Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2019

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 July 2019 [1].

Kal Ho Naa Ho

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kal Ho Naa Ho, a 2003 Indian Hindi film starring Jaya Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta. The film is known for its story, screenplay, dialogues, performances and music. I've opened up the second FAC for this article to get it to FA (Last time I was unable to do so due to the demise of a close relation of mine). A special note of thanks to Bollyjeff for reviewing the GAN. Constructive comments to improve the article are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

• Support — I have read the article for two days and have no notable complaints about anything around. I find this worthy enough to become a FA and support its promotion. Regards, Veera Narayana 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Support I could not see any issue with this article. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment use lakhs and crores for Rupees. No Indian knows what Rs. 280 million is. Non Indians have the dollar amount anyway.—indopug (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The

MOS:COMMONALITY guideline states, "ten million is preferable to one crore". Bollyjeff | talk 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks pretty comprehensive, although I'm no expert Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a big deal, but I tend to agree that crores and lakhs seem more natural in an Indian-culture article

@

WP:OVERLINK).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Jimfbleak, the order in the opening credits is per star billing (And is shown as such in the opening credits). The order in the closing credits is as shown in the film's ending.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and the cast and crew were without food and water at one point— For five minutes? 5 hours? 5 days? As it stands, it's prety meaningless

Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a dash of humor, and thankfully by not degrading its social connection."—Why is an Indian writer for an Indian publication using US spelling?

Done. Changed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no more queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

I support this nomination; my comments were addressed during the

Thank you very much,

Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Another well-written article. Good work! Damian Vo (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Damian Vo. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

I see an image review in the last nomination, but has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at

@Laser brain: Done as suggested.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Not sure why all the publishers are italicized here, which is normally done in case of newspapers or magazines.

Perhaps because the website field by default italicises the text (it's the technical team who should decide whether or not it should do so). And Template:Cite web strongly discourages using the publisher field for websites. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be MTV India not MTV (India) in source 15.
• The Hindu needs wiki-linking in source 25.
• Source 44 – this is the only one with the parent company of the publisher mentioned. I would suggest removing Press Trust of India.
• Source 61 – OK another one (Indo-Asian News Service).
• Source 84 and 85 – Hmm, more of them.
• No problem with the reliability although I'm not exactly thrilled about BuzzFeed and Film Companion. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about BuzzFeed, but Film Companion definitely passes

WP:RS. It was founded by Anupama Chopra, and even one of India's greatest film critics writes for it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for addressing some of the comments,

The Huffington Post, another reliable source. Also, the Northeast blackout of 2003 is addressed in the BuzzFeed source used (Ref no 14) while the two other sources (Ref nos 17 and 35) only say there was "a blackout" but did not specify which blackout. Also, reference 14 addresses that the film's title was inspired by a song from Saif Ali Khan's (who is also in this film) 1997 film, Hameshaa. Also, the only other BuzzFeed source used here in the film (ref no 6) shows Delnaaz's character name written in full as "Jaspreet 'Sweetu' Kapoor". I tried to find other sources for it but most of them only call her by her character's nickname, Sweetu (Jaspreet Kapoor is her actual name).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright. FrB.TG (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for conducting the source review, FrB.TG. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:26, 27 July 2019 (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) 13:27, 30 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [2].

Braunschweig-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another class of German battleships, most of these were out of front-line service by World War I, but one, Hessen, was at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (Hessen also remained in service until 1960 or so, having served under 4 flags). The article passed a MILHIST A-class review in April 2019, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• outbreak of World War I in July 1914 prevented I do not think we need a "1914" here.
  • Removed
• After the war, the five Braunschweig's were Shouldn't it be "Braunschweigs" instead of "Braunschweig's"?
  • Yeah, I don't know where that came from
• Link both tonnes and long tons in both the infobox nor the body.
  • Done
• Link full load in the body and the infobox.
  • Good catch
• Link knots in the body and the infobox.
  • Done
• Link PS in the body.
  • It is, but it's not abbreviated the first time - I suppose since "PS" isn't an obvious abbreviation for "metric horsepower", it's probably best to just not abbreviate it
• Optional The ships' main armament was increased remove "the ships" with "their".
  • Works for me
• at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,700 ft/s) Link both m/s and ft/s here.
  • Done
• for a maximum range of 16,900 metres (18,500 yd), while the British metres.
  • Fixed
• lower range of 14,500 metres (15,900 yd) Same as above.
  • Fixed
• for a maximum range of 9,090 metres (9,940 yd) Same as above.
  • Fixed
• Our Kaiser here is overlinked.
  • Fixed
• making visits to Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Maybe mainland Spain? Because the Canary Islands are part of Spain too. And add Portugal after the Azores.
  • Done
• Lothringen was to be reduced to reserve in July 1914 and Preussen I think we do not need a second 1914 in this paragraph.
  • Removed
• Link Denmark, Norway, Spain and Serbia with the Kingdom of Serbia's article.
  • Linked Serbia, but the equivalent for Spain is
    WP:EGGy
    to me, and Norway and Denmark are both currently the same countries, which the MoS advises against linking
• into a training ship, and on 20 August 1917 Remove 1917 here.
  • Done
• Link Kiel in the body.
  • Done
• Link Soviet Union in the body.
  • Done

Par two Just to be sure I will have another look in the article.

• In addition, the 17 cm guns Remove "In addition" and replace with "Also".
  • Done
• were propelled by three shaft triple-expansion steam engines Missing hyphen between "three shaft".
  • Fixed
• Germany had limited access to high quality coal Same as above needs a hyphen between high quality.
  • Done
• introduced, in order to increase the burn rate Maybe remove "in order" here? It sounds better.
  • Done
• apparent that the mine clearing had taken too long Needs a hyphen between mine clearing.
  • Done
• replaced as flagship by the battleship You mean "as a flagship"?
  • No, there's no article needed there (and "a" would be the wrong one in any event)
• in poor condition and in dire need Don't think that the second "in" is not necenssarry?
  • No, "in poor condition and dire need" wouldn't work, IMO
• Preussen, Lothringen, and Hessen continued on as guard ships in the Baltic Maybe remove "on" here.
  • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, CPA Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey BB I just made some more comments here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a god or a dictator to not listen to my fellow editors like you BB who have opinions especially in my non-English native ears. It looks great here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and went through it with a fine-tooth comb then. I have a few comments:

• "Previous designs had carried the 24 cm guns in the superstructure" in what, multiple gun turrets or casemates?
• in general, the decision of the design staff about the set-up of the secondary battery needs better explanation at this point. Was the smaller battery on the main deck in casemates or turrets? How was it to be laid out? I realise this is explained later, but given it is being discussed here, it needs to be better explained.
  • See if how I've reworked it sounds good for you
• repetition "as many countries' navies" and "many navies"
  • Fixed
• "increasing the thickness of the armor protecting the secondary battery" this is the same question about the set-up of the secondary battery. Casemates?
  • Clarified
• given PS and ihp are indistinguishable at this level, perhaps force or add kW as a conversion in the infobox?
  • Done
• "12 in (30 cm) guns" it seems weird to use the reverse conversion just for these foreign guns
  • Good point
• depress down is unnecessary, depress will do
  • Fixed
• 1820 shells→1,820 shells
  • Fixed
• go through and check all metres are meters
  • Fixed per CPA's comment above
• any info available about the performance and range of the torpedoes?
• casemated guns had gunshields?
  • Yeah, they rotated with the gun in the casemate
• you could put the conning tower armour in the infobox
  • Good idea
• "but they saw no action"→"but it saw no action" as we are talking about the squadron here
  • Good catch

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• add a location for Philbin?
  • Good catch, added
• do Koop & Schmolke and Weir not add anything?
  • I haven't read Koop & Schmolke - it's not widely available, but I suspect it would be useful for those who can get a copy. Weir provides context on the building programs, government-industry relations, Imperial German politics, and such, that doesn't really belong in the article but might be of interest, so I figured it would be worth including in the further reading section.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Formats

• ISBNs should be in a single uniform format (see Dodson 2014)

• Fixed

• Citations 18 and 23 refer to "Hildebrand, Röhr & Steinmetz Vol. 2", but in the references this is listed as Vol 3.

• Good catch

• Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the required quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

• Why are the main guns the only ones in the infobox to get a designation?
  • Good question
• Several roundings for the conversions require fixing.
  • Fixed the torpedoes and the CT side armor - is there anything else?
    • 7 in (180 mm) and 8 in (200 mm) guns--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed
• increased from four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns in previous designs, compared with the 30.5 cm guns used on many foreign ships. redundant
  • Removed
• Hyphenate Marine type boilers
  • Done
• Link cylindrical boilers to Scotch marine boilers
  • Done
• Link funnel, metric horsepower, sec
  • The first two already are - what's "sec"?
• What's unstable steering?
  • All Groner says is "Unstable steering caused an additional distance of .5nmi per hour to be run; this extra distance...explains the shorter range."
    • Strange, but hard to explain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a fair number of redundant conversions
  • Removed a few, not sure if I got them all
    • You converted the armament sizes in the lede, but that can be treated as a different thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest moving the bit about hydraulically operated turrets to two sentences previous, right in front of the turret designations.
  • How about where I put it?
    • Better, but it's still a subordinate clause. I think "hydraulically operated twin-gun turrets" reads better, but I'm sometimes idiosyncratic about such things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me
• The main battery had a total of 340 shells, Awkward, suggest something like "the ships carried a total of 340 shells, 85 per gun"
  • Works for me
• 140 mm (5.5 in) forward and aft "fore and aft"?
  • Sure
• extended from the fore to aft main battery turrets awkward Perhaps "extended between the fore and aft main-gun turrets"?
  • Done
• Down to service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Link the headers in the table and guard ship
  • Done
• Schmidt decided to withdraw his forces when it became apparent that the mine-clearing had taken too long, and there was not sufficient daylight left for the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of its own. It's unclear here what the situation is. The Germans wanted to clear the Russian minefields so they could lay one of their own?
  • Yeah, they wanted to clear the Irben Strait (the western entrance to the gulf) and mine the path through Moon Sound (the northern entrance) - have clarified this
• When these ships were disarmed weren't their guns reused by the Army?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's mentioned in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [3].

William McSherry

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short but comprehensive article about William McSherry, a

• File:William_McSherry_portrait.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I believe this is another case of anonymous, never published images, as we discussed at Thomas F. Mulledy. After searching, I'm unable to find any evidence of this image being published. Ergo Sum 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so should then swap in the PD-US-unpublished tag, and suggest also elaborating on the image description page the searches you've done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do. Thanks. Ergo Sum 17:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links to sources are all working
• Formats: a couple of italicisation issues: "City of Charles Town, West Virginia" (ref 3) and "Georgetown Slavery Archive" (ref 36) are publishers, not websites, and should not be in italic form
  • @Brianboulton: I think I may have to beg to differ. Reading {{Cite web}}, it seems that |website= is more appropriate than |publisher=. Neither of those entities are publishers per se, like book or newspaper publishers. Rather, they are distinctly not publishers but publish incidental to their other functions. Ergo Sum 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They may not be "publishers" in the conventional meaning of the word, but they are the organisations that publish these websites, and the means whereby we judge the quality/reliability of the material. They are not websites. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Brianboulton: I'm open to swapping out the parameters, but I'm curious, then, in what circumstance would |website= ever be used? Ergo Sum 15:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Brianboulton: I've replaced website with publisher for the City of Charles Town ref. For the Slavery Archive ref, I've kept the website param, but added a publisher, since the archive is not any entity in itself, but is just a project run by Georgetown University. Does this look good now? Ergo Sum 19:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Quality and reliability: the sources appear well chosen, and to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. Ergo Sum 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Rambling Man

• Support I reviewed this at GAN and considered at the time that it was beyond that quality already. I'm satisfied it meets all the FAC criteria. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

I've added this to the Urgents list but, having been open nearly a month, it will be archived soon if it does not attract additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• It is a little jarring in the Early life section how one sentence we're talking about how Anne married Richard and the next is William following his brothers to college. However I can't see a way of reorganising the section as is. Is there any other biographical info? Given his age I thought I'd ask. If none this is not a deal-breaker....
  • I can't find any other information about his early life, even trivial information. I would suggest separating into two paragraphs, but then I think each would be too short. Ergo Sum 19:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed - two paras would be too choppy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He arrived at Georgetown on December 22, 1828 - do we know in what condition? i.e. you've mentioned the voyage was treacherous, which leaves me curious.....
  • Again, I can't seem to find any additional detail. The voyage was, indeed, treacherous, so one can assume that it was tiring and nerve-racking, but those would be assumptions. Ergo Sum 19:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ...due to a[n insufficient number] of Jesuits to staff them - err, why not just a "lack"?
  • Good point. Rephrased. Ergo Sum 19:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1839, McSherry was permitted to resign the presidency due to his [significantly deteriorated] health. - why not just "poor" or "worsening"?
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 19:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, a nice read and on track to FA-hood methinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Casliber: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 19:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok all good now (on comprehensiveness and prose) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

Will take a look this weekend. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and was introduced to Richard in the United States, where they married on July 31, 1791: Since you don't say met, can use the word "arranged"
  • It does not appear to be an arranged marriage, so I rephrased it as met. Ergo Sum 21:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• he rediscovered in the Jesuit archives the Relatio Itineris by Andrew White - was this a personal rediscovey of known text or did he unearth a previously lost archive - ie say "found the previously lost/forgoten"
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 21:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "brought to light" is colloquial
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• there are a few long sentences that would have more narrative or dramatic impact if split up & expanded upon;

• Eventually, he left for the United States from the port of Livorno on a treacherous voyage that lated 171 days, and caused some in the United States to fear that the three Jesuits aboard had perished. - here the detail of "from the port of Livorno" as acquardly placed, bogs the reader down and takes from the excitement potential of the latter parts of these claims. Would tighten.

• • I've rephrased that sentence to streamline the narrative. Ergo Sum 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• McSherry was recalled to Rome in 1832, because why...can you make cleared
  • I cannot find the reason why he was recalled. Ergo Sum 21:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then say that for a reason, now lost Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• McSherry was appointed President of Georgetown University and entered office on December 25, 1837 sometimes you say the president, sometimes president. These things matter to BritEn watchers
  • I've made it consistent. Ergo Sum 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, the article is very strong, on sourcing, comprehensiveness and clarity of prose as is usual from Ergo. Although I am about as lapsed a Catholic as lapsed Catholics can be; leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are nitpicks that I trust Ergo to address; have read through and edited otherwise. Support. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ceoil: Thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As one of the first Americans to complete the traditional Jesuit course of training - should this just be "first American trained as a Jesuit"? Otherwise, yep, all points met. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two are actually different in an important way. There were Americans who had been admitted as Jesuits without undergoing the full training that their Continental counterparts did. McSherry was one of the first to complete the full course. Ergo Sum 14:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah ok. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [4].

Littlemore Priory scandals

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pathological prioress, negligent nuns, a blundering bishop and unchaste chaplains; it rather says it all about Littlemore Priory that the only character that comes out the story looking even mildly positive was—in a career first and last—

That’s all from me. Tim riley talk 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim riley; I've addressed your points and thank you for them—mostly silly mistakes, apologies for putting you through them, I end up re-reading the thing so often I don't see wood for trees I think—but can I ask you to clarify your point#14 ("it illustrates, she suggests", etc)? I can't quite get the gist of what you're asking. More apologies if I'm missing the bleeding obvious! ~~

It's a matter of clarity. I think the sentence gets lost midway: "...but it clearly had" – what is it? There isn't a singular noun to which it could plausibly refer. Now I look again I think just deleting the "it" would do the trick, and restore both syntax and clarity. All the same, I think it would be clearer still if you turned it round: It illustrates, she suggests, that although Thomas Cromwell exaggerated the case there was clearly some basis in recent history for the allegations of decadent institutions and scurrilous behaviour that he used as justification for the wholesale dissolution of the monasteries of 1536–39. But I certainly don't press the point if you disagree. Tim riley talk 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean Tim, apologies for density. That wording's good enough for me, so I've 1/2"ed it. I'd welcome you checking that everything's to your satisfaction, of course. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

• Do we know why Horde initially visited the priory?
  • Not really, but E. Power does hint at a sort of reason, which we ca draw out from; and I've done so.
• "rooves" is, if not incorrect, then definitely an unusual spelling: I would use "roofs" simply because it is so much more familiar!
  • Absolutely. See Tim r. above; great minds think alike. I don't know what possessed me.
• "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress": from context, I guess Spear is agreeing with Logan?
  • Acrtually with Power, but my prose was poor enough to not make that crystal clear; hopefully now clarified.
• "were apostatised as a result": apostatised is wikilinked towards the end of the article; the wikilink should be up here (and you might consider glossing it in text too)
  • Moved; can you suggest a gloss?
• "Wells complained that even though it is two years since Juliana Wynter had had a baby". Tense problems: "even though it had been". And I would write "had given birth" in order to avoid "had had".
  • Check.
• "his new humanism Cardinal College": "humanist"?
  • Corrected.
• "and for the building of which, therefore, he needed funds": at least one of "and" or "therefore" is superfluous here; you might even cut both.
  • Both gone (one already gone due to T.r. again!)
• "suppress several decayed monasteries": "decayed" implies to me that the physical structure of the monasteries was the problem; I assume that in fact Wolsey was concerned with moral decline?
  • You're dead right, and I'm not invested particularly in its use; bit it is the word used frequently in the sources for this particular application.
• "its lands were given over new college": "over to the new college"?
  • D'oh.
• "his efforts mirror and predate the attempted reforms": strange phrasing.
  • How about the miuch tighter "...Atwater's efforts in this direction anticipated..."?
• Note 2 confuses me: "the rubric to the Littlemore visitation contains none of the references to modesty or shamefastness which usually appear when sexual transgression is at issue" appears to be used to support that there was anxiety about lesbian sex at Littlemore!?
  • Indeed! It is actually saying two things—"yes but no" kind of thing"—to make a single point, so I've clarified that Atwater might have thought there was funny business going on, but a historian thinks otherwise.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All great points, Caeciliusinhorto; I think I've addressed them? (Exept the gloss, which is pending but not forgotten!) And of course, as ever, if you think of anything else—especially if you can find me another image  ;)  !—you'd be very welcome. Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definite improvements! A few more comments on a second read through:

• "Other essential outbuildings": we weren't really talking about "essential outbuildings" previously, unless we are considering the priory an outbuilding! "Some essential outbuildings"?
• "with no companion other than a young child from a nearby village": the "with a young child bit" is striking – are we to infer that it was her daughter?
• "even at the elevation": I think that elevation (liturgy) is the target you are looking for?

(Re. images: there's probably room for an image of Wolsey in §Aftermath? As I know from my current effort at FAC, not all articles are naturally bountiful in images!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

WP:MEGA-OR alert* She told the bishop that her daughter had died a few years earlier so no, not her—although a great idea—but taking it a step further, could we surmise that she was suffering from a form of empty nest syndrome? Her daughter had died, and she was living through someone else's from the village? Completely hypothetical; but a sad possibility nevertheless, I think. What say you? Unfortunately [/WP:OR] there's nothing in any source that discusses her child. ——SerialNumber54129 10:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

An excellent image of Wolsey! Now there's a man who wasn't following the Benedictine prohibition on eating meat! (Or, indeed, as I recall, the priestly requirement for celibacy!)

About the child: if the sources don't discuss it, they don't discuss it. Now, if you were writing a scholarly article on the scandals I would be suggesting that you dig into that, because it is interesting. Was she lying about the death of her daughter? Was she trying to overcome the grief from her daughter's death? Was there some other reason the nuns were concerned about it? As you say, though, there's nowhere to go at present without tearing up

WP:OR

...

Sources used generally look reliable: there are a few pretty dated sources, especially King, Arrowsmith, and VCH, but these seem to be generally used to support relatively uncontroversial facts, and sometimes in articles like this you do need to go back to older sources. I did raise my eyebrows slightly at Flora Fraser (and the claim she is being used to support looks like a

time to cite the primary source

if I ever saw one!) but no serious concerns about the sources from my point of view.

I don't have enough knowledge of the scholarship to properly judge comprehensiveness, but there's nothing obviously missing from this layman's point of view. I haven't checked the image licensing thoroughly but the painting is obviously out of copyright and the photograph is CC licensed, so looks fine to me.

Overall, I'm willing to support promotion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto some very nuanced points indeed! You're probably right about Fraser, and I'll see if I can dig it out of the Visitations. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Sampson_Strong's_Wolsey_portrait_in_Christ_Church.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thakns for that Nikkimaria, much appreciated as ever. ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Is the pull quote in Background from the same source later given as Atwater? The titles are similar but not identical. Suggest footnoting the quote
  • Oddly, no, they're separate works.

• • • Okay. Suggest adding a footnote to whatever the quoted work is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having said that, on digging out the footnote per your suggestion, te reason they're so similar is because they're in the same series of records. So I've added the footnote and an entry to the biblio.
• FN45 should use pages not page
  • Done.
• The BBC ref is backwards - author is BBC staff, work is BBC News
  • Done.
• Bowker 2004: don't use proxied URLs, either for the archive or the original. For ODNB refs you could really just use DOI, or the original URL if desired
  • Well I got rid of the proxy (didn't I?)!

• • • No - the archive link goes to a proxy login page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I wouldhave found had I actually clicked on the link after pasting it. But I didn't change the archived page! Now done. No More Proxying.
• Is there a reason Cook is not bulleted?
  • My dumbassery?
• Cheney: can you verify the title? That ISBN seems to correspond with a book on English history, not British
  • Absolutely correct.
• Elton: that ISBN appears to be a different edition. Same with Gilchrist and Thomson
  • Done.
• Everett title should use endash. Same with Smith and Thomson
• Done.
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Caught MacCulloch and Marshall.
• Kerr: don't overspecify publication dates for books
  • Done.
• Think you've switched the ISBNs for the two Logan works?
  • Done.
• Spear appears to be part of a series
  • Added.
• Worldcat lists an actual author for both VCH works
  • Ah! See below.
• The Williams source should likely be cited as a report rather than as a journal article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reminder. I asked ages ago at
    WP:ARCHAEO, and very rudely forgot to look back in, wheer I see Joe Roe has very kindly provided me with some tenmplates: went with {{cite report}}; Joe, could you just check to see I've used it OK please? ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I changed it a bit, but yes I think that's the right template. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nikkimaria, for your eagle eye there. I've made all the adjustments, I think, excepting the VCH: all things being equal, I'd prefer to keep it simply VCH for consistency. You see, there are literally hundreds of volumes, with nearly as many authors / editors. Much easier for the readers search this way, and it's pretty consistently the academic treatment too. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Basically, I was v slow in etting your drift. Apologies! How do the refs look now? (See above for details as to what I've done.)

Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat

Support Nice article. Just a couple of queries tho:

Atwater investigates, 1517

• On 17 June 1517[14]: Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have a citation supporting a date but nothing else. I'd move these to the end of the sentence.

Visit of the bishop

• "On 2 September 1518,[35]" Same as above

Aftermath

• a pension of "£6 £13 4d" seems odd.

That's it from me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers SchroCat, much appreciated as ever. Just the fyi, the cites were where they were because they literally were only referencing the dates, nothing else...but they looked bizarre I admit. In any case, I shifted them along a tad. Also sorted your LSD  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

I have taken the liberty of adding salient inflation figures and other minor changes, and overall I think this is a well-written and informative article. Nice job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Apologies indeed for the belated reply! Thanks for those figures, I'm not particularly au fait with the templates. One thing though—not a criticism, I've just never seen it done before—is that you've now got notes within notes, if you know what I mean; note #21 now contains notes 18, 19 and 20  :) like a snake eating its tail; was that intentional? I appreciate your support here in any case! ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done notes within notes before myself, and that is intentional. No worries if you want to change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it reminds me of Castrovalva somewhat  :) thanks again for looking in! ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 28 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [5].

Thomas White (Australian politician)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the

• First World War section – given the heading, it might be smoother to make "the First World War" in the opening line just "the war". I don't press the point.
  • I guess I prefer to write paragraphs that can be read without the heading...
• "at St John's Church of England in Toorak" – I quite see that it was a C of E church, but I don't think it quite works to elide "St John's Church of England church". Loyal son of the C of E though I am, I'd be inclined to make this just "at St John's Church, Toorak". But again, I don't press the point.
  • I tend to agree with you but the source renders it this way and I think we'd need to explain it was C of E somewhere...
• "but lost to the sitting Labor member, James Fenton, by just over 9,000 votes" – it could be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Australian electoral system of the time to say whether a 9,000 majority was a landslide, a narrow squeak or something in between.
  • The sources don't editorialise on the result so I think all I could offer is to recast it with the totals for White and his opponent, i.e. 19,000 to 28,000, and let the reader work it out.
    • Probably not worth the extra words. Consider the suggestion withdrawn. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Denied pre-selection as a Nationalist" – I struggle with this. Is it that the party declined to adopt him as a candidate (as we would say in Britain)?
  • Interesting, I thought pre-selection and de-selection were British terms -- your suggestion is probably more universal anyway though, so no prob.
• "personal animosity for Menzies" – the nittiest of picks, but I think one has an animosity against, rather than for, someone. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong so far as AusEng is concerned.
  • How about "animosity towards"?
    • Fine with me. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there of any great moment. Happy to support this enjoyably readable article about an interesting person. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk

Thanks as always for your comments and support, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely content with the replies above. Nothing else to add. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

This article is in fine shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR back in April last year, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I have a few comments:

• Pre-WWI, AFAIK the part-time Army was the Citizen Forces, not the CMF, although anything prior to the 1903 Defence Act is a bit iffy in terms of terminology, as I think the colonial laws still prevailed
  • Hmm, looking at the sources for the first mention, the ADB uses Citizen Military Forces but the Prahran Telegraph says Citizen Forces, so I guess I could adopt the latter... What's your advice for subsequent mentions of CMF though, as the ADB continues with it?
    • I think Australian Military Forces has it right, so I would just say "the Citizen Military Forces (the renamed Citizen Forces)" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done -- to avoid an extra line in the infobox and given he was in the CMF longer than the CF, I thought I'd leave it as CMF there if you're okay with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• the NAA file citations would benefit from a page number, eg fn 4
  • God, how'd I forget that...
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• when Basra is first mentioned, there is some assumed knowledge about where that is
  • I can add the waterway it's on per Stephens and Cutlack.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• following on from my comments at ACR, in respect to his election results, could they be rendered in percentage terms of the votes cast instead of raw vote numbers, as we don't know the sizes of the electorates, and don't know if 12,000 votes (for example) was a lot or a little?
  • If I may refer my honorable friend to the reply I made to Mr Riley earlier... rather than percentages, newspaper reports at this time seem to focus on the victor's majority, as well as the bare figures for each candidate, so I'd be happy to substitute the latter for what we have now and let the reader work out the decisiveness of the wins.
    • Either a percentage margin or the raw 2PP for both would be fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done the raw figures of winner vs runner-up for about half the results, which I think puts the majority-only figures in context, but let me know if you think more is needed. I could perhaps make the majority-only figures exact for more consistency with the winner/runner-up numbers, let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the "White was returned with a majority of over 26,000" formulation (used several times) works, because it isn't clear. Perhaps "White was returned by a margin of over 26,000" if that is what is meant? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I've dealt with this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• for Victorian Society for Crippled Children and Adults link Yooralla
  • Tks, will do.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• his ADB entry states several things that would bear a mention, including his maiden speech about the AWM, his support of censorship, his support for the New Guard, his almost-resignation over conscription, that he was a dedicated protectionist, this should be mentioned, I think, as it was strong thread in early 20th century Australian politics. Also his identification with ex-serviceman's causes.
  • Okay, will have a look...
    • I guess I was a bit leery of repeating everything in the ADB entry... I've now mentioned the AWM speech, and protectionism. I'm not sure we need his support of censorship when he ran the relevant department; more unusual when your personal views run counter to your departmental responsibilities, i.e. re. protectionism. I already have his active support for conscription in 1938 in there -- I tried finding any mention of him considering resignation over it the previous year in Trove and the Lyons bio but found nothing. Re. ex-servicemen's causes, I think again it's how to put it without just repeating the ABD -- his support of Legacy is in the article. Likewise the New Guard -- not opposed to including it per se but where is a bit of a challenge given the way the ADB entry expresses it, and it seems curious to me that the only other mention of this I could find in Google (let alone Trove) is a study that uses the ADB as its sole source... Happy to discuss all this of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is my view that where a biographical book hasn't been written on someone, the ADB entry should be the basis for our article, because it is a distillation by someone who has done research and is familiar with the subject. Therefore everything in the ADB entry should be reflected in our article, esp at FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tend to agree and the ADB entry is clearly the basis of the WP article, but the ADB doesn't follow quite the same formula as WP, including as it often does somewhat throwaway points in a summing up of the subject, which is where the New Guard is mentioned. I was interested in other sources of White and the New Guard not to verify the ADB, but to get context. Anyway I've done with it as best I think I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• the first para of Second World War and later parliamentary career could do with a chronological approach to his postings, as we learn of three positions, then get details of each one. I would suggest mentioning each in turn, along with the details of each one.
  • Ditto...
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• perhaps say when he returned to Australia from the UKHC job, as his death in Melbourne is rather sudden
  • Okay.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay PM, I think I've done everything I can without getting some feedback on a couple of points -- over to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did White suffer any criticism for sending No. 77 Squadron to Korea with the P-51? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the selection of the Meteor to replace it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of -- Menzies is the pollie most closely associated with the Korean deployment. As for the Meteor, there was little alternative given the Americans weren't prepared to part with any Sabres at that time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't up to speed on that aspect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again PM, pls see above re. ADB info and election margins. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your time -- tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Thomas_Walter_White_1942_(AWM_011735).JPG: if this was taken by the British official photographer, why would it be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this, Nikki -- I'm used to PD images in the AWM being AustralianGov but always happy to take your advice; do you believe it should have a UK Crown Copyright notice or something else? Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think UK Crown would make sense, unless there was some transfer of copyright that might have taken place on the AWM side. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi again Nikki, I daresay that's what happened, or the official UK photographer was acting on behalf on the RAAF since it was in Britain, but no way to be sure. I'm happy to go with UK Gov if you think that's the better of two uncertainties (what's certain is it's PD-Gov of some sort). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the information provided I'd go with UK. You could contact AWM for clarification but since as you say it's PD either way I'm not overly concerned. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Consider it done -- tks again Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All external links to sources are working per the checker tool
• No format issues
• Sources appear to meet all the required criteria for quality and reliability

Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Brian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

I'll take a look at this. Give me a little while. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "when he deployed to the Middle East" To me this reads a little oddly - 'when he was deployed to the Middle East'?
  • I think the former is also correct but no problem changing it.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "when he was elected Member for Balaclava in Victoria" For non-Australians perhaps mention a member of what?
  • Well I could say "Member of Parliament for Balaclava" but I did mention his "parliamentary career" earlier in the sentence -- your thoughts?

I note from the main article that elected member for Balaclava (were there Australians at Balaclava?) means that he was elected to the Senate. A little research suggests that he could also have begun his parliamentary career by being elected to the House of Representatives. (I am open to correction on this.) If in Australian politics at the time there was little functional difference then it is fine as it was; otherwise it may, at your discretion, be worth flagging in the lead which. (If 'twere me I would be tempted to make the lead 'when he was elected to the Australian Senate as a member for Balaclava', but I certainly don't insist.) This is mentioned purely for your consideration.

House of Reps actually -- I've made explicit in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "He joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during the Second World War" "joined ... during" reads oddly. Does one not either join at a specific point in time (not during), or for the duration of something?
  • Hmm, I still think it reads okay. I didn't particularly want to say a year alone because I want to make it clear to the uninitiated that it was during wartime, but mentioning a year as well as the fact it was during the war seems a bit much.
    • Came up with something, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reads much better to me.

• "the Half Flight assisted the Indian Army" Not sure about this - but are you sure about the upper case H and F?
  • I'll double-check some of the sources for how they treat it. It's true that "flight" would always be lower case but a half flight is pretty well unique in Australian military aviation so might warrant being rendered as a proper name...
    • Three sources, including two from the 2000s, all treat it as a proper name even without "Mesopotamian" so I think we should leave as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had't realised that a/the half flight was so unique. If it was then, obviously, it is fine capitalised and apologies for my error.

• "80 mph (129 km/h)" Optional: the spurious accuracy of the conversion jars a little. Suggest |sigfig=2.
  • Okay will give it a try.
    • Heh, wasn't even using convert, now fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "As well as reconnaissance and bombing, White carried out several operations behind enemy lines." I honestly don't understand what this means. I assume that the "reconnaissance and bombing" were behind enemy lines, so what were the other "several operations"? Would it be possible to be more specific?
  • I was trying to distinguish between his purely aerial missions (recce and bombing) and his ground missions (landing behind lines to conduct sabotage) -- will see about tweaking.
    • Actually I think I was over-complicating things before, simplified along the lines you suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "despite being fired upon by the tribesmen" "upon"? 'on'? (And again later.)
  • Okay.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "He was imprisoned initially in Mosul" Optional: 'He was initially imprisoned in Mosul'?
  • Will have a look.
    • I think some would argue it's correct as is but happy to change. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not try to argue that the earlier version was incorrect, hence the "optional", but to me the later one flows better; ie is more "engaging and ... professional". But entirely up to you and feel free to change back if you wish.

Happy to leave. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "to discuss the growing numbers of Jewish emigrants seeking to leave Germany and occupied territories" Had Germany occupied any territories by July 1938?
  • It
    annexed Austria
    in March that year.

Whoops. How embarrassing.

• "as a flight lieutenant (temporary squadron leader)" Does this mean that his substantive rank was flight lieutenant and that he was an acting squadron leader? If so, why not simply say so? If not, what does it mean?
  • "Temporary" and "acting" ranks are two different things (the former is usually longer-lasting than the latter) -- I could pipe it to Military_rank#Types_of_rank if that helps.

No. Feel free to leave as it is. A suggestion (only): maybe 'as a flight lieutenant (and temporary squadron leader)'; or (better IMO) 'as a flight lieutenant and temporary squadron leader'.

Tks, I might leave as is then; it's in other articles and I believe reflects the way sources often render it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "by this time the school was training over 900 pupils" I feel that this either needs a time period (eg 'was training over 900 pupils per year') or specifying that it is a running total (eg 'had trained over 900 pupils')
  • Will double-check the source.
    • The school had over 900 students in September 1941 when White left -- could I perhaps express this by simply saying either "at this time the school was training over 900 pupils" or "by this time the school had over 900 pupils"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either would clarify nicely, although personally I like the former.

Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "procedures for commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen" Either 'commissioning and promoting Australian airmen' or 'the commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen'.
  • Yes, one or the other is probably preferable.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Royal Commission" → 'royal commission'.
  • Okay.
    • Done. Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Following the Liberal Party victory". "the" → 'a'.
  • Mmm, I think 'the' is appropriate because we've just mentioned the Federal election in the previous sentence...

OK.

I have not carried out a source review, but I note that Guests of the Unspeakable lacks a publication location. (Crows Nest, N.S.W.)

Just as good a quality article as I thought it was going to be. Just the picky points above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've either actioned everything or requested follow-up from you. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All outstanding points commented on in turn. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything now -- let me know. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping make it a better article, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I am okay with "joined...during" BTW Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Cas, came up with something for that anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2019 [6].

Style (Taylor Swift song)

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?). The previous FAC gained two supports, no oppose, and detailed media and source reviews, but failed to pass the line. Hope it will attract more interest this time :), HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If possible I would love to have this article reviewed by one of the coordinators; could @Ian Rose: kindly take a look at it, given that you may have had some time examining the article in the previous FAC? Thank you so much, HĐ (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I am uncertain on how Sargent's quote ("familiar tropes of Western romance") is used in the article. The sentence says that Sargent connects these tropes with the lyrics of this particular song, and I do not see that. Here is the sentence in full from the source (Dating back to her earliest records, Taylor Swift’s songs have navigated the familiar tropes of Western romance: Romeo and Juliet, cheerleader versus geek, the shy girl who falls for the rebellious boy, Prince Charming and his white horse.). Sargent seems completely focused on Swift's previous releases in this sentence, and I feel that the connection being drawn to this song is not accurate.

• Sargent follows up that ""Style" is perhaps one last look at the version of Swift who sees herself in broadly drawn characters", which, I assume, implies that this song is the only song in which Swift appears to long for fairytale-like relationships with beautiful boys on the "shapeshifting" 1989. He does follow up "But "Style" also seems like a distilled look at a future version of Taylor Swift", in terms of musical direction.

• Thank you for the clarification. I must have missed that connection so apologies for my confusion.
  Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't include quotation marks in the Composition section because readers can already understand they're just interpretations. In the reception section, however, I put them in quotes because if there are no quotation marks, that the song talks about beauty standards of white people can be misunderstood as a fact, which is not

• Makes sense to me.
  Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Done; although I am reluctant to italicize non-print publications. But as long as the consensus is to italicize, I'm okay with it

• I can understand that. I would also be interested to see what other people say on this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks so much for the input, they're very helpful as always. Will try to spear some time looking through your FAC if time permits :) HĐ (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the clarifications on certain points and apologies for certain parts where I was confused. Do not feel obligated to look at my FAC as I understand that we all have limited time. I still greatly enjoyed reading through the article, and hopefully more people will review it this time around.
  Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I did a comprehensive sources review during the previous FAC, and the various issues I raised were resolved. There are no other issues I wish to raise in this current FAC. Concerning the italicization of the title in ref 15, mentioned above, this is a function of the "cite AV" template used. The title could easily be de-italicized, if it matters. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Commencing shortly. Kees08 (Talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Taylor Swift - Style sample.ogg - major bonus points for the TimedText :).

My previous review still stands, so the media review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ojorojo

Updated as per

Thanks for pointing that out. I see you have adjusted the infobox; any more concern regarding the prose or format? HĐ (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have little experience with FAs, so I usually confine my comments to the infoboxes. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

Committing to reviewing this so it does not get archived again; will review sometime this weekend probably. Kees08 (Talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it only released to radio in the US and Italy? We should say whatever secondary RS's say, I think, unless there is a standard for music articles.

• There are Billboard sources reporting the release and confirming that it was a single; I don't see any source outside the US (except for the Italy radio source) indicate the single release. For music articles, though, when a song is sent to radio it is qualified as a single (per WikiProject Songs guideline) HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• These sentences in different sections are pretty similar, are both needed? Kornhaber and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen remarked that the "classic" beauty in the lyrics mostly applies to white people. and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen lauded the song's musical styles, but criticized its theme of conventional beauty standards of "white people" as a cliché that blemishes Swift's "girl-next-door likability" on the album.

• The former serves as an interpretation of the lyrics, while the latter provides a more critical viewpoint of that interpretation. By that saying I think they're both needed. HĐ (talk)

I think that is all I have; the article is well-written. Kees08 (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate that, HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties to review following requests from the nominator... Having read and copyedited up to and including Music and lyrics, I don't see major issues at this stage. The prose seems reasonable, the quotes are attributed, the tone is neutral -- just one query:

• serviced the song to US radio stations -- have to admit I'm not familiar with "serviced" in this context, can we just say "released the song", or even "made the song available"?

• Altered to "released", which is easier to understand HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it there for now, I mainly just wanted to get a feel for the article's quality and so far it's positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking time reviewing this! HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Have you had a second chance to go through this yet? Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I don't want promotion held up on my account if it's deemed otherwise ready. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: There has been further input into this review and thus far all have been positive. Any progress to promote/archive this FAC soon? HĐ (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recused from coord duties to review so one of the other @FAC coordinators: will judge that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I'll take a look today. --Laser brain (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tomica

• Support. After comprehensively reading the article I can most certainly give my green light for the bronze star. It's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it; the prose flows great, the references look tidy, and the infobox as well. My only comment/question (that doesn't affect my support of course) is about this particular sentence in the 'Music video' section, " By the time they worked on the video, Sherwood had finished the film Take Down, which was later renamed Billionaire Ransom (released in 2016)." Honestly, it's very random and not really connect to the rest of the information. Also, in my honest opinion, that movie is not really known, so I don't see a reason why it should be there. I would personally remove it. But, maybe there is another explanation of it that I am not aware of right no. Anyways, amazing job! — Tom^(T2ME) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it adds up a bit of info on Sherwood's acting career, given that he's not really well known. I don't think it hurts the flow, but I'll see what others say about that. Thanks so much for the support and comment! HĐ (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

On skimming this to determine readiness for promotion, I'm concerned that the first passage I checked, "Swift, Payami, Martin, and Shellback wrote the song's lyrics", is contradicted by the Medium article in which Ljungfelt indicates that Swift and Martin wrote the lyrics for the song. Can you explain the disparity? Additional source spot-checks will probably be needed before I can consider promotion. I'm also concerned that this article continues a theme I've seen across many song articles here that published sheet music is cited for a generic set of musical "factoids" like key, tempo, and song structure. This has always struck me as

@Laser brain: Hi, thanks for the review. The liner notes of the CD (which I'm having with me at hand) indicate that the songwriters are the four mentioned people. Lyrics may not be the only part the songwriters took care of, so I reworded it to "... are credited as the song's writers". Regarding the information taken from the music sheet, it never struck me that it was OR, so I'm considering removing the bit. Thanks for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Update I removed the whole bit taken from the music sheet. The analysis of the refrain is taken from the Vox video, which is not OR unlike the Musicnotes.com source. HĐ (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the tempo, key and "structure" (i.e., "intro", "verse 1", "bridge", "chorus", "verse 2", etc.) of a particular song are all clearly identified on its sheet music. The tempo can be seen at the top left corner of the first page, while the key and structure can also be found at the top left corner of the first

WP:TRANSCRIPTION of such material to a Wikipedia article is not OR in the slightest. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that this has come to mind, the Musicnotes.com source did exactly what is described at

WP:TRANSCRIPTION. While the absense of such information does not profoundly affect the content, I regret not having carefully investigated WP's policy on NOR. Either way, I want to hear from the coord if reverting back to the Musicnotes.com version plausible and not detrimental to the article's readiness for FA. HĐ (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, I didn't notice the meta section tabbed below the sheet music image until it was pointed out. I'm not necessarily convinced of the accuracy of that section and whether it's completed by an expert or pulled from the sheet music by some automated process, but it seems to be a non-issue here. If an argument ever erupted about the key/tempo/style of a song, it might require further investigation, but that conversation is more appropriate for other venues. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article need any further work for promotion? HĐ (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't checked back in lately. Did you end up re-adding the material? --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did; the rest of the article stays the same, HĐ (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2019 [7].

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After his great victory at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, English king Edward III laid siege to Calais. The French king Philip VI had lost too many men and too much prestige at Crécy to be able to relieve the town and Edward succeeded in cutting it off from seaborne supply. After eleven months the town fell, and was subsequently held by the English for 211 years. This is the penultimate article in my 1345-47 series and I hope that reviewers will pick up its flaws and infelicities as thoroughly as they did with its fellow articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Great to see this here. This article is in great shape. A few minor comments from me:

• "at the conclusion of the Crécy campaign"

Done.

• suggest "On 25 June, Jean de Vienne"

As usual with us I disagree re the necessity of post-date commas, but done anyway.

• suggest "Since June, Philip had been calling on the Scots to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the Auld Alliance and invade England"

Done.

• link abbot

Done.

• is there any indication of what the English did to stop the French supply ships? Burning arrows? Obstacles in the water?

That's me taking stuff for granted. I have expanded "In late April the English established a fortification on the end of the spit of sand to the north of Calais, which enabled them to command the entrance to the harbour and prevent any further supplies reaching the garrison."

• suggest " Edward repopulated the town with English settlers" Do we know where in England they were from?

A definition is "Someone who settles in a new location, especially one who takes up residence in a previously uninhabited place; a colonist" I didn't use "settler" because, to me, it rang oddly in respect of the "especially ... " bit; but now included.

From where: Not that I am aware of. Edward offered land grants and free houses to settlers, so I imagine that they came from all over, especially as a high proportion *OR alert* were probably ex-soldiers.

• all external links are good, no duplicate links.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Peacemaker67, and especially for its promptness. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. A pleasure as always. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

The article is well up to the standards of this continuing series, but I boggle a bit at the absence of mention of the story of the Burghers of Calais, Queen Philippa's intervention and all that. The tale comes from Froissart, after all, and is surely the second best known thing about Calais after Bloody Mary's heart. You mention the Rodin statue, I grant you, but oughtn't the story to be recounted here, if only to be discounted if untrue? I don't press the point, but I feel I must mention it.

I think we could do with an additional line about Joan of Navarre and why it mattered to King Philip that she came to terms with Lancaster.

As to my usual minor obsessions about drafting points – "significant" used when nothing is being signified, "over" rather than "more than" – you've heard them before. I wonder about "Several French nobles sounded out the idea of switching their allegiance..." – doesn't one sound people out about ideas rather than the other way round? That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 06:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:

• Both uses of "significant" removed.
• Three cases of "over" replaced with 'more than'.
• Both of the above added to my 'phrases to watch for' list.
• "sounded... " Good point. Reworded.

On the whole I dislike popular culture sections, but I could add one with something like: "Twenty years after the event, the chronicler

Froissart, who was employed by Philippa of Hainault

, queen consort of Edward III, fabricated a tale by which Philippa, who was not in fact present, was responsible for having the lives of some of Calais' citizen spared at the end of the siege. This account was not considered to be other than allegorical at the time and scholarly opinion has always been that the event never took place."

But I suspect that a reader may wonder why I am telling them fairy stories as part of a serious article. If there is consensus that it should go in then, of course, I shall bow to it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I heartily agree about "popular culture" (i.e. trivia) sections. I thought perhaps you might add a sentence to the Rodin section just sketching the Froissart tale, with a health warning about its dubiety, but I'm not seeking to press the point. I'd still welcome a word or two explaining how Joan of Navarre's pact affected King Philip. Tim riley talk 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim riley]

Philippa: thank you. I have added the bare bones of the tale anyway.

Joan: apparently Philip had done nothing in response by the time of her death three years later. I have tweaked this slightly (I didn't want to get too off topic). What do you think?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both your additions are absolutely the sort of thing I hoped for. I now understand why Joan's pact mattered to Philip, and I think mention of the legend invented by Froissart strikes the perfect note. Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Why Medieval in the lead caption but then medieval in the Military operations caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Because I can't copy edit. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

• A while since I reviewed one of your articles, as they often get the sufficient supports/reviews before I even notice they have been nominated. Seems I'm luckier this time, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The resulting work, The Burghers of Calais, was completed in 1889." Why not show it n the article? Seems it would fit under memorial (there is some space before the notes below).

It seemed peripheral to me, but added.

• There seems to be a duplink in "sacked" and "booty", both linking to looting. You can highlight duplinks with this script:[8]

This is deliberate. "sacked" and "booty" are both words which a reader IMO may reasonably wish to check the meaning of, and while both link to the same Wikipedia article they are sufficiently different that I don't consider that explaining one would automatically give a reader an understanding of the other. Hence the duplink, which are not banned as such by the MoS.

• The infobox image seems somewhat random. Is there no image showing some relevant building, location or such?

Good point. I have been unable to find an alternative image which I consider acceptable. The only one which gets close is Tour du Guet, but for me, not close enough. If you really don't like the generic image, which would be an entirely reasonable point of view, I will replace it with a location map.

Not a big deal, but you could consider the map if others bring it up. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FunkMonk. Lucky for both of us that you got in in time for this one. Your three points addressed. Is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these points were just before I started reading the text, will come back soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The English "achieved complete strategic surprise" Quote according to who?

Rodger, p 103. To which the sentence is cited three words later. I wanted to avoid having the same cite twice in such a short space, or do you think that I should?

Usually I'd think such direct quotes should be attributed in-text, but since you don't do it elsewhere, it might break with the style. So I'm wondering why it needs to be a quote, and not just paraphrased? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Quote marks removed.

• "campaigning in the south west" Against who?

The English. Should I specify?

It was unclear to me that they were also fighting there, maybe I missed something? If not, could be good to clarify. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Expanded to clarify.

• Link chevauchée in intro?

Whoops. Done.

• Supports - looks great, wasn't much to complain about to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat

• Support - Echoing FunkMonk: there really is nothing to complain about with this. The only suggestion I'd have is for the two footnotes to have the same referencing format as the rest of the article, rather than showing them en clair. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command, oh mighty SchroCat Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

I think we'll just need a source review to wrap this up, unless

No probs: I'll pick it up today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting is all good;
• The sources used are reliable, comprehensive and of the standard I would expect for an FA
• Spot checks done on a handful of sources. The information cited is supported by the sources used; no evidence of close paraphrasing.
• Pass - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi guys. In the light of the above, is it ok if my next nom sticks its head above the parapet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2019 [9].

Mercury Seven

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mercury Seven astronauts, who were selected in 1959. As late as 1998, they were the most famous astronauts, but they have been eclipsed in recent years by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Still, they include the first American in in space, the first in orbit, the first to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, and the first to hit a golf ball on the Moon. One even flew on the space shuttle, nearly forty years after being selected as an astronaut. This article was previously nominated as a Featured List, but was not promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have only trivialities to mention, and none that stop a support at this point:

• "group of seven astronauts for Project Mercury announced" - reads really strangely. Perhaps "a group of seven pilots selected to crew the Project Mercury space capsules" or something to that effect?

  Split into two sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and went on to become a U.S. senator" - I'm not sure this is a detail for the lede, and it splits out the next statement, which definitely is.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "which carried Laika, a Soviet space dog" - well, really, just a dog. Perhaps "the first of several dogs launched by the Soviets"

  Special dogs with their own article and TV series! Just calling Laika a dog would create an Easter egg, so leaving it as is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA" - just previous to this it is suggested NACA is already merged. Perhaps some re-arrangement would be useful in this para? Or some additional dates like the formation or funding of MISS?

  Two things happening concurrently. Swapped the two sentences around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "desirable brand.[77] The Mercury astronauts" - para break?

  Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• "o flew first.[20][83] In August 1959" - maybe here too?

  Not here; keeps the publicity in one paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As additional groups of astronauts" - I think a section break here would be useful

  Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "privileges" basis.[85] The Mercury" - para here

  Spliyt-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "time to it.[88] Training was always" - and here.

  Split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Easy to read, and very informative and entertaining. A fantastic article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is an unusual one. It was intended as a list, but there was a lot to say about them as a group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links to sources are all working, per the external links checker tool
• Formats:

• Carpenter & Stoever 2003: publisher location missing
• O'Leary 1971: publisher and location missing

• Quality and reliability: The sources appear comprehensive, and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added location and publisher to these references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

Adding this so I do not forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame's inaugural class was the Mercury Seven. I suppose they had an advantage, since the hall of fame was created by the Mercury 7 Foundation. Would be good if we could add whatever we can find on the Mercury 7 foundation, and add in information on the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame (the first class, has a lot of Mercury 7 memorabilia, etc). I just added a couple citations to Grissom's article in case you want to copy/paste them in here. Kees08 (Talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a precursor to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, I am not sure. Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Change manned to crewed per GNL policy (when appropriate, obviously)

  I don't mind "crewed" for Gemini and Apollo (although it sounds a bit crude) but it seems silly when applied to Mercury where there was just one person. Fiddled with the wording to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any way to avoid consecutive 'which's? MISS encountered technical challenges, which caused funding difficulties, which in turn created conflicts with the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which came first, the term cosmonaut or astronaut? And is there any reason to insert information into the article about the cosmonaut term?

  Can't think of any reason, but both were considered when NASA decided on the name astronaut. In the Soviet Union, adopting the American "astronaut" was considered, but in the end they decided to go with "cosmonaut". The latter makes more sense really. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-person? A three-man panel

  It was three men. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed down to selection process. Still could use something on the US Astronaut Hall of Fame I think. Thanks for the great additions about the foundation. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe change service records of graduates of test pilot schools to service records of test pilot school graduates

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You could link Marine Corps earlier

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't the whole selection process secret or top secret? I thought they had to check into a hotel under a pseudonym. Might be misremembering, not sure it is worth inclusion regardless.

  You're remembering the

  Rice Hotel

  as "Max Peck". Nobody read my articles.

• Regarding their welcome, were no Army candidates in that first group?

  None. My guess is that they did not have the required jet experience. In retrospect, experience with rotor aircraft would have been advantageous flying the lunar module. But to my knowledge, no Army test pilot has ever been chosen as an astronaut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think this should be capitalized: to the Space Program

  Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think US spelling is emphasized emphasised

  Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Coffeeandcrumbs

I am going to try hard to find fault where there is likely almost none. These are mostly nitpicking.

• "USAF agreed to transfer responsibility" is unnecessarily verbose and seems strange (as if they could refuse). Unless you meant "decided", I would change the sentence to "NASA was established on October 1, 1958, and the USAF transferred responsibility for MISS to the new agency." (This also gets around the
  PROSELINE
  .) Unless there is some back story I am missing, the USAF obeying orders from the president is not notable as agreeing.

  There's a lot of back story here, mostly not relevant to this article. For a start, in the United States, the President doesn't have that sort of authority. A lot of negotiation was involved. If you're interested, I recommend Rosholt, Robert L. (1969). An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, D.C.: NASA.

  OCLC 643260325. SP-4101. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I think "Glenn and Carpenter did not meet all of their schools' degree requirements" should be followed by a colon or semicolon, follow by a sentence or two, instead of the including the completion of Glenn's senior year which broke my reading.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and second bachelor's degree" to "and a second bachelor's degree

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "on the eve". Slayton's article says "two months prior to the launch of [ Mercury-Atlas 7 ]". I think the latter is better.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Slayton's photo seems out of place. Can a portrait from the same period be located? No worries if not.

  There should have been one in the series with the others, but it isn't on Commons. Maybe Kees08 can locate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Found a photo. How does it look? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did a quick restoration and removed the autograph: File:Deke Slayton (c. 1960).jpg. Tell me if you hate the colors. I can try again

  The one that is being used now is ID # S64-31709, which means it is from 1964. Other options: 1959 (hmm all I am finding now is that one). Kees08 (Talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea is to match the others. Otherwise we'd go with the one in the space suit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would crop the photo captioned "The four surviving Mercury 7..."
• Ref #96 — Says "p. 165" but the chapter link in Warren-Findley (1998) points to page 166 in the source. Remove #Chapt7-5 from the URL. If you want both pages, you can also remove #Chapt7-5 and change to "pp. 165-66".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #94 — Source is actually on p. 2 of the "Tempo" section if there is any way to indicate that in your own citation style.

  I don't think we can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #93 — Change "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" to "NASA" consistent with other refs and consider adding |website=The 40th Anniversary of the Mercury Seven as seen here, which is the title of the former website (book?). For Shepard, the author's name, Tara Gray, is missing.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #92 — "About ASF ASF". Only 1 ASF in the title. Also please archive; this source will not stay the same forever.

  Internet Archive hasn't archived it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #3 — "p." not "pp."

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Carpenter et al. (2010) — Remove "Originally published " to be consistent with style at Cunningham (2009). Or vice versa.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Compton (1998) — Add |location=Washington, D.C. for consistency

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Logsdon & Launius (2008) — Same as Compton — also Eppley (1963) if you like

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not seeing Alt text for File:Mercury Seven astronauts with aircraft.jpg, File:Mercury Seven.jpg, File:LC 14 Memorial Sign 2.jpg, File:LC-14 Mercury 7 (cropped).jpg, and "The four surviving Mercury 7... " photo mentioned above

  Not required for FAC, but I'll see what I can do...

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

I've added this to the Urgents list in hopes of attracting some additional attention. If not, unfortunately it will need to be archived soon for lack of review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Randy Kryn

I added a See also for the two Mercury program chimpanzees, and updated one fact, but besides that I could find little to criticize in this already fine and important article. With the improvements that have been discussed and worked on in this nomination, featuring this one during the recent and ongoing focus on historical space missions seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

• "Project Mercury. The name was publicly announced by Glennan on December 17" but then "The STG next had to decide on a name for the people who would fly into space. A brainstorming session was held on December 1, 1958" - not chronological so maybe drop "next"?

  Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "aeronaut" - maybe add (air traveller)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with annual salary of" an? or salaries?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Robert B. Voas" - add he a psychologist

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "NASA officials then briefed them" - 'briefed the chiefs' seeing para started with candidates

  The candiates. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Edward Givens, who was selected with the fifth group in 1965" - 1966?

  Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "John L. Whitehead Jr.,[34] did so only in January 1958" - what is the "only" emphasising? Not yet had the 1500 hrs?

  Possibly, but I don't have proof. It is more likely that he was in the third group due to having only recently graduated, and therefore not having much test pilot experience. Again, I don't proof. It is highly unlikely that NASA management would have accepted him. In researching the article, I found that an African American graduated in 1958, 1960, 1963, 1972, 1977 and 1984, so only six had graduated in thirty years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Glenn was at the maximum weight" - weight is not mentioned in the selection criteria list

  Added a bit. It was not firm like height, because you can always lose weight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "NASA introduced the astronauts in Washington, DC on April 9" - DC needs comma

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• table - does career column need to be sortable?

  Probably not. Made unsortable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Glen flew in space on Mercury-Atlas 6" - double n

  Doubled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "becoming the first person fly in space twice" - to

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "co-anchor for the broadcasts of the Apollo Moon landing missions" - full stop

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mercury-Atlas 10, but it was cancelled" - canceled

  The auto spelling corrector strikes again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• slayton's refs [67][49][68][69] - order

  So ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cooper travelled to McGhee" - traveled

  ... and again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "private lives, homes, and families.[83][27]" - ref order

  So ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "on a "rank has it privileges" basis" - its?

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "President Kennedy presented" wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "is buried beneath the monument to be opened in 2464." - needs comma after monument

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the only info I would suggest adding is maybe a sentence on the wives? Their role in supporting their husbands, NASA's image and each other with their 'club' was rather important. (I'm not suggesting using that link.)

  There was a TV series too. Reality was more like Mad Men in space. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I watched, and very much enjoyed, it. Really made me appreciate them as a vital part of the equation (even the sham marriage! Cooper? sleeping in the bath) and of setting the support precedent, all whilst being in the publicity glare. JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that addition. Pleased to sign my support. JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• The source link for File:Gordon Cooper 2.jpg needs tweaking.
• The source link for File:Schirra walter 3.jpg is dead.
• In the source for File:Donald Slayton portrait.png could you give the page number - 13.
• Two images lack alt text.
• "Portrait" just barely meets
  MOS:ALT
  (although 'Color photograph' may be better); "studio portrait" doesn't. Could there be a brief description please.
  • See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Alt_text_for_astronaut_group_articles. A teeny-tiny consensus, but it was discussed at least. Does that change your mind at all? Kees08 (Talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not. It needs to meet the MoS. Just the group photo, (And the two with no alt text.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not meet the MOS? Adding that it is color or not would not help a visually impaired user understand the function of the photograph. Describing how the astronauts look (if that is what you are suggesting) is not what alt text is for. Kees08 (Talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Stick "|alt=a color photograph of four formally dressed elderly men" in and IMO its MoS compliant. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the images in the table. Kees08 (Talk) 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the table are acceptable with "portrait", although, as I said above, barely; I would have preferred 'Color photograph of John Doe', etc; but, for clarity, I do not feel that this is a requirement for FAC. The alt text for the final group photo needs tweaking; and the two images without alt text need it adding; the first of these you could simply add "|alt=refer to caption", as the existing caption text is explanatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus that Featured Articles require alt text. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Alt text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  An FA needs to be fully MoS compliant. The MoS states, under

  WP:ALT for more information." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I am aware of what it says, and I am aware of what the consensus is regarding its interpretation, which is that featured articles only need comply with the specified items, and not the full MoS, and that the requirement for alt text was discussed at length, and that there was no consensus for its inclusion. If you want to restore the alt text requirement, you need to start another RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gog the Mild: FYI, this is the most recent discussion I could find on the topic as it relates to FAC. It doesn't seem like there's any appetite to require alt text in Featured articles. I won't even attempt to summarize all the various positions people have on the issue, but suffice it to say there is healthy disagreement on whether alt text is always desirable, along with the normal meta discussion about how much of the MoS is open to interpretation. In short, no one should have been demanding it in any of your nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [10].

2018 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 2018. Joker Mark Williams won the event, fifteen years since his last world title, in a season after possibly retiring from the game. An alround memorable tournament, and crazy story.

The previous nomination had issues regarding

Pinging previous FAC commentors: @The Rambling Man, CitroenLover, Pawnkingthree, Tvx1, SMcCandlish, and Giants2008: - I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have any issue with the page now due to the FLAG issue being resolved as far as I can see. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It was unfortunate that the earlier discussion got derailed by someone who wouldn't listen; I think at least four of us were raising the same flags-related concern.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support above? Can I take this as a support, or is there there anything else that you'd like to note? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish - can I get a clear support as per above on this? Thanks for your time looking at this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same for CitroenLover. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment counts as support for this, not really sure what else you need? --CitroenLover (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in an FAC, you would have a response in bold to confirm. What your thoughts are, just makes it easier for the closing user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

I am curious, new to the topic, and the article. I didn't participate in round 1 and will look with fresh eyes. Comments as I read:

Lead

• I suggest to first say what this tournament is, and then speak about the sponsor and the ALT name. It's prominent enough in the infobox ;)

Moved later in lede

• "had been held"? - "was held"?

Fixed

• "second world title in 2003 and prior to the beginning of the season" - this seems to need at least a comma, better untangling in 2 sentences.

Not really my strongsuit... Is this an oxford comma situation? No idea, I think I've changed this correctly.

No idea about comma rulez, but when I read "world title in 2003 and prior", and connect the "prior" to 2003, something needs to be done ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, this lead is focused on the winner, and I wonder if there might be more aspects worthy of summary.

I'd love there to have been some sort of reception to critique, but there's not much to source.

Overview

• This might be called "Background", no?

Other FAs, such as the Boat race ones use Overview

• "The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth." - "originate" and "later" seem a contradiction, - perhaps new verb for the "later"?

We are talking quite a long time before it being played much out of the UK. Any ideas on a word?

• "Southeast Asia, such as in China, Thailand and Hong Kong" - reads as if explaining Southeast Asia, while I guess it should be where it is predominantly played?

I didn't want to use specifically in those locations. But maybe specifically is the correct word?

• The name of Hendrie comes as a surprise, perhaps mention first why? (... most successful)

Reworded.

• why "previous year" instead of plain 2017?

Done.

Format

• link "seeded"?

done

• may be my math: wasn't Selby one of the 16?

He was. However, the tournament doesn't always work this way. If the defending champion isn't in the top 16, they still qualify for the event as the top seed, and the next 15 players (1-15 in the world rankings) qualify as 2-16. As Selby was already #1, it's irrelevant, and thus why it's stated that way.

Participants

• I may be the only one, and know about linking only once after the lead, but would like to have links to all players here, even if linked before. It's awkward to have to look above if curious here.

I know, but I don't make the rules. I feel like adding the extra links would go against consensus.

• the last line about youngest and oldest made me curious to know lowest and highest age of those who qualified ;)

It's in the paragraph above this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Interesting, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your comments! I'll respond above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanations and changes, all resolved to here. More later which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more general: it is welcome that every image comes with an ALT text, describing what it shows in short to someone who can't see it. I also recommend to repeat links in image captions, - some readers will look there first.

Prize fund

• "prize money for this year", - call me boring but I'd prefer "prize money for 2018"

Sure. Makes more sense to me

• conversion?

Convert into what?

WP:CURRENCY

reads "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling." No need if already in pound.

Qualifying

• Can we avoid two sentences in a row beginning "There were"?

Reworded

Century breaks

• What does that mean at all? Link for us ignorants?

It is linked in the prose above, but I could see why it's confusing. Century breaks are scoring 100+ in one go, basically. I've linked.

Coverage

• As you mentioned: surprising that there wasn't more coverage.

Yeah. Would be great. The info from the few pundits there are are covered in the tournament summary, sadly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some could be here also, where someone coming from the TOC might go. --GA

Excellent tables! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. ALT texts for images? One more: Is 2018 World Snooker Championship a name? Then it should head the infobox. Or is it 2018 world snooker championship? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Missed that one. Each image already has alttext, but I've linked players. In terms of reception, all anyone really says is "this person played well", "this person played badly", etc. Not really much on how the event as a whole went. Changed the infobox. It should totally say 2018. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support fine article. You may want to ask the former FAC participants if they could do the same, and clearly mark that, - make it easier for the coordinator. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

I loved watching Pot Black as a kid - good to see a snooker article here. I am reading through now. I think the prose needs some massaging and will post some comments below:

Hi

Snooker Shoot-Out instead. Second, thanks for your time and the review. I'll answer/fix/change as per below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ok, I rejigged the lead like this. Have a look and tell me if you're ok with it.
  • See below Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally at first mention of a person, it is good to introduce them with a couple of adjectives, generally nationality plus occupation. However this will get monotonous if everyone is "X professional", so have tried to mix it up a little e.g. "Welsh left-hander" etc.
  • The biggest issue is that (until 2019), there are no amateur players in the draw, so all players are professional. I like the nationality flair, but it's actually surprising how many top players are left handed (it's also a little contentious who is a left hander, and who is ambidextrous.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rename the Overview section to Background - "Overview" means nothing here but a summary....which is what the lead is for, so it begs the question as to what it is, hence background is a more accurate fit really.
  • I think I originally had this as a background section and it was changed back to Background. I think this is more to be inline with some other FAs like
    2019 Boat Race to change to background, so I'll change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The other events are ranking tournaments. The World championship is the world championship. It's not a series (like say, motor sport), it's a series of events, where this tournament is the one that determines who the world champion is. It pretty much does trump everything else on the calendar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight former world champions participated in the main tournament at the Crucible - why are we adding "at the Crucible" here?
  • No idea. I think this is traditional, as this is where the "modern era" starts, but a bit irrelevant in this context. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The draw for the opening round of the main tournament was on 19 April 2018, two days before the start of the competition - "was released"? "was announced"?

More it was "made". It was livestreamed. Will add "was conducted". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It was due to take place at 10:00 BST but was delayed until 12:00 BST because of technical issues. - why not, "Technical issues delayed the 10:00 BST start time by two hours"?
  • That is better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There were a total of sixteen first round matches, six of which ended with qualifiers defeating seeded players. - wordy, how about, "Of the sixteen first round matches, six ended with qualifiers defeating seeded players."
  • agreed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a fan of a controversies section at the bottom. I think these items are better threaded through the previous sections where they occur chronologically.

The rest otherwise reads pretty well - it also impresses as comprehensive, hence I am close to supporting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber - have you got any other comments for the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to look at my last query above about the controversies section....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this into prose. Casliber Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all good now, supporting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

This has been open for well over a month with good commentary but minimal support for promotion. I added it to the Urgents list yesterday but it will be archived soon if it doesn't receive significant additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. There doesn't seem to be too much above opposing the nom; so I'll try and get some more eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted this but I wanted to add that I carried out some random source spot-checks before promotion. 5 of 5 passed verification and did not have any problems with close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png – PD-textlogo looks to cover this one, despite the gradient
• File:Sheffield Crucible theatre.png (CC-BY-SA) – Looks good
• Player photos by Bill da Flute and DerHexer are licensed and used appropriately.
• I feel like the ALT text could be more descriptive, especially for the player pictures. Describing their outfits, how they are holding their cue, etc. could help clear things up for readers using the appropriate software. SounderBruce 23:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this, SounderBruce - I'll take a look into the alt text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put some more info into the alttext SounderBruce. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

I'm going to give this a look.

General

• One immediate find is there are a number of duplicate links. I'd use the duplicate link tool to find and remove them.

I had to reinstall the script, as it didn't work, but all removed now.  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "...through a mix of the world snooker rankings, and a pre-tournament qualification round" - Remove the comma here.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first world championship in 1927 held in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, England, was won by Joe Davis.[7][8]" - Add a comma after 1927.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The winner of the 2018 event would win" - Not sure I like that phrasing. Maybe use another word(s) than win, like "receive" or "be awarded"?
  • Changed to "champion"  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "just one short of Stephen Hendry's record of 27 consecutive appearances, and four short of Steve Davis's record of 30 total appearances." - Remove the comma here.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else Toa Nidhiki05 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these look good to me. Have some citation fixes below, after that I should be able to support. Toa Nidhiki05 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

• Citation 40 should either link to Northampton Chronicle & Echo, or it should be included as publisher and linked.
• Citation 42 should have a piped link to
  CNA (news channel)
  .
• South China Morning Post should be linked (citations 14 and 15).
• BBC Sport should be linked (citation 65).
• Citations 3, 4, 61, 65 and 70 should use the same format as other citations to worldsnooker.com (worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association).

Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have ammended all of the above, Toa Nidhiki05 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed so support. Excellent article! Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 24 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [11].

French battleship France

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France was completed shortly before the beginning of World War I and ferried the President of France to Saint Petersburg for consultations with the Tsar during the July Crisis of 1914. She had a typical war for a French dreadnought, spending most of it swinging at her moorings in case the Austro-Hungarian fleet attempted to break out of the Adriatic. The ship was sent to the Black Sea in 1919 to support Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, but her crew was tired of the fighting and mutinied. They succeeded in their goal of getting the French ships withdrawn, although most of the ringleaders were later court-martialed. France struck a rock in 1922 and quickly sank with minimal loss of life. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review. I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

I just reviewed this at Milhist A-Class, and could find little to nitpick about then. I have a few minor points:

• suggest "then under construction to be built as part of the 1906 Naval Programme"
• you could add the casemate armour to the infobox
• I'm not seeing a link to Courbet the ship, as distinct from the class?
• suggest "and the light cruiser Coventry" to make it clearer that Coventry was also British
• can anything be said like "she was the nth ship of her name"?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• The bibliography includes Masson 2003, to which there are no citations. This looks like it should be in "Further reading".
• Otherwise, all appears in good order. No issues concerning quality/reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's used in cite 15, but thanks for checking it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:France_in_Toulon-Agence_Rol-1.jpeg: what is this work's status in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallica says published 1914, so I've added a PD-1923 tag.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I commented at the A class review in the mistaken belief (old, Master Shallow!) that I was commenting on an FAC. Now the article really is at FAC I have no difficulty in reiterating my support. Tim riley talk 22:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

What a superb article. I can only find two pieces of utter trivia to comment on, but neither need action to elicit my support.

• "the superiority of the all-big-gun battleship like HMS Dreadnought" Either "battleship" should be plural, or the sentence should be recast.
  • Yeah, I can see that, but I was trying to go for Dreadnought as the exemplar of her type.
• "by meeting the mutineers' demands for leave by letting crewmen" Optional: "by meeting ... by letting"; second "by" to 'and'?
  • Good idea. Glad you liked the article!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: This looks about ready to promote, can I nominate another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, sorry for delayed response -- yes, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy

I reviewed the article at the Milhist ACR and my nitpicks were addressed there. Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

As I can tell this looks a great article. In reviewed this one in the ACR, last month. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [12].

Hurricane Rosa (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After going back over Rosa during the past couple weeks and making a lot of corrections and clarifications, I have decided to renominate the article. Noah^Talk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear to be adequately placed and licensed to me. I am not sure about the ALT text; IMO it should describe a bit what the image actually shows (e.g in the map image, that Rosa weakened quickly after its northeastward turn) per the first sentence of

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For the map image, that would basically be the Met section all over again. In this case, I think the fact it simply says it is a map plotting the intensity according to the SSHWS is fine since the entire Met section is there to describe all the twists and turns, strengthening and weakening, etc. Are the other images fine? Noah^Talk 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am pretty certain that ALT text for such a map does not need to be as detailed as an actual "Met" section should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: But what I am trying to say is that I don't think it is necessary to regurgitate the same information in a simpler format when it is already presented in the Met section. The map can be understood by what is in the Met section. All the reader needs to know is that the map is plotted according to the Saffir-Simpson scale. The rest is in the Met section itself. This hasn't been an issue with past FACs (which were promoted). Noah^Talk 13:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Incidentally, pings don't work unless you add them as part of a new line; editing it into an already existing post is useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

• Why are there references in the lead? It indicates to me that the article is teasing me and telling me information that isnt in the main part of the article.

  Moved to the met and adjusted the wording a bit to accommodate. Noah^Talk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please apply Template: NHC TCR url for the TCR URL, so that if the NHC decide to move the TCR URL's again we can correct them quickly and avoid dead links.

  Done. Noah^Talk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your publisher is the United States National Hurricane Center not NOAA, Same goes for NCEI and WPC.

  Removed any mention of NOAA from the references. Noah^Talk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6. This sentence is not cited and should be cited back to the TCR. Also how do you know that the wave was vigorous? NHC says nothing about it being from a vigorous tropical wave within Rosa's TCR.

  Hovmӧeller diagrams of conventional infrared satellite imagery showed a large and vigorous tropical wave moving off the west coast of Africa on 6 September, [...] Yes, it does. I don't think the sentence needs a citation now since I removed Helene. Noah^Talk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The wave spawned Hurricane Helene on September 7,[3] and then traveled across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity.[4] - The source provided [3] (An NHC advisory) does not mention anything about a tropical wave spawning Helene. I would also remove the mention of Helene since we can only prove that it was only assoicated with the wave and not spawned by it. I also note that you say that the system only moved across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity, however, the NHC doesnt say anything about convective activtiy but says little associated weather.

  Removed Helene and changed the wording to "minimal associated weather". Noah^Talk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to tell the reader what happened between September 6 and 19? For example when did the system move into the EPAC.

  Added info. Noah^Talk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: That should be everything. Noah^Talk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

Lead:

• deaths of one person – should be singular

• Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The remnants also caused flash-flooding in Arizona, with several inches of rain falling in areas, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals – 1. change to flash floods, with the wikilink; 2. the sentence doesn't really flow well, the logical flow would be rain --> floods --> deaths. Also "several inches of rain falling in areas" sounds a little weird.

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Flood damage from Rosa in the Southwestern United States totaled about US$50.5 million – from the impact section, 0.5 mil is from Baja California and exactly 50 mil is from the US? Please fix

• Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MH:

• Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, the depression was located in an environment [...] – relevance to storm? Maybe add in something like "which would favor intensification"

• Just made it "favorable environment". Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the system had a well defined center – add hyphen, should be "well-defined"

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• strong, well developed banding – add hyphen, should be "well-developed"

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Link convection to atmospheric convection somewhere

• Linked on the first mention. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• anticipating that an area of low pressure would form [...] Early on September 23, a broad area of low pressure formed – move the wikilink forward

• Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On September 28, at 03:00 UTC, Rosa peaked – once the TCR comes out we can pretty much disregard all the operational stuff, so the peak should be at 06:00 UTC

• Must have missed that one. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think when Jason Rees asked you to use the NHC TCR url template he meant for you to insert that in the url parameter, like <ref>{{cite report|...|url={{NHC TCR url|id=EP202018_Rosa}}...}}</ref>, not to replace the whole template.

• Oh okay... Should be fixed now. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the cyclone's eye had warmed considerably and the clouds in the inner ring had warmed considerably – repetitive, please rephrase

  Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 70 miles (115 km) southeast of Punta San Antonio in Baja California[1], – move the ref to after the comma

  Done. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NHC issued its last advisory on Rosa at 16:00 UTC – should be 15:00

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep and impact:

• State Unit of Civil Protection of Sonora [...] 19 municipalities in Sonora – move the wikilink forward since the agency isn't linked

• Done. Noah^Talk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• swept away by flood waters – floodwaters should be one word

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In Michoacán, it was reported that – reported by whom? A government agency? If the source doesn't mention, just remove "it was reported that" because it's unnecessary

• Removed and adjusted sentence. Noah^Talk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 23 others from the Menegar's Dam community – there shouldn't be an apostrophe there?

• Removed the apostrophe. Noah^Talk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A nice informative article besides the odd typo or choppy flow. Good work. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Everything should be addressed now. Noah^Talk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support ~ KN2731 {t · c} 02:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

• Rosa originated from a broad area of low pressure that the National Hurricane Center began monitoring on September 22. - I'm sure the NHC was monitoring the system before the 22nd (considering the NHC tracked it to the west coast of Africa)

• Reworked this part to include the wave part. Noah^Talk 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure you mention SSHS when you mention "Category 4 hurricane"

• Linked in both the lead and the MH in some sort. Noah^Talk 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The remnants dropped several inches of rain in areas, causing flash floods, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals. - a peak rainfall total would be nice

• Changes several inches to "up to 6.98 in..." Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure you indicate 2018 USD somewhere in the lead

• Done. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the wave entered the Gulf of Tehuantepec with the formation of a surface circulation and an increase in convective organization occurring around the same time. - this either needs a comma or some restructuring

  Added a comma after "with". Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• a broad area of low pressure formed approximately 200 mi (320 km) south of Mexico. - Mexico is a big country.

  Is that better? Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the NHC reported that a tropical depression had formed - since the TD had a designation, I suggest writing out "Tropical Depression X-E"

  Okay. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm and was assigned the name Rosa. - six hours later from what? The previous two sentences don't have any mention of exact time. Perhaps "Six hours after its formation"?

• Corrected. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• a solid mid-level ring and strong, well-developed banding - this is a bit
  jargon-y
  . Could you make it simpler?

• If this isn't any better, I should probably just cut the whole thing. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On the morning of October 1, at 00:00 UTC, Rosa weakened into a tropical storm.[1] Shortly after, the system began travelling towards the northeast. - not to be picky (and yet that's what FAC's are for), but according to the track, the NE track happened while it was still a hurricane

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Twenty-four hours later, Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, with the NHC reporting that the remaining convection was displaced to the northeast of the system's center and that the circulation was becoming elongated." - could you rewrite this bit without saying what the NHC reported? The storm happened independently of whatever the NHC said, and since they're the source for the entire MH, you don't have to keep mentioning what they reported. The sentence would be a lot stronger if you said something like - "Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, after the remaining convection became displaced northeast of the increasingly elongated center". I don't know if that's too complicated, but I felt like you could trim some of the fat off that sentence.

• Changed to that with a slight tweak. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At 11:00 UTC - what date?

• I had said 24 hours later just a bit ago, but I clarified October 2. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 70 miles (115 km) - you rounded miles earlier, but not here

  Abbreviated. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In total, damage to roads in the city was about MX$10 million (US$530,000). - the "in total" is redundant

• Removed. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but also, you say $500,000 in the lead, $530,000 here. Could you make it consistent? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• After Rosa's passage, the governor of Baja California, Francisco Vega de la Madrid, issued a State of Emergency for the cities of Ensenada and Mexicali.[25] On October 3, an emergency declaration was approved for Puerto Peñasco - why is the last sentence on its own? Couldn't you include it after Ensanada and Mexicali?

• Condensed. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• rainfall was causing flooding in Arizona and Southern California. In San Bernardino County - I'd add "in the latter state" when you mention San Bernardino, since you mentioned two states

• Done. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On October 3, a 26-year-old woman was struck by a vehicle and killed just north of Cameron after portions of U.S. Route 89 washed out from flash flooding that had affected the area. - the writing is a bit wonky. Could you make this sentence a bit simpler?

• Is that better? Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So the US impact section goes from state to state. I suggest reordering. You start the one paragraph "At Menagers Dam near Sells" with no state reference. It seems like a lot of the effects were in Arizona, not so much elsewhere, so perhaps have a paragraph dedicated to Arizona impacts? On that note, I think the $50 million in damage should be mentioned a bit sooner, since it's pretty significant.

• Done. Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a pretty good article. Most of my notes were concerned with jargon, or sentence structure, so my comments should be easy to address. Good work @Hurricane Noah:! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: How does that look? Noah^Talk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better. I happen to agree with User:Hylian Auree below about some of the sentences being a bit choppy. Could you go through the prose with a fresh set of eyes and make the sentences shorter in general. Find fluff and cut it! My last comment - for the Arizona section, I think the car crash deaths should be mentioned next to each other in prose. No need for the dates, but they're both the same sort of storm effect in the same state, that's all. Also, I think the dam should be its own paragraph. I know I said put the Arizona stuff together, but you do have seven sentences for that dam, which is enough for its own paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I split the paragraph and changed it to "Sells, Arizona" so the reader knows the new paragraph is still talking about Arizona. The main issue wasn't regarding fluff, but me starting sentences with a data and time creating the choppiness. I will look and see if there is fluff. Noah^Talk 01:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I can chime in here; I think Hink uses "fluff" to mean redundancy, which I did point out. I am happy to lend a fresh pair of eyes to the prose, though I will recuse myself from the voting process in that case. Auree ^★★ 01:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated work, you two! I'm glad to support the article now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree

Support on comprehensiveness, sourcing and style, with the disclaimer that I've considerably overhauled the readable prose in my copy-edits. A well-researched effort. I suggest finding at least one off-project editor to review the article for its accessibility and comprehensibility to the layman. Auree ^★★ 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going solely on criterion 1a ("well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"), I am leaning towards oppose. Since I have taken up the role of primary copy-editor, the prose has been changed considerably; therefore, I leave it to others to assess criterion 1a.

• Parts of the article, particularly the first paragraph of the lead, are quite knotty, with stubby sentences that read like proseline (e.g. "Later that day, the depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Rosa. One day later, the system strengthened into a hurricane" does not make for an engaging read). I recognize this is difficult to amend for chronologically defined meteorological events, but starting or ending most sentences with "On x date, ..." dulls the writing in what is supposed to be the most engaging paragraph of the article.
• I recommend significantly trimming this paragraph, keeping only a succinct account of the most fascinating meteorological data (formation, development, path, peak, and demise).

• Lead has been significantly trimmed down. Noah^Talk 12:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just say – you've implemented all the above suggestions with brilliant execution and understanding. The opening paragraph was actually fun to read now. Auree ^★★ 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, there are several grammatical and stylistic glitches throughout the article (e.g. "The National Hurricane Center continued to track the disturbance for a few days as it moved westward and then west-northwestward, before developing into a tropical depression on September 25" - the current wording implies that the NHC, not the disturbance, was the one moving westward before developing into a tropical depression). I am willing to help on this front once the lead has been revamped.
• Redundancy is also an issue. For example, "The remnants dropped up to 6.89 in (175 mm) of rain in areas." What does "up to" add here that isn't conveyed by omitting it; and "in areas" is meaningless without specifying which.

• Removed. Noah^Talk 12:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• These are just examples, but about half of the article's sentences suffer from either one or more of the aforementioned gripes. The content looks to be in great shape, but the writing needs quite a bit of polishing to bolster the quality of presentation. Auree ^★★ 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Before I start my own edits, I would like to discuss the opening sentence. I think "strong tropical cyclone" is a broad categorization and slight understatement for a Category 4 hurricane. Then, "strong tropical cyclone that brought severe flooding"... tacitly implies that Rosa caused the flooding at its greatest strength, which is not true. Also, I question the use of "severe" here since $50 million in damage is not exceptional for the US. I would like more emphasis on its unusual location, rather than its strength, since it peaked out at sea. Suggest something like "Hurricane Rosa brought widespread flooding to northwestern Mexico and the Southwestern United States as the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in Baja California since Hurricane Nora of 1997." How does that sound? Auree ^★★ 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound better. I won't be able to make any edits until Sunday due to work, but I will have extensive time on both Sunday and Monday to fix some of these issues. Noah^Talk 02:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has been implemented. Noah^Talk 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented numerous changes throughout the entirety of the article. @Hurricanehink: and Hylian Auree, please let me know what you think. Noah^Talk 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been fruitful. I have given the meteorological history quite an overhaul to improve overall clarity and flow and reduce some technical and jargon-heavy constructions. Because of my narrow involvement here, I recuse myself from voting on 1a prose (but will vote on the rest of the criteria in due time). Auree ^★★ 06:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]