia-gray) that have broken links to the glossary. It may be an issue throughout the article, and is one more reason it is good to have brief explanations of in-line text

• Interestingly, these lichengloss links with a hyphen don't work for me either, and I have no idea why not; the anchors on the glossary page seem to be constructed correctly ... will investigate. For now added a couple more words to give these compounds more context. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessary at all, but a table for the list of genera may improve readability and reduce white space

• I'm reluctant to use something other than the standard formatting we've sort of establish at
  WP:Lichen, but maybe I'll play around in a sandbox and see how it looks? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For lichens, this kind of information is generally dealt with in genus and species articles, but since you asked, I was able to pull some tidbits of info applicable to the entire family and made a "Species interactions" subsection for it to reside. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the species on the Red Lists threatened? Are there any broad threats to lichens in the family?

• I've added some more interesting details from the IUCN sources. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, thank you for the excellent article; it is a wonderful overview! Fritzmann (message me) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for a most helpful review! I appreciate the valuable feedback and am happy to see the article improve as a result. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some great changes there, I'm glad I was able to help and am happy to support on prose and content! Fritzmann (message me) 11:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Great to see this here. I spotted the type species myself just two months ago while hiking.

• reaction of the ascus tip's external layer to iodine – the ascus being the spore-producing structure. – Reads awkward. Maybe "reaction of the ascus, the spore-producing structure, to iodine"? In addition of being less awkward, this is now more simplified, but I would recommend such simplification at least for the lead.

• up to more than 1000 – we can't have "more than" and "up to" at the same time, this is contradictory.

• were largely ignored by later contemporaries, – contradictory as well: are they contemporaries, or did they live later?

• I think that terms in figure captions should be linked.

• Also, terms that were already linked in the lead should be linked (and preferably explained) in the main body again (according to WP:MOS).

• ascospores – link terms always at first mention

• The link "amyloid" to the glossary is unsatisfactory, as the glossary entry does not make sense to me. Why not link to the main article?

• presence of a strongly amyloid cap-like zone at the tip of the ascus – We need to do more to get the general reader on board, I think. Maybe replace "amyloid" with an explanation, or add such explanation in a bracket?

• verified the presence of a special ascus type featuring an amyloid outer layer without visible apical structures, and with an irregular dehiscence; she named this the Teloschistes-type – my perspective here is that of a lay person. I honestly think that I am unable to learn much from this sentence. In this context (it is the history section!), it seems to be way too much detail. And even when I follow the links, I still can't really understand the essence, because for this it is not detailed enough. E.g., "irregular dehiscence", irregular in what way? The article dehiscence does not explain what "irregular" means in this context, too. Maybe it would be possible to reduce the detail overall, and focus on getting the main points across?

• until the molecular era – I was not entirely sure what the molecular era is here. Link to molecular phylogenetics, if this hits your point?

• including 8 genera, 48 new species – why are only the species "new", but not the genera?

• Technically some of the genera were "resurrected", i.e. circumscribed a long time ago, forgotten, and then revived due to molecular work that reveals that the name of the old genus is the best placement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• identifying it as an "artifactual taxon" with "chimeric" data origins – can we translate this to common language? Maybe it could simply be deleted.

• A subsequent review revealed it to be – "subsequent" to what? This is already the second sentence about a paper that is "subsequent" to the former.

• Although evidence undermines the phylogenetic legitimacy of these two subfamilies, Kondratyuk's group persists in recognizing them, attributing nine genera to Brownlielloideae and two to Ikaerioideae.[36] – Are we too close to
  WP:Synth
  here? This is a sentence that calls for a secondary source, but you only cite the group that you are criticizing, so it reads like original criticism published in Wikipedia, which should not be.

• used by Ulf Arup and colleagues in their 2013 publication, – I personally consider this excessive detail

• diverse secondary chemistry – what does that mean?

• This subfamily was first informally proposed (without a valid diagnosis) – But this seems to apply to the other subfamilies as well, yet you only mention it in this one. Why?

• Caloplacoideae contains mostly crustose species, and collectively has a wide distribution – what does the "collectively" add here? If you want to refer to the individual species, you should write "which collectively have", but that seems just redundant to me.

• The widespread application of molecular techniques to the Teloschistaceae has illuminated the variability of many morphological and anatomical characters, demonstrating their unreliability as evolutionary markers.[51] With the advancements in molecular techniques, differentiation of species once considered phenotypically indistinguishable became clearer, as evidenced by the semi-cryptic species group containing the closely named Caloplaca micromarina, C. micromontana, and C. microstepposa.[52] – I think this has similar problems to those I mentioned above:
  • What's the difference between morphological and anatomical characters? Aren't these synonyms?
  • If characters are "variable" in the family (i.e., different from species to species), that does not necessarily mean that they do not carry phylogenetic signal. So I am not sure what you mean.
  • "as evidenced by" – but you do not provide any evidence, you just list three species. This does not help, you could just remove this part.

• Despite the Teloschistaceae's prominence in GenBank with over 6400 DNA sequences, early molecular studies often faced limitations due to insufficient sampling of representative species. – the relationship in time is not clear. Did the early studies had access to those 644 DNA sequences? If those sequences were added much later, the "despite" seems wrong because that would be irrelevant to those early studies.

• Historically, genera within Teloschistaceae were distinguished based on attributes like growth form, cortical layer nature, rhizine presence, or spore type. – That sentence would make sense at the beginning of the section.

• these taxonomic distinctions such as those – "these" bits "such as those"

• especially given the reliance on previously unreliable characters – So they are no longer unreliable? If they are now reliable, why does this "emphazise" the need for molecular studies?

• You have a lot of "emphazise", "highlighting", "revealed", "elucidated", "illuminated". Some of these sound like
  MOS:PEACOCK
  to me.

• Given the myriad taxonomic changes – "many", not "myriad". No colloquial speech.

• In general, I think the writing still needs a lot of work, it is not quite there yet. I recommend to try to
  • reduce the amount of detail that is not precisely to the point/not needed to understand the key points;
  • formulate more concisely without fluff;
  • translate complicated sentences into plain language text that is easier to understand;
  • and add more context information that the reader might need to understand the main points.

Hope this helps so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It sure does! I've taken on board all of your excellent suggestions (except for the single reply above) and invite you to have a look at the text again. I await more of your ideas for improvement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrections are looking good! I continue with the remainder of the article below:

• anthraquinone – terms should be linked at first mention in the main text (independently from the lead).
• from the thin, encrusting (crustose) to leaf-like (foliose), or even bushy (fruticose) formations. – "the" is too much; I would maybe also remove the comma behind (foliose).
• apotheciate – wikilink should be extended to the whole word (using the pipe: |).
• Their reproductive structures, or ascomata, are usually brightly coloured. – are you now talking about the green algae or the fungi? This is not clear.
• In most species, apotheciate ascomata have a lecanorine form, in which the apothecial disc is surrounded by a pale rim of tissue known as a thalline margin. Fewer Teloschistaceae species have biatorine or lecideine forms, in which the apothecial disc lacks a thalline margin.[53][1] Reproductive propagules, such as isidia and soredia, can be found in select species. – Any chance to make this more accessible? Maybe some technical terms can be avoided, and others explained?

• I have clarified what "apotheciate" means, but I think the explanatory text following the commas adequately explain the respective technical terms. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a small image of an apothecia to make it easier for the reader to envision the "disc" and "margin" that is referred to? I'll see what I can find. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I've added an image that I hope will help the reader better understand the terms apothecia, lecanorine, and thalline margins. Esculenta (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• internal apical apparatus – what is that?
• J+ layer – maybe this technical term can be avoided by replacing it with your explanation that you provided in the bracket?

• Would prefer to keep this technical term, as it appears in several of the formal descriptions of the family; I've rearranged the text so the explanation is closer and no longer parenthetical. Esculenta (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The translucent (hyaline) ascospores – Not sure if it makes sense to provide technical terms in a bracket (it only makes sense the other way around). Maybe remove the "hyaline" and just wikilink the word "translucent" accordingly?
• Despite the polarilocular nature of ascospores suggesting Teloschistaceae lineage, these spores are often not overtly distinctive. – I do not really understand this sentence, neither do I understand what it adds that is not stated by the sentence that follows.
• pycnidia-type conidiomata, producing clear conidia – again, give the reader some idea what this means?
• loosely paraplectenchymatous structure – again, impossible to understand the sentence without understanding this term; I suggest to add an inline explanation if possible.

• Again here, the explanation ("the constituent fungal hyphae are oriented in various directions") follows the comma. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow, as soon as time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of your comments I've responded to; otherwise I've considered and implemented all of your suggestions to clarify and polish the prose. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I see that some terms are already explained, but here it was not clear to me that these are explanations (you cannot know that if you do not understand what it means). I suggest to use the same format for explanations throughout the article (e.g., use "meaning that", or put them in brackets, as you do elsewhere in the article) to mark them clearly as explanations rather than additional information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Research on Teloschistaceae photobionts has shown that all studied foliose (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and fruticose (Teloschistes) types were affiliated with specific Trebouxia clades. This indicates a degree of specificity at the genus level, where only certain subclades of the Trebouxia clade are seen as suitable partners. This specificity, however, can vary based on the habitat; in extreme climates, lichens might be associated with a broader range of photobionts. – I had to read this several times, I think clarity could be improved. With "types", you mean genera? Who "sees" the subclades as suitable partners, the researchers? Does that mean it is an opinion rather than a solid observation? And do you mean that particular lichen taxa that live in extreme climates show a broader range of photobionts, or that photobionts within a taxon vary according to habitat?

• I hope this revision makes it clearer: "Studies of photobionts in the Teloschistaceae, including foliose genera (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and a fruticose genus (Teloschistes), reveal a consistent association with specific Trebouxia clades. This finding suggests a genus-level specificity, with only select Trebouxia subclades forming symbiotic relationships. However, this specificity is not absolute and may vary with habitat: lichens in extreme climates have been observed to associate with a broader range of photobionts." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The main group of lichen products – What does "main" mean here? Does this refer to the quantity of the produced substance?

• Main, as in predominant; it's now "The predominant chemical compounds found in the Teloschistaceae are chemical pigments known as anthraquinones." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Evolutionary innovations in secondary metabolite production allowed the family to broaden its geographical range and transition from shaded, plant-based habitats to sun-exposed, arid environments. The production of protective chemicals is thought to be a direct contributor to the evolutionary success of the familial lineage – The second sentence kind of repeats what the first sentence was saying. You also use both "secondary metabolite" and "protective chemical", which seems to refer to the same thing here (the anthraquinones). This can be confusing, as it may be not evident that "protective chemical" refers to the substances previously mentioned.

• Reworded to trim the repetition and more clearly linked the term "secondary metabolites" with "anthraquinones," clarifying that they are the protective chemicals in question. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A 2023 study reported using – "A 2023 study used"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• recovered at a looted Late Holocene aboriginal cairn burial site in South America. – Can we be more specific than "South America"?
• Caloplaca (in the broad sense) – not even the article on Caloplaca gives a hint what this "broad sense" could be. Can this be simplified?
• Collectively, the family has a cosmopolitan distribution, – replace with "worldwide distribution" to avoid an unnecessary technical term?
• In general, the family is moderately to strongly nitrophilous. This suggests a preference of many of its species for habitats that are rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate. – Why not simply "Many species of the family are moderately to strongly nitrophilous, meaning that they prefer habitats rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate"? You are using "suggests", but actually what follows is not a scientific interpretation but an explanation of the term "nitrophilous"?
• Sun-adapted lichens, such as the Teloschistaceae, have an enhanced ability to upregulate the levels at which they fix carbon from the atmosphere and absorb excess nitrogen. – I don't really understand; what has carbon fixation to do with nitrogen absorption?
• There are several Teloschistaceae genera that contain lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) species. These originate from subfamily Caloplacoideae: Caloplaca (26 spp.), Gyalolechia (1 sp.), Variospora (1 sp.); from subfamily Teloschistoideae: Catenarina (1 sp.), Sirenophila 1; and from subfamily Xanthorioideae: Flavoplaca (4 spp.), Pachypeltis (1 sp.), and Shackletonia (3 spp.). – I am not sure why it is important to list the genera that contain lichen-dwelling species. You are not doing this for, say, lichen that grow on soil. Are these lichen-dwelling species especially relevant?

• I've made it more explicit in the lead and in the article that these 40-odd members of the family are fungi (i.e., not lichenised) and are therefore somewhat unusual in a family of predominantly lichenised members (and hence deserve to be highlighted). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conversely, there is a relatively low diversity of crustose Teloschistaceae in Central Europe. – "Conversely" does not make sense to me here. It would make sense if you would state they are rare in the tropics (as opposed to the polar regions).
• occur in primarily in sunlit locations – excessive "in"
• Teloschistaceae species are known to be host to many lichenicolous fungi, with certain fungi like Cercidospora caudata and Stigmidium cerinae displaying a broad range of hosts within this family. Most of these parasitic fungi show a preference for specific Teloschistaceae species or genus. –

• Is this the same as the lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) lichen discussed earlier, but this time other species growing on Teloschistaceae rather than wise versa? If so, it could have been mentioned earlier that these are parasitic and not sympatric.
• The first sentence is a bit awkward, especially the use of "displaying". Do they "display" the hosts? Maybe simply "have" is a better choice.
• Would it be better to combine the "displaying a broad range of hosts within this family" with the second sentence instead, which is about the same topic?

• Good points! I've rewritten these bits for clarity. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• late Cretaceous period, – "Late Cretaceous period" (upper case "L")
• These parasitic fungi seem to be interesting, but as a non-expert, I wonder if these are microscopic, or can be observed by the naked eye? If the latter, is there a photograph that can be shown?

• Mostly the latter; there might be an image I can use, I'll get back to you about this. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to this and JM's comments below, I've added an image of the parasitic Tremella fungus to show its gall-inducing nature. Esculenta (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Caloplaca pseudopoliotera and C. cupulifera are two crustose species implicated in the slow degradation of the Konark Sun Temple in India. – "Involved" instead of "implicated"? Or even "responsible"?
• Economic significance – This section is not really about economic significance, but rather about conservation of cultural objects and buildings (which can have economic significance but I think the point here is rather cultural heritage).

• I couldn't think of a short subheader for this paragraph, so I left it out (doesn't really seem necessary). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In Europe during the early modern era, it was boiled in milk to alleviate jaundice – a treatment shared with Polycauliona candelaria – and employed for diarrhea, dysentery, stopping bleeding, as a malaria remedy in lieu of quinine, and for treating hepatitis. – What does "a treatment shared with" means here? Are both used in combination to make this medicine?
• In Traditional Chinese medicine the lichen has been used as an antibacterial. – You use past tense, but are you sure these are not in use anymore?

• I'm not sure; the source also said "used", so stuck with past tense. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a pollutant tolerance biomonitor? If the lichen can cope with high levels of pollution, it cannot monitor the presence of these pollutants, or can it?

• Hopefully I've explained the authors' reasoning better. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• and potential invasive species intrusions. – Do you really mean that invasive species are potentially present, or do you mean that they have a potential impact on the lichen?
• and the presence of invasive species like goats and cows altering the habitat – really invasive species, or rather livestock?

• Clarified/explained "invasive species" for both instances. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it from my side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for a thorough review. I've actioned your comments to which I haven't replied. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – all my concerns have been addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Fantastic to see this here. Gone are the days of multiple fungal candidates at FAC simultaneously!

• I don't personally mind it, but I could see someone saying that the second and third sentences of the lead are a bit specialist for so early in the article.

• Reorganised so that 2nd & 3rd sentences have more friendly information. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Current" estimates will quickly get out of date; do you have a year for the estimates?

• Took out "current" and reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in the lead about uses to humans, cultural significance, etc.

• I've added a couple of sentences that summarise this. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume Mantissa Plantarum II is the same as Mantissa Plantarum Altera? I've created a redirect; if I'm wrong, please tell me!

• You are correct, and after consulting with the source to be sure, I changed this article to link to the latter title. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "perforation" jargon?

• Depends if one knows what "perforate" means or not! It's now a "small hole". 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "later subsequent researchers" Redundancy
• There's a bit of inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. It's fine to use it or not use it, but aim to be consistent.
• " in his popular Outline of the Ascomycota series" Popular in what way? Is that needed?
• "Teloschistineae" We don't italicise suborders; or were you meaning to italicise it as a word, rather than as a suborder?

• Yes, I was going for
  MOS:WORDSASWORDS styling. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I made redirects for Letrouitineae and Teloschistineae, but don't think this article needs to link them (they're explained in text, and the actual links aren't useful yet). Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Molecular phylogenetics has revolutionised our understanding of the Teloschistaceae" Slightly rhetorical; the use of the first person isn't very Wikipedia!

• Text removed. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "researchers like Ester Gaya and colleagues in 2012 began" A bit vague/unclear. Maybe you could do something like "researchers (including Ester Gaya and colleagues, publishing in 2012) began". But that's not very elegant either. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at?
• "Moreover, molecular evidence has helped to map the family's relationship within the class Lecanoromycetes. A 2018 study, for instance, identified the Megalosporaceae as the Teloschistaceae's closest relative.[52]" This feels like editorialising/synthesis. You're making a broad claim but only citing one primary study; or am I misunderstanding?

• I don't think it's a particularly broad (or surprising) claim. We've suspected for a long time that the Teloschistaceae is part of the class Lecanoromycetes. Molecular phylogenetics is helping us to better understand the specific relationships of this family within the class. Molecular support for Megalosporaceae being the closest relative to Teloschistaceae pretty much conclusively demonstrates what had been long suspected. No dissenting voices (regarding this particular relationshp) have been in the literature published since then. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "In response to these discoveries, experts like Robert Lücking recommend extensive analysis" Ditto two above points.
• " are important for" Again, editorialising/non-neutral?

• Have reworded these parts, please check to see if you think the editorialising is gone. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dash use inconsistent. Compare (eg) para one of description to para 2 of molecular phylogenetics to para 2 of description -- three different approaches! See
  WP:DASH
  .
• You mention in the lead that it's not always Trebouxia; but this doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the article.

• I've gone through the literature again to confirm, and simplified a longer story. Basically, some studies found Asterochloris (a similar green algal genus) to also associate with Teloschistaceae. However, these findings have not been subsequently confirmed, and to make things more complicated, Asterochloris was not validly published by its author, although some still continue to use the invalid species names, while others keep them in genus Trebouxia. But this doesn't need to be explained in this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some inconsistency on -ise vs ize. Either acceptable in British English, but be consistent.

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments so far; I've addressed the points I haven't specifically responded to. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• {{lichengloss|Sedifolia-grey}} isn't linking where you want it to, because of gray/grey. Is there a way to make a 'redirect'?

• Fixed linking. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "bark-dwelling habitats" They didn't have bark-dwelling habitats; they had bark habitats or bark-dwelling habits. (Maybe there are more elegant phrases you could use.)
• "This section presents a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae, based largely on a 2021 fungal classification review and new reports published since then.[70] Each genus is paired with its taxonomic authority, denoting the first describers using standardised author abbreviations, the publication year, and the number of species." I worry this may be a
  self reference
  , which we should avoid -- but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the guideline.

• Not sure what to do with this, but I'm quite open to tweaking the wording to address your concern. This is a sort of standard format I've been using to introduce genera and/or species lists in family/genus articles, so I'd appreciate any specific ideas you might have for fixing this (and would use these fixes in other articles to avoid this in the future). Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Contemporary estimates of the number" Again; this
  will quickly become outdated
  . You start the section with a reference to 2001; there are many adults alive who were born after that!

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Genera are organised here by subfamily:" Another self-reference, perhaps

• Removed "here"; is that enough? Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "during the recent restructuring of the family" Another apt-to-become-dated claim; you could easily avoid this by referring to the specific restructuring.

• Just removed "recent". Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Andina Wilk, Pabijan & Lücking (2021) has been replaced with Wilketalia.[135]" I know this is slightly beyond the scope of this review, but if that's right, our article at
  Andina citrinoides
  , which you're linking to, needs updating!

• You are quite correct; I'll try to make this update before the FAC finishes. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also well beyond the scope of this review, but it's a shame we don't have an article on bipolar species!

• Yes it's a shame; we have both Bipolar lichen and Lichen biogeography on our "To-do" list at the Lichen task force, which will eventually cover this absence. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "in the previous decade" Again, this will quickly become outdated
• I thought a picture of Tremella caloplacae might be an interesting addition; this article is freely licensed, meaning you could (if you wanted to -- no pressure) add this image.

• That's great – I hadn't originally noticed it was free. Have added the image now. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article's a real achievement. I wish I knew a bit more about lichens than I do, so I really enjoyed reading it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn, 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) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a chance to have a second read-through, so I'm afraid I can't support right now; but I certainly don't oppose, and think this is a very praiseworthy article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images good. No copyright problems. Some are visually stunning. I have 'reviewed' the licenses of a couple of the images taken from Mushroom Observer, which should futureproof them in the unlikely event that they're taken down from the website for some reason. File:Caloplaca aurantia (Pers.) Hellb..jpg has no English language description, and the description on File:Athallia holocarpa Droker.jpg is odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your comments and suggestions (those uncommented by me above I've actioned). Thanks for reviewing, and for the extra image validation. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that SchroCat's concerns are resolved. I agree with SC about your use of the Oxford comma. (I note you also have one colonizing, though you otherwise use -ise.) I also agree with SchroCat about your self-references in phrases like 'this section'. But I've just had another quick look through the article, and I think it's fantastic. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review spot-check upon request. Does the Acta Botanica Hungarica have issue numbers? I see that not all authors are linked, e.g Pier Luigi Nimis, Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo, Alexander Zahlbruckner, Sergey Kondratyuk isn't, but I didn't investigate closely who needs linking and who not - it's mostly a minor consistency issue. I see a few ancient sources, but the kind of information sourced to them doesn't seem likely to change over time. I notice that some sources are split by pagenumbers and others have lengthy page ranges given for the same ref, which is inconsistent. I've filed a report about 10.1017/S0269-915X(02)00206-9 being a broken DOI. It looks like otherwise most references are consistently formatted and nothing jumps out as unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, any response to Jo-Jo's source review? FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Botanica Hungarica does have issue #'s, but they were all already in the article before the source review. I added more authorlinks, so everyone that has an article should be linked at least once in the citations. Broad page ranges usually means that the cited information is passim in the source, but I'm happy to narrow down page ranges if it is deemed necessary. I filed a report about the broken DOI at least 3 months ago. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to narrow down page ranges, some of them are quite large. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I split a few sources into sfn's to cite specific page #'s, added pointers to some specific pages in broader ranges, added an online archive link for one citation so reader can confirm fact with "find", and added "passim" to some sfn's that had blank page parameters. I think the remaining long page ranges don't need specific page numbers, because more or less the entirety of the cited source supports the stated fact. Esculenta (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I would use the entire page range rather than passim, myself. Clearer for non-Latin anoraks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with risking that the small fraction of a percent of readers who actually check any of the 3 citations where passim is used will either be familiar with it already, or have to experience a new word. I could find other examples of FAs where it is used, if precedent counts. Thanks for the source review! Esculenta (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think other FAs using passim instead of full page ranges probably means they need to have the passim replaced with a page range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice, which is what is usually followed at FAC, is to provide clarity by using the actual page ranges. And as with all of Wikipedia, precedent is rarely a useful guide. If it is, I think that the precedent of your previous FA is a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Looks pretty good. Looking over now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking.

• Collectively, the family has a worldwide distribution,... - "collectively" is redundant here (in both places)

• Both have now been trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am a neophyte on lichens - but I can't see any glaring errors..and the prose looks to have struck as best a balance as possible between accessibility and accuracy. So count this as a cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sergey Kondratyuk and his colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)

Drive by comment: That is the reader-friendly version of "

et al." ("and others"), replacing the list of co-authors of a paper (i.e., "Main author et al." -> "Main author and colleagues"). "And colleagues" is pretty standard and I used it in all my Wikipedia articles, I can't think about how to make this clearer without adding bloat. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You may have, but I would have opposed if I had reviewed and seen it, and I do not consider it "standard". It may be used in scientific papers, but this is an encyclopaedia and there isn't a problem in showing the names on first mention, even if only in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is demonstrably standard in science articles in Wikipedia. Pick any of our dinosaur FAs, for example. You can almost always get the full list of authors when clicking on the inline reference at the end of the sentence. I never have seen an article that provides all those co-author names in-text (these can add-up very quickly), and I probably would oppose an article that does so, because it adds bloat that is barely useful for anybody (and footnotes would just be redundant to the ref-list, where this information is provided anyways). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You think people should only get details by clicking on the inline reference? No. That's not right at all and it's a method that in my mind does readers a disservice.

Anyway, my comments are to the nominator: I'll let them answer and then decide whether to support, oppose or step away. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Jens explains, its a prose conversion of "et al." and is used on many science-related FACs and GAs. I did replace the first instance of "Arup and colleagues" with the spelled out colleague names, as their 2013 phylogenetics paper was so fundamental to the current structure of the family it makes sense to credit them the first time they're mentioned. I don't think it's needed for the other instances. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "to German lichenologist Robert Lücking": is his nationality of importance? Removing it would probably improve readability and not harm a reader's understanding of the topic (much like you do with "the mycologist Friedrich Wilhelm Zopf and the chemist Oswald Hesse")

• Ok, removed this and one other instance. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You have "Xanthodactylon, Xanthopeltis and Xanthoria" but "yellow, orange, and red": probably best to take a spin through to ensure you are consistent in either using or not using the serial comma

• Fixed to serial comma. I thought I had caught them all with my last spin through, but apparently not! Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Arup and colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
• "This section presents": I think that somewhere in the MOS is something that says we don't use language similar to this and it’s certainly something that I've not seen in any successful FAs. The phrasing of this one sentence is enough for me not to support the article as it stands. What is wrong with something along the lines of "A 2021 fungal classification review, and subsequent published studies, produced a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae"?

• I'm happy to change the wording to comply with
  WP:SELF, but haven't come up with a fully satisfying alternative. Unfortunately, your suggested phrasing seems a bit awkward (it seems to imply that the review and following studies produced the compilation, but I produced the compilation using these sources ... am I overthinking this?) Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Possibly, although I now have a slight concern that there may be OR involved in the compilation (based only on your phrasing here). I suspect it’s not really OR, but can you confirm and clarify please?
  Can you also clarify the source for this list? The text says there are “117 genera and 805 species” which does not tally with what is shown.
  Regardless of either of those points, the opening paragraph needs to be rewritten to avoid breaching SELF. I’ll finish the rest of the review later today. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I removed the first sentence (which seemed to be the major SELF violation) and shuffled some bits around. To clarify how this list of genera was made, I used 2021 Wijayawardene et al. ("Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa – 2021") as a starting point, as it is the most recent compilation of fungal taxa available. From there I added new genera that have been published since that time, and included all of the genera that Wijayawardene et al. place in synonymy, with explanatory footnotes about who thinks what genera should be included or not. The text says "Species Fungorum (in the Catalogue of Life), accepts 117 genera and 805 species", which is true. This does not mean to imply that the entirety of the list comes from that source. The taxonomic situation is fluid, and different authorities have different opinions on what genera should exist, so I've tried to list them all and explain where the sources disagree. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the start of Habitat. More to follow shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Just two points from the remainder:[reply]

• Diarrhea - > diarrhoea (x2)

• Changed to BE. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why FNs 2 and 3 are unsupported?

• Citations now added. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes you've made and the work you've done on this overall. I'm not going to be able to support this, but I don't think I can oppose it either. The reasons for my sitting on the fence are as follows:

• I am personally uncomfortable with the "X and his colleagues" format. I am aware this is common in academic papers, but this is an encyclopaedia to be read by the general public. Calls to "it is used elsewhere on WP" don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Although at FA we try to mimic some aspects of academic publishing, we are an encyclopaedia with a global general readership and I don't think this helps them.

• Actually, the "X et al." format is common in scientific academic publishing, whereas the "and colleagues" is the "translation" that Wikipedia seems to have taken up. I understand your point (but don't necessarily agree). Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m well aware of the original (and it’s not just scientific, but other disciplines too) and it’s the default on WP in the references for multiple authors when using sfn, but I disagree with its use in the body in a general encyclopaedia. Not everyone who reads this will be familiar with the academic norm and will be confused. -SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose is, I think, too densely technical in places. That's not necessarily the fault of the writer(s), but I think overall it runs too close to
  WP:OVERTECH
  for me to be happy enough to support. There are areas where the general reader (which includes me!) will just be lost in the terminology. Ditto my comment above on 'global general readership'.

• I accept that the type of articles I work on are technical by nature, but have tried to follow the principles outlined at
  WP:TECHNICAL. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The question of the genus list (a list of "117 genera and 805 species" shows 124 genera), which makes me a bit uncomfortable.
• (Added later): I’m also uncomfortable with the very wide page ranges in the refs: pp. 1–82, 147–203, 132–168, etc. (added at SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing I am going to oppose on, but I just don't think I can support either. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for giving it a read and offering your suggestions for improvement. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Schro, I realise you're not committing to support or oppose, but can I just check you have nothing further to add, given it appears that Esculenta has done some work on the article since your last comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think I’ll stay where I am on the !vote side of things. Cheers for the ping. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2023 (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) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (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) 27 December 2023 [5].

1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh blimey, not another Gillingham F.C. season article, I hear everyone cry. Well, what can I say, I enjoy working on them so chances are they will keep on a-comin' :-) This particular season included (I think - the memory is slightly hazy given the yawning time gap between then and now) the first Gillingham match my dad ever took me to. Sadly it also included one of the club's most famous missed opportunities to defeat a team from the top division of English football....... :-( Feedback on the article will as ever be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• and were near the foot of the league table - This may be
  MOS:IDIOM
  , perhaps simplify.
• The first league game of the season at Gillingham's ground, Priestfield Stadium, took place a week later against Hull City;[15] Ray Daniel, a teenaged midfielder signed on loan from Luton Town, made his debut.[18] Gillingham conceded a goal in the first half and, although Leslie equalised with his first goal for the club shortly after the interval, ultimately lost 2–1. -- I think this should be split into 2 sentences.
• Steve Bruce, a defender who was still only 22 years -- Either "still 22 years" or "only 22 years"
• Gillingham were 22nd out of 24 teams -- Gillingham ranked 22nd
  • "Ranked" is not used in that context in British English. The standard usage is just to say that team X "are/were Nth in the table", see eg the last sentence of this BBC Sport article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps it is worth linking equaliser
• promotion-chasing Wimbledon -- maybe this can we stated differently, like Wimbledon, who is up for promotion or a win away from promotion, something along those lines.
• That's all that I could find. Another fine and solid work on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed bar one as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

• Just some comma removal suggestions:
  • "It was the 52nd season in which Gillingham competed in the Football League, and the 34th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950."
  • "they played 15 games and only won three times, to fall out of contention for promotion to the Second Division."
  • "They lost in the first round of both the Football League Cup and the Associate Members' Cup, but reached the fourth round of the FA Cup"
• "four games more still to play than the teams above them" => "four more games to play than the teams above them"
• "The club had never reached the second level of English football in its history" - probably "its" could be removed without changing the meaning just to be more concise.
• "Bruce scored twice and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored own goals" => "Bruce scored twice, and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored their own goals"
• That's it!--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, all done apart from the last one. You don't say that a player scored "his" own goal, you just say that a player scored an own goal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--NØ 09:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The sourcing follows a consistent format and the sources are reliable for the purposes they are used so this passes my source review.--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The team started the season poorly and were near the bottom of the league table at the end of September". This only really conveys information if you tell the reader when the season started and/or the number of matches played by the end of September.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Prior to the new season, Gillingham signed two new players." Perhaps replace the full stop with a colon? (Or, if you prefer, a semi-colon.)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "John Leslie, a forward, arrived from Wimbledon,[8] and David Fry, a goalkeeper, joined the club from Crystal Palace." Is it known what if any transfer fee was paid?
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Four of Gillingham's five league games originally scheduled for January were postponed". Is it known why?
  • Two because (contrary to expectations when the fixture list was drawn up) they were still involved in the FA Cup and couldn't play league and cup games at the same time. The other two were, I presume, down to the weather, it being January, but I couldn't find any source to confirm that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding 'two because of their continued involvement in the FA Cup' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FA Cup section: in the first paragraph you don't say whether any of the three matches were home or away.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Why did both replays take place at Priestfield?
  • Clarified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Was extra time not played at the end of the first FA Cup match against Everton?
  • No, under the competition rules at the time, extra time was only played in replays -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Another well written little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild:- many thanks for your review - responses are above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A final suggestion above, but I am happy to support as is. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial's support

• I'm sure you've been asked before  ;) but why call them "second choice colours" rather than the more common (if colloquial?)
  away kit
  , as you do in the IB?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Would be interesting to know more about the Japan game; that's the kind of thing that would be pretty rare now.
  • Unfortunately I couldn't find any more info than what is in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What happened to red-linked Andy Woodhead, he leave the sport?
  • He dropped into semi-professional regional football after being released by the Gills -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of curiosity, why (e.g.) Exeter City, Wigan Athletic, Lincoln City but only Orient?
  • Because that was the club's name at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check. Must've been a couple of years later they changed again... ——Serial 14:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Serial Number 54129: - the "Leyton" was added (back) in 1987 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah that makes sense. It confused me as a kid; the first time I saw them, they were Orient, and the next they were LO :) ——Serial 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "had scored more than four goals" > "over four"
  • Personally I think it works better as it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "played between two and five games fewer than every team above", but only in the League, isn't it? They played other matches in the Cup, and in any case have to make the league games up?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Matchday programme.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Serial Number 54129: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks good to me and meets the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

@WP:FAC coordinators: - got another one ready to go, can I nom it? Oh, and happy Christmas if I don't speak to you before :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2023 (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) 00:43, 27 December 2023 (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) 25 December 2023 [6].

Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a skyscraper in New York City that, until a decade ago, was the tallest in Brooklyn and the only real skyscraper in its neighborhood. The exterior has extensive amounts of sculpture, an enormous clock tower, and a dome (leading some to compare it to a phallus), while the interior has an extremely elaborate banking room. Developed as an office building, the tower later housed dozens of dentists' offices before being converted to residences.

This page became a Good Article a year ago after a Good Article review by Ganesha811, for which I am very grateful. Following a copy edit from voorts, to whom I'm also indebted, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review PASS (no spot checks)

Working on it now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1977 NYCLPC report link goes to a report about the 83rd Precinct Police Station and Stable from March 8, 1977.
  • Oops, I meant 0971 instead of 0951. Good catch. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The archive link for "1 Hanson Place, 11217" doesn't work.
  • I replaced this with Template:Cbignore. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Both "mta.info" and "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" Wikilink to the same article. I think you can remove the Wikilink from the web address.
  • I removed mta.info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll type out more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Wikilinking
  WP:OVERLINKing
  .
  • I have linked all for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 23: the original Emporis link doesn't work, but the archived one does. Can you get a new link to the Emporis website?
  • Sadly, the entire website no longer exists. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 24: the title of the web page currently includes the name of the website, Skyscraper Center. I think you should separate out that name into a parameter separate from the page name.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Dolkart 2004 should be formatted more like Dolkart 2009 to include the publisher's full name and location, as well as the NYCLPC name. Also, the archived link for Dolkart 2004 doesn't work that well for me, so none of the book's pages are loading. What about you?
  • I formatted the location and full name. I have removed the archived link as it is neither necessary (being that this is a print source) or working. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 48: is there an archive link you can add?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Morrone: source listing is missing publication year and location of publisher. ISBN appears to be incorrect.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The Friedman book is formatted poorly and missing a lot of information: publisher, publisher location, and ISBN. Are those two numbers on the end supposed to be page numbers?
  • Yes. This was a pre-existing ref that was present before I rewrote the page, but I forgot to format it.
• Hugh Son 2005 original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 84: year should be 1927.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 107: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Moritz 1989: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 157: original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 158: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 160: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation 169: my browser won't let me open the original link for security reasons, but the archive link works fine. How about you?
  • This is a temporary issue with the website, since its HTTPS certificate expired. However, I'm not sure how to format this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the comments above, the citations and sources appear to be formatted properly, the sources seem reliable, and the links go to the right places. Of the academic publications, I see mostly broad surveys of NYC architecture. There aren't any academic sources more focused on this building, are there? As a collection, these sources represent a pretty wide breadth of publications from a wide span of time, so notwithstanding my question about academic sources, the list looks comprehensive. Well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the source review Dugan Murphy. I have addressed all of your bullet points. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find other sources talking about this building specifically (and not, for example, other buildings in the same area). There is a small handbook by the architects, which was published in 1928 but seems to be out of print; I doubt that source has any significant details not mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I can't find any other issues with the sources. I haven't done any spot checks, but this is a pass. If you are willing to take a look at my current FAC nomination, you'll find it here. It would be a big help if you were willing to look at my sources, prose, or whatever. Thanks in advance if you are able! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. The official website from the External links isn't loading on my browser. Is it on yours? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, that is strange - the site isn't loading for me, either. I can take a look at your FAC in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Images are all under free-use license or creative commons
• Infobox image needs alt and a proper caption
• In fact, all the other images are missing alt.

ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.

Lead:

• "There is also a lobby in the basement, leading to Atlantic Terminal and the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station" – "A basement lobby leads to..."
• "The bank occupied the lowest floors when the building opened on April 1, 1929. The remaining stories were rented as offices." – suggest combining with a semicolon
• "By the late 20th century, much of the building contained dentists' offices." – This statement is a little trivia for me to be included in the lead.
• "similarly designated" – "later designated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZKang123, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was rather busy with my studies for the past few days so I haven't been able to give this a proper look through. But I won't be opposed if others' consensus finds this article worthy of FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123, do you have any additional comments about this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Like I said, if others find this article worthy of FA, I won't be opposed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ZKang123. I have done all of these except for the dentists' offices, which is described in some detail later on in the article. I've also fixed the image issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

Recusing to do a review.

• Prose:
  • Lead:
    • This may just be me, but measurements start getting in the way of reading text, especially when you have the conversions as well, so I'd try and limit them, especially in the lead. The height is the overarchingly important stat; I'm not so sure the size of the clocks or the size of the banking room are so important they need to be mentioned here.
      • I've trimmed these. I think the height of the banking room is somewhat important, since there are few interior spaces in NYC that are this high (even the New York Public Library Main Branch's reading room is less lofty). Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems odd to me we mention the previous banking headquarters specifically in the second paragraph, but then follow back on it in the third when giving the history.
      • Good point. I moved the mention of the 175 Broadway HQ to the third paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that you've put out a lot of these articles with a similar structure, but I wonder just from a limiting repeating information sense, if it would make a bit more sense to put the context and history for the building (or at least its construction) up before the long description of the site. We mention the 175 Broadway headquarters a bunch, for instance, before it gets properly introduced in the history.

    Yeah, that might make more sense. Swapping the history and architecture sections might be the best thing to do here; I'll do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thoughts on the stats talk likewise relate to the article as a whole; sometimes it just feels like we're getting smacked with random factoids and conversions for long passages. Is the height of the center of the clock from street height really so important it needs to be mentioned? We can convey the size and mass of the clock hands without three separate sentences giving specific figures. Where possible some more summarization would I think make it read a bit better, especially when we're giving exact dimensions or exact numbers of things (the number of rectangles in a grid, the number of window bays, etc.) It's appropriate for the LPC designation, I'm not sure it's appropriate for an overview like this.
    • I've tried to condense the description slightly. I do acknowledge that the description may have been overly detailed - Ganesha811 removed much of this excessive detail during his GA review, but maybe some of the extra detail was retained unnecessarily. I've trimmed the exterior section slightly and the interior section more significantly. I don't want to give too little detail (for example, the fact that there are three huge arched windows is mentioned prominently in a few sources), but in hindsight we really did not need three subsections for the banking room section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the height of the five-story banking room, as well as empty spaces on the topmost floors, the building has been described as having as few as 34 stories." Honestly this feels like it's not important enough to note, especially if it's apparently not commonly done.

    • I included this sentence because I felt that the reader would benefit from an explanation of the conflicting floor counts. Would you prefer that I remove this completely, or is it fine if I move this to a footnote? Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Per this and the below note, I think that's definitely something that should get mentioned in prose as "generally X stories, some stuff counts differently" and then use any further mentions/the LPC stuff in a footnote the first time it's relevant. I don't think repeating the footnote every time you hit another floor number comes up is necessary (it's mostly just distracting and adds to the refspacing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Good point as well. I have removed these extra footnotes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the sake of ease of reading, I think you should just pick a story-numbering scheme and stick to it, rather than "at the 30th story (floor 26)" stuff. Especially since we're talking about the exterior, the interior numbering isn't all that important.
      • Done. (There's already a footnote about interior and exterior floor numbering, so I agree—it may just be redundant.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Embedded in the wall are square bas-reliefs, one on the right of a burglar," I assume this is supposed to mean one of the bas reliefs is of a burglar, but the way it's phrased makes it kind of sound like the reliefs are on the right of a burglar.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the south side of the ground story, leading from the center of the Hanson Place frontage, is an entrance vestibule.[33] The doors from the south lead from Hanson Place. " This seems redundant?
    • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it had 158 depositors and $15,000 in assets" what's the timeframe for this statement?
    • Added - this was from the first annual report. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear if the architects had to modify the plans after the department rejected them or not, since it only says the completion date was pushed back.
    • It seems that I got the source wrong. The source says merely that a change in plans would've forced the plans to be postponed. The only thing I could find on the possible postponement was this article from February 12, 1927, saying that the bank planned to appeal the bureau's rejection of the plans. `Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot about the building's dentists.
    • Yeah...apparently they took up the majority of the building in the late 20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critical commentary on the building feels pretty thin, especially since there's not really a source directly speaking to generally positive critiques of the building. At the least I don't really see where the height record stuff and symbolism should be divorced from what comes before it.
    • I have removed the part about positive critiques. Given I wasn't really able to find too much critical commentary on the building, I have combined the symbolism and critical commentary sections. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments David Fuchs. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "Johnson did not initially plan to include affordable housing in the converted building, prompting criticism from community groups" — so what came of this? Did affordable housing get added as implied, or not?
      • I haven't heard anything about affordable housing being built (in fact, the sources I've found indicate that all of the residences there are luxury condos). I've rephrased the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Impact section is a little better, but it still feels a bit like a laundry list of quotes rather than a summary. I will take a look and see if I can find anything else that might go there.

Drive-by comment: to my mind it also falls foul of

MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that, but on the flip side,

MOS:QUOTEPOV says that quotes could be used "to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice", which some of these quotations truly are. I've paraphrased the other unnecessary quotations, but it's quite hard to paraphrase an opinion while staying faithful to what the source actually says. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "The windows' ornate decorations contrasted with the spare ornamentation of the piers on which the arches rested." Why is this sentence is past tense? Are the arches no longer there? Same for "The metal included brass, bronze, copper, silver, and both cast and wrought steel." (Everything around it is present tense.)
    • Otherwise, prose looks fairly good. I've made some edits and I will probably want to do a final pass later, but it's looking much more readable. Will be looking over other criteria presently.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why these were in past tense, but I've fixed this now. Thanks for following up David. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source review. While there's no major issues I found on my spot-check, I did appear to find a number of minor issues with figures, timing, etc. that seem to be prevalent throughout and need a fine-tooth comb to check for. Some might just be me nitpicking to a pedantic degree, but I think enough are plain that it needs addressing. I Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 96, 104, 120, 121, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 164, 172, 178, 180, and 184.

• • Ref 14: text says "there were eight buildings on the lot", the source itself is a little less definitive and says "about eight".
    • I have not changed the sentence at this time because the suggested wording might run afoul of
      MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Please see my comment below. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Changed to "about eight" (in quotation marks) to avoid any confusion about this. I still don't think it's possible for, say, eight and a half buildings to have been demolished, but we may agree that there is a difference in opinion regarding this point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 19: text says " The bank had 139,000 depositors and $212 million in assets in 1928". The source says "139K depositors but $210 million in assets.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 29, 30, and 31 are used to source the bank protests. The text says "Though they were joined by six other banks" (aka eight banks in total, including the aforementioned City Savings and Dime Savings), but ref 31 gives a total of ten (City Savings, Dime Savings, "and eight others".)
    • Changed to "several others"—not sure where the six figure came from. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: text says "The William Kennedy Construction Company was awarded the general contract for the new building in December 1926, at which point the building was planned to cost $3 million" but the source is from December 1927.
    • Yeah, this was an example of me mixing up my dates by accident. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 36: text says "and a chimney for the church was integrated into the new bank building". The LPC designation says that the tower provides heat to the church in lieu of a chimney, it technically doesn't say there's a chimney expressly for the church.
    • I assumed the text was talking about the bank having a chimney attached, and providing heat through there, but I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: text says "and the bank announced that it would begin clearing the site" [later that month, I.e. January 1927], but the source says that they would be clearing it next month.
    • The statement is correct because the bank made the announcement in January 1927. Grammatically, January 1927 refers to "announced", not to "clearing". If I had meant to say that "the bank would begin clearing the site the same month", I would have said so, but this is incorrect. Maybe "the bank announced that it would, in the following month, begin clearing the site" would convey what I meant to say. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: mentions the closure in the late 1970s, but doesn't support the observation deck having been open to the public up until that point.
    • The source says the deck "has been closed to the public since the late 1970s", so that part is correct. I've removed the implication that it operated continuously since the building opened, if that was what your concern was. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86: source text says "The building's name was not changed,[88][89] and residents unofficially continued to call it the Williamsburgh Tower", but it's talking about its unofficial name up to that point; it can't really be used to prove the future point that residents continued to call it that.
    • The sources from 1990 (after the merger) do mention that the building's official name remained the same, but I've removed the commentary about whether the unofficial name remained after the merger. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 104: Text mentions landmarked banks being converted, but the reference doesn't mention landmark status (and only some of the banks mentioned therein are landmarked.)
    • Removed the comment about the banks being landmarked (even though this is true), but see my comments below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 141: Text says "At the 30th story is an open loggia of arched windows, topped by another horizontal band of terracotta" but the landmark report doesn't mention the loggia.
    • Removed—I have also commented about this below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 172: Text says "while the Brooklyn Times-Union stated that the building's construction would unite Brooklyn's and Manhattan's skylines" but the Times-Union article says that "our skyline and that of Manhattan were merging" (they have already united), it's that as the skyline migrates north in Manhattan, it's also spreading outward in Brooklyn (such as the Williamsburgh Bank Tower.)
    • I've also commented below with regards to this point. However, now that I think of it, the merger of the skylines isn't what the source is really focused on—rather, it is the effect on property values and the fact that the tower was an "architectural triumph", as the source puts it. Accordingly I will be modifying the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the spot checks. However, with all due respect, I think some of these issues are not as major as they seem to be. Here are a few examples I'd like to quickly address:
  • The issue with reference 14 (that the source says "about eight" while the article says "eight") is a matter of wording - it's not possible for there to be about eight buildings. There's either exactly eight buildings, or there's seven or nine, unless somehow half a building wasn't replaced. I went with "eight" since saying "around eight" would make it sound like we don't know whether it's eight full buildings or not, while "exactly eight" would not be correct.
    MOS:UNCERTAINTY
    seems to indicate that numbers "rounded in a normal and expected way" should be rounded in this fashion.
  • Ref 104: technically, all three banks mentioned there are landmarked (the Apple Bank Building and the New York County National Bank Building are city landmarks). Yes, it's also true that the NY Times report doesn't explicitly mention "landmarked" bank buildings, but this is also verifiable using the LPC's website (and something I didn't think I needed to explicitly spell out).
  • Ref 141: The report mentions arched windows. Again, I agree that it doesn't specifically mention a loggia, but it does source the windows and everything else in that paragraph. (I described the windows as a "loggia" because that's how they physically appear, so I guess that might have been skirting the OR line.)
  • Ref 172: The source says that the skylines were merging but that "the skyscraper section is spreading", which indicates to me that the merger isn't complete yet, especially judging by the fact that the skyscraper boom was just hitting Brooklyn. As it turns out, this isn't even the main point of that article. Let me go back and change it.
• I will comb through the article to fix these issues (and more) later. I do feel that some concerns are slightly nitpicky, but I do appreciate the comments nonetheless and will try to eliminate all potential text-source integrity issues. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a cursory scan, I identified a few more text–source issues that I've now fixed. I will scan through the remaining issues over the rest of the week. I don't think there should be any major failures of verification, but it's clear that a few sources may have been misinterpreted or misread. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @David Fuchs, as a quick note, I've just thoroughly examined the History section and removed some items that failed verification. Like I said above, I am willing to scrutinize this entire article with a fine-tooth comb over the rest of the week, and i hope that you will reconsider after I finish analyzing the rest of the page. It would be a shame if the FAC were to be archived because I sloppily misread a few sources; I had a similar problem earlier this year but was able to weed out the minor issues in that article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Such things crop up, especially with very detailed or lengthy articles like this, it's just good to be mindful of it. I've withdrawn my oppose pending another check once you've done one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you @David Fuchs. I should be able to suss out any lingering issues during the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Still working through this article, but I hope to fix all the remaining issues by Thursday or Friday. I already fixed several other errors.

    I'm unsure about a few sentences there and am thinking of erring on the side of caution. For example, the History section contains the sentence "The bank was originally housed in the basement of a church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,[5][19] at Bedford Avenue and South 3rd Street". This is sourced to a few refs, none of which specifically pinpoint Bedford and South 3rd as being in Williamsburg. I know it's in Williamsburg, and you probably know that as well, but this might still be on the borderline of SYNTH if none of the sources say it. (I ultimately cut the intersection altogether, but there's a few other sentences like that in the article that I still have to check.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, this is taking longer than I expected. I should be finished in a few more days. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Fuchs, I've finished looking through the article and fixing the rest of the issues that I found. Some of these inaccuracies were my fault, while others were preexisting text that wasn't supported by the source and have now been removed. Given the length of the article, though, I've tried to fix as many of these issues as I could. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll start taking a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of doing another checkthrough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 35, 45, 47, 60, 69, 80, 94, 95, 101, 109, 132, 144, 151, 152, 159, 162, and 173. Did not spot further verification issues and checks looked good. Moving to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

• "From the time of its construction until 2009," Are anything other than the last two words required?
  • I have trimmed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead says constructed from 1927 to 1929, and the body says the same, but the groundbreaking was in 1928 per infobox? This seems to be the date the cornerstone was laid. I'm not sure a groundbreaking and a cornerstone laying are the same thing.
  • You're right, though I couldn't find a parameter for cornerstone laying. For such a tall building as this, it doesn't make sense to have the cornerstone laid three months before the topping-out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "making it the fourth-largest in the United States.[5]" Fourth largest bank or savings bank? And by what metric?
  • The source doesn't say directly, but the context is the total amount of deposits held by savings banks. This source does say it directly though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The approval was contingent on the fact that a temporary branch, which was planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, would shut down when the permanent building was finished." This sentence is rather awkward. Perhaps "The approval was contingent on the closing of a temporary branch that the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, once the permanent building was finished.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "In January 1927, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank opened a temporary location at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues." Since the plans for said temporary branch have been mentioned, perhaps "the" instead of "a". Do we have any info on its closure?
  • I rephrased it accordingly. I have no idea what happened to the temporary bank. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The banking hall also hosted events such as an American Revolutionary War exhibit by the Long Island Historical Society in 1976.[70]" I would assume this had something to do with the United States Bicentennial?
  • Indeed it did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "U.S. representative Fred Richmond" I would simply call him a Congressman and cap it and let it go at that.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Basketball player Magic Johnson " I believe Mr. Johnson had retired by then, so a "former" might be good.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The dentists had used large amounts of mercury vapor in their offices, " more likely they used mercury amalgams that generated vapor.
  • Clarified. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "the tallest building in Brooklyn from 1929 until 2009.[139][137][138]" refs out of order? Ditto "and motifs representing Brooklyn and its history.[146][145][163]"
  • It seems
    WP:CITEORDER says that "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". This is not a major issue for me, however, so I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• 1916 Zoning Resolution is linked on second use.
  • Fixed. (Until recently, the History and Architecture sections were swapped following David's suggestion above, hence why the link was retained in the Architecture section.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Near the corner is an inscription in all capital letters." Saying what? Maybe in a footnote?
  • I also removed the text of the inscription recently because I thought it might have been tangential to the article. I have re-added it to a footnote. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "with a bronze sign reading "Subway"s.[147]: 7 " It says Subways? Or Subway?
  • Just the singular "Subway". Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The roof contains an abandoned public observation deck at the 30th-story setback." Is this the one mentioned as being on the 26th floor under history? If so, perhaps try for consistency and also phrase as if you've mentioned it before.
  • Indeed it is, and I changed the first mention of "floor 26" to the "30th floor". There is a whole footnote about how the floor numbers inside the building (which I'll call "interior stories") don't match up with the physical stories outside the building (which I'll call "construction stories"), because the banking room is five floors tall. Hence, interior story 2 is actually the sixth construction story from the ground, and so on for all of the upper stories. In this article, I'm using construction stories, rather than interior stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The basement lobby leads to the bank's vaults and the subway lobby.[144]" Maybe "led"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The depositors' vault was sealed by 60-short-ton (54-long-ton; 54 t) doors, measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 5 feet (1.5 m) thick, which were open for inspection during banking hours.[94]" Presumably you had to be a box holder to gain admittance? Thus "open for inspection" sounds a bit odd.
  • I changed this to "open to clients" (I think it should be clear that the clients are that of the bank, since I mention clients in an earlier subsection, but I'm willing to change this if it's unclear). Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Wehwalt. I have now addressed all of the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

I'll take a read-through after David's concerns are resolved (feel free to ping me back here). No point in reading through if things are just gonna get mixed up again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891, thanks. I've finished looking through all of the issues that David pointed out, and I've fixed some other issues that I found myself, if you would like to take a look. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the thick of finals week, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel after wednesday, at which point I should be able to comment on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will read through by Saturday, hopefully today or tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "New York's superintendent of banks moved to allow the Williamsburgh to open a Downtown Brooklyn branch" I'm not grasping from the context why a superintendent wouldn't allow them to open a branch
  • Basically, ten banks opposed the Williamsburgh's decision to open a branch in Downtown Brooklyn, but the superintendent allowed it anyway. In theory, the superintendent could have also denied the Williamsburgh's application for a new bank branch because of the other banks' opposition. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ""The approval was contingent on the closure of a temporary branch, which the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues," I think it might be clearer to put the plans to open a temporary branch earlier in this paragraph, rather than interrupting the sentence, especially if the plans were announced at the same time as the headquarters plans
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "saying that they violated the provisions of the" Do we know why?
  • The source said "Article 3 of Sections 8G and 9B of the Zoning Resolution of 1916". The actual zoning resolution document doesn't indicate what 8G is, but 9B has to do with the height of a building at the corner of a wide street and a narrow street. Because 8G is not described in the document, I decided not to describe what it was.
• Did the ensuing Great Depression have no impact on the building?
  • Not that I could find; the building was already almost fully leased by the time the Depression hit. However, the Depression did have an effect on other buildings (or rather, the lack of them), since no other skyscrapers were built in the neighborhood as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "A life insurance sales department opened at both of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's branches in 1941" Is this relevant to this building?
  • Yes. I meant to say that the department opened within the building's bank branch. (This was probably a bigger deal for the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (175 Broadway), which was exclusively used as a bank building, but it probably merits mention here as well, since the bank was previously not allowed to sell life insurance.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "An office for discharged service members" a government office or?
  • Basically a rehabilitation center. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The building was also deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" 'deemed' eligible by who (if it didn't end up getting listed)?
  • Beverly Moss Spatt, the LPC's chairwoman, said the building could be added to the NRHP if the city-landmark designation passed. I don't know why it was not added to the NRHP. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any reason it couldn’t have been added if the city landmark designation did not pass? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eddie891, no. Buildings in NYC can be added to the NRHP even if they aren't city landmarks (the adjacent Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station is one example of this). It's just that it's easier for a building to be added to the NRHP if it already has city landmark protection, since the city landmark designation is more strict than the NRHP designation—for example, the windows theoretically could be changed without permission if the building were listed only on the NRHP, but not if it were a city landmark. I do not know why Spatt used this specific wording, though, and the source does not elaborate. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District on September 26, 1978" why was it not initially included?
  • The district was designated on that date. I have reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "one story for data-processing equipment." data-processing for who?
  • Various companies, though the source does not say who. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Williamsburgh Savings Bank started replacing windows in 1983 after finding that some were severely deteriorated." Is this really relevant? presumably it was not an uncommon occurrence to replace windows?
  • Typically, no, but this provides context for what happened next. Because the building was a city landmark, the bank needed permission from the LPC to replace the windows, which they did not have. This led to what the NYT described as the largest violation of New York City's landmarks law at the time, a detail that is noteworthy. Presumably other windows were replaced in later years, but these all received LPC permission and so aren't mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "while the remaining space was 96 percent occupied by 2002" Maybe "in 2002" -- unless there was a point where it was 0 percent occupied?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "One potential buyer wanted to operate the building as an office structure, but he reneged because of concerns that he would not be able to outbid residential developers" relevance? I'm sure many people would have liked to buy the building but couldn't afford it
  • I have removed this, as it's probably run-of-the-mill for reasons you mentioned. I only included this detail because the residential boom in Downtown Brooklyn was, at the time, unusual for a neighborhood that was mostly composed of office structures. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Through history so far. Nice reading. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Eddie891. I've responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " from thirty miles away" -- conversion figure?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• " that "if it's a minute off, the people telephone immediately"" -- does this imply that they *didn't* rely on it, but instead just used it, considering that they had other clocks and noticed that it was off?
  • The source said that Brooklyn residents depended on this clock. Presumably some people had more accurate clocks, but I think this may be an exaggeration by the building manager. Nonetheless, there were at least some who may have used the clock as their main method of telling time, as evinced by the anecdote of the woman who missed a dentist's appointment because the clock was off. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bank officials required that the dome be included" In this tower or the 175 broadway one?
  • This one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "these lights faded into each other, " I'm not sure what this means
  • The lights are in several different colors. As one light gradually turned off, another light (in another color) gradually turned on, giving the impression that one color was fading into another. However I don't think this detail is too important, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• " features Cosmati rectangles in a grid" what are cosmati rectangles?
  • In the style of the Cosmati family of Italy (which is already linked earlier). Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm wondering if some of the smaller phrases are not overcited-- for instance, why do you need three for " It was installed by Ravenna Mosaics" or "The mosaic, created by Angelo Magnanti"?
  • I can address this later. I added multiple citations to some statements to make the info more verifiable, especially when these sources disagreed on other details. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• and the author Jonathan Ames created a "Most Phallic Building" I don't think this is the best choice for linking 'phallic architecture', especially because it gives the impression of being a link to the competition itself
  • I moved the link out of the quote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The tower was intended as the first of a series of skyscrapers near Downtown Brooklyn" intended by who?
  • I probably used a poor choice of words there. There was no master plan to speak of; several developers, not identified in the source, proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it from me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891. I've addressed all of these except the overcite thing, which I'll get to later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support overall, I would like to see some of the shorter phrases that don't need multiple citations pared down a bit, but that by itself isn't terrible (I'd rather have over than under verification) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 19 December 2023 (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) 14:14, 25 December 2023 (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 2023 [7].

Snowy plover

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The snowy plover is one of the best studied shorebirds of the Americas, but also one of the rarest. I tried to include many interesting details while keeping everything as concise as possible. It is my first bird article, and I am looking forward to your comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting and quality review (no spotchecks)

• FN#2 Grinnell 1982 is available online here; the volume and issue# should be included, as well as the series (University of California Publications in Zoology)

added.

• FN#3, FN#23 be consistent with punctuation of author names (compare Russo, IRM v. Maher, K.H.)

Fixed this instance and some others.

• FN#4 and FN#8 No isbn?

Added.

• FN#4 and FN#8 it's interesting to use title case for chapter titles and sentence case for the title of the book (I would have thought doing the reverse was usual)

Puh, this is one of these conventions that I do not understand (having different rules for books and journals). I put the book titles in title case too, now, hope that works.

• FN#6 I think the page should be "e78068"

Fixed.

• FN#9 Don't need to include publishers for journals. The binomial in the article title should be italicized.

Ok, removed.

• FN#10 is available open access at
  doi:10.2307/4073508

I copied that citation from another FA. So I am not sure what that was doing. Removed.

The Helm Dictionary used to be available on BHL around I think a year ago, so the database attribution is probably from then. The BHL copy of the book was removed a couple months ago, but it is available on Archive.org if you want to add a link. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying! I added the link. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FN#12 two of the editors have authorlinks, which is fine, but inconsistent as there seem to be only three authorlinks throughout the citations

I added a few more, but these only make sense if the author has an article to start with, which is rarely the case.

• FN#11, 15 the ISBNs should be formatted consistently

Fixed.

• sometimes authors' first names are truncated to initials, even though full author names are available at the source page. This would be ok if it was consistent throughout, I guess (though I'm not sure why one would want to trim out that information), but it's not, as there are other citations that use full first names.

Personally, I would prefer to simply cite them as the names appear in the sources. However, here at FAC, people ask for consistency. It is often not possible to find the full names of all authors that are cited in the entire article. So I simply truncate them all, to meet the consistency requirement.

• the citation that's somewhat cryptically mentioned in the note is available for viewing here, with all bibliographic details needed to make it into a full citation

Wow, thanks for the hint! I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Two other sources seemed to indicate that they did not had access to the first description (as they did not cite the first description directly, but another paper that was citing the first description. This is why I decided to include that note.). Added now.

Other than these formatting nitpicks, the sources appear to be scholarly and appropriate for use as "high-quality reliable sources". I'll be back later with a full review. Esculenta (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Responses above, should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

• "which comprises 32 extant species and is therefore the most specious genus of the family" I'm not sure what context of its meaning you're using "specious" in here-- could you clarify (on the FAC)?

"Species-rich". Changed to the alternative form "speciose", which is hopefully less ambiguous.

• "The snowy plover, formerly Charadrius nivosus, is to be transferred into the genus Anarhynchus, as Anarhynchus nivosus, along with a number of other plover species." I'm (as a non-specialist reader) a bit confused by this. If they know that it should be transferred, why hasn't it been yet? Who does the transferring?

The major resources (Ebird, Birds of the World, Inaturalist, etc.) already made this step. But Wikipedia is following the IOC World Bird List, which apparently did not do this update yet. I expect that this will happen soon.

• " much debate revolved around the question whether the two represent a single or separate species" you don't really establish that any real debate occurred-- more that Oberholser said something, it was largely accepted for about 100 years

Very good point. There has been debate, but I thought it is not really worth mentioning here. But then, yeah, "much debate" is an overstatement. Removed.

• How do you decide whose work get's their name and who is just lumped into "a study in year"?

Usually, I give names either for works that have been seminal to the topic (usually old ones), or when I provide the opinion of one author that is either speculative or probably not shared by other ornithologists (to attribute the statement to that particular author).

• "and hints at the occurrence of these birds along rivers" Is this a common thing?

Charadrius has many species, and many of them are common along rivers. The snowy plover itself not so much, though.

• " In some cases, combatants pull on each others feathers, and may even pull out a flight feather. " What is the difference between a flight feather and a regular feather?

There are flight feathers (used for flight), and downy feathers (used for insulation), and display feathers (used for advertisement). I now specified "tail feather", and linked to flight feather.

• You link nest scrape in the caption but not ground scrape in the article, seems like would be worth a link in both places?

Linked now, and changed the text to "nest scrape", too.

• " The chicks are presocial" The linked article does not contain the term "presocial", but does have "precocial". Typo?

Oh yeah, thanks, fixed.

• "in the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded 58% of the time on average. " This is not clear to me-- 58% of their first ten days on average they are brooded? or 58% of them were still brooded after ten days? or something else

It means that, each day, the parents sit on them 58% of the time (i.e., 14 hours per day). I need to think about how to formulate this more clearly; if you have an idea, please let me know!

Maybe "In the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded for an average of 58% of each day" ? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, took your suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " In western North America, chicks are attended for 29 to 47" what does attended mean in this context?

"attended" here means that the parents attend (take care of) the chicks. Should I replace with "are cared for"?

I think that sounds better

Changed. I hope that the double word ("are cared for for") is not a problem? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think SchroCat's suggestion below works well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " the New Carissa spill of 1999 that is known to have killed a minimum of 45 plovers" Could probably just say "that killed a minimum"

Hm. I wanted to emphasize the "known" here, because there were many more spills with probably much larger numbers, but nobody counted. This one is worth mentioning because we have some data at least.

Oh in that case, I think it's ok.

• "In the future, effects of climate change, such as droughts and habitat loss due to sea level rise, are likely to negatively affect this species" Implying that they don't already, which is probably innacurate?

Probably. Changed to are likely to become significant threats.

• "In Mexico, the species is listed as "threatened" since 2010" maybe "has been... since 2010"?

Yes, done.

• "but target numbers have not yet been reached" The target numbers are?

The source didn't specify, and I searched again and didn't find this information anywhere. I will keep looking.

Actually, I couldn't find anything on target numbers in other sources. I therefore removed this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really interesting and well written article. A number of my points are probably my confusion and don't need edits to address them Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this helpful review! I responded to all, but for some I have questions; please let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you, again. I think all points should be addressed, and I hope I did not miss anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A well written, highly readable, and wonderfully illustrated article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FM

• Will have a look soon. I think this has the overall best quality photos and image selection of any bird article I've seen at FAC, nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I am quite fortunate with this one, also regarding the amount of interesting research that I could add! And thanks for reviewing, I am looking forward to more comments!
• Point Reyes National Seashore is duplinked.
  • It is linked once in an image caption, and once in the text, that should be fine?

The highlight duplinks tools shows me it's linked in successive last two paragraphs under "Causes of decline". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see. Fixed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No cladogram?
  • As stated in the taxonomy section, the plovers are momentarily undergoing a major taxonomic revision, and the snowy plover is to be moved into another genus. There is an old cladogram from 2015, but it would show the old taxonomy (which the Wikipedia article is still following, though). And there is a newer one from 2021 that lists this species as "Ochthodromus nivosus", which seems to be outdated already. I didn't see any cladogram that has it under its new name. My secondary source (birds of the world), which was just updated this month, states that the snowy plover is most closely related to the Kentish, the white fronted, the Malaysian, and the chestnut-banded plover, and I included this information. However, no cladogram I saw matches this precisely. So I am not sure; should I include the old 2015 cladogram for now, or go without cladogram for the moment?
    • Actually I was wrong. The 2015 cladogram matches precisely the relationships stated by the 2023 secondary source. Added now, but without scientific names, since the genus name may change soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could there be a caption for the map that explains the colours?
  • Why didn't I thought about that myself? Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent in whether nationality and occupation are listed for the people mentioned.
  • I removed them now to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Kentish plover is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • Fixed.

• "The genus Anarhynchus did previously contain" Seems a bit unnatural with the "did", perhaps "The genus Anarhynchus previously contained"?
  • Took your suggestion.

• Seems inconsistent when you give the scientific name of a species after first mention of the common name or not?
  • Simplified text so that I could remove the one mention of the scientific name. Scientific names add complexity and are not strictly pertinent, so I prefer to avoid them to maximize readability, and also to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Since the
  WP:Engvar
  most associated with this species is US English, shouldn't the article be written in that? I see both ise and ize endings.
  • I found one -ise ending which I fixed, hope I didn't overlooked something.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found" Give author, as you do with another genetic study mentioned?
  • Removed that author name to be consistent. If I would give all author names for all statements, it would be too much (I mostly cite a single secondary source, but this source is just a summary of dozens of papers which I do not cite directly).

• "have recognized them as" Don't think "have" is needed here.
  • Fixed. Thank you, I am looking for more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that you removed binomials elsewhere, how about: "Similar species within its range include the piping plover Charadrius melodus), the collared plover (Charadrius collaris), the semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), and Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia)."
  • Removed them here, too.

• I wonder if "demes" need explanation in parenthesis?
  • I originally did not because it is a bit words, but added now.

• While the article is image heavy, I wonder if this video[8] would be interesting under for example habitat? It shows something not really shown elsewhere currently in the article, a very large congregation of birds on a beach, and it is pretty interesting in showing then all moving in unison back and forth, seemingly in response to the waves?
  • Very difficult to see but I believe these are dunlins, not snowy plovers. At least some of them have black bellies and longer beaks, which can only be dunlin. Also, seeing snowy plovers feeding in such numbers would be highly unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps enough to question their identity in the Commons file description so others don't add it in other language articles? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I just edit the Commons file description, saying that these could be Dunlins? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if it can just be added to the current description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]