Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2023

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [1].

Philosophy

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy is a systematic, rational, and critical inquiry that discusses general and fundamental topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, and mind. It spans several millennia and historically included the individual sciences. Thanks to

• I think this is a bit above my pay grade, but I'll try to review this well. At a first glance, excellent article; the list of references alone made my head spin, must have been a ridiculous amount of effort to write all this. AryKun (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "But they...the term" I know this is grammatically correct, but it still reads weird to me. Maybe replace with "However"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Major branches of philosophy" → "The major branches of philosophy"?

  One difficulty here is that not all philosophers produce exactly this list. For example, a few include aesthetics as a major branch. Without the "The", we leave it open whether there are other major branches besides those listed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Presocratic philosopher" should be Pre-Socratic and would benefit from a link. Also later in the article.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of duplinks and terms linked at second or third instances; for example, most of the major branches are mentioned but not linked in the first section.

  Done. I'm not 100% clear on how to best handle duplinks that occur in different sections. According to my interpretation the current formulation of

  WP:DUPLINK, one link per section is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "et alia" needs a link; also, isn't the form et al. more common?

  This is discussed in SilverTiger's comments. I think "et al." is used in the short citations but I don't know about cases where it is used in the regular text. I'm not sure that it should have a wikilink since this is not a concept discussed in the article but merely an expression used to discuss other things. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the sciences" Linked to the wrong term.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Influential traditions...African philosophy." → "The most influential traditions in the history of philosophy are Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. Other philosophical traditions include Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy."?

  I wouldn't object to your suggestion. But this was already discussed in Fritz's comments below. The fear was that this type of expression implies a ranking and should better be avoided. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "shaped by the encounter with Western thought" → "shaped by encounters with Western thought"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "resolve the politically turbulent 6th century BCE" → "resolve political turbulence during the 6th century BCE" Also, the sources seem to place the "political turbulence" in either the 8th or 5th century BCE, depending on whether you're referring to the Spring and Autumn period or just the Warring States.

  Done. The text mentions the 6th century because that is when the Hundred Schools of Thought emerged. I added a source for the date and I reformulated the passage to avoid implying that the date states when the turbulence itself emerged. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "produced new forms of Buddhism" → bit repetitive, maybe "diversified into new forms"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You use the ", for example," construction frequently; I feel like the first comma should be a colon.

  I reformulated a few. I think starting the expression with a colon would be possible but is not required. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Really nice work, nothing else that I have comments on. This is a really nice overview of the major topics of philosophy; of course, it doesn't go very deep into any topic, but I feel like that's a consequence of the fact that we're trying to fill essentially a library's worth of subject matter into 5,000 or so words. There's nothing factually incorrect that I could see at a first glance, but that's with the caveat that my knowledge of philosophy is limited to the level of an introductory college course. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello AryKun and thanks for taking the time to review the article! I implemented most of your suggestions and left a few comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

I have to concur with AryKun, this article must have required a ludicrous amount of time and effort. It's also outside of my wheelhouse and above my paygrade, so here goes nothing.

• The lede and the first section are fine, though I think you should mention and give a brief explanation of what a school of philosophy is in the lede.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "et al." should be italicized.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this is mistaken. More to the point, it is standard to use "et al." only when there are more than three authors. (Although not Wikipedia policy, which I cannot find on this question, see here.) If the latter two authors are to be excluded from mention in the body of the article, then I believe it should instead say "and others" per this. Or, if we're going to keep the Latin in the body of the article, it should be spelled out in full (unless it is inside a parenthetical).

  In short, I think the article should either list all three authors or else find some way of avoiding this complicated stylistic issue that has nothing to do with the content or accessibility of the article. I am not sure what the best call is, however, and so I decided against making an edit myself.

  Cheers,

  talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You raise a valid point and I'm not sure which guideline to follow here. The guideline

  MOS:FOREIGNITALIC you cite states that foreign terms require italics but makes an exception for "phrases that have been assimilated". The alternative would be to spell the three names out. Some style guides recommend using "et al." starting with three authors while others require more than three authors. Maybe someone with a better MOS-knowledge can solve the confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, if we keep the Latin, it should be spelled out as et alia with the italics. Latin abbreviations such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." and so forth do not receive italics and should not normally be used outside of a footnote or parenthetical when there is a perfectly suitable English equivalent.

  talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  et al. is always abbreviated and italicized in formal usage; I do not think this article should deviate from that. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There seems to be consensus that the short version is more common. Opinions are a little divided concerning italics but it seems there is a slight preference for having no italics. This is recommended by most style guides. I restored the original version. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You tend to use "like" frequently, to the point that it sometimes feels repetitious.

  I was able to cut down the frequency. There are still quite a few left but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no overt issues in History of philosophy.
• Italicize modus ponens.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial, very slow read-through was (a) informative, and (b) revealed no major issues except that you never really explain what a philosophical school is, when schools are mentioned multiple times in different places. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Thanks for the feedback and the actionable recommendations. I hope I was able to implement them. Please let me know if additional points catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I see no further issues. Support. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

During the peer review I reviewed this article in accordance with the FA criteria and all of my concerns have been addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot for taking the time to perform the peer review and for your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

• Question: I helped
  talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi

  PatrickJWelsh and thanks for offering to review. As I understand it, just writing your own review comments and improvement suggestions should not be a problem. Maybe one of the @WP:FAC coordinators: could clarify whether, in addition to that, you are also allowed to vote. Your comments would be highly appreciated either way, with or without a vote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  While you are certainly allowed to vote, it probably won’t be given much weight considering your extensive involvement in the article's development. On the other hand, if you assisted the nominator in elevating it to GA status (as in if you were a co-nominator), the possibility of being a co-nominator here as well could be considered, but that’s obviously for you two to decide. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @

  talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 25 days ago. It has 4 supports, it has passed the source review, and there are no unaddressed issues at the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7 Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

Wow, this is a great example of a massive topic being successfully compressed into an effective overview article. Here are a few comments, I may come back and add more later too. Shapeyness (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the detailed and thoughtful observations! I've responded to and implemented a few and I'll get back to you once I've addressed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Etymology: No comments here, this is all interesting and on-topic - I like the depiction of Newton's thought process here :)
• General conceptions: Here I have some worries about due weight. This sub-section seems devoted to particular philosophers' general views on what philosophy is, but I'm not sure how they were chosen. Of course, they are all historical greats, but there are many great historical philosophers and we couldn't give all of their individual views. Do overview sources tend to highlight these particular examples? If not, then I think probably the two subsections here should be merged with some substantial trimming. I'm not sure if there are sources that make these types of links, but perhaps some details on these philosophers' views could be kept to illustrate broader viewpoints. For example, Kant seems to define philosophy in terms of subject matter while Socrates and Russell define it in term of process or an intended outcome. I think framing things in terms of broader trends or ideas and using these as examples is better for due weight, and provides better confidence to the reader that these are examples chosen for a particular reason. Of course, push back if you think there are reasons to keep, or to do things in another way!
  • @Shapeyness, this also came up during the GA review, and I certainly see the point. The problem, to which I could find no better solution than the current section, is that, based on an unscientific survey of popular and textbook introductions to philosophy, authors pretty much just defer the question to the entire book. There is no single definition that adequately captures the practice. Hence my recourse to editorial judgment as to what might best serve the reader.
  • That said, I quite like your distinction between subject matter and process. Anything that counts as philosophy in the sense that is the subject of this article must be a balancing act between the two. (This to exclude, on the one hand, fringe podcasters and lunatics on the subway platform and, on the other, folks engaged in what are now recognized as distinct scientific disciplines.) For FA purposes, though, we would need to find a solid source to back this up.
  • Whatever the solution – if this section is, indeed, agreed to be a problem – I do think it is important to provide a general definition of the subject, distinct from its etymology (love of wisdom is lovely, but uninformative and probably outright misleading) and its various competing academic definitions.
    talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  I think your concern is valid and I'm not sure how to best address it. As I see it, the basic gist of this subsection is to give the reader a general idea of some accessible aspects of philosophy without providing a precise definition. One minimally invasive solution would be to make this subsection not so much about these individual philosophers but use them instead as examples. Applied to Kant and Russell, this could be:

  Philosophers ask general and fundamental questions. For example, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant identifies four questions that encompass the task of philosophy: "What can I know?"; "What should I do?"; "What may I hope?"; and "What is the human being?". The active exploration of philosophical questions can help people identify and overcome prejudices. According to Bertrand Russell, "The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason."

  If this type of solution is acceptable then I could see if I can come up with something similar for the paragraph on Socrates. A more invasive solution would be to merge the two subsections, remove the paragraphs on Kant, Socrates, and Russell, and try to reintroduce some of their points as examples in the other paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses

PatrickJWelsh, Phlsph7! If there are sources that discuss some general aspects of philosophy like this (subject matter vs process was just an example that came to mind, I agree with PatrickJWelsh we need good sources here!) and some you can use to link those to these examples, or perhaps even just discuss them in the context of conceptions of philosophy, then I would be happy with the less invasive approach. Although I think care should be taken here not to overstress particular viewpoints just to fit these philosophers' ideas, other examples could also be used if they better illustrate what RSes tend to focus on. (Btw, I'm not saying using these examples would do that, I haven't really read any general sources on this, just something to consider!) Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I decided to use a different approach since I am not aware of a good overview source that would link these examples. I tried instead to provide a concise summary of the gist of these paragraphs to give a general conception rather than mention the individual philosophers and their examples. I moved Kant's example to the paragraph where the division by content vs method is discussed. The resulting subsection would have been a little too short so I merged the two subsections. Please let me know if some essential parts were removed so we can explore ways to include them in the new setup. I'm also open to restoring the subsection-structure and some of the examples if they can be linked to good overview sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this change.

It makes the article less accessible to readers, especially those with no background knowledge—and it does so for no other reason than to satisfy Wikipedia criteria intended to serve its readers, almost none of whom are at all aware of the distinction between articles with the plus icon and those with the star icon.

For what it's worth, the mentions of Socrates and Russell both cite to introductory texts, and the Kant material is so famous that such a citation could surely be adduced were this actually somehow helpful.

talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's see if we can find a compromise to have both the concrete examples while not giving undue weight to one particular position. I found a way to include the examples of both Socrates and Russell. I also restored the subdivision between of "General conception" and "Academic definitions". Kant's questions are still there but they were moved to another paragraph. If it's important, there may also be a way to move them back to the subsection "General conception". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a lot better to me, I prefer this to removing the section altogether. I have no problem with this if it is also ok with

PatrickJWelsh. Shapeyness (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, sorry for the belatedness in my response, but this version is good with me.

(Background: I was once conscripted to oversee the philosophy table at a sort of informational fair where incoming students could learn about different departments and courses of study. A young woman approached and asked, rather tentatively, "What is it?" I started by saying that this itself is a philosophical question. She literally backed away. I don't think she said a word.)

talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Academic definitions: Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress seen in other sciences This is true, but some philosophers believe that philosophy does make progress, maybe this can be reworded so that it doesn't state this as fact

  I think there is a minimal consensus that philosophical progress is at least different from the typical progress usually seen in the sciences. I reformulated the sentence to emphasize this point without implying that there is no progress. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also some lone sentences and short paragraphs here that could be combined and perhaps reordered

  I merged the last paragraph into an earlier paragraph. Maybe the paragraph on linguistic therapy could also be merged but there are also advantages to keeping it separate as a distinct position. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @
    talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking. This emphasizes its self-critical, reflective nature. This seems to be a repetition of the point at the beginning of the General conceptions section.

  The general thrust is the same. I had the impression that it makes sense to include it here as a separate conception since the precise formulation of "thinking about thinking" as a definition is often mentioned. The text in the subsection "General conception" is weaker and only characterizes the self-critical attitude as one of the features of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• History: this section in particular is one of the best examples of providing a condensed overview. I can't speak to the other traditions, but the Western philosophy section seems all good to me. Any temptation to add more details would probably snowball so I think this is the right level of detail here. One thing I will mention is that Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy are all mentioned but not discussed - would a short discussion of these be worth adding or do you think that would be undue / add too much extra content?

  Condensing the huge traditions down to a few paragraphs was really the main challenge here. I think adding a sentence or so for each of the addition traditions would be defendable but I'm not sure that this would be an overall improvement since their impact is significantly smaller. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: On the section you added in response to #Fritz, I added a little bit of extra detail. Hopefully that is ok with you and not excessive, feel free to revert or alter any of the changes! Shapeyness (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shapeyness: Your addition helps close the temporal gap between the periods. I made slight adjustments to the timeline to reflect how it is presented in the cited sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Branches: This is also a very good section, here are the only nitpicks I could find! This is a very small one but This idea is rejected by foundationalists, is it better to frame this as a response or a proposed solution than a rejection? I'm not sure foundationalists would reject the validity of the problem itself.

  "This idea" was supposed to refer to the idea that all beliefs require justification. But I see now that this is confusing since this idea is mentioned two sentences before. I implemented your suggestion, which avoids this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Virtue theorists judge actions based on the moral character of the agent who performs them - I'm not sure that this is true. Bad people can do good things according to virtue theorists, my understanding is that the morality of an act is judged based on whether it is (a) in alignment with a particular virtue, i.e. it is the type of thing a virtuous person would do, or relatedly (b) it develops virtue within a person, e.g. if you make a habit of sharing, you will become a more generous person by nature. This idea is correctly described in the following sentence.

  I agree that this sentence could be misleading if read without considering the following sentence. I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between an inner world of experience of an object and the existence of this object in the outer world. This seems confusingly worded to me - do you think this would be better? An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is that there is a distinction between our inner experience of objects and their existence in the external world.

  Yes, that expresses it better. I removed the "our" form your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Methods: Some of the earlier paragraphs are quite short and could probably be combined. I also think empirical views such as experimental philosophy or naturalism should probably be mentioned here. For reference, 60% of philosophers accept empirical methods in the most recent philpapers survey and 32% accept experimental philosophy (this is more controversial though with 36% rejecting). In general, my impression is that naturalistic and experimental philosophy is covered in most metaphilosophy or philosophical method textbooks/overviews, I can find examples if useful for assessing due weight.
  • @
    talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  An earlier version of the article had a short passage on this. It's true that methodological naturalism and experimental philosophy don't reflect a typical approach to philosophizing but for the sake of comprehensiveness, I wouldn't be opposed to include a short mention. What do you think of the following:

  cognitive sciences.^[1][2][3]

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [5].

1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As FAC reviewers may be getting bored of articles about

• I would wikilink FA Cup in the lead.
• went on to win 2–1 thanks to a goal scored by Cunliffe. -- Might just be me, but thanks to sounds a bit informal I guess. Perhaps a little tweaking.
• Godley was making his debut -- made his debut
• Hartley was absent for the game against Millwall on 27 April, Godley playing in his place. -- perhaprs with Godley playing in his place for better flow
• even had they finished in the bottom -- might be an English writing I am not familiar with, but could this be phrased as even if they had finished (I could be wrong though)
• I think the footnote could be split into 2 sentences.
• Few comments from me. Great work as usual on this series; very well-written. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks! All the above done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Is it worthwhile, somewhere in the lede, mentioning the club's current name? Especially since you pipe from it.

Done

Background: Was promotion possible from the Southern League Division One at the time? Or was there a requirement of election to the Football League? Some brief explanation might be useful since NB was not at the top of the football pyramid.

Added a few words to clarify

"the game, which was originally scheduled to be played on Boxing Day but was postponed due to snow" So by the original schedule NB was to play both Christmas Day and Boxing Day? Leaving aside 29 December.

Yes, that's correct. Right up until (I think) the 1950s there was a full programme of professional football in England on both Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and then they usually played on whatever was the next Saturday as well. In fact in 1913 Gillingham played games on the 25th, the 26th, AND the 27th!! Hard to imagine today's prima donna players going along with that :-)

"as no teams were promoted from Division Two." Why?

I've removed that bit completely. I've just discovered a source which indicates that promotion and relegation between the two divisions was not automatic but by election, and that Northampton and Crystal Palace were both re-elected to Division One. So we can't really say what would have happened had NBFC finished in the bottom two.......

In the table for the FA Cup matches, the wrong year is three times given.

That was embarrassing! Fixed now

There seems considerable whitespace in the "Players" section apparently due to the images.

I've tried a few things viz-a-vis the formatting of the table but can't figure out a way to reduce it. Any advice you can give.....?

Multiple image template or moving one to another section?

That's my lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

• 'wrote that "[w]ith such a list of players': FYI
  MOS:CONFORM
  permits this to be 'wrote that "with such a list of players'. It's optional; I mention it in case you weren't aware.
  • Done - thanks for the tip
• Not an issue for this article, but I see that the nickname "the Hoppers" doesn't get a mention in History of Gillingham F.C.. Should it?
  • I had a look through my various club history books and none mention it being a widely-used or long-lasting nickname for the team
• Can you tell if Lunn was on the teamsheet for the first game of the season? If so I'd include him in the pre-season section even if Brown doesn't mention him.
  • He made his debut in the match stated at the end of September. I didn't find any sources which indicate that he joined the club before the season started so I presume he joined some time after the first game
• I overuse semicolons myself so if I'm noticing them there are probably too many. I would suggest trying to remove at least two or three. The "January–April" subsection has nine in three paragraphs. I think it's not so much the number of them as that the sentence structures are a bit repetitive -- very difficult to avoid describing dozens of matches one after the other, I know. Perhaps just changing one or two of them to full stops would do it.
  • Got rid of a whole bunch

That's all I can find to complain about. I made a couple of copyedits; please revert if you disagree with anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• I think we've covered this before, but can you say why rsssf.org is a reliable source? I can't find a discussion of it in the previous reviews I looked at.

Formatting looks good and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF is very highly regarded and its data has been cited by news outlets in India (where it was described as "a reputed organisation of football statistics experts"), the UK, the UK (again),the US and by Reuters. The Guardian newspaper called it "ever-reliable" and it is or was the "official statistical partner" of the Danish Football Association. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear from their introduction page how they validate the data supplied by their members. It does seem that they are not open to everyone -- there's a membership application process which requires submission of some statistics, so that implies a quality control step of some kind. Along with the positive references by other reliable sources I think this just about passes, but if there are any other football statistics databases which have clearer editorial control I'd suggest switching. Or if you can find a clearer description of editorial control for rsssf.org that would also help. For the coords: this is a pass, though I'd welcome further opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: To make things easier, I've just replaced RSSSF in this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that makes the source review an unequivocal pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Is there a way to verify the kit in the infobox? Do we know where "Boots, Balls and Haircuts" was first published? Everything else seems fine, licence-wise. ALT text is passable. Image placement seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The kit is sourced via the final sentence of the "background and pre-season" section. Location added for "Boots, Balls...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a pass on the image front. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

@WP:FAC coordinators: - may I start another nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - thank you most kindly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [6].

Brother Jonathan (novel)

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A gargantuan novel of 1,325 pages that required three separate volumes in publication, possibly bigger than any other well into the 20th century. A major financial loss for a shrewd Scottish businessman. A tragically lost opportunity for the author to *finally* overtake James Fenimore Cooper as America's top novelist. Brother Jonathan is a lot of things, but its not good, if only because it is just too many of those things at once: super realistic but also fantastically Gothic? Where John Neal's contemporaneous American readers took offense, British critics saw promise and modern scholars see sparkling gems far advanced for 1825, mired as they are in a thick and confused mess of a plot.

Come take a look for yourself! Should this nomination be approved, it will be my sixth — eighth if you include my featured lists — article I have drafted from scratch on topics surrounding the life of eccentric and influential critic and writer, John Neal. Thank you very much in advance, should you take the time to look this one over and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

• I think you wait too long in the second sentence to tell the reader what Brother Jonathan is.

Agreed. That is now fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Walter loves Edith and feels jealous of her relationship with Jonathan. Jonathan" generally we don't use names back to back if we can avoid it, I believe.

Fix. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following Jonathan's departure from Gingertown, " This is, I assume, the setting in Connecticut. I might introduce it by referring in the previous paragraph to Gingertown, Connecticut, not merely Connecticut.

Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "in his rural Connecticut town" This is, I assume, Gingertown. I might omit this phrase. It can be mentioned that either Gingertown or the Harwood house are rural.

I changed "Connecticut town" to "surroundings". The community being rural is relevant to his restlessness, so I want to leave that word in there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bald Eagle saves him and brings his unconscious friend to the Harwood home. Edith encounters him and they express love for each other and become engaged." Who, in the second paragraph is "him"?

Swapped "him" for "Walter". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "He briefly encounters Nathan Hale en route to a New York tavern where Walter meets many upstanding urbanites." This makes it sound like Nathan is also going to the tavern, and it is unclear if that's so.

Reworded to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " Walter travels to Portland, Maine, " not Maine yet.

Fair. Changed to District of Maine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "literally explosive" I'd cut the "literally". The reader gets it, it's the obvious thing to say, and you're pulling your punches if you'd dilute it.

Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also like his earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual crimes" What sexual crime? Fornication? Perhaps greater explanation is needed.

Agreed. I added a little more to both the plot summary and to this part of the Themes section to make it clear we're talking about Walter seducing Emma. "Crime" has been downgraded to "misdeed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Blackwood allowed him to be less cautious in revising the original manuscript" maybe "Blackwood allowed him to publish something closer to the original manuscript".

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Very interesting although I won't be reading it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I don't blame you! Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Would you say that this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Will post some comments here later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• Para 1: "who saw full development via this novel to become the US national emblem" - Do you mean something like "who became the US national emblem as a result of this novel"? The current wording is a bit unclear (in particular, development of what?)

Reworded. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "Period critics reacted poorly to these aspects of the book." - Just the sexual content, or the mixed-race characters too?

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "Brother Jonathan's early and thorough use of realism in depicting American culture and speech is superlative for the period" - Similarly, superlative in what way?

Reworded to remove "superlative". Let me know if you think the new version is still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 3: "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824" - I'd link Baltimore, as it may not be as well known outside the US (unlike something like DC or NYC).

Right. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these initial comments. They are addressed. Looking forward to comments on the rest of the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this nomination; sorry about that. Additional comments forthcoming in the next day or two. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

• Para 1: "The novel begins one year before the Battles of Lexington and Concord" - To be more clear, the storyline begins one year before these battles. (When were these battles anyway?)

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself, but he lets Abraham know that he believes Abraham to be fully culpable for the crime. Jonathan is driven away from the community." - It feels awkward to have three sentences in a row beginning with "Jonathan".

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings. His father will not let him leave for New York City. Walter grew up spending time in the forest among Indigenous people, particularly his friend Bald Eagle. When Walter gets caught in a spring flood, Bald Eagle saves him and brings him home. Edith and Walter become engaged." - In my opinion, some of the sentences could probably be combined, as they are quite short. In particular, the first two sentences feel somewhat choppy because of how short they are; maybe something like "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings, and his father will not let him leave for New York City"?

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 4: "Walter meets a young man named Harry Flemming, who recently met Edith. " - Do you mean to say that Flemming recently met Edith?

Yes. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 4: "Walter ends the engagement and develops relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery." - I'd either cut "other women" altogether, rephrase this to "two other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery.", or (if there were more than two women) "other women, including Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery".

I chose the second option. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 6: "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter is not actually Abraham's son. Walter's father is a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife." - Maybe condense this to something like "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter's father is not Abraham but, rather, a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife"?

Replacement accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 7: "The colonel looks like Jonathan, which bothers Walter. Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan and that he has sinister reasons for joining the army." - If Walter's feeling of being bothered comes right before Walter's discovery that the colonel is Jonathan, I'd consider combining these sentences.

Combined. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 8: "She makes a contradictory statement regarding whether or not Walter should marry Edith, then she dies." - I would change "whether or not" to just "whether" and change the last part to "then dies" for concision.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 9: "Walter learns that Jonathan and Benedict Arnold are traitors together" - Minor point, but did he learn that they are traitors who are working together, or just that both of them were traitors?

Together. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

• Para 1: "Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early American fiction and possibly longer than any other since." - Regarding "considered it the longest work of early American fiction", was there any dispute over whether this was the longest work of early American fiction? In this sentence, I get the sense that there is uncertainty over whether any other book would be considered longer.

I don't know how disputed titles like "longest work of early American fiction" or "longest American fiction work until at least 1958" are. Page numbers are mathematically comparable, but word count is a better determinant. Because Brother Jonathan has never been digitized, an accurate word count is not at hand. Until someone comes up with a word count for this novel, I think those two claims ought to be attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper twenty years later." - The previous and next sentences are both past tense, so I'd also change this to past tense. Also, 20 years after Loshe's review, or 20 years after Brother Jonathan was published?

Modified to past tense and Littlepage publication dates added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "In 1823, he was at a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?" - The phrase "Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark" seems awkward to me. I can't pinpoint why, but I feel that "Smith's then-notorious 1820 remark" would flow a lot better.

Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "Less than a month later on December 15, 1823, he left Baltimore on a UK-bound ship" - I wonder why this sentence gives an exact date, whereas the previous sentence (presumably talking about a party in November) only gives the year.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "The working title was The Yankee" - I'd add a comma after this because, similar to the examples given in
  WP:CINS
  , this clause can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.

Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 3: "His financial situation was becoming desperate[22] when William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal in April to become a regular contributor to Blackwood's Magazine.[23]" - Do we know how dire his financial situation was? Additionally, I'd say "when, in April, William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal to...", putting "April" next to "when".

I haven't found any additional detail on his economic situation at that moment. The source I cite says "His situation was desperate when on April 20, William Blackwood responded." "April" is moved.

• Para 4: I know Neal was the one who wrote to Blackwood, but "He sent him the manuscript" is a bit awkward.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 4: "Based on feedback from both Blackwood and his associate David Macbeth Moir, Neal revised the novel and submitted a second draft in March 1825. Based on that draft, Blackwood agreed to publish, but requested one more round of revisions, to which Neal agreed" - Likewise, two consecutive sentences beginning with "Based on" also feels awkward.

I removed the second "based on". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 5: "Only 500 copies sold before Blackwood deemed the venture a failure and the two men's relationship broke down" - Do we know when the breakdown happened? In addition, "the two men's" is somewhat redundant since it is already implied that only Blackwood and Neal were involved.

"Two men's" reworded. Timeline added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On a related note, did the book become more popular later? The last paragraph of the Background section addresses only how many copies were sold before Blackwood and Neal broke off their partnership, but it never mentions anything about later sales, if they even happened.

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments! I should be able to address these by November 21. Feel free to add more before then if you have them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I believe all your comments so far are addressed. There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824. Let me know if you think either issue warrants more discussion. Otherwise, what other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824.", no problem - I understand that some changes may not be possible due to a lack of reliable sources. I'll look at the "Themes" section now (I was planning to do this earlier today). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themes:

• In general, I would suggest adding a few subheaders for readability. From what I'm understanding:
  • Para 1 is about Neal's efforts to portray Americans,
  • Para 2 is about Brother Jonathan as an emblem/allegory,
  • Para 3 is about Walter's coming of age as an allegory,
  • Para 4 is about allegorical representations of egalitarianism,
  • Para 5 is about cultural diversity,
  • Para 6 is about racial aspects/tensions, and
  • Para 7 is about sexual aspects/relations. Am I correct in that regard?

I just added four subheaders. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "anglophile world" - Just to double-check, did you deliberately write "anglophile" (English-loving), or did you mean "anglophone" (English-speaking)?

Thank you for asking! Anglophone is really what I meant. I swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US." - Incidentally, that would have been quite an interesting reaction. Do the sources mention the nature of the reaction (e.g. protests, boycotts, angry letters)?

Yes, but I removed this sentence to avoid repetition and added this requested detail in the part of the "Depiction of Americans" section that also discusses it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "Though initially considered to personify just the New England states, Neal advocated for Americans to accept Brother Jonathan as a representation for the entire country" - There is a dangling modifier here. Presumably it was Brother Jonathan, not Neal, who was initially considered to personify just the New England states. May I suggest "Though Brother Jonathan was initially..."?

Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 3: "about the protagonist Walter Harwood" - You already mentioned that Walter was the protagonist in the previous paragraph.

Walter's name deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 3: "This exemplifies Neal's belief that people are their truest selves when at home" - Might be good to mention who says that, since otherwise it seems like we're saying this in wikivoice (rather than a single author making this observation).

On second thought, the idea in this sentence is poorly connected to the previous one, so I deleted it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 4: "The stage coach that transported him to New York also exemplifies this natural American republicanism" - Similar to the above, you may want to mention who said this.

Attribution added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 5: "he is an unclear entity who may be one of two different men" - I would say that "may be one of two different men" makes the phrase "he is an unclear entity" redundant.

Redundancy removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 6: "But unlike the mass death scene at the end of Neal's earlier novel Logan" - I don't recommend starting the sentence with "but", as it feels a little choppy.

Swapped for "However,". Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 6: "This may be interpreted as Neal's take" - It may also be good to say who interprets the ending of Brother Jonathan that way.

Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 7: "The story explores the consequences of those actions for both men and women." - Any specific examples of said consequences? It's OK if you don't have any.

Nope. Both cited sources are pretty vague on this point. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 7: I noticed that the last half of this paragraph is mostly quotes. Per
  MOS:QUOTE
  , it may be advisable to summarize some of the quotes. For example, you could summarize the Blackwood quote by saying something like "he disapproved of the seductive images and predicted that the vast majority of readers would not read it as a result".

Two quotes replaced with narrative summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thank you for these! I believe all your comments above are addressed. What other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving these issues so quickly Dugan Murphy. This article looks to be in pretty good shape so far, though I will probably have my final comments up by Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Just checking in since Thursday came and went and you didn't post any new comments. Yours is the only comment thread on this nomination that is still active. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy, sorry about that, I completely forgot about commenting here on Thursday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm leaning toward supporting the FAC, since my remaining concerns are all minor, but will have my final comments shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Style:

• Para 1: "Walter's dialogue in the first volume may be the earliest attempt in American literature to use a child's natural speech patterns to express a wide range of emotion." - The "may be" part is according to Martin, right?

Yup. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "Literature scholar and biographer Benjamin Lease" and "the compilers of the Dictionary of American English" - Are these two the same?

Nope. Lease pointed out in his 1972 book that the people who put together the dictionary earlier that century had referenced three of Neal's novels. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary critique:

• "as did readers in general, who largely ignored it" - Two things. I assume these readers are in the UK because you say that US critics took little notice; is that correct? Also, do you know if they ignored the novel because it was puzzling?

I realize I'm repeating here the thing about American readers ignoring the book because the previous sentence is supposed to be about readers in both countries. The source for your pulled quote (Sears 1978, pp. 73–74) says "No wonder that the reading public did not know what to make of the sprawling, brawling work, and ended by ignoring it." This seems to indicate that readers ignored it because it was puzzling, but I think it would be safer to stick to the point that they ignored it. I've reworded the last two sentences of this paragraph with all this in mind. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of Americans:

• Para 1: "Among American readers and critics aware of Brother Jonathan" - I would probably change this to "Among the American readers and critics who were aware of Brother Jonathan" to clarify that, while most American critics and readers didn't take notice of the novel, those who did were angered by it.

Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "In contrast, Sumner Lincoln Fairfield of the New York Literary Gazette specifically praised the novel as a "great success"" - Out of curiosity, do we need this word? "Specifically" in this context could be a little ambiguous, as it could be modifying either Fairfield, the praise, or the novel, so maybe this can be cut.

"Specifically" is deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham, according to John Bowring, assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."" - I'd rephrase this to something like "On the other hand, John Bowring claimed that Jeremy Bentham assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."", since this claim is refuted by Neal in the next sentence.

Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual content:

• No issues.

Excessive but powerful:

• Para 1: "The New Monthly Magazine ... The Monthly Review" - I presume these are both British? (Sorry, I'm just nitpicking at this point, as the article is pretty well written.)

Yes. Language added to that effect. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 1: "The British Critic focused on what that critic" - Are you referring to the British Critic's critic?

Yes. I reworded to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "full or vigour and originality" - Full of vigour and originality, I assume, because the sentence would not make much sense otherwise.

Good catch! Typo fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Para 2: "Moir praised: 'It is extremely powerful...'" - Usually, "praised" is a transitive verb, so you'd say something like "Moir praised the novel as 'extremely powerful...'"

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern views:

• "Twenty-first-century readers are generally unaware of Brother Jonathan" - Is there anything available about 20th century views? You mention some reviews from the 20th century in the following sections.

My source for this statement is Richter in 2009 saying Brother Jonathan is "virtually unknown today". Per

MOS:DATED, I chose the wording you quoted here. None of the 20th-century scholars I read said anything similar about readers in that century, even though clearly the novel has been obscure almost since it was published. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, that makes sense. If the 20th-century scholars don't say anything about readers in that century, it wouldn't do us any good to basically add original research about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realism:

• No issues.

Complexity:

• Para 1: "The plot was "brilliant yet exasperating" according to biographer Donald A. Sears.[2] Morgan used the term "overstuffed".[116]" - Similarly to the previous sentence about Richards and Fleischmann, I'd suggest just combining these two sentences.

Combined.

That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for reading through the rest of the article! I have responded to all your comments. Do you feel any of them warrant further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I will support this FAC now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

A la Epic. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" I know you have to be cognizant of size constraints, but why would Jonathan implicate Abraham and then implicate himself?

Reasonable question. I re-read that section of the novel and some scholarly analysis of it and clarified accordingly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "He is nursed by their daughter" I'm not sure who 'their' refers to in this context

She's the daughter of the Quaker hosts. I reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation" A line like this raises the question for me of whether Neal said that, or literary scholars have proposed that? Most of what you mention (ie it was a coming of age story) I think is fine, but in this case I would attribute-- since I don't think it would necessarily be agreed by all.

Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US" I'd be curious to hear more about this... feels almost contradicted by "In the US, critics and readers took little notice" later

Come to think of it, this sentence doesn't really say anything that doesn't come up later in the "Depiction of Americans" section. I added an extra sentence down there to satisfy your curiosity. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the novel features colloquialism and accents" -- not clear which novel is referred to here

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " generation's predominant concept of the United States as a unified nation" Is this really the case? My impression (not my area of expertise by any means) is that Americans of the early 19th century might have considered themselves on a more regional/state basis than national

The cited Pethers source says "...Neal increasingly begins to manifest through what we may call a vocalization (rather than a narration) of national diversity. In this respect, ... Neal's mature works of the 1820s ... contain within themselves multiple and contesting dialects which advance the project of transcending the Revolutionary era's political nationalism. Inverting the national motto of E pluribus unum to allow for sundry forms of cultural affiliation, the polyvocality of Brother Jonathan (1825) and Rachel Dyer simply reiterates the ideological intention of Neal's semiautobiographical novels in a different key." The cited Richter source says "Under the ironic title of Brother Jonathan, the diverse linguistic styles subvert the fiction of a unified, national whole." So it looks like neither claim predominance of the national unity idea, but just that Neal challenged it. Thus, I edited "his generation's predominant" to "the". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "depicts American Indians as a people vanishing to make way " we have an article on Vanishing Indian, which needs a lot of work but may be worth linking

Agreed. Looks like this article didn't exist when I was first drafting this section! It is now linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "When reviewing a Cooper novel four years later, the same magazine claimed Logan, Seventy-Six, and Brother Jonathan to be "full of faults, but still full of power" and successful at positioning Neal as Cooper's chief competitor" if the novel was published in 1825, and authorship attributed in 1830, how did the magazine do this?

The first two were already linked because Seventy-Six was attributed to "the author of Logan". I can't find a reliable source saying this, but I think there were so few books published in the UK by Americans about the US, and Neal's style is so distinct, I guess this critic felt safe attributing Brother Jonathan to the same author. So I think the most I could add here is that those other two novels were already connected by the title page of Seventy-six. (But since you mentioned it, the "four years later" line was in reference to Seventy-six's 1823 publication, so I just changed it to in 1827".) Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-reading your comment here, the original British review, and my summary of it. Here's the original 1827 review: "If we except Brown ... and the unknown author of Logan, Seventy-Six (which contained some most vivid sketches of scenes during the American war,) and Brother Jonathan, three of about as extraordinary works as ever appeared–full of faults, but still full of power; if we except these, there is no rival near Mr. Cooper’s throne." I think changing "positioning Neal" to "positioning the author" is warranted and speaks to your concern, because the critic didn't mention Neal by name. I just made that change. The article doesn't say that the review positioned Neal. It says the reviewer felt that the three books together positioned their author (who happened to be Neal). The question remains why the critic felt comfortable attributing all three novels to the same author. Regardless, he did attribute all three to the same author. That is clearly factual. What are your thoughts here? Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a perfectly logical solution, thanks for your diligence! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " blame it for many of the plot's inconsistencies." Do you ever highlight what these are?

I just added a couple of examples in the "Complexity" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "pre-Uncle Sam national emblem of the US in part because of this novel. " Not convinced the article establishes this, especially the "in part because of this novel" part

How about this this sentence in the "Themes" section? "The emblem had been developing for decades as a minor self-referential device in American literature, but saw full development in this novel into the personification of American national character." Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just having a bit of trouble parsing the transition from Brother Jonathan, a book that seems to not have been particularly popular to a broader conceptualization of Brother Jonathan as an emblem. Does the sourcing consider Neal's argument to have influenced popular perception? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't explicit about connecting the novel to popular opinion. I think it's more about looking at the emblem's development through a historic lens. As such, I removed that language from the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "society around him both come of age through the American Revolution. " I get what you're trying to say, but it's not really the society coming of age-- what would it come of age to? Society itself didn't necessarily change a whole lot over the course of the book. Maybe like the nation or something?

I swapped society for nation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Martin found the representation of American Indian English more likely accurate than found in books by contemporaries like James Fenimore Cooper" Is one scholar's opinion sufficient to then say in the lead of the article that the depiction was definitely likely more accurate? Also do you mean "More likely accurate" or "likely more accurate".

I changed the sentence in the lead section to omit mention of contemporaneous literature. Conversely, in the "Style" section, I added another scholar's opinion to support Martin's on this topic. Given this rewording, your last question in this bullet point is now moot. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "These elements of the novel were praised in the UK but derided in the US. " You never really establish that the depiction of a child's speaking was particularly derided in the US (or praised in the UK), I thought it was more the other regional differences depicted

You're right. I've reworded this sentence in the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first round, really interesting article you've got. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and for the comments! I am still working on them. The only one so far that may warrant more discussion is the comment about Neal's anonymity. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: And now I feel your comments are fully addressed. Thank you again for developing this list and typing it out. Do you think your comments about Neal's anonymity and Brother Jonathan as an emblem (or any of your other comments) need further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt responses. Not sure yet about authorship. I have a response about Brother Jonathan above, shortly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you for the additional responses. I think the issue about Brother Jonathan the personification/emblem is now resolved. I also added another response to the anonymity thread. Let me know if that needs more discussion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Vat

I don't think I can commit to a comprehensive look at the entire article, but I can do images :)

Image review is, as you might expect, a pass. All images are PD by virtue of age (and pd-text for the title page additionally), and have been properly prepared for FAC by addressing all complex nuances. Alt text is present and usable. I'll take the opportunity to note, though, that adding the "upright" parameter with no number unintuitively sets it to "upright=0.75" rather than the expected default of 1 -- some images might be worth double-checking to see if they're displaying as intended (a couple of the landscapes look small). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! I appreciate the tip about the upright parameter. I just looked at the MOS and it says that using that parameter without a number is deprecated, so I removed it from the two portraits. I increased the size of the three landscape images on your suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

• "an 1825 historical fiction novel": I think it would be more natural to make this "an 1825 historical novel", and link "historical novel" to historical fiction. "Historical fiction novel" sounds quite unnatural to me.

Fair. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, he revised it": mismatching referents; "written while" refers to the novel so the pronoun "he" is incorrect. Perhaps "Neal revised it in London" would work?

Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot section is well over 1,000 words. I think it would be worth trimming this a bit, but I have to say it's concisely written, so I leave it to your judgement if there's anything that could be cut.

Oh my gosh, I know. It turns out 1,324 pages doesn't fit easily into the 700-word max recommended by

MOS:PLOTLENGTH. I just trimmed it from 1,078 words to 877. At this point, it is little more than plainly-stated, basic plot points, so I'm stopping there under the plea that this famously long novel with a famously too-complicated plot deserves special permission to exceed the recommended plot summary word limit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "while observing debauchery": a bit unspecific. I assume the book itself is not particularly explicit if this included any sexual behaviour, but can we say whether this refers only to drunken revelry or to sexual escapades as well?

Changed "debauchery" to "riotous behavior" for lack of sexual escapades. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "dedicated large expanses of Brother Jonathan": "expanses" is an unusual metaphor for part of a book -- perhaps "long sections" or "long passages"?

Changed to "a large proportion". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to step away from the computer for a bit, but will look at the remaining comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but in this regard, Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as the best and most extensive attempt": suggest "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism, but Brother Jonathan is considered by many scholars as Neal's best and most extensive attempt in this regard."

Accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  MOS:DASH
  you can have unspaced em dashes, or spaced en dashes, but not unspaced em dashes.

I only have one dash use in the regular prose, which is spaced, so I made it an en dash. All the other dash uses (aside from number ranges) are in quoted text, I standardized the quotes with fully or partially spaced dashes to en dashes and the fully unspaced ones to em dashes. I also noticed an inconsistent use of en vs em dashes in number ranges, so I changed those all to en dashes per

MOS:RANGE

.

• It seems out of sequence to have the background after the themes section; any reason not to reverse those?

No good reason. I moved Background to follow the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "had Blackwood allowed him to a story closer to the original manuscript": looks like a missing word?

Precisely! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of the subsection "Complexity" is a sequence of short sentences, which gives a very staccato effect to the reader. Can we combine a couple of these, just with an "and" or something equally anodyne, to vary the flow?

I hear what you're saying. I combined two and reversed the sequence of another. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in excellent shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the compliment and for taking the time to read through the article and write out comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Would you say this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the fixes look good except for the dashes. Per

MOS:CONFORM we regularize dash use in quotes. You have many dashes in quoted material -- e.g. "Walter and Edith were happy: and Warwick Savage – alias, Jonathan Peters – alias, Robert Evans – he, though not happy, was no longer bad, or foolish" which uses spaced en dashes. You have unspaced em dashes in "not because of their being worse—but because of their being better" and the Connecticut farmer's speech, and the quote box showing phonetic stuttering is a mixture. There are others. There's an exception in CONFORM: "provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text". I think you might argue that the quotes of the farmer and the drunk are important to show as Neal had them, but is it clear whether he had em or en dashes, or that it would make a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I was not thinking about

MOS:DASH, with the only exception being the semi-spaced en dashes in the quote box and the unspaced em dashes in the farmer dialogue. As you suggested, I see the purpose of including those text quotes as demonstrating Neal's unique experiments in punctuation. I think they need to reflect the original text in order to not "obscure meaning or intent of the text". It's valuable to demonstrate how Neal's use of dashes was irregular. That means that the only em dashes left in the article are in the farmer quote. The only en dashes not fully spaced are in the quote box. @Mike Christie: What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the argument is justified, but judging from this, which seems to be a first edition, the drunk quotes should be spaced em dashes. I couldn't find the other quote but I'd guess you can; worth checking if we're going to argue that the exact typography is important. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You know, now I'm thinking that the drunk quote is my transcription of somebody else's transcription instead of the original text. The farmer quote certainly is. Here's the original. Based on this fresh look at the original publication, I just standardized those two quotes to spaced en dashes like the rest of the article. Now adherence to

MOS:CONFORM is complete! Thank you for keeping on this and helping me figure it out. @Mike Christie: Anything else? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I think everything looks good now; glad we ran that one to ground. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

I am partway through compiling my comments on this article. I will update this once I'm done. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• There is something of a tendency to structure sentences in a comparatively intricate way that at times impedes readability. I have given some specific examples below.

Lead

• "Period critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes." – this is a fairly conspicuous use of "period" in this sense. I would go for the much more common "contemporary" (or phrase it along the lines of "critics at the time").

Sure! Changed to contemporary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "Contemporary critics reacted poorly to the book's sexual themes. They were explicit for the period, addressing female sexual virtue and male guilt for sexual misdeeds." – "They" in the second sentence refers to the themes, but the intuitive parsing is that it refers to the subject of the preceding sentence, i.e. the critics. There are several different possible ways to address this, for instance merging the sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good eye. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tweaked it a bit further myself. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Using phonetic transcriptions, the dialogue documents a wide range of regional accents and colloquialism." – that should presumably be "colloquialisms", plural (or else it should be rephrased to avoid the intuitive parsing of "a wide range of" modifying "colloquialism" as well as "regional accents"). Or even simpler: change it to "colloquial speech". I would also link the term (colloquialism).

Changed to colloquialisms. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "This included" – inconsistent verb tense.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Written while he was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, Neal revised the novel in London many times over and convinced [...]" – this adjusted phrasing still doesn't quite work; Neal wasn't written. I would suggest the simpler phrasing "The novel was written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic, and he revised it in London many times over before convincing [...]".

  That's funny you should point this out, because I think you know that I already reworded this sentence for the reason you are raising here. My rewording did not achieve its purpose! I just reworded again and I'm confident it is now grammatically correct. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, hence "this adjusted phrasing". TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "mid 1825" – missing hyphen.

Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: The body twice mentions plot inconsistencies. If the plot is generally considered to have a significant amount of inconsistencies, this should probably also be mentioned in the
  WP:LEAD. If nothing else, it would prepare readers of this article that the "Plot" section might be expected to be a bit difficult to follow. The lead does mention that the novel is viewed as "too complex to be considered good" by many scholars, but a complex novel is not necessarily the same thing as an inconsistent (or even just difficult-to-follow) plot – for instance, The Lord of the Rings is fairly often described as a complex work in a positive sense, i.e. a carefully and intricately constructed narrative, without this being regarded as having a negative impact on its readability. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Good point. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "Twenty-first century readers are generally unaware of the book and scholars who are familiar with it generally consider it too complex to be considered good." – not a dealbreaker in any way, but the sentence would probably read better if one of the two instances of "generally" were swapped for a different word. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "the consensus among scholars is that the plot is too fractured and complex to be considered good" is a significantly stronger statement, and in particular, it's a stronger statement than the body makes (or indeed we have sourcing for, unless there is a source that explicitly states this to be the case). TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm trying to summarize the last two paragraphs of the article in the second half of the last sentence of the lead. I just reworded to something closer to where I had it your last comment on this topic. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself" – maybe there's something I'm missing, but that seems contradictory to me. Update: Resolved while I was compiling my comments.
• I can't say I see what the 1761 image of New York City adds.

  It's the closest I think I can get to illustrating what New York City looked like when Walter Harwood was there. Much of the novel takes place there. Do you think the article would be better off without it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I do. I don't think it illustrates what it looked like at the time particularly well, and because it is so wide it has an undesirable effect on the text layout (depending on screen width and settings, and so on). It's not a big problem, but I do think it's a net negative. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not irreversibly attached to it. Consider it deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a Quaker household" – I would link
  Quaker
  .

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "his family home seized by Tories" – is there a strong reason to refer to them as "Tories" rather than, say, "British Loyalists"? "Tory" has rather different associations to me, and I suspect most readers.

Tory is the term used in the novel and it was common in revolutionary America, but I agree that British Loyalist would likely enhance clarity for all anglophones. Term is swapped. I'll look at your other comments in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "She seduces him and they sleep together" – She seduces Walter, right? I would clarify that since Harry was also mentioned in the preceding sentence.

Yes! Name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan" – I might add "scare quotes" to "Warwick" here. I might also add something along the lines of "in disguise" or "using a false identity" to make it a bit clearer, even if it is not that difficult for the reader to piece it together, so to speak.

  If I was to introduce this convention, I think staying consistent with it would feel annoying to the reader. Once you read the whole plot summary, you realize Abraham is not Walter's father, that Warwick is actually Jonathan, and that Warwick is actually Robert. Adding "using a false identity" would be fine, though, so I did that. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The way it's done now works just fine; I wrote "I might" for a reason. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ruth Ashley, who has held unrequited romantic feelings for him since he arrived in New York" – I might give a rough indication as to the amount of time.

Sure. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Robert is his real father but thought Walter was Abraham's son and responsible for the accidental infant death of Robert's other son." – the "and" is ambiguous. Did Robert think Walter was responsible or is Robert responsible?

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "At more than 1,300 pages over three volumes" – I would write "across three volumes".

Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper (1845–1846)" – when placed after a person's name like this, a year span enclosed in parentheses usually indicates the lifespan of that person. TompaDompa (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm referring here to the lesser known infant novelist. But really, good point. I moved the parenthetical. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The novel that became Brother Jonathan he hoped would boost his reputation to surpass Cooper's." – a bit awkward phrasing.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the US, its language, and customs" – a bit odd to have "its" in front of "language" but not "customs" like this. I might either say "the US, its language, and its customs" or "the US, and its language and customs, [...]".

Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

• "cultural recognition of the US within the anglophile world" – Anglophile or anglophone? According to my dictionary, the former should be capitalized and the latter should not, so this is wrong either way. (Update: This part was resolved while I was compiling my comments.) I would also link it.

Linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brother Jonathan is partly a coming-of-age story about the protagonist Walter Harwood growing into manhood and about the new American nation as it is born in the American Revolution." – if the intended reading is that it is a coming-of-age story both with regard to Walter and the US, "partly" confuses that somewhat and using the word "both" somewhere in the sentence would make it clearer.

  "Both" is added. "Partly" is kept because the novel is famously much more than a coming-of-age story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Partly" can mean "in part" in the sense of "among other things", but it much more commonly means "not entirely". TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "naiveté" – use either "naïveté" or "naivety". This spelling is neither fish nor fowl.

I see! Changed to "naivety". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to cultural studies researcher Jörg Thomas Richter, the stage coach that transported him to New York" – the added attribution makes it sound like the stage coach transported Richter rather than Walter.

Walter's name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "heterogenous" – heterogeneous. "Heterogenous" means that something originates from without (as opposed to from within), whereas "heterogeneous" means that something is diverse (and intermixed, usually).

You're really good at picking up on these almost-the-right-words. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "He also includes a character on the stage coach smoking a pipe dangerously close to a keg of gunpowder, suggesting that heterogenous egalitarianism might have explosive consequences for the nation." – this is the type of media analysis where it's pretty important whether this interpretation comes from the author or not. If it does, that should be made explicit. If it does not, it should be indicated whether this comes from a particular person's reading of the text or is a generally accepted interpretation. Update: The preceding sentence is now attributed to Richter. If we are to infer that this is also Richter's view, it needs to be clarified ("He" in this sentence refers to Neal).

Fair. Richter is now attributed in both sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the novel features colloquialism and accents specific to [...]" – is that "colloquialism [in general] and accents specific to [...]" or "[colloquialism and accents] specific to [...]"? If the latter, it should be "colloquialisms", plural. If the former, it should be rephrased to avoid the latter reading.

Colloquialisms it is. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Walter seduces Emma, and like many of Neal's earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual misdeeds." – like in many of Neal's earlier novels. The male protagonist here does not do the same thing as the other novels, but the same thing as the corresponding characters in the other novels.

"In" added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "&c." – this abbreviation is so uncommon nowadays that I think it should be linked to wiktionary.

  I Wikilinked it to

  &c., which illustrates a few uses "&c." where modern writers would likely use "etc.". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That works too. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Style

• "Most of Neal's novels experimented with American dialect and colloquialism" – or should it be "dialects and colloquialisms", plural?

I guess plural is more appropriate given that Neal stresses polyvocality in so many of his works. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "an early example of documented American colloquialism" – again, it seems to me like it should be plural.

Pluralized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "distinct of British precedent" – maybe this is an
  WP:LEAD
  says).

Changed to "from". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The novel's prodigious use" – prolific?

  What's wrong with prodigious? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not wrong, per se, but this is presumably intended to be a statement about quantity. While "prodigious" can be strictly about quantity, it is usually a statement about quality (with or without also being a statement about quantity). "Prolific", on the other hand, is always strictly about quantity. In other words, with "prodigious" the sentence would likely be parsed as "The novel's extensive and skillful use [...]" rather than just "The novel's extensive use [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what you're saying. I switched to "prolific". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "accent marks, italics, and diacritics" – accent marks and diacritics?

"Accent marks" removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "This experiment comes after Neal played with" – verb tense.

Changed to "came". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Period critique

• As above, I would avoid using "period" here in favour of e.g. "contemporary".

Sure. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critical reception of Brother Jonathan was mixed but mostly warm. Most of the positive criticism is qualified" – inconsistent verb tense.

Changed "is" to "was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "[...] commentary on the novel's shortcomings, such as
  The Ladies' Monthly Museum
  published: [...]" – this is rather difficult to parse. "Such as" is usually in the sense of "for instance", but here it seems to be in the sense of "of the kind [that]"?

I meant the latter, but anticipating others experiencing the difficulty you did, I added "what" to change it to the former. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Compared to them" – those?

Word swapped. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "as did readership in general, who largely ignored it" – this is either a sense of "readership" that I am unfamiliar with, or it should be plain "readers" (or possibly "the readership"?). At any rate, articles are supposed to be accessible to most readers, so I would suggest rephrasing this.

"Readers" is a fitting substitute. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "Returning to his native Portland, Maine, two years after publishing the novel, he found former friends refusing to meet with him." – this presumably refers to Neal. That should be made explicit (he is not named at all in this paragraph). TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. "He" is now "Neal". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the manners of American characters" – manners or mannerisms? Polite behaviour, general demeanour, customs, peculiarities, or something else?

Changed to "characterization of Americans". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "Conversely, Jeremy Bentham [...]" – "conversely" is analogous to "vice versa" in meaning. The preceding sentence is about finding most of the book poor except for the portrayal of Americans, so "conversely" would be appropriate if Bentham had found the portrayal of Americans to be poor but the rest of the book good. A more appropriate choice of words here might be "on the other hand" or "by contrast". TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "On the other hand" it is. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "blasted the novel" – a bit overly informal. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Switched to "assailed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern views

• "an incongruous mixture of realism and fantastical Gothic devices" – I would link Gothic fiction.

  There's an earlier use of Gothic that I Wikilinked instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That works. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Dugan Murphy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for applying your fine-tooth clarity comb to this article! I believe all your comments are addressed and the article is better as a result. The only ones I believe may warrant further discussion are your comments on the NYC skyline, scare quotes, coming-of-age, and prodigious. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I addressed your new comments, so I believe the only standing comments that may need more discussion are the ones about coming of age and the use of "prodigious". What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: Those are indeed the only remaining issues that need to be addressed, apart from a couple of comments that I have just added. See above for my responses to those specific issues and the handful of new ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Great. I believe I have resolved all the new and old issues you have raised. As long as you think my replacement for "partly" is appropriate. Tell me your thoughts. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: We're certainly getting there. I spotted one new issue and replied to another. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I made a couple more tweaks and issued a couple more responses. I think we may be done here. How do you like the last sentence of the lead? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

...working... ——Serial 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that some reviewers could have been put off by the amount of black ink thrown up; but it's worse than it looks. That in the cites section are solely due to the use of =N, quote; the comma delineates two items. There's nothing wrong with noting who one's source is quoting, by the way—a good reading of WP:V. But, tbh, I'd go either further or back; if you are going to specify a quoted source, why not the page number as well? After all, the Literary Gazette—fn93, for example—was a weekly publication at its height, so if the reader wants to confirm your quote, they appear to have no small search ahead of them. And precision would not seem to be furthered by a pageless source being not only pageless, but only 'ostensibly' so (fn96). I suggest keeping it simple. I see several works from (random cut-off date for modern scholarship) pre-1970, but they are not overly used, and the most commonly used are modern works. In any case, there's undoubtedly little wrong with the University of Wisconsin or The New England Quarterly. It's a pretty niche topic, and a search of several databases suggests that nothing that should be used here has been overlooked. Couple of other points.

Regarding citation 93 and others like it: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase? If you're saying that I should find what page in what issue of The Literary Gazette is being quoted by Cairns, I don't see why that is necessary. I'm not citing The Literary Gazette. I'm citing Cairns. I'm just making clear that the quote is not Cairns's words, though I got the quote from Cairns. Let me know if you think this should be discussed further. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as yours is a high-quality and independent reliable source, we don't need to know who they cite. You cite what you read; you only need to cite who they cite when you read the second thing through the first. See

WP:SAYWHERE

: 'follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones'.

Ok. I removed all the references within inline citations to who is being quoted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gale is a reputable publisher, we don't need to be told it's an A Cengage Company.

Sure! I literally copied how it was written on the title page. I deleted that part. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're citing a chapter in Watts & Carlson, that's the required cite; the complete monograph is unnecessary. Likewise DiMercurio. It's the authors of what you cite the reader needs, not who edited it.

If I understand what you're saying here, then the source listings for chapters in Watts & Carlson and DiMercurio don't need a title parameter. Unfortunately, when I delete those title parameters, those source listings render with an error message. I've left them as-is for now. But if what you're saying is that I should delete the listings for these two books, then see my response to your last comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Responded there. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Cambridge, England'. UK, I think. Also re. Spiller.

Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Schumacher, Merlob, need publisher/location info for consistency.

Merlob, Pethers, Sivils, Richter, and Schumacher are all book chapters. Each of these source listings include a link at the end to refer to the full book listing. It is designed that way to avoid repeating the same information over and over again in the chapter listings. This is the format settled upon during the FAC review for John Neal (writer) three years ago, which also cites chapters in the same two books. So I've been following that precedent ever since. Do you feel strongly about this format choice? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As book chapters, they need to be cited within the context of who they are published. See WP:HOWCITE, which basically shows that everything you've got in your chapter cites should be augmented with what you have for the rest of the book. Yes, this might result in the same book being cited several times. This is good, as the reader needs to know where the material is to find on each occasion. And using the full book citation on its own makes it appear as you're using the whole book, which you're not.

Ok. DiMercurio and Watts & Carlson are removed from the source list and their publication information is added to the relevant chapters. That means that I changed all the Richter 2009 inline citations to Richter 2018 to keep them linked to the proper source listing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for reviewing my sources! I responded to your comments about handling chapters vs books and attributing quotes. Do you think either point needs more discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,

WP:V. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Serial Number 54129: I believe all your comments are fully addressed. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Would you say that this article has passed your review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you Dugan Murphy for providing me with a really interesting read. You've clearly put a lot of work into the topic. Congratulations  :) and yes, "consistency being key", etc., @WP:FAC coordinators: I'm happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2023 [7].

Mount Berlin

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica, and the only one in Marie Byrd Land with ongoing geothermal activity. In the past, especially before about 10,000 years, a number of volcanic eruptions have taken place there and have dispersed tephra across Antarctica. The volcano partly developed under ice and features ice-volcanic landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

• Link tephra on first mention in body
• Comment: Mount Berlin ... Brandenberger Bluff ... Kraut Rocks ... and they're all named after people? That's some decent geographical humour right there

  Aye, all people based names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province on first mention in body
• "Volcanic activity appears to take place in three phases, an early mafic phase" - might be worth linking mafic again here as it pulled me up
• "were classified as "possibly or potentially active" by LeMasurier 1990" - in 1990?

  No, it refers to the publication date hence no "in". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got you - then I'd suggest something like "in the 1990 Antarctic Research Series by LeMasurier et al." since "LeMasurier 1990" jars for me Mujinga (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "that emplaced cinder cones and lava flows,[16] and Plinian eruptions[47] intense explosive eruptions,[48]" - sorry I edited this to remove the "/" but now it needs something else between "eruptions" and "intense"

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  works for me! Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " intense explosive eruptions,[48] which generated eruption columns up to 40 kilometres (25 mi) high. Such intense eruptions would" - 2x intense eruptions
• "The eruption history of Mount Berlin is recorded in outcrops on Mount Berlin" - 2x mount berlin
• "and in marine sediment cores[58] from the Southern Ocean" - perhaps "in the Southern Ocean?" not sure

  Sediment cores are taken from an ocean, so I'd say "from". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure thank for the explanation Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " Correlated deposits at Siple Ice Dome indicate that this eruption was intense and deposited tephra over large areas" - link Siple Dome?
• "Steaming ice towers" are these the same as "Fumarolic ice tower", which says "Mount Berlin is another Antarctic volcanic mountain that produced such towers"?

  Aye, but "steaming" is more descriptive and "fumarolic" more accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't clear, I should have put Fumarolic ice tower instead of "Fumarolic ice tower", but it's linked so that's all good Mujinga (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has been prospected for the potential to obtain geothermal power.[84]" - interesting, by who?

  Looks like by Philip R. Kyle in the book. I am not sure "prospecting" is the best word, as it implies on-site presence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'assessed'? 'evaluated'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yup these would be better, I was expecting you to say it was prospected by the US or similar Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox: "Last eruption 8350 BC" - should that be "Last eruption 8,350±5,300 BC" as in body? Actually in body it doesn't say it was BC?
• Note d needs a full stop? Mujinga (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus a few quick replies Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I miss this?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, support on prose Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)". Just a suggestion, but it may help a general reader - who might otherwise be inclined to think "So? My fingernails grow faster than that" - grasp what this means by adding something like 'or approximately 80 km over the past 8,200 years, since the last eruption' or whatever.

  That's unfortunately a bit SYNTH. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ignimbrites are rare in Marie Byrd Land; the outcrop on the southeastern flank of Mount Berlin is a rare exception." Is it possible to avoid using "rare" twice in one sentence?

  Yes, it's possible, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "by LeMasurier 1990". Is there a missing 'in'?

  No, b/c that's the publication date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rift has been ..." "The rift" or 'The Rift'?

  I think in these cases one uses lowercase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that having said "which is variously interpreted as a rift[29] or as a plate boundary" you immediately describe it as a rift in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps 'This feature ...' or something similarly neutral?

?

Sorry, missed that. At least on Wikipedia Rift is uppercase, and in light of this example I would not categorically assume that putting it in uppercase implies that it must be a rift. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "The rift" is saying that it is a rift, 'The Rift' is merely referring to its common name.

Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "trachyte" at first mention in the article.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " A long term trend in iron and sulfur of the tephras may indicate a long term trend towards". Repeat of "long term trend". I realise that editing it out could be tricky.

  Does "tendency" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking.

• Just to be clear, there are no known eruptions between 2.7 million 571,000 years ago?

  Aye. There probably was activity, but its output was buried under more recent eruptions or eroded away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "After 25,500 years ago it shifted to Mount Berlin proper". Would "it" refer to the activity which "also occurred on the flanks of Mount Berlin", ie as well as the activity on Merrem Peak, or to the activity which "then took place at Merrem Peak between 571,000 and 141,000 years ago"? PS Or, I suppose, both.

  Volcanic activity in general, but I already used "activity". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think 'activity shifted to Mount Berlin proper' works in this case, and it removes the ambiguity.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite their size, the eruptions at Mount Berlin did not significantly impact the climate." Is it known, or hypothesized, why?

  Will need to consult the source, but I figure it's because the tephra would tend to be trapped over Antarctica, and the ice already reflects sunlight well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What is megadust?

  That's explained precisely nowhere, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a word can be included in an article which even the author can't define. How about 'Distinctive layers in ice cores have ...' or similar?

Did an impromptu translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "between marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Should stage be plural?

  Plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tephras in the Vostok ice cores". Could we unpack this a little? Perhaps 'Tephras in the ice cores taken at the Russian Vostok research station in Princess Elizabeth Land' or similar?

  Did something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "with an interval of 15 years" mean?

  It's not entirely clear from the source, so I took this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chronology": I thought this section was great, but any chance of a map showing at least the places with multiple mentions?

  It can be done, I've put a draft in, but how do I state the sauces for the coordinates? In a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I never bother, on a "sky is blue" basis, and have never been challenged. I also find it faster and usually faster to generate my own maps. My notes at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps may help if you want to trial this. (Both of the maps there are from FAs.)

I've put in such a map taking inspiration from yours, using Wikipedia's own coordinates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the last paragraph of "Chronology" in prose, rather than two bullet points?

  Because unlike the eruptions above, even the sources are cautious about assigning these to Berlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you standardise on either BC or BCE?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "8,350±5,300 BC". They are really giving a range of 13,650 - 3,050 BC? (That seems so broad as to be pointless.)

  Yes, they do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Marine Isotope Stage 5 interglacial"; "marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Could you standardise the use of initial upper/lower-case letters.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a couple of queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the map. Just the rift issue left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

• All references are nicely formatted, and of high quality
• Spot checks:

  fn 59, 61, 72, 82 - okay

• Nice article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta

• "Mount Berlin is a 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) high" This phrasing meeds an adjectival form (parameter adj=on). There are several examples through the article, please audit.

  I think I got all of these, although I am not sure if that's grammatically correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "a c. 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi)" uses "c." for circa, which is commonly used in historical contexts. For the average reader (to which this lead should be geared) it's probably better expressed as "approximately" or "about" for clarity.

  Done and also the occurrence in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "mountain with parasitic vents that consists of two coalesced volcanoes; Berlin proper with the" it's grammatically incorrect with a semicolon there (colon would work), but maybe the sentence would benefit from restructuring …
• … "Berlin proper with the 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater and Merrem Peak with a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) wide crater, 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away from Berlin." This sentence might be reformulated for better readability. For instance: "Berlin proper features the 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater, while Merrem Peak, located 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away, has a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) crater."

  The colon is in now. Going to need a second opinion on splitting, though, as it seems like it would be considerably wordier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has a volume of 2,000 km3" What does "It" refer to? The last thing discussed is trachyte, the dominant volcanic rock.

  Rearranged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a tephra? Yeah, I see there's a link, but this is the lead and there shouldn't be undefined/low context words in there that the reader has to click away to learn.

  Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The tephra layers were formed by explosive eruptions/Plinian eruptions" this and/or slash to describe the eruption seems awkward; could it not be written more elegantly?

  Tried it, but I can't find a formulation that isn't either SYNTH or cherry-picks sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about something like this: "The tephra layers were formed through a combination of effusive and intense explosive or Plinian eruptions, which were particularly active over the last 100,000 years, producing high eruption columns and distributing tephra widely across Antarctica and the southern Pacific Ocean."

  Mmm, the effusive eruptions didn't generate tephra layers. Upon reflection, I went for a different solution, it's somewhat cherry-picky but Plinian eruptions are a type of explosive eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• link volcanic rock, and BCE in the 2nd image caption

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• the lead image has me confused – are we looking at the highest point, or from the highest point?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• lead says that MB is 210 km from the Amundsen sea (what part of the Amundsen Sea, it doesn't say), but this distance is not given in the article text, which says it's 100 kilometres inland from the Hobbs Coast of the Amundsen Sea. Shouldn't be in the lead if it's not in the article, cited.
• it's interesting how 2,000 km3 = 500 cu mi in the lead, but when dealing with a tenth of that number, 200 cubic kilometres = 48 cu mi.

  Wow. No idea how I didn't notice this error before; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• is this article in AE ("hypothesized") or BE ("metres")?

  It's supposed to be the latter, but I am ESL and so don't always notice the spelling differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to
  parasitic vent
  and its redirect to "parasitic cone" bugs me. As I'm sure you well know, the vent is the opening through which volcanic materials are expelled, while the cone is the structure that forms around the vent due to the ejected material. So the interested reader who wants to know more about the cool-sounding "parasitic vent" gets led to the parasitic cone article, where the phrase "parasitic vent" does not occur (yep that article's crap), and leads to newbie reader not knowing if the terms are equivalent (the crap article mentions vents, but what's "parasitic" about them?). You seem to be one of the geology/volcano experts around here – perhaps you could use your powers to fix that problem for your future article links, and future readers? (I know, not strictly FAC-related, but a general suggestion)

  There is apparently space for a dedicated article but I tend to write more on specific volcanoes than such general articles. It seems like maybe swapping the article and the redirect would be warranted, seeing as a parasitic cone is by necessity built on a parasitic vent; what say you Volcanoguy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds reasonable but

  volcanic vent also redirects to volcano. Volcanoguy 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  However, volcano is a very broad-scope article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from the lead. I see from a quick read that the entire article could use a thorough copyedit for nits like these, but to prevent this from becoming a lengthy peer review I'll end my commentary here and wish the nominator luck. Issues aren't enough to oppose, but I'm generally underwhelmed by the article quality. Esculenta (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the issues and also attempted to mend some others. Do you think that The volcano is covered by glaciers, and thus only a few rocky outcrops occur on the mountain, although the volcano is considered to be well-exposed compared to other volcanoes in the region can be split in some way? Same question for and generated distinct deposits when eruption characteristics changed. Also I can't tell how to make the "in" go away in "1 metre (3 ft 3 in)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, sentences can be readily simplified by splitting them, so the newbie reader doesn't have to parse so much info in one gulp. "The volcano is covered by glaciers, resulting in only a few rocky outcrops being visible on the mountain. Despite this, the volcano is considered to be well-exposed in comparison to other volcanoes in the region." and another split: "They were formed by pyroclastic fallout during eruptions, which mantled the topography. As eruption characteristics changed, these processes generated distinct deposits." BTW "mantled" is not a common verb (outside of geological discussions), so it would be good if there's a stop there for the reader to assimilate that. Esculenta (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And is this what you mean: 1 metre (3 ft)? Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm here, another pet peeve: "about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)" there's no reason for there to be two significant figures in the output if the input is "about 1"; the answer implies a false precision. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that was what I meant. Installed it for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Dealt with some potential nits in the description section) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really only reviewed the lead in full, so I can't support. I've got a full plate on wiki and IRL, so can't commit to a full review at this time. I'll perhaps revisit for a complete review if I find a chunk of time to dig into the article, but can't guarantee it. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Volcanoguy

I might not be able to review this article due to computer issues but I'm putting this here just in case. Volcanoguy 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volcanoguy, this nom has been open a month so quick check if you'd still like to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre (11,411 ft) high glacier-covered volcano". Should this be "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre-high (11,411 ft), glacier-covered volcano"?

  Mm, not sure that we can assume knowledge of what the meters mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously referring to the elevation. Volcanoguy 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I prefer the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's problematic how it is but maybe it should be clarified that 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) is the elevation. Height can mean several things. Volcanoguy 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but this is a marginal thing IMHO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The volcano began erupting during the Pliocene and was active into the late Pleistocene-Holocene." Why not use "late Quaternary" instead of "late Pleistocene-Holocene"?

  Quaternary is a very broad term that has also been applied to purely Pleistocene volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the Holocene and late Pleistocene are late Quaternary. The article already makes it clear that Mount Berlin was active during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Volcanoguy 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying late Quaternary however does not make it clear that activity lasted into the Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "late Pleistocene-Holocene" supposed to mean Mount Berlin was active at the boundary of these two epochs or that Mount Berlin was active during both late Pleistocene and Holocene? Volcanoguy 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, but both interpretations are factually correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and geomorphology

• "These craters are aligned east-west". Should this be an en dash rather than a hyphen?

  Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to

WP:DASH, dashes are used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nonvolcanic features include incipient cirques on the northern and western side." Non-volcanic?

  Nonvolcanic is slightly more frequently used on Google. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

• "Many of these volcanoes form distinct volcanic chains, such as the Executive Committee Range where volcanic activity has shifted at a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.4 in/year)." Is there a specific direction this volcanic activity has been shifting?
• Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years." I would suggest slightly rewording this sentence to "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary; argon-argon dating has yielded ages as young as 8,200 years."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four volcanoes in the Marie Byrd Land volcanic province". Missing the capitalization of "volcanic province".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The West Antarctic Rift has been volcanically and tectonically active over the past 30-25 million years." En dash instead of hyphen?

  Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some lava flows feature levee-like forms at their margins." Levee currently links to an article having to do with rivers rather than volcanoes.

  That's because they resemble river levees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Both welded and unwelded, pyroclastic and tuffaceous breccias are present." I don't think a comma is necessary here.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "A long term trend in iron and sulfur" Long-term?

  A poorly explained change in the frequency of sulfur and iron. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a hyphen between "long" and "term". Volcanoguy 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption history

• "The volcano underwent a surge in activity between 35,000/40,000 – 18,000/20,000 years ago." "And" would probably be better here instead of a hyphen.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It may correspond to a 443,000±52,000 years old lava at Merrem Peak." Awkward wording.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tephras in the Vostok Station ice cores of East Antarctica deposited 406,000 years ago may come from Mount Berlin." May have came from Mount Berlin.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Potassium-argon dating there and at Kraut Rocks has produced ages of 630,000±30,000 and 620,000±50,000 years, respectively." I'm not sure if "produced" is the right word here. Maybe yielded?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It may correspond to a 141,400±5,400 deposit at Merrem Peak." This should be reworded somehow to make it clear that "141,400±5,400" is a date.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "A 141,700 years old tephra layer at Vostok has been related to this Mount Moulton tephra." A 141,700-year-old tephra layer.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "A 28,500 year old tephra layer at Mount Erebus and in two ice cores of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." A 28,500-year-old tephra layer.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin and a lava flow appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago." I would suggest rewording this sentence to "A lava flow and tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "A number of tephra layers between 18,100 and 55,400 years old, found in Siple Dome ice cores, resemble these of Mount Berlin". Those instead of these?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last eruption and present-day activity

• "The date of the last eruption of Mount Berlin is unclear but the Global Volcanism Program gives 10,300±5,300 BP as the date of the last eruption." "Last eruption" and "last known eruption" are not particularly synonymous.

  While I think last known is implicit in the GVP indication, I am not sure it's explicit enough to say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that there could have been more recent eruptions that haven't been identified. Given the fact that Mount Berlin is mostly covered with ice there could very well be younger volcanic rocks that haven't been found or dated. So to say that 10,300 ± 5,300 BP is the date of the last eruption may not be the case. Volcanoguy 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but I don't know whether GVP knows or has reasons to treat it as the last eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't; the GVP treats it as the "last known eruption" is what I'm trying to get at here. Volcanoguy 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All this time, and I didn't notice that the GVP pages say last "known" eruption; correction now in in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "These geothermal environments may host geothermal habitats similar to these in Victoria Land and at Deception Island". Similar to "those" in Victoria Land and at Deception Island.

  Forgot to note that this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending feedback from Volcanoguy on some, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Volcanoguy 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

• "It is a about 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi) mountain": looks like some editing debris?

  Yeah, something happened to the lead. I've cleared it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest removing the self-links to
  Berlin Crater
• "The edifice emerges 2.1 kilometres (1.3 mi)[11] from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." I don't know what this distance refers to. The associated note says that the ice sheet is piled up against the side of the volcanic, so there appears to be no horizontal distance between them.

  Aye, but there is a vertical distance between the summit of Berlin and the WAIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, but the text doesn't make it clear that that's the distance being given. I would take "the edifice emerges" to refer to the point where the rock emerges from the ice. Since the note clarifies the relationship between the edifice and the WAIS, I don't think you need this at all, but if you keep it it should be clear what it refers to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, to me "emerging X meters" is clearly meant to refer to the emergence i.e the vertical coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I follow you. The volcano has an elevation of 3.478 km at its peak; the highest point of WAIS on its flank is 1.4 km; so the difference between those two is 2.1km. How about "Mount Berlin's peak is 2.1 km above the highest local elevation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, OK, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "These craters are aligned in east-west direction": suggest either "These craters are aligned east-west", or "These craters are aligned in an east-west direction".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The entire edifice has a length of about 20 kilometres (12 mi)." Given that we said it consists of two edifices, suggest making this "The entire combined edifice".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some lava flows feature levees." What does this refer to? The link goes to an an article that does not explain the term's use in this context.

  Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a tendency towards more primitive magma compositions": I had a look at the magma article to try to understand this use of "primitive"; as far as I can tell it refers to the composition of the original melt. Is that correct? If so, how can that apply when it appears there is no single magma chamber?

  Footnoted this, it's a technical term to define magma chemistry and is strictly speaking a spectrum rather than a yes-no thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Activity began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years": It wouldn't hurt to make it clear these dates don't apply specifically to Mount Berlin. Perhaps "Activity in the province" to address the first part, and give the location of the dating in the second half?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really necessary, but it would be interesting to know if the tephra layers have been found in ice cores in the northern hemisphere.

  Yes, but not from Antarctic volcanoes. Oruanui might have produced a bi-polar tephra layer, though, but it's in New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears the eruptions in the "Chronology" section are more or less chronological; any reason not to switch the first two entries to make them conform?

  Can't think of one, so that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a 443,000±52,000 lava" seems an abbreviated form of words?

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "7,768 BCE": all your other dates are essentially BP dates; I think it would be better to be consistent. There's another BC date in the final section.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "have a similar composition even if no exact match is found": the phrasing seems odd. I assume this means "have a similar composition though no exact match has been found"; if so I'd use that form of words.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has been evaluated for the potential to obtain geothermal power": any interesting conclusions from the evaluation?

  No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me like this statement from the same page (p.120) could be summarized as a conclusion: "Being isolated and extensively covered with ice, these volcanoes are unlikely to have any significant economic value as geothermal resources" (rather than leaving the reader hanging). Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a pretty good conclusion; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with Esculenta that a brief summary statement to the effect that there is little chance of exploiting the volcanoes for geothermal power would be helpful but that's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]